I Want To Believe (Ongoing...)

From the Wash Times on Iran:

Tehran elite turning on extremist presidency

By John R. Bradley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 14, 2006  

TEHRAN -- Iran's clerical and business establishments, deeply concerned by what they see as reckless spending and needlessly aggressive foreign policies, are increasingly turning against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
    Within this context, many see the president's long-running confrontation with the United States and Europe over Tehran's nuclear program as an attempt to demonize the West and distract the Iranian public from pressing domestic problems.
    A relatively small group of extremists "at the top of the government around the president" are seeking to benefit from a crisis with the West, because "that way they will be able once again to blame the West for all of their problems," said Mousa Ghaninejad, the editor of Iran's best-selling economics daily newspaper, Dunya Al-Eqtisad.

And from the conclusion:

The clerical establishment has close ties with the capitalist class and is said to be appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Mr. Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The clerics are also thought to be deeply apprehensive about the president's aggressive foreign policy.
    Mr. Ghaninejad said that by confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the West was in fact throwing a lifeline to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
    "If they keep piling on the pressure, Ahmadinejad will become a national hero," the newspaper editor said.
    "Let the Iranians deal with him. If you leave him alone, he will become a bankrupt politician within a year. With greater pressure, only the extremists will benefit."

Who knows?  But it is a reminder both that the time estimates for Iran to complete its nuclear program are important, and that the US strategy (at least at times) does seem to rely on splitting the Iranian government from the Iranian people.

Comments

[Jane]

My Iranian friends with relatives in Tehran say the same things - the Iranians hate Ahmadinejad. They would love it if we somehow arranged to have him taken out. I think Bradley is on to something.

[Sue]

You have to figure in the Israeli factor, too. Will they sit and wait for Iranians to make him defuncto? And just because he goes, that doesn't mean the nuclear program goes. It was there before his arrival. It would still be there after his departure.

[Rick Ballard]

The MIC (mullah in charge) will have Ahmadinejad taken out fairly quickly. Their bluff is being called and Ahmadinejad's only reason for being where he is was to run the bluff.

The next step will be a phony plea of contrition on the part of the mullahs in order to stave off sanctions - buying a bit more time to get their Atomic Mullah Protector finished.

I hope Bolton can ram sanctions through the UNSC over the next week. Iran's (the mullahs anyway) time is up - they can dismantle the nuclear program under UN supervision or we're going to have to dismantle it with JDAM's and Tomahawks. The "green glow" boys just can't be trusted with anything more than heavy artillery.

[clarice]

Hitchens had an interesting piece this week(Salon). He says on a recent visit to Iran the people (who love us even more than the Indians do) asked if it wouldn't be possible for us to just remove the mullahs and leave.

Remove the mullahs or remove the nukes..either one works for me..but I like both best of all.

[JohnH]

I am not getting the message clearly here. Bradley says that pressure by the West would be counterproductive. You all here seem to be saying that we should pour on more pressure and sanctions.

Am I missing something? Personally, I think that Bradley's sources are wrong or mis-quoted. Yes, Ahmadinejad is demonizing the West to distract from domestic problems. But I believe that Iranians actually want the West to become more engaged in opposing him and to help opposition movements. So I don't believe that Western pressure will help Ahmadinejad.

[clarice]

OTOH the WaPo prints a classic bit of Durantyish agitprop on the Administration's efforts to aid the reform movement in Iran. Luckily, Ledeen is on their lying case. http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200603141042.asp

[nittypig]

Even taken at face value, Bradley is proposing that by laying off Iran we'll get a slightly less insane group of Mullahs running the show. (Or is he? He doesn't say anything about the elites wanting to get rid of Khamenei, just Ahmadinejad. Khamenei runs the show in Iran, if he picks another president NOTHING will have changed). Given the choice between havign a different set of nutty mullahs with the bomb, and the overthrow of the regime, I opt for the latter. By all means push harder, replacing Ahmadinejad is likely to make the Islamic republic harder to overthrow, not easier.