News

Those who follow Iranian politics had reason to believe Iran's presidential election would be basically, if not perfectly, representative of the will of the people. Iran's electoral system, though flawed, has in past been one of the most open in the Middle East. It has produced surprise victors before - Mohammad Khatami won twice, although it was clear both times he was not the choice of the “system.”

It is always difficult to pass judgment from a distance, but the scale and circumstances of the election result raise questions. Any victory on the first ballot was going to be suspect - most analysts were confident that there would be a run-off on June 19. Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won on the first ballot by 52 or 53 per cent, instead of the reported 63 per cent, that would have at least been marginally believable.

Moreover, we must recognize that an Ahmadinejad victory on the second ballot would have been a credible outcome. For all of the media excitement about challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi among the middle class and others in the cities, Mr. Ahmadinejad remained popular among the poor and in the countryside.

But an Ahmadinejad victory on the first ballot by such a margin is at least suspicious. Does it matter? After all, the president is not the most powerful figure in the Iranian political system. Key policies (such as the nuclear-enrichment program) were not going to change overnight even if Mr. Mousavi had won.

It matters in the sense that a Mousavi victory would have represented a lowering of the rhetorical tone between Iran and the United States. That relaxation would not, by itself, have changed anything. But it would have been a necessary precondition to change.

Where do we go from here? The opposition candidates have jointly rejected the result of the vote and called for a rerun of the election. This seems highly unlikely now that the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has endorsed the result, although he has directed the Guardian Council to examine the claims of election fraud. Many brave souls have taken to the streets. Under ordinary circumstances, the prospects of civil unrest sufficient to overturn the election result would be slim. If nothing else, the system is quite good at suppressing public unrest and protests are being dealt with harshly where foreign cameras are not present.

Though the situation is not fully predictable, it seems likely Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be President of Iran for four more years. Can some sort of engagement with Iran go forward under these circumstances? Perhaps more appropriately, can we afford not to try to engage Iran, given the difficult set of issues in play?

One thing is clear: If such an engagement does go forward, it will certainly not be the kind of potentially transformative dialogue that might have been possible had the election turned out differently. It may well not have been such a dialogue even if Mr. Mousavi had won, as the other centres of power in Iran would have sought to thwart him had he tried to really change the basis of Iran-U.S. relations. But now we will never know.

Instead, any dialogue that may happen will probably have to be aimed at seeing if a way can be found to manage ongoing differences within the overall context of a relationship that will remain bitter. It is less likely in such an atmosphere that either side will offer up the kinds of serious policy changes that will be required.

One can argue, of course, that Mr. Ahmadinejad is more truly representative of official Iran than Mr. Mousavi would have been. The dialogue, though more difficult, will be more realistic.

However one assesses the results, the dialogue must go on. The search for ways to manage the dangerous confrontation between Iran and the West is no less important today than it was Friday. But what happened is profoundly disappointing to all those who hoped the election might lay the foundation for a new beginning. Maybe those hopes were naive to begin with.

Peter Jones is associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.