The Islamist Side of Obama's Face

It's My Way or War

President Obama's dirty slip is showing.  Faced with the increasing likelihood that his "peace at any price" deal with Iran will be rejected by Congress, he has taken once again to browbeating his opponents.  But this time, the opposition is not just from political parties.  It is broader than that.

The US Jewish community--largely formerly an Obama fan base--is turning against him.  Rabbi Richard Block explains his dissent and rejects Obama's nasty denunciation of his opponents.  He also exposes, once again, Obama's disingenuous deceptive and misleading "framing" of the issues.

A Willing Suspension of Disbelief

Theatre of the Absurd

Would the real Iran please stand up.  As we read of the congratulations and rejoicing amongst the Western Commentariat, we find ourselves in fundamental confusion.  A deal with Iran has been struck, we are told, whereby Iran will lay aside its ambitions to develop nuclear weapons, and the West will remove its sanctions on that nation.

New Zealand's own foreign minister, now deeply ensconced in UN counsels and machinations (while NZ presently sits on the UN Security Council), has joined the chorus of self-congratulation.

New Zealand's foreign minister has welcomed the Iran nuclear deal.  Murray McCully said today the nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers was an "important" breakthrough.  "Over the last eighteen months negotiators have been working to secure an agreement that will increase international confidence in the nature of Iran's nuclear programme," Mr McCully said.

"This agreement is a positive development for regional stability in the Middle East and will allow for further progress to be made in the relationship between New Zealand and Iran.  As the current president of the United Nations Security Council, New Zealand will do what it can to expedite any necessary Security Council action, and we call for the agreement to be implemented as soon as possible," he added. [NZ Herald]

This "deal" with Iran has been struck whilst Iran, throughout the process, has publicly and repeatedly called for the annihilation of the United States (with whom it was negotiating) and the obliteration of Israel off the map.  It has also been one of the biggest sponsors of  Islamic terrorism over many years.  But have no fear.  Iran is run by trustworthy, truthspeaking, honourable men.  We know.  We can tell.  We can see what you ordinary rubes cannot. 

Letter From London (About The Real Problem in Palestine)

Why Netanyahu is Back

by David P. Goldman
Asia Times Online
May 10, 2015

^{Originally published under the title, " Why Israel Has a Right-Wing Government."}


I left Israel last week just before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced a new coalition with the Bayit Yehudi ("Jewish Home") and religious parties, with the slimmest of parliamentary margins. The response from the punditeska was a predictable as the emergence of a gumball after one introduces a quarter and turns the knob: Netanyahu and the ogres from the settlements are the supposed obstacle to peace. Inside Israel, the matter looks otherwise. I don't meddle in Israeli politics, but the reason Israelis support a tough government should be obvious to the casual observer.

Writing in the May 7 Financial Times, former Obama Middle East aide Philip Gordon warns Netanyahu against "expanding settlements, punishing the Palestinian Authority for its quest for international recognition, [and] insisting on an indefinite presence of Israeli forces on the West Bank and intervening militarily in Gaza. The risk is that this could ultimately lead to the collapse of the PA, Israeli reoccupation of West Bank cities and expanded global efforts to isolate Israel."

The reason Israelis support a tough government should be obvious to the casual observer.

It is inconvenient for diplomats to say so, but the Palestine Authority collapsed quite some time ago.

Rumblings of Discontent

Treachery Afoot

The Washington Post has been a front for the Left in the United States for decades.  So, when this loyal ally of Democratic politicians lacerates the US government's recent agreement over nuclear development by Iran, one reasonably concludes that President Obama and Secretary of State, John Kerry are on translucently thin ice.

Here are the main points of a recent editorial on the "agreement":

1. The agreement is far less than Obama promised it would contain.  This comes as no surprise, as the President's vain rhetoric and bluster usually bears no relation to transpiring reality.

Israel, Iran and Just War

Augustine Was Right

Regular readers of ContraCelsum will know that we are both strongly anti-war, and strongly war, at the same time.  We believe that to maintain the capability to make war--and under certain conditions actually go to war--is one of the fundamental duties of the state.  A state is denying its responsibilities if it fails to do so.

The Christian faith has long maintained the doctrine of "just war".  Some have objected to the concept being artificial, since to have a "just" war implies that some body actually would sit over the nation-state to determine whether its warring was just or not.  Others, running with the objection, have argued that the doctrine of just war necessitates a global body, like the United Nations, sitting in judgment upon the war-making of nations to assess whether each nation respectively is acting justly.  The International Court of Justice in the Hague has been constituted partly in the attempt to ensure that all wars are justified; where they fail to comply, legal and criminal consequences for national and military leaders can follow. 

