Meet Iran's George W. Bush

New Republic: Can Anyone Beat Ahmadinejad In This Week's Election?

(The New Republic)  Laura Secor is a 2008-2009 fellow at the Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers at the New York Public Library. She is writing a book about Iran.

---

On June 12, Iranian voters will choose among four leading candidates for president, but their real choice is singular: whether to continue on the course plotted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This ought to be a no-brainer: Ahmadinejad has made a mess of the economy, clamped down on political dissent and social freedoms, militarized the state, and earned the enmity of much of the world. In large Iranian cities, even those who voted for him in 2005 are almost unanimous in their disappointment. But in Iranian elections, demographics are everything. It all depends on who, exactly, shows up to the polls.

Iran has its own version of the Red State dynamic. Although just 35 percent of the population lives in rural villages, which are more traditional and conservative than the cities, these people make up almost 65 percent of those who have voted in elections since 2005. Rural Iranians have been well-served by the Islamic Republic in general, and by Ahmadinejad in particular. The villages are poor, but since 1979, the Islamic Republic has brought them electricity, education, clean water, roads, local governance, and countless other improvements. Rural Iranians benefit from generous subsidies, becoming clients of the state even while urban Iranians have grown increasingly alienated.

In the cities, the failure of Iranian export industries has produced joblessness and resentment. Civil society--including the country's largest universities and its impressive community of journalists, activists, and intellectuals--faces unrelenting repression. The country's ill-used middle class spins its wheels, almost completely shut out of the country's economic, political, and cultural life. It is in the cities that young Iranians chafe most visibly at the Islamic dress code and the laws against the mingling of the sexes. But while urban Iranians outnumber their rural brethren, they are so disenchanted with the Islamic Republic as a whole that they are increasingly disinclined to vote.

None of the candidates in this election seems willing to stake his campaign on the effort to bring urban Iranians to the polls. The 2005 presidential election, and the two midterm elections since then, have demonstrated the futility of such endeavors. Last year's parliamentary election was contested entirely within the conservative camp; Mostafa Moin, the 2005 presidential candidate of the urban youth, came in fifth out of seven. All four candidates, then, are fighting over the same narrow slice of the Iranian public, even though they have positioned themselves in remarkably different ways.

Ahmadinejad plays to the rural constituency almost exclusively. His own family migrated to Tehran from the provincial village of Aradan, and--as embarrassing as Tehranis find his rural accent, clothes, and demeanor--to villagers, the presence of one of their own in high office is nothing short of empowering. Ahmadinejad has literally handed out money in the provinces, even printing extra currency to do so. He has the undying loyalty of many of these villagers, and he is going to need it.

Though Ahmadinejad carried the votes of both rural and urban poor in 2005, he will likely struggle with the latter in 2009. His economic policies have contributed to plant closings and produced inflation that bordered on hyperinflation last summer; costs of housing and food in the cities have skyrocketed, and the numbers of the urban poor have ballooned for the first time since the 1980s. The main question is whether poor urban youth who voted for Ahmadinejad in 2005 will vote for one of his challengers this year, or whether they will just stay home.

All three of Ahmadinejad's competitors have promised better economic management and a less confrontational approach to foreign affairs. (On both scores, these are really questions of degree, as most of the candidates are populists and deeply suspicious of the West.) Mohsen Rezai is the president's challenger on the right, and the longest shot for the presidency. He is an old-school hardliner who comes out of the Revolutionary Guard, and he appeals to conservatives who disapprove of Ahmadinejad's freelancing foreign policy, including his incendiary public remarks, and of his economic irresponsibility. Rezai may be the spoiler who diverts conservative votes from Ahmadinejad, making the first round of voting less determinate and necessitating a run-off.

The most liberal candidate in the race is Mehdi Karroubi, a cleric from Lorestan who has long been considered the most conservative figure in the reformist camp; that he is the most liberal candidate in this election shows the extent to which the clerics have foreshortened the political playing field. Nonetheless, Karroubi has seized his new mantle with alacrity, letting loose some of the most confrontational rhetoric of the campaign season. He is pledging to defend human rights and to pursue rapprochement with the West. He has a track record of supporting political prisoners and even visiting them in their confinement.

