Iran's Presidential Election: What Difference Does Khatami Make?

Our colleague Chris Emery offers this incisive assessment of former President Mohammed Khatami's declaration that he will stand in June's Presidential Election in Iran, taking us beyond the simplistic formula of Ahmadinejad v. Khatami:

Former two-term Iranian President Mohammed Khatami waited until almost the last possible minute before deciding to put his name on the ballot for the presidential elections in June. He only declared after a careful examination of the political environment and, more importantly, his electoral chances.



This scrutiny was not matched by the western media.

Their haste was perhaps predictable: Khatami is well-known and respected in the West. It was just too tempting to paint him as the reformist liberal who, in conjunction with the new saviour of American diplomacy, could genuinely transform US-Iranian relations. So it will now hold its collective breath that he will prevail against the hard-line incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The context of renewed hopes for rapprochement is, I suspect, of much less significance to the Iranian public’s perception of Khatami’s decision to run. And it is unlikely, though still unclear, that Khatami's decision was relatded President Ahmadinejad’s reciprocation of Barack Obama's offer for dialogue with America.

Whilst the prospect of a more moderate leadership in Washington and Tehran is gratifying, the characterisation of Khatami as "the Iranian Obama" or, even more erroneously, that Obama’s election provoked Khatami’s decision to run is patently false. Khatami’s decision to run rests on internal Iranian politics, the complex dynamics of which are hard to penetrate.

For example, it had been widely reported that Khatami would not run if former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mousavi chose to. Prior to his announcement, Khatami met with Mir Hossein Mousavi at the office of reformist politician and cleric Abdollah Nouri in northeast Tehran. So all Iranian eyes will now watch if Mousavi, another popular reformist, is now the one to withdraw.

Another egregious error, as typified by the BBC article that announced Khamtami’s decision, is the assumption that Iranians now face a choice between one hard-line conservative candidate (Ahmadinejad) and one liberal reformist (Khatami). Quite apart from failing to qualify terms such as "reformist", "liberal", and "conservative2, which have very different and dual meanings in Iran than in the West, it is rash to immediately reduce the election to a two horse race. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the popular Tehran mayor and veteran, remains firmly in the race and the chances of Mehdi Karoubi, who heads the reformist E'temad Melli Party, or former Prime Minister Mousavi cannot simply be discounted.

It is perhaps tempting, given the generally constructive rhetoric emerging from Washington, to link Khatami’s entry to the tentative prospect of normalised relations between Iran and the US. This is also an error. Firstly, Khatami's electoral prospects are not going to stand or fall on current developments in US-Iranian relations. Secondly, both sides will probably refrain from meaningfully pushing rapprochement until the election in Iran is finished. Thirdly, Khatami does not have a radically different attitude to Ahmadinejad on the main American concerns of Iran’s nuclear programme and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Fourthly, the final decision on rapprochement will not be made, in Tehran, by the president’s office- whoever is occupying it.

In any case, the election in June will not be fought over rapprochement with the US. Instead, if the contest comes down to a battle between Khatami and Ahmadinejad, it will be over presidential legacies and broken promises. Ahmadinejad’s failure to deliver on his promise to improve economic and employment conditions, at a time of increased oil revenue, has led to widespread disillusionment. Khatami has claimed a better economic record as president, yet he failed to deliver the reforms and greater openness his supporters sought.

Many questions, however, remain. Will Khatami’s entry damage the reformists’ prospects, uniting the conservatives against him, as Khatami must have feared? What will be the response of the influential former President Hashemi Rafsanjani who, according to different sources, is either refusing to support Khatami or trying to persuade Karoubi to step aside in favour of him?

Obama v. The Military (Part 39): The Latest on the Afghanistan "Surge"

The military's effort, supported by some officials in the Pentagon, to bounce President Obama into an immediate troop increase in Afghanistan is now approaching soap-opera status. Obama discussed the situation with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Wednesday but no decisions were announced.