When Augustine mooted the doctrine of a "just war", however, he was not so much implying nor requiring some "uber" state to sit in judgement upon nations.

Letter From Australia

Spring Storms

Many outcomes are possible across the "Arab Spring"

Noel Weeks.
Republished from AP: Australia's Reformed Evangelical Periodical

Anybody who thinks history is irrelevant should follow closely the events consuming many Arab countries at the moment and the attitudes of Western governments and commentators to those events. It can be argued that the West is seeing the events in terms of its own dominant theory of history and ignoring the alternate possibilities.

The Western hailing of the turmoil as a “Spring” flows from reading the movements as democratic with all that connotes in the Western mind: free, progressive, secular. In turn that flows from a theory that sees democracy as the inevitable direction of history. The Arab world is following us in demanding freedom and rights.

A little knowledge of history, especially of history as experienced by Arab peoples, might allow other possibilities.

The End is Near . . . Apparently

Interesting Times

Folk in the West are not that familiar with Islam in general. Far less are they familiar with Shi'ite theology. Even less is their familiarity with the particular brand of Shia believed in Iran. Montefiore provides a neat summary:

An imam is the leader of a mosque or community but in Shia, imams can be spiritual leaders, chosen by God and blessed with infallibility. The Twelver Shiites of Iran believe in the first twelve imams descended from Muhammad's son-in-law Ali and his daughter Fatima and that the Twelfth Imam was "occulted"--hidden by God--and will return as the Mahdi, the Chosen messianic redeemer of Judgement Day. The Islamic Republic of Iran was founded by Ayatollah Khomeini on this millenarian expectation: the clergy rule only until the Imam's return. (Simon Montefiore, Jerusalem, the Biography, p.187

We need to get this straight. Modern revolutionary Iran was founded and is controlled by Twelver Shi'ites who believe in the Second Coming of the Twelfth Imam (the twelfth descendant of Muhammad's son-in-law) who disappeared as a five year old. Allah is said to be "hiding" him, and will bring him forth to establish Islam over the entire world (by forced submission). As Joel Rosenberg summarizes:

The Twelfth Imam was a real, flesh-and-blood person who lived during the ninth century AD. Like the eleven Shia religious leaders who went before him, he was an Arab male who, as a direct descendent of the founder of Islam, was thought to have been divinely chosen to be the spiritual guide and ultimate human authority of the Muslim people. His name was Muhammad Ibn Hasan Ibn Ali. It is generally believed by Shias that he was born in Samarra, Iraq, in AD 868, though few details of his brief life are certain or free from controversy. Sunnis, for example, believe he was born later. Before he could reach an age of maturity, when he could teach and counsel the Muslim world as was believed to be his destiny, Ali vanished from human society. Some say he was four years old, while others say five and some say six. Some believe he fell into a well in Samarra but his body was never recovered. Others believe the Mahdi’s mother placed him in the well to prevent the evil rulers of the time from finding him, capturing him, and killing him—and that little Ali subsequently became supernaturally invisible. This is where the term “Hidden Imam” is derived, as Shias believe that Ali is not dead but has simply been hidden from the sight of mankind—Shias refer to this as “occultation”—until the End of Days, when Allah will reveal him once again.

President Ahmadinejad and the ruling elite in Iran not only believe in the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, but that it will occur soon and that Iran must be ready and must actively be preparing for his coming. The current unrest in the Middle East is seen as a sign that he is about to appear. This according to CBN News:

Iranian Video Says Mahdi is 'Near'

New evidence has emerged that the Iranian government sees the current unrest in the Middle East as a signal that the Mahdi--or Islamic messiah--is about to appear.

CBN News has obtained a never-before-seen video produced by the Iranian regime that says all the signs are moving into place -- and that Iran will soon help usher in the end times.

While the revolutionary movements gripping the Middle East have created uncertainty throughout the region, the video shows that the Iranian regime believes the chaos is divine proof that their ultimate victory is at hand.

The propaganda footage has reportedly been approved at the highest levels of the Iranian government.

It's called The Coming is Near and it describes current events in the Middle East as a prelude to the arrival of the mythical tweflth Imam or Mahdi -- the messiah figure who Islamic scriptures say will lead the armies of Islam to victory over all non-Muslims in the last days. . . .

