Iran is holding a parliamentary election on March 2. The two coalitions leading in the polls, the United Front and the Stability Front, are both conservative. The Stability Front, steadily gaining ground over the more moderate United Front in opinion polls since November, is said to be at “the extreme end of the fundamentalist camp.” Reformers just aren’t in the game this time.
The potential for this election to affect Iranian foreign policy or security affairs is limited; Iran’s parliament controls neither, and final decisions on state matters still rest with the Supreme Leader. Still, the conservative swing in Tehran over the past few months is a trend that could have important ramifications for both foreign policy and the nuclear program.
There is currently a behind-the-scenes diplomatic effort underway to stop Iran’s nuclear program before Israel decides to launch an airstrike. Led by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and officials in Washington and Europe, this effort is showing signs of bearing fruit. The Iranian leadership is signaling compromise, suggesting they will submit to inspections on nuclear facilities and give up a quick breakout capability in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels for civilian purposes. The West, in turn, would lift sanctions and normalize relations with Iran at nuclear regulatory organizations.
According to Les Gelb, time—and Iran’s parliamentary elections—are working against this plan. Iranian officials are preoccupied with the polls right now, and Israel might not wait for Iran to come back to the table. Sanctions aren’t working, and talks have not yet been productive, they say. Soon, writes Gelb, the diplomatic effort will become “less a strategy than a prayer.”
Gelb, well sourced in the Obama Administration, and with a long career of watching these moves, is one of the shrewdest observers around—which makes his analysis all the more troubling.
“The Iranian leadership is signaling compromise, suggesting they will submit to inspections on nuclear facilities and give up a quick breakout capability in return for being allowed to continue enriching uranium at low levels for civilian purposes. The West, in turn, would lift sanctions and normalize relations with Iran at nuclear regulatory organizations.”
And how is this different from any other time the Iranians have dangled “reasonable compromise” at gullible Western negotiators over the years? The West has been seeking a grand bargain with Iran for nearly forty years, and they have played us for suckers every time.
I’ll be shocked if this time is any different.
How is this any different than anything else that’s been reported on this subject for the last six or eight years?
Are the Iranians still between six months and five years of building a bomb?
Since Russia has funded Iran’s nuclear program from its start, and oil-rich Russia feels pretty cocky, how genuine is Russia’s promised effort?
Via the oil price, the world’s jitters over Iran keep the oil funds flowing. Surely Putin doesn’t mind if his ally has The Bomb. One of the far-sighted players in Charlie Wilson’s War figured the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 on its way to the Strait of Hormuz. Iran was in post-revolutionary chaos, and the Soviets likely thought they could bulldoze through.
Clearly, Putin likes power and would like to diminish the U.S.’s. What are the odds he’ll put the brakes on Iran?
The term “conservative” in this context is bizarre. Are these people like Republicans or Tories? I would suggest “Islamic Fundamentalist”, “Islamonazi”, or “Religious Zealot.”
Oh Dear! A contest between KONZERVATIVES! Could Santorum Come From Behind in another Alabama 3-Way?