Monday, June 3, 2013

If I could vote in Iran's election ...

Hold your horses:

Why can I NOT vote? Well because my country has decided to have no diplomatic relations with Iran! So, effectively, the democracy has decided for me to not participate in Iran's so-called non-democratic election!

But if I COULD vote, I would vote conservative! Not for one of those reformer-masked people; but for an old conservative: Like Velayati (or EVEN Mohsen Rezai!)

"Have you gone mad", you think?

No!

My vote will have a very simple and pragmatic reason: these three have been before our eyes for as long as we remember them. Ineffective, and benign. And that is what I like about them. The other two conservatives, the Tehran mayor (Ghalibaf) and the Nuke negotiator (Jalili) who seem to be the hopefuls by design are just too mercurial and mysterious, respectively. The greenish Iranians feel they have to throw their support behind Aaref and Rowhani to fence off the imminent threat from these potential lunatics; and also because of the ideological loyalty they feel to Khatami's 'wave'; or Mousavi/Karoubi's cause. But I think they are wasting an important opportunity.

To vote for the "opposition", which is at the point reduced to Aref and Rohani who will be coalescing sooner or later is to lose a great opportunity to further split the "Right".

Imagine either of these gentlemen get elected (I don't believe they will because the majority of their base is BOYCOTTING). What executive power will they have under the ring of the supreme leader who is adamant to insist on Iran's "entitlement to peaceful nuclear technology"? And would this election not further radicalize, polarize and thus reinforce the conservative camp?

In the past 8 years, we have been observing the major damage these various conservative factions have been doing to their crooked structure. So, why give them a support pole by electing an  opposition against them?!

See, it is simple law of physics.
When your car is sliding in snow, you should never turn the wheel in the opposite direction.
When trying to extract a metallic object from a strong magnet, the dumbest idea is to to move it fast, and in the opposite direction.

I would vote for a conservative because judging from the reformer-Khatami's era, I have little faith that the 5+1 is sincere about the wish to resolve Iran's nuclear issue. They demand total submission and surrended, only to screw Iran after. And Iran under no government will succumb to that. In fact, all candidates, even those disqualified have insisted they will NOT accept the EU/Us bullying attitude. Yes it is a good "explanation" for the facile minds of the population who seeks 'pinky and rosy peaceful solutions' for the complexities of the world. But currently, Iran is providing a perfect boogeyman to advance a lot of militarism and cold war expenditure, so why would the war-based economies of the world lose such perfect justification for their militarist R&D expenditure?

I would vote for a conservative because the previous right-winger has so badly messed up that it is disservice to anyone to be left this elephantine chore of cleaning up.

I would also vote conservative (accepting ahead of time that this election is not to be won by a reformist) in order to eliminate any potential of unrest, protest, and post-election "cheating" discourse.

I think the country's under economically DARK clouds. It is time to vote strategically. And strategy might command to keep a united front, keep calm and vote for a banal, but benign right-winger; like Velayati. This is not a time to play our theater for the world; this is the time to regroup, and reflect. With Hashemi's blow out, the best bet is to choose someone from the Iran-Iraq war-era: Velayati (minister of foreign affairs from 1981-1997) and Rezayee were in the thick of it all. Bloomberg seems to agree with me on Velayati!

P.S. When expressing my reasoning to my husband he said: 'It's good you cannot vote, otherwise you will have been voting for a man from "the first ring of oppression", whose hands are dipped in blood of all those dissidents assassinated abroad, when he was a foreign minister." (In a 2005 interview with the conservative newspaper Baztab, Velayati stated that those assassinations were harmful to Iran's foreign policy--but he has always maintained that Iran had no role in them.)

3 comments:

foruhar said...

interesting perspective. I think you meant to name haddad also in the beginning, because you say three not two? Or Gharazi?
I actually don't mind you omitting haddad, because after listening to him in the debates, he really does like someone who is on opium and I don't think I would be able to stand him droning on and on for 4 years :)
I think the key is really what does khamenei want? Has he gone totally nuts or is he willing to compromise.
Before the election process started I was also leaning towards letting them handle it themselves. People like Poormohammadi who were representing the traditional right wing were saying all the right things. I thought that these guys might be representing khamenei. What is worrying me is that the candidate from that faction dropped out, and khamenei keeps insisting on "resistance economics". If he is driving the country down a cliff I would rather have someone provide a bump in his way.

foruhar said...

you say " these three have been before our eyes for as long as we remember them. "

which three do you mean?

Naj said...

sorry you are right, by these "three" I Was thinking

Hashemi, Khamenei and Velayati.