So in today's episode, "defence officials" have told The New York Times that Obama is "facing a choice on whether to grant commanders' requests" for up to 25,000 more soldiers and support units. They then offer the President a compromise: "Mr. Obama could choose a middle ground, deploying several thousand more troops there in the coming months but postponing a more difficult judgment on a much larger increase in personnel until after the administration completes a review of Afghanistan policy".

The compromise would be "one or two additional brigades", with 3500 in each brigade, rather than the three requested by the military. This would be in addition to a brigade which was deployed in eastern Afghanistan in January.

The Pentagon's campaign is now so blatant that its press secretary even went public with it yesterday. Geoff Morrell said Obama "“could make a decision about none, one, two or all of the brigades....However, there does need to be a decision made about a couple of brigades sooner rather than later if you want them on the ground in time to make a difference in the security situation for the national election in late August.”

The White House response to the military's latest push? Stonewall. Just as Obama has spun out the process with an inter-agency review to be headed by Bruce Riedel (the Obama Presidential campaign's advisor on South Asia), so his unnamed spokesmen are ruling nothing in, ruling nothing out:

Several administration officials said it was also possible — though less likely — that [Obama] could postpone any deployments until after his review was complete....It is also possible that Mr. Obama will fill the request for all three brigades, administration officials said.

Mr Obama's World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (11 February)

Latest Post: US Engagement with Iran: Transcript of President Ahmadinejad’s Speech
Breaking News: Attacks in Afghanistan

Mr Obama's World Today: Uncertain

Evening Update (8:45 p.m.): The US Government will send a delegation next week to the six-party talks in Moscow on North Korean disarmament.

4:40 p.m. Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy notes the story that almost all media have missed today:  the visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao to Saudi Arabia

4:25 p.m. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry has said that President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Zardari have spoken by phone, ageeing to start addressing problems in the region with a "holistic strategy".

Afternoon Update (3:30 p.m.): A spike in violence from bombings and attacks today. In addition to the deaths in Afghanistan, a provincial minister has been killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Pakistan. Bombs in Iraq have killed at least eight people, while gunmen have slain several others, including a senior engineer and a prominent local football player.

US envoy Richard Holbrooke has visited northwest Pakistan to view a Pakistani military installation. As with his talks with political leaders on Tuesday, Holbrooke would say no more than that he was on a "listening" tour.



11:35 a.m. The Russians really are playing this hand well on Afghanistan. Offering co-operation but also ensuring control and thus oversight of Moscow's interest, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, amidst meetings with a senior US diplomat, that Russian military aircraft could assist with the supply effort.

11:25 a.m. During a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, ""We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed. If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news." (cross-posted from US Engagement with Iran thread)

9:30 a.m. A revealing bit of information that did not make it into the morning papers: "A senior American diplomat will hold talks with Russian officials on Tuesday about opening new supply routes across Russian territory to NATO forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. embassy said."

The news indicates how serious the supply situation for Afghanistan has become, with the closure of the Pakistan routes and the threatened shutdown of the US airbase in Kyrgyzstan. And it shows how dependent Washington has become on Moscow's goodwill for a solution, which in turn has shaped the encouragement of President Obama and Vice President Biden for closer co-operation with the Russians.

8:45 a.m. Meanwhile in Pakistan.... In another sign that the Obama Administration is reviewing its options carefully before making any strategic decisions, envoy Richard Holbrooke limited his comments after meetings with Pakistani officials to, "[I was here] to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country".

In contrast, the priority of President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani was clear: Give Us Money. Their recogition of "the importance of enhanced cooperation in defense and intelligence sharing" was followed by a request to Washington to "expedite" billions of dollars in aid.

7:55 a.m. The New York Times also has a shrewd reading of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's criticism of Vice President Joe Biden,  which we noted yesterday. Al-Maliki's response to Biden's complaints about the lack of Iraqi political and economic reform were offered during a visit to Baghdad by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The French, as all 2003 critics of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" will recall, have had extensive economic interests in Iraq. Al-Maliki's comments, however, are not just a reach-out for investment for Paris; they signal Iraq's wish to move away from perceived political dependence on, even subservience to, Washington.

