Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Did Obama Want Ahmadinejad to Win?

The idea expressed in the headline is not at all outlandish. There is a body of conventional opinion that suggests the only real way for the president to make a deal with Iran is if the hardliner remains in charge after the election, because the supposed “reformist” would have to stay away from the United States to prove his hard-line bona fides. This view is most plainly expressed in a piece in the new issue of Newsweek. Written the day before the balloting, the piece by correspondent Babak Dehghanpisheh offers this telling observation:

Any outreach to the United States…counterintuitively, is more likely with Ahmadinejad’s reelection. [The Ayatollah] Khamenei might have had qualms about allowing a more liberal president to initiate talks, but in Ahmadinejad he has a tough negotiator sure to drive a hard bargain on all issues, including the country’;s neuclear program. And it was on Ahmadinejad’s watch, after all, that the U.S. and Irans had their most extensive meetings in 30 years…

The rest of the article is entirely conventional in its make-up, which leads me to believe what Dehghanpisheh has written here reflects a certain kind of conventional wisdom in journalist-policymaker circles. In another example of this sort of thinking, the Leveretts, Mr. Flynt and Mrs. Hillary,  have published a second in their evidently-never-ending series of paeans to the political skills of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in which they praise Obama for apologizing for the 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran against Muhammad Mossadeq and criticize him for even suggesting on the day of the election that it was good there was a debate in Iran (“extremely maladroit…undercut the credibility of Obama’s acknowledgment…”) What the Leverett argument reveals is that there is a substantial body of opinion that believes the United States would do best to have Ahmadinejad as a negotiating partner—and given the conventional nature of this opinion, it might well have been expressed inside Obama’s high councils and thereby explain the president’s continuing refusal to take a moral stand in the midst of this major event.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.