Don't assume Ahmadinejad lacks a sizable base in Iran just because he's wrong or bad. Wrong and bad people have enjoyed popular support throughout history, and they will no doubt continue to do so until the end of time.
Daniel Larison on Iran:
'The danger in thinking that the regimeâ??s fate is â??sealedâ? and believing, contrary to evidence, that Tehran is isolated in the world is that it encourages misguided policy decisions. If one believes that Tehran is extremely isolated, pursuing sanctions of one kind or another might seem much more practical. It is only when we recognize that Tehran is not isolated and has many partners and allies around the world that we see the futility of going the sanctions route. If one assumes that the regimeâ??s fate is â??sealed,â? and we just need to wait and watch the collapse happen, that militates against negotiations and engagement, and it encourages hawks to lobby for increased pressure and confrontation to try to push the regime over the edge. Such policies will not only work to the detriment of the people risking their lives protesting against the regime, but they will almost certainly not achieve anything that Washington wants. If we fail to see what is actually happening in Iran because we would prefer to see something else, our government is going to pursue the wrong policy options that will not serve U.S. interests or the interests of the Iranian people.'
I don't agree entirely with Larison here, as I happen to think some type of sanctions regime - coupled with engagement and genuine incentives for Iran's cooperation with the international community - is a smart way to go, especially if said engagement goes nowhere. He and I hold different view points on the matter of sanctions, and anyone interested in those differing views can read them here, here and here. I also don't share the same amount of faith as he does in the recently published World Public Opinion survey of Iranian public sentiment. I'm skeptical of any poll taken in police states such as Iran, and one rule of survey research I had drilled into me was to never attempt or take too seriously an assessment of public mood when that public is under a constant level of duress or panic. I'd say Iran qualifies as one of those, if not both, since June 12 of last year.
With all that said, I still think Daniel makes an incredibly valuable point, and I think it's this in short: Don't assume Ahmadinejad lacks a sizable base in Iran just because he's wrong or bad. Wrong and bad people have enjoyed popular support throughout history, and they will no doubt continue to do so until the end of time.
This doesn't make the Green Movement irrelevant or wrong, it simply makes it the minority - for now. And that's OK. Reform movements have to start somewhere, and the protesters have already demonstrated that a vibrant, vocal and organized minority can impact government behavior. But it would be disastrous for Washington to lasso its hopes on every opposition movement around the world. Diplomacy cannot function at such a level, and the West should assume that the bosses are the bosses until proven otherwise (and I find the argument that the Green Movement, were it to seize power tomorrow, would grudgingly shun the United States for having recognized the Khamenei regime rather unconvincing).