This article is not about Judd Gregg. But it is about the success or failure of negotiations.
President Obama has had a rough few weeks. First Dick Morris
keeps rambling
about the coming socialist Armageddon. Then the ACLU accused
the President of secretly loving torture. And all of that came before Judd
Gregg threw the administration under the bus.
I'm sure it is times like this that the President finds
himself wishing he were working on easier things, like negotiations with Iran. But
in a press conference Monday he set
the timeframe for meeting with top Iranian officials in months rather than
weeks. Part of this is politically necessary―he needs the stimulus package and
he does not yet know with whom he will be dealing in Israel―but the greater
part is perhaps hope that he will not have to deal with Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after all.
Iran
holds presidential elections in June. Ahmadinejad, while never terribly
popular, is now by all accounts is in danger of losing the presidency. Ahmadinejad
is fairly universally acknowledged to be out of touch with reality―his idea of
economic stimulus is literally going to the countryside and giving money to the
poor. In November he proclaimed that Iran could survive even if oil were
$5 per barrel, even though the country began projecting dangerously high budget
deficits anywhere south of $75 per barrel. To give the reader an idea of how
badly off he is politically, the Financial Times reported
Friday that one of his senior advisors touted the president's accomplishments by
proudly declaring that the inflation rate is now only 25%! Obama might be well
advised to wait out his term and take his chances with former President
Mohammad Khatami―a reformist who declared
his candidacy this week.
The problem for everyone involved is that no one in the West
knows how much or how often cohorts of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei rig
elections in Iran.
It is generally acknowledged that some elections are staged, but whether this
includes all elections or only close ones is an open question. Further,
Khamenei has publicly supported Ahmadinejad in the past, but this has gradually
waned
over his term. Much hinges on how badly the Supreme Leader wants Iran to come
out of its international pariah status, and no one knows the answer to that.
If Khatami wins the election, things become easier for Obama
in both politics and substance. With Ahmadinejad gone, Rush Limbaugh could not credibly
call the administration a bunch of terrorist-lovers (though he might anyway),
and the President would likely endure less criticism from both Democratic and
Republican Congresspeople. Substantively, Khatami and Obama can likely find
common ground, especially on the Afghanistan: Khatami nearly went to
war with the Taliban in 1998.
On the other hand, Obama could wake up in June and find
Ahmadinejad still in power. That would certain be awkward, and not just because
of the inevitable SNL skit lampooning whatever boondoggle of a meeting they
have. If that happens, Obama might be advised to quietly drop the idea of a
presidential-level meeting. The problem with that is the fact that we really
need Iran's help with Afghanistan, and a successful meeting between,
say, Hillary Clinton and Iran's
foreign minister could easily be undone by Ahmadinejad's fiat. At that point,
the best―or rather least bad―recourse might become multilateral talks, which
have proven relatively unsuccessful with other crazy leaders like Kim Jong Il. Though
it may seem hard to believe now, Ahmadinejad's re-election might leave Obama
wishing for the days when only Judd Gregg embarrassed him.
The man in Iran, but for how much longer?
(photo by Daniella Zalcman)
Also Interesting:
[+] On Tour -- Obama's Man in the Middle East
A look at George Mitchell
[+] Bush won't put diplomats in Iran
Some recent history
[+] Arab Press Reacts to Obama Interview
Speaking to the Arab street
[+] A surge of questions about democracy building
Recent elections in Iraq