Perhaps.
Coming up this Friday, Iran votes for president.
For some interesting analysis, check out Lowell Feld’s post on Blue Virginia. My attention was particularly caught by this bullet:
The last time a reformist won the presidency of Iran was in 1997. Not coincidentally, oil prices (and Iran’s oil revenues) were very low at that time. Today, although oil prices and revenues are much higher than they were in 1997 in nominal terms, they’re actually not that great in “real” (inflation adjusted), per capita terms. Also, prices have fallen from around $120 per barrel in June 2008 to about half that today. That’s made it much harder for hardliners like Ahmedinejad to lavish huge amounts of cash on people (in the form of subsidies, for instance) to essentially buy them off. In addition, as The Economist writes, “a worsening economic outlook may damage [Ahmedinejad’s] prospects,” with “criticism of [his] economic management” potentially causing “rifts within the hierarchy.” Let’s hope so.
Unfortunately, the president is not the ruling power in Iran If you recall, former President Khatami was also considered a reformer in 1997. He came in with a great deal of fanfare with his message of “Hope” and “Change” for the people of Iran…only to be reigned-in by the real ruling power: the Ayatollah and the Council of Guardians.
So, the question is this: Is a puppet playing the role of reformer better than nothing at all? Or, did having Khatami in that role set-back U.S.-Iranian relations, giving us an Ahmadinejad to contend with? Would it be better in the long run for the regime to remain true to its ideology for the hopes of a true popular uprising, a la 1979?
