We were told in a major cover article recently published by Newsweek,
a popular American news magazine, that "they may not want the bomb... Iran
isn't a dictatorship...[and] Iran may be ready to deal." Are these points
basically true? Should the United States negotiate with the present leadership
of this wayward nation--regardless of its radical conduct in office?
by John Ross Schroeder
Was the latest Iranian election really rigged or merely an unfortunate minority outburst of dissatisfaction? The consensus of most impartial observers continues to be that, even if an honest count would have given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a slight winning margin, the claimed landslide result is a discredited fiction.
According to New Statesman magazine (June 22, 2009), opinion polls showing a strong opponent leading the incumbent Iranian president on the eve of the election suddenly morphed into an overwhelming victory for President Ahmadinejad. The New Statesman article went on to reveal nine other credible reasons why the wide margin of victory was most likely a gross falsification of what really happened.
Iran a pseudodemocracy
One able Iranian commentator observed: "Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic republic has organised 31 elections at different levels. All have been carefully scripted, with candidates pre-approved by the regime and no independent mechanism for oversight" (Amir Taheri, "Iran's Dictator Gives Up Pretence of Democracy," The Sunday Times, June 21, 2009).
As far as this insightful writer is concerned, "On Friday, June 19, the Islamic republic died in Iran." He went on to describe two Irans. "One is prepared to support [Ayatollah] Khamenei's bid to transform the republic into an emirate in the service of the Islamic cause. Then there is a second Iran—one that wishes to cease being a cause and yearns to be an ordinary nation...The fight over Iran's future is only beginning."