7:35 a.m. On the eve of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia, an interesting insight into Administration strategy on China in The New York Times.

"Senior Administration officials", probably from the State Department, tell the Times, "The Obama administration plans to realign the United States’ relationship with China by putting more emphasis on climate change, energy and human rights, widening the focus beyond the economic concerns of the Bush years." By going for environmental issues rather than risking economic confrontation, the US can then seek leverage on political concerns: "A broader relationship with the Chinese could create opportunities for collaboration — not only on a response to the global economic crisis, but also on the environment and on security issues like the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs."

You may have noticed, however, the troublesome phrase in the spin. "Human rights"? Is Washington really going to press issues such as Chinese control of Tibet and jailing of dissidents?

The balancing act was demonstrated on Tuesday when State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told CNN, ""We are disturbed that prominent Chinese human rights activist Huang Qi remains in detention. We call on the Chinese government to release Mr. Huang as soon as possible."

7 a.m. Repeating the latest in the battle within the Obama Administration over Afghanistan strategy. Countering President Obama's attempt to take more time through an inter-agency review, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared, ""I think that there is a realization that some decisions have to be made ... before the strategic review is completed. [Obama] has several options in front of him."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, joined in the pressure on Obama. US military commanders "had this request out for many months and those working through the request recognize that the sooner the better with respect to this. I'm hopeful that we can get them there as soon as absolutely possible, but, again, that's a decision for the president of the United States, not for me."

Meanwhile, the US and Canada kept up the pressure on Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Mullen said in Ottawa on Tuesday, "As we look at the challenges that we have in 2009-2010 ... I think the lack of governance tied to the corruption that exists (in Afghanistan), is going to be the number one challenge that we have."

Morning Update (6:45 a.m. GMT; 1:45 a.m. Washington): Another day focused on the economy. President Obama's economic stimulus package moves from the Senate, where it passed yesterday, to the House of Representatives.

"A senior US official" has told CNN that American satellite photography shows possible preparations for a North Korean missile launch. Telemetry equipment is being assembled at the launch site, although there is no sign yet of a missile being moved. The last launch from the location, in 2006, was of a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which flew for 40 seconds before crashing.

The US Government's reaction has been measured, focusing on diplomatic engagement with Pyongyang. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on Tuesday:

Well, since the first time that they launched the missile, it flew for a few minutes before crashing, the range of the Taepodong-2 remains to be seen. So far, it's very short. I'm not going to get into intelligence reports, but it would be nice if North Korea would focus on getting positive messages across to the -- to its negotiating partners about verification and moving forward with the denuclearization.

US Engagement with Iran: Transcript of President Ahmadinejad's Speech

Related Post: Extract from Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

Related Post: Obama Press Conference: Thumbs-Up for Iran and Russia, Slapdowns for Petraeus and Pakistan

Update: During a trip to Iraq on Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said, ""We look positively on the slogan that Obama raised in the elections. The world has really changed. If the American administration wants to keep up with the changes, this will be happy news."

This is the transcript of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Tuesday at Tehran's Freedom Square, commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The translation is provided by the US Government's Open Source Center via Juan Cole:

In the name of God, the Compassionate the Merciful. O God, hasten the reappearance of the Hidden Imam and grant him health and victory and make us his true companions and believers and those who testify to his rightfulness. . .

The new US government has announced that it wants to create change and follow the path of talks. It's very clear that true change should be fundamental and not tactical. It's clear that the Iranian nation will welcome genuine changes.


The Iranian nation is prepared to talk. However, these talks should be held in a fair atmosphere in which there is mutual respect.

