The Iranian presidential election between the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his three challengers, Mir Hussein Moussavi, Mehdi Karrubi and Mohsen Rezaie is generally considered a flawed exercise in electoral politics.  If you are an observer of global events, even on a casual level, you have been paying attention to the current demonstrations going on in and around Tehran and other urban centers.  This article discusses the recent events surrounding the June 12th election and what options lay ahead for the United States and what might possibly unfold in Iran over the short and long term. 

As of June 22nd, the 12-member Guardian Council, on the direction of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is overseeing claims by Mir Hussein Moussavi and others of voter fraud. The Guardian Council, for clarification purposes, is an oversight board of mullahs and jurists who ostensibly are charged with certifying nation-wide votes for a wide swath of offices.  The council has found that upwards of 3 million votes are suspect.  These 3 million votes will not award the election to Mir Hussein Moussavi, the largest vote getter behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  As it stands, the incumbent president won 64.7% of the vote, out of 35 million votes, to Moussavi’s 32.2%. 

What unfolded following the election is widespread condemnation from the international community, days of intense street protests that devolved into violence with the introduction of the Basij, the Iranian militia, and further calls by the Ayatollah that continued protests would result in further loss of life and a more hardened crackdown by the government. 

Conventional wisdom would dictate, if using history as a guide, that the Iranian government will, if it finds itself in an untenable position, follow through with its threats of violence in response to any further protests or a general strike that has been called by Moussavi.  Iran is a state that was founded through the use of force and the current leaders of modern Iran, the Ayatollah and others will resort to this.    

The government finds itself in an extremely awkward position because it isn’t just students who are demonstrating but women and in some cases the children of the 1979Revolution who remember quite vividly that period in their history.  One such instance of violence is the killing of Neda Agha-Soltan who was shot by the Basij.  The video of that killing has gone viral on YouTube and other media platforms in ways that would never have happened during the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 when these media platforms did not exist. 

The government of Iran risks alienating what remaining allies it has in the region if it were to fully act against these demonstrators in a way that is reminiscent of Tiananmen Square.  The violence would not be seen as American soldiers firing upon Iraqis next door but violence against Muslims by Muslims.  It would be a series of killings perpetrated upon activists by a state who portends to be an upholder of Muslim values and was founded upon thoroughly Muslim values. 

What should Iran do?  It’s a complicated question that experts have been attempting to answer .  I will not be as bold as to posit my perfect answer but a generally agreed upon series of steps would be to nullify the election and start anew.  By doing so the Iranian government would be acknowledging a flawed system in a flawed country but few other options exist.  The counterfactuals are that it matters little as to who the president of Iran is for he is a figurehead in that country where the Ayatollah wields the real power. 

No matter what advice or wishes the international community has for Iran the most likely course of action will be the status quo.  In-effect the election will in all likelihood stand as it is and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will remain as president of Iran.  As of 3:00 A.M. on June 23rd the Guardian Council has ruled that the election will not be annulled and baring any unforeseen circumstances it will certify the election by Wednesday the 24th of this month.   

One important variable is the United States and the international community.  My view of the situation and what options exist for the outside world is that nothing should be attempted, no advice should be given and condemnation should be kept at a minimum.  After all, it is the United States and the international community that invaded Iraq and have on occasion killed innocent civilians. This is a purely Iranian affair and given the history between Iran and the United States, which is well documented, it is not our place to tell Iran what to do.   We have certain goals and objectives that we want met, but diplomacy between these two countries doesn’t hinge on who is president in Iran.

The most important outcome is that the seeds of change have been planted and violent or nonviolent revolutions take time.  I am not advocating for a violent outcome to come of all of this but as we have seen the nonviolent street protests on the part of the opposition have been the most prevalent and even if the protests subside the government realizes that the status quo will in all likelihood be challenged again if the will of the people is usurped. 

---
John Lyman is an intern for Foreign Policy Digest.