“Even non-Americans can cast a vote in the upcoming U.S. presidential election thanks to a Web site tracking world opinion on the race for the White House.” (Reuters) Hey, here’s a good idea — Kerry should promise to give foreign voters veto power over future US military deployments if they vote for him.
Related: Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran: “The head of Iran’s security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush was in Tehran’s best interests, despite the administration’s axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country’s nuclear ambitions.” (Associated Press) The stated reason for the Iranian preference is that Democratic administrations have generally pressed harder on human rights issues, inconveniencing the Iranian regime.
However, I would like to suggest that the Iranian preference for Bush is not despite but because of his threats and accusations. A bellicose and ignorant Bush in office solidifies Islamist fundamentalist cohesion; he is such an easily demonized threat against which to rally. While Bush may have done Iran a great favor by eliminating the Baathist regime and the Taliban in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, the misadministration’s bluster, its unilateralism, its disdain for diplomatic engagement and the “axis of evil” appellation suggest a possible threat of armed conflict or at least noncommunication between the US and Iran. Behind the cover of hostile posturing, Iran can pursue its nuclear weapons program unimpeded. A Kerry administration diplomatically engaged with Tehran and working with worldwide anti-proliferation mechanisms would probably be a more effective impediment to Iranian nuclear ambitions.
To judge from his position in the foreign policy debate, Kerry assumes the US electorate’s concern over the threat of nuclear proliferation to Iran and elsewhere. To this extent, the hardening of the Iranian position in a second Bush administration should be a serious concern even to jingoist America-firsters likely to be in the Bush camp. By emphasizing both this threat and the ineffectuality of the Bush administration in applying leverage around human rights issues, Kerry could potentially get alot of mileage out of the Iranian endorsement. But would it be outweighed by the backlash we are beginning to see against the fear-based campaign tactics both parties have turned to since the debates? (Certainly, it pales in the face of Cheney’s terror-mongering..)
