Tweet
IRAN'S ELECTORAL FARCE
Iranians some of them, at least head to the polls today to elect a new president. It's an august post, with about as much power as that wielded by, say, New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.
In other words, less heft than the proverbial town dogcatcher.
Iran's constitution, you see, vests virtually all real power in a variety of religious figures.
(Well, nominally religious figures, anyway: This setup flies in the face of traditional Shia teaching, which approximates what the West terms "separation of church and state." But by embracing the regime's parody of piety, clerics on the inside get power and wealth. Don't think Falwell; think Borgia, or Gambino.)
Heck, you can't even run for one of those meaningless "government" posts without an OK from the mullahcracy.
Elected officials do get a fine appearance of power — titles, offices, perks. They even "negotiate" with foreigners — a pretense that seems to keep European diplomats happy.
All this also gives the world media something safe to chatter about, without having to confront Iran's ugly reality.
Elite pundits drone on about "reformers," "hard-liners" and "pragmatists." They might as well be analyzing the plot of "Spamalot."
Reality is somewhat different.
For one thing, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Iranian people are chafing under the mullahcracy.
Political demonstrations are increasingly common, and that shouldn't surprise: Iran is a well-educated country by regional standards, and 60 percent of the population is 30 or younger.
Change is coming; the only real question is when.
Meanwhile, nothing that happens today is likely to affect Tehran's real foreign policy — its decades-long sponsorship of international terrorism.
Nor will it mean the slightest pause in Iran's drive for nuclear weapons; that has proceeded apace since the days of the shah. (The only break, ironically, came under Ayatollah Khomeini — but his successors have swept his theological objections under the rug.)
Today's vote, over the short run, doesn't mean a lot. The most interesting questions will be how many Iranians refuse to play along with the con by voting — exile groups have called for a boycott — or whether the voting will spark additional demonstrations.
Sad: The best the regime's foes can hope for is a resounding show of apathy.
That might not always be true.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/48487.htm
Iranians some of them, at least head to the polls today to elect a new president. It's an august post, with about as much power as that wielded by, say, New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum.
In other words, less heft than the proverbial town dogcatcher.
Iran's constitution, you see, vests virtually all real power in a variety of religious figures.
(Well, nominally religious figures, anyway: This setup flies in the face of traditional Shia teaching, which approximates what the West terms "separation of church and state." But by embracing the regime's parody of piety, clerics on the inside get power and wealth. Don't think Falwell; think Borgia, or Gambino.)
Heck, you can't even run for one of those meaningless "government" posts without an OK from the mullahcracy.
Elected officials do get a fine appearance of power — titles, offices, perks. They even "negotiate" with foreigners — a pretense that seems to keep European diplomats happy.
All this also gives the world media something safe to chatter about, without having to confront Iran's ugly reality.
Elite pundits drone on about "reformers," "hard-liners" and "pragmatists." They might as well be analyzing the plot of "Spamalot."
Reality is somewhat different.
For one thing, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Iranian people are chafing under the mullahcracy.
Political demonstrations are increasingly common, and that shouldn't surprise: Iran is a well-educated country by regional standards, and 60 percent of the population is 30 or younger.
Change is coming; the only real question is when.
Meanwhile, nothing that happens today is likely to affect Tehran's real foreign policy — its decades-long sponsorship of international terrorism.
Nor will it mean the slightest pause in Iran's drive for nuclear weapons; that has proceeded apace since the days of the shah. (The only break, ironically, came under Ayatollah Khomeini — but his successors have swept his theological objections under the rug.)
Today's vote, over the short run, doesn't mean a lot. The most interesting questions will be how many Iranians refuse to play along with the con by voting — exile groups have called for a boycott — or whether the voting will spark additional demonstrations.
Sad: The best the regime's foes can hope for is a resounding show of apathy.
That might not always be true.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/48487.htm
Comment