Domestic tensions in Iran

So if there is any good news to come out of Iran these days for the United States government, this might be it:

Iran's beleaguered president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is facing a powerful challenge from his fiercest political rival for control of the country's nuclear and economic policies.

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election, believes Iran may have to yield to western demands to suspend uranium enrichment to save the country's Islamic system from collapse.

He is trying to persuade the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in state matters, that further negotiations are essential to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the US or Israel.

It seems really hard for most Americans to understand that leaders of other countries have to bow to domestic influences, especially when we want to do something our way. (We have almost forgotten what this must be like in our own country, seeing as Bush has been the closest thing to a monarch we have ever had...) But in Iran, no matter how often our right-wing opponents want to claim otherwise, Iranian President Ahmadinejad still must contend with the political forces within his country which could slow confrontation on his end (though it appears that Bush is definitely pushing it in December with his party losing greatly in local elections, many analysts consider this a rebuke to Ahmedinejad's heavy focus on Sabre-rattling rather than economics:

The vote is being seen as a sign of public discontent with Ahmadinejad's constant fights with the West, which have led Iran closer to UN sanctions. His anti-Israel rhetoric and unbending stand on the nuclear programme are believed to have divided Iranians who voted him into power in 2005.

Some conservatives feel Ahmadinejad has spent too much time confronting the US and its allies and failed to deal with Iran's struggling economy. The voting also represented a partial comeback for reformists, who favour closer ties with the West and further loosening of social and political restrictions under the Islamic government. Leading reformist Saeed Shariati said the results of the election was a "big no" to Ahmadinejad and his allies.

In the meantime, the election also installed a major rival within the Council of Experts (which selects the Ayatullah.) Rafsanjani is the main candidate who lost in '05 to Ahmedinejad and also his biggest rival.

Who's this Rafsnajani, and how is he using his newfound position to undermine Ahmedinejad?

Hashemi Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative defeated by Mr Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election, believes Iran may have to yield to western demands to suspend uranium enrichment to save the country's Islamic system from collapse.

He is trying to persuade the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in state matters, that further negotiations are essential to avoid a potentially disastrous conflict with the US or Israel.

Mr Rafsanjani, a former president and pillar of Iran's political establishment, disagrees and is understood to have formed a committee overseeing the nuclear negotiations. The committee will assess whether the country's international standing has been damaged by Mr Ahmadinejad's radical statements.

What does he have to say for himself?

"Before the sanctions, Rafsanjani hoped Iran could obtain its enrichment objectives through mutual understanding with the west. But now he thinks we have reached a dangerous point and that a step should be taken backwards in the hope that two forward can be taken later,"

Some of our more unenlightened friends might find it interesting to think that even in Iran, some are seeking moderation.

Of course, in Iran, one must wonder if U.S. intimidation is getting to them... In any case it is more likely that some people would rather see something resolved peacefully for once. Problem is America has an ass for a President who will not talk to Iran... at all.

It is certainly interesting and a good thing that we see that both leaders, eager for conflict, quick to confrontation, and both seen by almost every international observer as seeking to increase international tensions rather than seeking to decrease them, both find themselves facing forms of public discontent. The only problem is that both rebukes, in the U.S. and in Iran will most likely have little signifcance in policy changes during the next two years.

Update: Check out this Washington Post Article going over Iran's increasing influence in the region. It places the Bush Administration's biggest mistakes in bold fucking print. It really is no surprise that with mistake of the U.S. invasion of a rival of Iran's and the subsequent atrocities, the continuation of violence against normal Palestinians, and Israel's incursion into Lebanon, that America and Israel has only made Iran's ascent unavoidable. For the average person in the Middle East this is so many attacks on your people and your culture... There is only so much you are willing to take. The region will look for a leader to stand up to the U.S., it allies and Status Quo. It is quite obvious who seeks this role. It is not a role without precedent in the region.