The ongoing upheavals in other Middle Eastern countries like Yemen and Egypt--including the rise of the Muslim Brotherood -- are also analyzed as prophetic signs that the Mahdi is near -- so is the current poor health of the king of Saudi Arabia, an Iranian rival. "Isn't the presence of Abdullah, his illness, and his uncertain condition, great news for those anxious for the coming?" asks the narrator.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, are hailed as pivotal end times players, whose rise was predicted in Islamic scriptures. The same goes for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, who the video says will conquer Jerusalem prior to the Mahdi's coming.

The ongoing upheavals in other Middle Eastern countries like Yemen and Egypt--including the rise of the Muslim Brotherood -- are also analyzed as prophetic signs that the Mahdi is near -- so is the current poor health of the king of Saudi Arabia, an Iranian rival.

"Isn't the presence of Abdullah, his illness, and his uncertain condition, great news for those anxious for the coming?" asks the narrator.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini, and Hassan Nasrallah, leader of Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, are hailed as pivotal end times players, whose rise was predicted in Islamic scriptures. The same goes for Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, who the video says will conquer Jerusalem prior to the Mahdi's coming.

Now of course all of this is just nonsense but it is not thus regarded by the Iranian leadership. Their belief apepars to be genuinely held. They can be expected to act authentically according to their apocalyptic ideas. It explains why the Iranian rulers will not tolerate dissent in any form: a nation not in submission would hardly earn itself the position of being the Twelfth Imam's right arm when he appears.

Political authorities in the West dismiss such theology and ideology as irrelevant. After all, only fools and horses would believe in such things. One must not treat Iran's leaders as if they were foolish or horse-like. That would be offensive. They must be treated as we ourselves want to be treated, as modern rational secular men who believe in freedom, human rights, and justice.

In the meantime, it remains an open question as to how much mayhem the Iranian leadership will foment in order to facilitate "his" coming. This will be as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The longer "he" delays appearing, the more mayhem must be required.

We will indeed be living in interesting times--but not as the Iran leadership expects them to be.  In the meantime, we ought never to under-estimate the devastation that a false eschatology can wreak.  Recall a moustachioed gentleman who proclaimed a Thousand Year Reich, and another who called for Workers of the World to unite. 

Masterful Iran

Perfect Bait and Switch

You have to hand it to Iran. The Al Jazeera headline says it all: "Iran Not to Cede Nuclear Rights". These guys are very focused and very clever. They know exactly what they want, where they are going, and how they are going to get there. They have the West and Russia flummoxed, out-thought, out-manoeuvred. Not that it is particularly difficult to do--they saw Obama coming a mile off, and Putin is very easily played.

European nations have had it with Iran. They have tried the diplomatic game long enough to know that the party sitting over the other side of the table is duplicitous and for whom "good faith" is merely a weakness of the other side to be exploited at will. So, when it was finally public that Iran had a carefully concealed uranium enrichment plant at Qom, and that it had lied to the UN and the West for years, France, Germany, and the UK threw their toys out of the cot and got mad.

But "no drama Obama" just saw it as one more courtroom manoeuvre in the drive to negotiate and settle out of the court. Enter the Iranians with the best "bait and switch" manoeuvre seen in a long time. They allowed themselves to be "forced back" to the negotiating table, under threat of yet more UN sanctions. They assured everyone they really did want to talk and prove to the world that they were only interested in peaceful nuclear technology. They responded positively to a Russian and American suggestion that they give their stocks of uranium to the specific nations (Russia, France, US) for processing into non-military fuel rods, which they could then use in their medical and energy sectors. This would ensure that their uranium was used for peaceful means only.

Everyone was pleased. It was clearly the way forward. It was a face-saving compromise. Iran would now be able to buy non-military enriched processed uranium so that it could put it to all those developmental and peaceful uses it said it really wanted to do all along. By handing over its uranium stockpile, at one fell swoop its nuclear weapons programme would be cut off at the knees. You could almost see the relieved grin on the faces of the White House. But the American tyro knew nothing of Iran's masterful game playing. The European powers glowered. They knew that Iran had merely laid the bait out.

Two days ago the celebrated diplomatic talks to sort all this out began in Geneva, with much fanfare. Everybody was feverishly working on the details of how this solution could be made to work operationally. Then the masterful Iranian switch. Yes, they were very keen to buy processed uranium off Russia (not France, it was a bad boy--"untrustworthy", was a term used) and in the open market in general. (The refusal to deal with France, itself, was a classic "divide and conquer" manoeuvre. These guys are good.) But as for sending all its uranium stockpile offshore, you had to be kidding. Iran would never relinquish its sovereignty in this way. But, it was very reasonable of you chaps to offer to let us buy processed uranium from you--all above board, sanctioned, and legal. And, we thank you for your acknowledgement that we have a right to nuclear technology--which your willingness to approve our buying enriched uranium clearly acknowledges. Thanks, guys.

