Also known as the commenter “Buckeye”, Patrick Glenn is the newest contributor to PoliGazette. We look forward to his contributions.
Relaxing on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush has the Iranian regime right where he wants it. In the crosshairs of Cheney’s shotgun? No, between Iraq and a hard place.

There has been a lot of talk about the Obama administration’s hardheaded realist approach toward the Iranian regime. However, it is partly due to the Bush administration’s six year low-level strategic war against Iran that the Mullahs are possibly facing a choice between being disgraced now or deposed in the not too distant future.

By themselves, the sanctions - dating back to the early 1980s – had minimal effect. The Bush administration was able to apply additional pressure on the regime, however, in the following ways:

First, the presence of 120,000+ American troops in Iraq forced the Iranian regime to respond to the potential external military threats and internal democratization threats by ramping up spending on military arms and personel, security forces, Iraqi interventions, and the nuclear program. Despite the high petroleum prices, the Iranian regime has managed to burn through $238 billion in oil revenues since 2005. Much of the money probably went to pay for subsidies on gas, milk, and other basic necessities that keep the poor and middle class happy, including the Basijis now fighting on behalf of Ahmadinejad; but a lot of the money was also spent to keep up in the arms race against Bush.  

Second, the otherwise inane increases in ethanol subsidies authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 might have had an important negative impact on the Iranian economy, which is one of the world’s leading importers of grain.

Third, in spring 2005, the Bush administration declared a “shock and awe” campaign against Iran’s financial system. The U.S. Treasury Department alerted the world banking community not to deal with Iran, which has a history of sponsoring terror and engaging in state sanctioned illegal financial activities.

In  addition to the sanctions and Bush’s strategic war against the Mullahs, Ahmadinejad also helped to drive the Iranian economy into the abyss. In the run up to the election, he threatened to enact a VAT and cut subsidies, at the same time that business people in Iran became increasingly frustrated with the rampant inflation and general economic downturn.  

Many of the protestors dream of someday gaining their freedoms. Yet Iran has had a brutal thugocracy for over 25 years now. It is probably no coincidence that there is much unrest at the same that the economy is in serious trouble. Certainly, the election fraud pushed many Iranians over the edge (chicken), but perhaps the regime was desparate in the first place due to the economic crisis (egg). 

Iran could be a powderkeg right now. Dealing with the economic crisis will necessitate Iran making hard choices. Who is going to make the biggest sacrifices? Ahmadinejad’s working poor (the Basiji)? The urban educated elites? Reports out of Tehran indicate there have been skirmishes and nighttime engagments between Basiji, who are said to be better armed but not on their turf, and their urban enemies, who are said to be not well armed but have the community on their side.

The Mullahs can brutally repress thousands of protestors tomorrow, but the economic crisis will still loom in the aftermath. In the end, if they cannot provide bread to the people, they will be deposed. It won’t be pretty, but cowboy diplomacy seldom is.

UPDATE:  A front page story in today’s Washington Post is perhaps the first volley in the campaign to give credit to the Obama administration for inspiring the recent protests in Iran. This credit is of course subject to future disownership, if necessary.

UPDATE II: From Huffington Post, “Obama’s remarks were televised on all radio and television stations in Israel, and with Arabic voice-over translations by Arab satellite stations Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera, Egyptian TV and Al-Manar, an outlet for the militant group Hezbollah. The speech was not broadcast in Iran, where the goverment jammed signals to block satellite owners from watching.”

UPDATE (July 3): Haaretz reported that the U.S. is set to block Iran sanctions at next week’s G8 Summit:

However, diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran.

U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures.

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the six permanent United Nations Security Council members.

American officials expressed concern that a decision to enact harsh steps against Iran during the G8 meeting could badly hurt the prospect of Tehran agreeing to renew negotiations with the permanent Security Council members.

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air asks: “Why would the Obama administration oppose using sanctions as a diplomatic and economic device to put pressure on the Iranian mullahs to reform?”  Well, if the Obama administration believes that one of the prime factors in destabalizing the Iranian regime is Obama’s apology tour diplomacy, then it would logically follow that the administration would be against new sanctions. This assumption would suggest, however, that the administration has willful tunnel vision.

The Iranian regime is in a precarious position right now. A gasoline embargo plus a general strike would likely topple the thugocracy.