In the Arena

Ahmadinejad (Almost) Impeached

The most interesting political struggle in Iran isn’t between the Green movement reformers and the conservative establishment. It’s between conservative “principalists” like Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Majlis (the Iranian parliament), and hyper-conservatives like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Wall Street Journal has a report today from the excellent Farnaz Fassihi that the Majlis wanted to impeach Ahmadinejad, but was thwarted by the Supreme Leader. [I'd link to it, but that function seems to have vanished from my computer today]

What’s this all about? Three things: a clash of personalities, economic policy and foreign posture. The economic dispute is the most important: the hyper-conservatives, led by Ahmadinejad have been spending most of the oil revenues to bolster Iran’s poor, which is the source of Ahmadinejad’s popularity (I still believe he might have won the election, if the votes had actually been counted). The principalists want to invest the oil revenues in building a stronger infrastructure and a more diverse, advanced economy. With Iran’s economy weakening even before the latest round of U.N. sanctions, and really suffering now, there will have to be restrictions on the vast system of government subsidies–on everything from bread to gasoline–that has kept the working poor afloat.

In foreign policy, the principalists favor a less obnoxious international posture–they’re embarrassed by Ahmadinejad’s holocaust denial and asssorted antics–although it’s not clear that they would be more amenable to negotiations with the world over Iran’s nuclear program. Indeed, Larijani and most of the other principalists opposed the nuclear fuel transfer deal that Iran negotiated in Vienna a year ago (and which Ahmadinejad supported). But it’s possible that Larijani et al opposed the deal only because Ahmadi supported it…which brings us back to the clash of personalities in the highest reaches of Iran’s government. The Supreme Leader, who is the ultimate arbiter in all this, swings back and forth between favoring Larijani and Ahmadinejad.

Confused yet? Welcome to the wonderful world of Iranian domestic politics. The one conclusion that can be drawn is this: the economic sanctions are putting enormous pressure on the government, deepening the fissures that have been developing for the past five years. There is absolutely no way to know how this is going to shake out–especially if there are protests when the subsidies are cut back, as there have been in the past–but it seems the Supreme Leader’s prime activity right now is a struggle to hold his government together.

 

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • stuartzechman

    I’d link to it, but that function seems to have vanished from my computer today
    .
    LOL
    .
    What?

  • nflfoghorn

    “…I still believe [Ahmagilligan] might have won the election, if the votes had actually been counted…”
    .
    If he wasn’t going to lose, why’d the counting stop? There’d be nothing to worry about!

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    indeed: lol, this is how we do it in the comments section

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    have links been disabled?

    google
    http://www.google.com

    w3cschools how to link tutorial

    trying again since the links didn’t appear in my post above…

  • kathy

    It sounds like it might be in our best interest for The Supreme Leader to continue play off these two groups and ensure neither gains ascendancy. Is this so?

  • formerlyjames

    This all reads like good news to me seeing conflicting views are in play. As for being confused, I’m not, as much of the scenario of politics looks much like we have been seeing in our own country.

  • pelhamite1

    This is all wonderful news but to what extent has this strategy been imperlied by that great American patriot, John Kyl??? As I understand it, the co-operation of the Russians is a big part of the ongoing economic pressure that is “egging on” this rift; to the extent that the Russians, even temporarily, decide to reverse course in the wake of the U.S.’s refusal to take up the START agreement, the whole momentum may be lost. It is perhaps the most glaring example of the Republicans’ “win at all cost” strategy undermining our nation’s interests.

  • afguy

    We need a BIG adversary to justify spending on all of those megabucks weapons systems. China’s getting there but the big boogeyman has always been the USSR, and their name does still have a certain cachet about it. (If they’d just stop trying to be cooperative, this would be oh so much easier). OTOH, they STILL have the ability to lob ICBMs in our direction.
    .
    A bunch of cave-dwellers several thousand miles away who can only drive trucks into targets, mail a printer cartridge to stage an attack or wear lethal drawers, while “fearsome”, don’t generate the needed “threat levels” to justify more F-22s and/or subs.
    .
    The MIC and Wall Street NEED a “hostile” Russia.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Because they were uncertain? Because the risk that he might lose was too great for them to feel comfortable with that path? It was a sign more of how scared they were of completely losing legitimacy that they were so willing to throw his legitimacy in question.

  • http://frank11111.wordpress.com frank11111

    Hey Joe, the WSJ story you are citing appears to be fatally incorrect. The reporter –along with a bunch of overeager Iranian reformist activists in the blogosphere– apparently mistook the Persian/Arabic word “istiza” which means summons, for impeach.

    There’s more here:

    http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2010/11/23/iran-special-did-parliament-push-to-oust-ahmadinejad.html

    As a close Iran watcher, I have to say that I actually think Parliament is LOSING the battle to Ahmadinejad. Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to see the guy drowned in a bathtub. But I also like to be informed by reality not fantasy.

    We know the regime is odious. But we shouldn’t buy into wishful thinking.

    BTW, the reporter is not excellent. She’s an Iranian immigrant to America who frequently exaggerates stuff in Iran and has frequently been wrong, as she is on this occasion.

blog comments powered by Disqus