Unlike many of his reformist colleagues, Karroubi attracts rural voters, largely because, like Ahmadinejad, he is a populist. In the last presidential election, he famously campaigned on the promise that he would give every Iranian over 18, $60 if he were elected. As a result, he made a surprisingly strong showing. When Karroubi did not make it to the second round of voting, many of his supporters cast their ballots for Ahmadinejad rather than for his opponent, Rafsanjani, who was running as a reformist. Not coincidentally, however, urban liberals don't take Karroubi seriously. They see him as an eternal candidate and an opportunist, and the more radical the campaign promises he makes this time around, the less they trust him.

That leaves Ahmadinejad's most serious opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who was prime minister of Iran in the 1980s before that post was abolished. Mousavi, who, according to some sources, is leading Ahmadinejad in the polls by as much as 10 to 20 percent, is an ingenious candidate for several reasons. As a wartime prime minister who has kept near total silence about politics since 1988, Mousavi is the repository for a certain (somewhat counterintuitive) nostalgia for the years of war, deprivation, and instability that followed the Islamic revolution. He was seen as a wise manager at a time of crisis, and he was a particular favorite of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. For these reasons, he appeals to many of the revolutionary faithful, and particularly those of the older generation--again, people who might otherwise vote for Ahmadinejad. He's the only politician on the Iranian scene who is popularly known by his first name.

But he is also attracting a following among young reformers--urban liberals who distrust or disdain Karroubi, as well as some who anticipate that Mousavi will make an assertive leader, unafraid of confrontation and willing to take on the upper clergy, with the confidence conferred by Khomeini's remembered blessing. On the down side, Mousavi lacks charisma, and his views are largely unknown. When he was prime minister, Mousavi belonged to a faction known as the Islamic Left, which was particularly hardline, especially on foreign policy. In the years since, most members of this faction have migrated to the reformist camp, espousing moderate, pragmatic, and even liberal views. Mousavi, however, was silent during the years his colleagues spent remaking themselves.

These days, Mousavi calls himself both a reformist and a believer in revolutionary "principles" (the latter is a catch-phrase among the fundamentalists around Ahmadinejad), and he enjoys support from both camps. He has accepted the endorsement of the main reformist party, but at the same time, he has made a point of keeping his distance. In a televised presidential debate with Ahmadinejad on June 3, Mousavi openly accused the president of dictatorial tendencies. From his public statements, it seems likely that as president, Mousavi would ease up on political repression and bring technocrats back into government (under Ahmadinejad, they have been replaced largely by political cronies). These are important steps for the long-term health of Iran's economy and civil society, but it would be foolish to expect even as significant a change as that which followed Khatami's election in 1997.

Mousavi is not Iran's Barack Obama. He's more like John Kerry, and this election year is strikingly like 2004 in the United States. The incumbent president is deeply unpopular at home and abroad. He came to power with a dubious mandate, but governed in a polarizing fashion that has divided even his one-time allies. Iranians have paid the price in every area of life that is touched by the government. The election is Mousavi's to lose--but to win it, he will need to unite a divided opposition, and inspire at least a few of the beleaguered urban voters who have stopped going to the polls.

[whogotallthegoodnames]

*** is wrong with you, Laura Secor? And *** is wrong with you, CBS News, for publishing this garbage? An apocalyptic, holocaust-denying, terror-sponsoring, homosexual-murdering, women-suppressing madman is comparable to the man who left office peacefully less than 6 months ago? You people are idiots.

[Mark91260]

Ahmadinejad = Bush...?

Is it any wonder the msm has lost respect and followers (except the rabidly committed).

CBS = Goebbels

[Gumlegs]

It's good to know CBS news is neither liberal nor conservative, neither Democrat or Republican when it comes to news. I wonder what would you have posted if you were extreme left-wing?

[cor-m]

