So, huge win for A-- in Iran - accusations of fraud abound - no doubt some truth to that, possibly a lot of truth - without a clear majority a runoff would be necessary so the landslide suggests maybe attempt to make results looks beyond dispute. Ayatollah final arbiter of legitimacy of election and not in his interests to stoke outrage and discontent so not much doubt he'll rubber stamp results - so that's that - which was the way it was always going to be - so why all the talk prior about big changes afoot in Iran with even one prime newspaper suggesting another revolution was in the making? The kool aid drinkers at it again, those that believe entirely in the 'Obama effect'. Much of the press at this point are little more than Obama catamites.
Now, we could still see public demonstrations - Iran could go China circa '89 or Russia circa '91 - although my feeling would be it's not in the make up of Islamic theocracies to abide popular uprisings that threaten the conservative status quo - in fact a popular uprising agitating for moderation could result I imagine in something that looks like a civil war - although the military is entirely on the side of the conservatives in Iran so there'll be no 'Yeltsin on a tank' moments.
What I'm really curious to see is how far Obama will go in supporting protests if they do arise to a significant degree - will he inject the Obama aura into the Iranian political process in a demonstrative way? Sound realpolitik logic says anodyne words of encouragement but keep your distance; but the logic of Obama's rhetoric almost obligates him to get involved or risk losing credibility [this goes back to my post on how dangerous words can be]. One thing for sure, if he does insert himself into the argument, the game will definitely be afoot. Hell, if A-- is seen to be and is accepted as the landslide winner the game will be afoot no matter - and a confrontation over Iran's nukes a virtual inevitability. [well, confrontation or dangerous acquiescence - which is not to pretend that confrontation won't be dangerous as well, my point all along having been there's a distinct lack of comprehension or acknowledgment of dangers associated with acquiescence - and I don't just mean 'peace in our time' type dangers, I mean people are not recognising or are choosing not to recognise that if outside powers do not resolve Iranian nuke issue Israel will be left in a no win situation which means we'll be left in a no win situation - acquiescence is not an option for Israel - still, if outside powers fail, they'll have to pick their poison].