The American contingent has been left with its mouth open. It has been masterfully outplayed by the Iranians. Your move, "No drama Obama." Guess it's back to the Saul Alinsky playbook.

Postscript: The latest is that the West and Russia is playing out the game. They have allegedly agreed with Iran how the uranium-go-round will work. Iran will now consider it.

The UN's atomic watchdog says Iran has agreed to consider a deal on its nuclear programme, which could see it ship out most of its enriched uranium to Russia.

A decision is expected by Friday. It's hard to anticipate those masterful Iranians, but our guess is that Teheran will gravely consider the proposal, and will "co-operate" and agree that a small proportion of their uranium stockpile will be sent overseas for processing. Al Jazeera's correspondent in Teheran is likely signposting something like this when he writes:

Nazanine Moshiri, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Tehran, the Iranian capital, said the final decision over the deal "will be made here in Tehran. And Tehran has said it will not give up its right to develop uranium."

The Iranians will probably release just enough uranium to have the West hold up a piece of paper and proclaim, "Peace in our time." If so, as with Chamberlain, we believe they will have been played for fools.

Double Standards

Double Standards Bespeak Hypocrisy

The media has reported on a suicide bomber attack in south-east Iran, which borders Afghanistan and Pakistan. The bomber killed "six senior Revolutionary Guards commanders, including two of its top officers, and 25 other people on Sunday in one of the boldest attacks against Iran's most powerful military institution."

This, of course, was an evil, murderous act. But what is strikingly incongruous is the reaction of Iran as voiced through the mouthpiece of President Ahmadinejad, who called those responsible, criminals, vowing they would soon be brought to justice. So, let's get this straight. When Ahmadinejad sends Shi'ite extremists into Iraq to blow up Sunni Muslims it represents a noble act of courage and holy martyrdom. When he calls for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth, it is a righteous demand. But when Muslim suicide bombers kill Iranis they are not holy martyrs, but criminals whose helpers will be brought to justice. But to Ahmadinejad this glaring inconsistency is not a problem at all.

Ahmadinejad is an extreme, fundamentalist Shi'ite. He is looking for the emergence of the twelfth Mahdi (direct descendant of Mahommed) to subdue all the world. You can read the background of Ahmadinejad's messianism here, here, and here. He believes that the twelfth Mahdi is now alive, but currently hidden. He will only show himself at the right time, which will be when Iran and Shia Islam is under terrible threat. It is almost certainly true that Ahmadinejad wants to engage Iran in a nuclear conflagration which will cause the Mahdi to reveal himself, subduing all his enemies, or destroying the recalcitrant (which include the Great Satan, and Sunnis).

Such ideas are, of course, laughable to the sophisticates in the West. It leads to the condescending paternalism which is so often on display toward Iran. The arrogant West forgets that wrong, bad, and evil ideas can have terrible consequences. It also overlooks the fact that people have an unfortunate tendency to act consistently with their ideologies and beliefs. The West tends to discount the problem thinking that no-one could be so stupid, and that in the end Ahmadinejad is just grand-standing like a petulant child, trying to negotiate a deal and extract money out of the West. He does not really believe that Mahdi stuff. Therefore, cutting a deal with him is still feasible and likely. After all, it's the American way.

These things aside, the hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and his ilk remains. Suicide bombing is OK when Iran does it; then it is not murder, but holy martyrdom. The fact that Ahmadinejad sees no inconsistency in this exposes the depravity of his particular religious beliefs, and therefore, the evil regnant within his heart. People who discount him (and his supporters) as madmen, or as grandstanders are naive in the extreme. Ahmadinejad is both chillingly sane and depraved. But a madman he is not. That view of the Iranian president is Western presumptive arrogance and condescension.

Letter From America

Obama’s French Lesson

Sarkozy could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naïveté.

By Charles Krauthammer

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.” — French president Nicolas Sarkozy, September 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the U.N., that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as the Washington Post inconveniently pointed out, Pres. Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling, and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naïveté. On September 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president in the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium-enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times, citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without (nuclear weapons).’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacre bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did.

Published in National Review Online.

The Election in Iran

What is Happening?

The Wall Street Journal has carried a piece by Amir Taheri on the recent Iranian election. He presents material we have not found in our media and gives some insight into what may be really going on.