I thought that NBC News and MSNBC were the official STATE RUN television outlets (reminiscent of PRAVDA in Russia), but I see I was wrong!
So I suppose that it would be out of the question to ask that CBS INVESTIGATE THE MAJOR STORY SURROUNDING THE FIRING OF AN INSPECTOR GENERAL LAST THURSDAY BECAUSE HE WAS INVESTIGATING ONE OF OBAMA'S BASKETBALL BUDDIES IN CONNECTION WITH FRAUDULENT SPENDING OF OUR HARD-EARNED AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS THROUGH AMERICORPS?
WELL, THESE INSPECTOR GENERALS ARE NOT TO BE TERMINATED WITHOUT 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE ALONG WITH A WRITTEN EXPLAINATION FOR THE TERMINATION SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS FOR THEIR APPROVAL AS WELL.
SO BARACK OBAMA BROKE THE LAW! AND HE MUST KNOW HE BROKE THE LAW, BECAUSE THESE RULES BECAME LAW BECAUSE OF A BILL WRITTEN BY THEN-SENATOR BARACK OBAMA! THE BILL SPECIFIED THAT THESE INSPECTOR GENERALS WOULD WORK TOTALLY INDEPENDENT, THEY WOULD NOT ANSWER TO ANYBODY, AND THEY COULD NOT BE CALLED ON THE CARPET BY CONGRESS OR THE PRESIDENT.
HMMMM, SO IT'S NOT LIKELY THAT HE FORGOT ABOUT THAT - IS IT?
NOPE, BARACK OBAMA DID NOT FORGET ABOUT THOSE TWO LITTLE NAGGING LEGALITIES. BECAUSE RECENTLY DISCOVERED, BURIED DEEP INSIDE OF THE STIMULUS BILL, WITH NO NAME ATTACHED TO IT, WAS A MENTION OF THE CREATION OF A NEW BOARD CALLED THE RECOVERY ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD (RAT). WHAT THIS DOES IS GIVE THE RAT BOARD THE AUTHORITY TO TELL AN INSPECTOR GENERAL TO CONDUCT, OR 'REFRAIN FROM CONDUCTING,' AN AUDITOR INVESTIGATION.
HMMMMM, SOUNDS LIKE THIS LITTLE ITEM MAY HAVE BEEN PLACED INTO THE STIMULUS BILL AT THE LAST MINUTE BY THE OFFICE WHO COULD MOST BENEFIT FROM SUCH AUTHORITY - BY THE OFFICE WHO WANTS TOTAL CONTROL OVER YOUR LIFE, MY LIFE AND THE WHOLE WORLD - THE WHITE HOUSE.
NOW IF CBS WAS REALLY AN INDEPENDENT THINKING MEDIA OUTLET, SOMEONE THERE WOULD BE ALL OVER THIS BABY!!!
BUT WITH THEIR NEW STATUS AS STATE RUN TELEVISION, I SUPPOSE THE ONLY PLACE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THIS STORY WILL BE ON FOX.

[malclave]

Can't really say that it's surprising that CBS is pushing this. Remember, CBS is historically the network of "fake but accurate" reporting and, more recently, of thinking jokes about adult athletes getting 14 year old girls pregnant are funny (as long as at least one of the 14 year old's parents is Republican).

CBS - all liberal hate, all the time.

[sJohnW]

Your headline comparing president Bush to an Iranian dictator is a new low for CBS. Professional journalists would at least try to hide their hatred. Your contempt for GWB is in plain view for all the world to see.

[julisal]

While I might not agree with everything President Bush has done in his time in office, he has been a much better President, and person, then someone who wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and believes the Holocaust was a figment of our imagination. It should come as no small wonder why no one is watching CBS news if this is how they report the news.

[maxvolt]

WOW, such journalist integrity...no wonder CBS is failing... The reality is that Iran is an authoritarian state..which US president is trying to run us like a socialist marxist authoritarian nation? hmmm even my fouth grader knows the answer to this one.

[Billium1953]

I followed a link to this article as I thought it was a spoof such as one might find on The Onion. Imagine my suprise to find that it is a "real" new story. I suppose it is just another example of what happens with liberal education shuts down logic, common sense, and rationality but I still feel sad for Laura Secor and the others like her that go through life marching to the beat of a demented drummer. It is so very sad to see such hate and ignorance in anyone but of course even more sad that CBS give the person a voice. I guess the good news is nobody pays attention to CBS anymore (wonder why)?

[ElRonaldo]

No wonder your ratings are in the basement. Get a clue.

[boyydz]

Absolutely disgusting, pathetic drivel. If you want to analyze Iran, by all means, go ahead. Intelligent commentary would be welcome. To connect GWB with the tyrant and would-be genocidist Ahmadinejad is deranged and quite unwelcome.

[juangalt]

wow - just like your ratings - you've reached a new low.

I will be writing a letter to all your commercial sponsors to express my displeasure.

[aprnov811]

Well CBS has finally slithered its way into the sewer. Between this and the pedophile David Letterman, this is about as low as they can go, printing something like this, no matter where it came from. I predict when the truth comes out about this Indonesian citizen Obama, CBS will be a victim of the very monster, they and their ilk have created. Rightfully so.

