Iran’s parliamentary elections have dealt what is likely to be a decisive defeat to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with 75% of the seats going to loyalists of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
With many reformists spurning the election, it was largely a referendum on the president and his ongoing spat with Ayatollah Khamenei. The overwhelming support for Khamenei’s backers at the expense of Ahmadinejad supporters has left little doubt that Ahmadinejad, if he survives at all, will be a de facto lame duck for the rest of his term.
Final results won’t be released until Monday, but with over 90 percent of the ballots counted, Ahmadinejad has few supporters left in parliament, even losing his home town of Tehran 19-11.
Though his fiery speeches had once made him a darling of Iranian voters, Ahmadinejad began running afoul of hardline clerics in 2009, and was seen on the brink of impeachment last summer in a dispute with Khamenei over control of cabinet positions.
I remember in the "fraudulent" election, people were saying Khameini was with Ahmedinijad. Apparently that's not the case. This is yet another example of the West not understanding Iranian politics but still talking like they do.
Kommisarina Klinton announced that the Yemen "vote" was legit but somehow when the man you've demonized for years, in a nation you've got some sick itch to attack, comes up short in the final tally and gets sidelined, then it's only a matter of time I suspect for the usual cognitive dissonance to kick in. No?
So what happens when President A.- leaves office and is replaced by Khamenei or his hand-picked Man in Tehran? Somehow I think that with regard to diplomacy and political maneuverings our then-President will be in for some schooling at the hands of the Iranian leadership. Obama can barely keep up with A.- as it is, and so much more so when Khamenei and Co. step into the driver's seat in a much bigger way.