What does the Ahmadinejad victory in the Iranian election mean for U.S. diplomatic efforts to engage Iran? According to this analysis from Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, it means efforts will be complicated with long-term prospects looking rather grim:
I’m surprised at the regime’s audacity in declaring such a large margin for Ahmadinejad, given that in the run-up, the momentum seemed to be in the other direction. The hardliners in the regime seem to have exercised all their levers of power to keep Ahmadinejad in place. Undoubtedly, one of the key reasons was their concern about losing control of the country through policies such as willingness to engage with the United States. All of the candidates wanted U.S. engagement, including Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader, but the Supreme Leader wanted it to be on his timetable and his agenda. So Ahmadinejad’s victory does not mean there cannot be engagement. He just wants credit for it. What it does mean is that there will be no change in the management of the nuclear portfolio. Ahmadinejad wants engagement with the United States without making any concessions at all in the nuclear program. So it doesn’t augur well for an early and peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute.”
Of course, this analysis assumes Ahmadinejad is able to consolidate his victory and move past the legitimacy questions raised by allegations of fraud in the election, and that is far from certain at this point.