[jcruenv]

funny stuff. the intellectual dishonesty in the first paragraph alone forces one to realize people who end up in journalism are there because they could not make it being anything other than a spectator and critic.

[saving_par]

This is irresponsible journalism and an example of why CBS news is no longer relevant within the realm of news media anymore. CBS News should end this online news source charade. The Onion is almost a better source for legit news than CBSnews.com. CBS should also rerun Seinfeld episodes instead of their national news broadcasts so at least they could turn a profit during that time slot. .

[jefspring]

Ms. Secor, her editor, and CBS,
While I vehemently support your freedom of speech which bloomed into the freedom of the press, that allowed you to express your views in this column, I could not under any circumstances support such blatantly slanderous character assignation of any man, let alone a President of the United States, sitting or former. To compare former President Bush to a hating world leader bent on the utter destruction of a neighboring country; who has denied that the coldly calculated slaughter of millions of Jews was carried out, and is nothing more than a sob excuse for the Western world to carry forth their agenda upon the Muslim nations of the region; and who has utterly repressed his nation, and more particularly, it?s women to the point that perhaps life in North Korea might not look so harsh for them as a vacation spot, makes one truly wonder about you, this piece?s editor, and your network, and the state of impartiality in which you are supposed to present your information.
Perhaps you should all try operating out of Iran, experiencing the oppressively stifling atmosphere of the virtual dictatorship the small minded extremist Ahmadinejad holds so tightly to. Try existing in a nation, under a leader, and a ruling holy body that combines the first and second estates into an all powerful mega-estate, and everyone else exists in an oppressed and repressed estate, including and especially your profession. After you have walked a mile, or in the Iranian?s case, a kilometer in their shoes under Ahmadinejad?s reign of ignorance, perhaps then and only then, might you return to presenting the facts, and learn some respect for the title of President, yours, mine, and ours, whether it is a Bush, a Clinton (male or even in America, a female), or an Obama.

[jlp28481]

What is going on at CBS? I thought maybe if Katie Couric was fired this would stop. Who is behind this?

CBS has lost all reason - it is like they don't care about ratings.

CBS LISTEN: We, the American people, are sick of this sort of state run propaganda!!!!

[gmmay]

It's sad to see what passes for journalism or political commentary these days. I know it's difficult to come up with your own material, but it's downright lazy of CBS to republish this sort of intellectual dishonesty. The illogic and shoddy reasoning used by the author to reach such a specious conclusions is to display shocking ignorance. Here's why:

Anyone who gets their information from reliable sources, instead of the mainstream American media, knows that Obama has simply continued Bush's foreign policies. These same people think his speeches and gestures (that are generally historically inaccurate) are a change in foreign policy. NEWSFLASH TO THE NEWS FOLKS: it's not.

Obama simply plays to popular foreign sentiment to solidify his voter base at home with immigrants, while continuing the very same REAL policies he criticized as a candidate and now as a sitting President. Many of the maniacal ravings about Bush shredding the constituion are just that - crazy. Renditions, wire-tapping, military tribunals, trade policies with Europe, Russo-Afghan strategic and political planning...all continuation of Bush policies. And rightfully so.

On the domestic front we have Obama completely disregarding contract law (corporate debt repayment) in a thug-like manner. Constitutional limitations seem to be irrelevant to this alleged constitutional lawyer. The president doesn't spend money, the congress does. Congressional democrats were in charge of every congressional finance committee and democrats like Frank and Dodd were at the epicenter of the financial meltdown last year. Obama's health care numbers and economic numbers are so "fuzzy" or just downright contrived as to make any prior negative references to Bush's intellect seem complimentary in comparison.

The author displays a fundamental lack of understanding of American politics, economics, and civics. As do a couple of posters in the comment section. The encouraging thing is that the overwhelming majority of responders here aren't buying off on this garbage story.

[beachbug1vw]

Go to the bootom of this page and click on the user feedback! Let the new CBS Obama lovers know how you feel! They are no longer a source of news, just another propaganda site for Obama!
As a Democrat, I am appalled at CBS being another mouth piece for the Obama network!

[pghsoccermom]

And I bet CBS news is wondering why they are struggling for ratings. They just don't get it. I hope the advertisers are paying attention to the dropping viewers numbers.