Iran’s choice

Something odd has been happening in Iran recently. Young people are massing in the streets of Tehran, blaring rap music, forming human chains and dancing in political rallies that look more like all-night parties. Women are loudly demanding equal rights, and reformers are raucously criticizing the government.

It must be time for a presidential election.

Such frank exchanges of political views become acceptable in Iran every four years, though the current atmosphere has been described by many as the most heated since the 1979 revolution. This may be a backlash against the repressive policies of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a reflection of lessons learned by his opponents. In 2005, many reformers boycotted the national elections, resulting in a landslide victory for the populist religious scholar. This time, the younger, wealthier, more secular and urban voters who repudiate Ahmadinejad are making sure their voices are heard.

No matter who wins the race on Friday -- and there’s a good chance that none of the four candidates will attract the 50% of votes needed for victory, leading to a runoff June 19 -- it’s unlikely to lead to dramatic changes in Tehran’s policies. Though Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad’s main rival, is a far more moderate leader who rejects the incumbent’s divisive anti-Western rhetoric and seems to have a better understanding of how to manage the nation’s economy, he isn’t the first reformer to run afoul of Iran’s theocratic powers-that-be. Mohammad Khatami attracted similarly zealous followers demanding more freedom and accountability and won the presidency in 1997, but his agenda was speedily derailed by the conservative mullahs who control most government functions (and without whose blessing no candidate can run for office).

Still, a victory by Mousavi would send a powerful signal to the clerics that the people want a change in direction, and his more diplomatic approach to the West could help ease tensions across the Middle East. Conversely, a win by Ahmadinejad would show that the Obama administration faces an uphill struggle in improving relations with Tehran and reducing Iran’s destabilizing influence on the region. Fortunately, President Obama isn’t doing anything to help Ahmadinejad’s campaign. His willingness to negotiate and his refreshing candor, including his acknowledgment last week of the United States’ role in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953, are making it much harder for Ahmadinejad to blame the U.S., rather than his own misrule, for his country’s troubles.

In his inaugural address, Obama told hostile regimes around the world that “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” We’ll find out Friday what kind of hand signals Iran wants to send.