Firstly, the evidence that the election was rigged.

No one knows exactly how much electoral fraud took place. The entire process was tightly controlled by the Ministry of Interior under Sadeq Mahsouli, a general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards and a senior aide to Mr. Ahmadinejad. There was no independent election commission, no secret balloting, no observers to supervise the counting of the votes, and no mechanism for verification. It is impossible to know how many people voted and for whom.

Mr. Ahmadinejad was credited with more votes than anyone in Iran's history. If the results are to be believed, he won in all 30 provinces, and among all social and age categories. His three rivals, all dignitaries of the regime, were humiliated by losing even in their own hometowns. This was an unprecedented result even for the Islamic Republic, where elections have always been carefully scripted charades.

Many in Tehran, including leading clerics, see the exercise as a putsch by the military-security organs that back Mr. Ahmadinejad. Several events make these allegations appear credible. The state-owned Fars News Agency declared Mr. Ahmadinejad to have won with a two-thirds majority even before the first official results had been tabulated by the Interior Ministry. Mr. Ahmadinejad's main rival, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, retaliated by declaring himself the winner. That triggered a number of street demonstrations, followed with statements by prominent political and religious figures endorsing Mr. Mousavi's claim.

Secondly, its possible that there is a coup taking place within the country.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all issues of national life, published a long statement hailing Mr. Ahmadinejad's "historic victory" as "a great celebration." This was the first time since 1989, when he became supreme leader, that Mr. Khamenei commented on the results of a presidential election without waiting for the publication of official results. Some analysts in Tehran tell me that the military-security elite, now controlling the machinery of the Iranian state, persuaded Mr. Khamenei to make the unprecedented move.

A detailed study of Mr. Khamenei's text reveals a number of anomalies. It is longer than his usual statements and full of expressions that he has never used before. The praise he showers on Mr. Ahmadinejad is simply too much. The question arises: Did someone use the supreme leader as a rubber stamp for a text written by Mr. Ahmadinejad himself?

Thirdly, where to from here.

Buoyed by his victory, Mr. Ahmadinejad has already served notice that he intends to pursue his radical policies with even greater vigor. At yesterday's rally, he promised to pass a law enabling him to bring "the godfathers of corruption" to justice. His entourage insists that former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammed Khatami, and former parliament Speaker Nateq Nouri, all midranking mullahs, may be among the first to fall in a massive purge of the ruling elite.

It is too early to guess whether these dignitaries would march to the metaphorical gallows without a fight. Even if they fight, they are unlikely to win. Nevertheless, Messrs. Rafsanjani, Khatami and other targeted mullahs could influence others who wish to prevent a complete seizure of power by Mr. Ahmadinejad's military-security clique, which is determined to replace the Shiite clergy as the nation's ruling elite. Nor is it at all certain that Supreme Leader Khamenei would stand by and watch his power eroded by a rising elite of radicals.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's victory has several immediate consequences. First, it should kill the illusion that the Khomeinist regime is capable of internal evolution towards moderation. Mr. Ahmadinejad sees Iran as a vehicle for a messianic global revolution.

Second, the election eliminates the elements within the regime -- men such as Mr. Mousavi and Mahdi Karrubi (another of the three unsuccessful candidates who ran against Mr. Ahmadinejad) -- who have pursued the idea of keeping the theocracy intact while giving it a veneer of democratic practice. According to a statement published yesterday by Mostafa Tajzadeh, a former deputy interior minister who was among 132 anti-Ahmadinejad activists arrested over the weekend, the regime's "loyal opposition" would now have to reconsider its loyalty.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's victory has the merit of clarifying the situation within the Islamic Republic. The choice is now between a repressive regime based on a bizarre and obscurantist ideology and the prospect of real change and democratization. There is no halfway house.

The same clarity may apply to Tehran's foreign policy. Believing that he has already defeated the United States, Mr. Ahmadinejad will be in no mood for compromise. Moments after his victory he described the U.S. as a "crippled creature" and invited President Obama to a debate at the United Nations General Assembly, ostensibly to examine "the injustice done by world arrogance to Muslim nations."

Iran's neighbors are unlikely to welcome Mr. Ahmadinejad's re-election. He has reactivated pro-Iranian groups in a number of Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain. He is determined to expand Tehran's influence in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially as the U.S. retreats. He has also made it clear that he intends to help the Lebanese Hezbollah strengthen its position as a state within the state and a vanguard in the struggle against Israel.