There are always those who prefer to see world events through the narrow lens of their own political interest rather than universal principles of freedom and justice. Case in point: the extremists running Israel, whose entire narrative about Iran is predicated on it being a “mad mullah” state intent on Israel’s destruction, rather than a nation at the cusp of democratic change. The Iranian regime is running scared by the expression of popular anger at the election’s theft by Ahmadinejad, but they are joined by the Likud and their political allies among the neo-conservative American punditry.
For example, an op-ed in Haaretz argues that an Ahmadinejad victory would be better for Israel’s security:
When it comes to Iran, there is no escaping the old cliche about the elephant and the Jewish problem. And in this case, paradoxically, it seems that from Israel’s point of view the victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is actually preferable. Not only because “better the devil you know,” but because the victory of the pro-reform candidate will paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Marty Peretz at TNR says that the election had a “sense of authenticity”:
My impression is that the incumbent’s margin of victory was too big to have been fraudulent and the loser’s numbers also too big. Tyrannies don’t play around with the numbers like this. A dictator usually wants 99% of the voters to have been for him. But in Iran we were seeing the remnants of a true civil society, the last expressions of which were during the time of the Shah. It would be a blessing if this were to be the beginnings of a renaissance.
Maybe the regime fiddled around a bit with the numbers at the polls and after the polling. Still, the outcome had a sense of authenticity. A vast majority in the country is poor, and there is where the backing for Ahmadinejad and his ayatollah patrons is deepest. Mir Hussein Moussavi’s support was most solid, among the economic and intellectual elites in northern Tehran and in other big cities and among students of which there are millions, many of them discontented and pro-western, at least in style-of-life and aspirations to openness to the world. Moussavi, however, is an old hack who drew closer to his backers once they seemed to have become a critical mass. And it was there, in these precincts, that the delusion of a coming victory was born.
Meanwhile, Max Boot argues that there’s a “bright side” to Ahmadinejad’s theft:
On the principle of “the worse the better” for our enemies-and, make no mistake, Iran is our enemy-it is possible to take some small degree of satisfaction from the outcome of Iran’s elections.
… in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office-and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background-it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.
And of course Netanyahu himself has consistently painted a picture of Iran as an existential threat in his meeting with Obama to try and deflect pressure from the issue of Israel’s illegal occupation and colonial aspirations in the West Bank. Israeli diplomats were instructed to wage a “PR offensive” against Iran in advance of the elections to undermine the idea that Iranian democracy might result in a legitimate outcome. The very idea of Iran as another potential Iraq rather than an implacable Amalek completely obliterates his arguments and rationalizations for stonewalling the peace process.
These pro-Ahmadinejad assumptions and arguments are flawed in their own right, particularly since Israel is the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East and the Iranian regime would be even less interested in a nuclear confrontation if a reformist won rather than Ahmadinejad, but let’s for a moment take them at face value. Do these arguments justify keeping the Iranian people in chains, and denying them their aspirations for a better life?
Basically, the Iranian people want the following: 1. Take steps towards democracy 2. Have good and free relations with entire world (incl US) 3. Seek peace, as we are people who want peace with neighboring countries 4. seek progress, for a better situation and position in the world 5. These are all aims which Mousavi, Rezaee, and Karroubi desire. We are told by Mousavi, Rezaee, and Karroubi that they are going to govern peacefully, strive for good relationships with other countries, and bring peace to the country. They support progress, and want good relations with other nations, even Israel and the US. They’d also like to stop giving economic support to palestinian terrorists.
Why should these aspirations take a backseat to a fringe colonial and messianic dream of Greater Israel? Must the Zionist dream be paid for in Iranian as well as Palestine blood?