They have said that they want to fight terrorism. The Iranian nation has been fighting terrorism for the past 30 years. If you truly want to fight terrorism come and cooperate with the Iranian nation, which is the main victim of terrorism, so that terrorism is uprooted. We can give you the addresses of terrorist dens in some European countries, the lands occupied by the Al-Quds occupying regime (Israel) and some other countries which in fact have good relations with you. Of course, we think that it's very unlikely that you don't have this information. If you want to dry the roots of aggression and murder, let's put those behind the recent wars in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, on trial and sentence them together. Everyone knows that Saddam (Husayn) was not the only person who caused the wars. Since the attack by Mr Bush's government some one million people have been killed and a few million people have been displaced. In order to uproot insecurity, those behind these killings including Mr Bush, his allies and government, have to be put on trial and sentenced. (Chants of indistinct slogans from the masses in support of the president's comments)

If you want to uproot crime, join the Iranian nation and other nations and let's put the criminal leaders of the Zionist regime on trial and sentence them together (chants of indistinct slogans from the masses).

If you want to genuinely fight against the proliferation of atomic weapons and weapons of mass destruction, you have to join Iran and help it so that it can show you the right way. Yes, atomic weapons and weapons of mass destruction are a serious threat. They have to be destroyed. The Iranian nation is the victim of chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

However, the only way (to counter them) is to implement justice and suitable planning. It's clear that the measures which have been taken up until now to destroy atomic weapons have been ineffective. If they are interested in destroying these weapons and if they genuinely want the world to become a peaceful place, they must resort to rational and just methods.

We told them that their behavior in Iraq was wrong but they didn't listen. As a result, these atrocities occurred and Mr Bush's government was humiliated. If they truly want to establish genuine security, let's reform the fundamentals of the UN's structure, which is the source of oppression and discrimination and is incapable of establishing security, together and establish justice there.

If you genuinely intend to uproot drugs, you should ask the Iranian nation, which has sacrificed more than 3,300 martyrs in its fight against drug smuggling. Of course, this development is in need of fundamental changes to their approach and behavior.

We hope that this happens. The world is not interested in the repetition of the dark ages created by Mr Bush. We don't even want the American nation to be humiliated and have a bad reputation. I believe that the fate of Mr Bush, who has the worst reputation in our contemporary history, should be a lesson to all of those who wish to dominate the world and impose themselves on other nations. Of course, some try to repeat that experience but in another shape, they must know that a fate worse than that of Mr Bush awaits them (chants of indistinct slogans).

The Iranian nation is the friend of regional nations and governments. Even though Iran is a great power, it is the brother of other nations, especially those in the region. Praise be to God, today the Iranian nation has brotherly and friendly relations with other regional nations.

The enemies don't like us to have such relations. They are determined to put some of the region's governments against other nations by imposing certain measures and behavior and humiliate and belittle them in the minds of other nations and make them an accomplice in their crimes. I would like to give them this friendly and brotherly advice and that is that some of them made the same mistake during the first decade of the revolution when Saddam was carrying out atrocities against the Iranian nation.

Then they regretted it. Of course, the Iranian nation was gracious and never showed off to them. As a brother, I would like to say to them that it's to their advantage to be careful of satanic temptations and those created by the Zionists and imperialistic governments. It's in your interest to support your own people. The Iranian nation is by your side and supports you. You have to be in the service of your own people. You should have been by the side of your people during the Gaza incidents....

Failing the Torture Test? Obama Blocks Judicial Review of Bush Rendition Policy

Update: Irony Alert. State Department's DipNotes says, "Acting Spokesman [Robert] Wood states that with this President and this Secretary, human rights is a high priority issue."

As we debated on Enduring America whether President Obama was going to make a meaningful change to the Bush Administration's rendition policy, preventing the despatch of detainees to countries where they might be tortured or denied legal rights, I was waiting for developments in a court case in San Francisco. Five plaintiffs were suing a subsidiary of Boeing, Jeppesen, which carried out rendition flights.

Well, the news is now out that the President's men want to keep the matter behind closed doors:

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

An American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented the plaintiffs reacted:

We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan offer damning indictments of the Obama Administration and the Justice Department, while a New York Times article confirms the original leak of the Government's position.