Iran elections test U.S. gamble on nuke deal

As Iranians head to the polls this week, President Barack Obama and his aides are keenly paying attention. The results of the elections — for parliament and another government body — could signal whether moderate forces are rising in the Islamist country as it adheres to a controversial nuclear deal and continues to engage with the U.S.

But while the Obama administration is careful to keep its interest low-key, fearing that any overt U.S. role could embolden Iranian hardliners, three Republican congressman are demanding that Tehran give them visas so that they can be on the ground as Iranians cast ballots.

After all, the three argue, what better way for the Islamic Republic to prove that its elections are free and fair than to allow skeptical Americans to watch them up close?

"We’re the perfect people," Rep. Mike Pompeo of Kansas told POLITICO, referring to himself and House colleagues Lee Zeldin of New York and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey. "The Iranians should be demanding that we come."

They're not. Iran's Foreign Ministry has dismissed the lawmakers' request as "a political-propaganda act," although technically it hasn't denied them visas. And the Obama administration isn't exactly taking up the Republicans' cause. ("They, like everyone else, should carefully read our travel warning," a State Department official said, adding, "We have no control over who Iran issues a visa to.")

U.S. officials say they can't remember the last time a sitting member of Congress visited Iran, a country that hasn't had diplomatic ties with the U.S. since 1980, and that there are no American officials based there who could help support a congressional delegation.

Still, political stunt or not, the lawmakers' travel hopes underscore Republican frustration with Obama's outreach to Iran, which GOP leaders allege has merely emboldened a rogue state. Their visa requests also come as the Iran nuclear deal remains a flashpoint in the American presidential race.

In a letter that accompanied their visa applications earlier this month, Zeldin, LoBiondo and Pompeo request meetings with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the head of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, among other Iranian officials. They also ask for access to facilities known to have housed Iran's nuclear program, which has largely been dismantled since the nuclear deal was struck last July.

The Republicans further request "unmonitored and lengthy" meetings with any Americans held prisoner in Iran; there is at least one, businessman Siamak Namazi, though several were recently freed. The lawmakers also ask Iranian leaders for briefings on Iran's recent ballistic missile tests and its day-long detention last month of 10 U.S. sailors.

Mainly, however, the House members say they are eager to observe the elections. ("What a historic occasion," the lawmakers write. "We look forward to seeing Iranian democracy in action.")

Iran analysts aren't convinced Friday's vote will be all that historic, but they say how well moderate factions do could be a useful barometer of where Iranian politics are headed, at least in the immediate wake of the nuclear deal.

Iranians will be voting for two institutions: the 290-seat Iranian parliament; and the 88-member Assembly of Experts, a group of Islamic scholars and jurists responsible for selecting a successor to the supreme leader, Khamenei, presumably when the 76-year-old dies. In Iran's opaque and complex system, where Khamenei has the ultimate say, both bodies have limited power.

The political spectrum in Iran runs roughly from "reformists" to "moderates," to "conservatives" to "hardliners," all fungible terms. More than 12,000 Iranians registered to run for parliament alone, according to reports from the region, although about half were rejected in a screening process that appeared to favor hardliners and conservatives.

Rouhani, a cleric who won the presidency in 2013, is considered a moderate. A strong showing by moderate candidates could help Rouhani gain more influence over parliament. It also could prove popular support for sustaining the nuclear deal, which required Iran to curb its nuclear program in return for relief from economic sanctions. But Rouhani will still have less power than Khamenei and limited ability to maneuver with Iran's military apparatus.

"I don’t necessarily see how this one election for two bodies that are important but not the ultimate decision-makers is going to determine the pathway forward for U.S.-Iran relations," said Ilan Goldenberg, a former Obama administration official now with the Center for a New American Security. "It will be an indicator for how strong Rouhani and his faction are, how much space they might have after the agreement and how much the supreme leader will allow the hardliners to push back."

As is standard diplomatic practice, the U.S. generally avoids all but the most generic commentary on other countries' electoral processes. And when it comes to Iran, whose 1978-79 Islamic Revolution was spurred in part by anger over U.S. interference, the situation has grown especially complicated.

Not only does the U.S. want to see Iran keep adhering to the nuclear deal, it also needs Tehran's cooperation to try to end the war in Syria and is pushing it to free Americans still in its custody. Iran also has been fighting the Islamic State terrorist network, a common foe of the U.S., but it is engaged in proxy fights in Yemen and other places against Saudi Arabia and other Arab allies of the United States.

Although Obama and his aides hope that in the long run engaging Iran will help liberalize the country and make it more democratic, they have insisted they are under no illusions that will happen anytime soon, and that the nuclear deal was not built around trusting Iran, which remains on America's list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Asked for a statement on the Iranian elections, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said: "All Iranians should have the opportunity to express themselves freely regarding the future of their country. We hope Iran conducts its election in a manner that not only conforms to international standards of transparency and accountability but represents the will of the Iranian people.”

The three Republicans hoping to observe Iran's elections dismiss such timid commentary, arguing that the administration is worried that pressing Iran too hard could lead it to abandon the nuclear deal. "The administration is finding an excuse not to criticize Iran on anything," LoBiondo said.

They also insist that a lack of U.S. involvement can backfire. In 2009, as Iranians protested the country's presidential election results, the Obama administration was accused of being too slow to weigh in, even as authorities violently cracked down on what became known as the Green Movement. A frustrated Obama pointed out that even limited comments he made had been used by hardliners in Iran to allege the protests were engineered by the United States.

Ultimately, the Green Movement was crushed along with the dreams of Iran's liberals, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hugely divisive figure who questioned whether the Holocaust happened, was declared re-elected as Iran's president.

"We said at that time it was none of our business," Zeldin said of 2009. "So for us to take the position that whoever is in charge of Iran is really none of our business— it’s actually resulted in significantly more headaches for us, not less."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/iran-congress-219494#ixzz40wLvK6dr