What Does Iran Mean?

Ezra Klein writes:

...those of us who have long argued for the fundamental rationality of the Iranian regime have seen our case fundamentally weakened. A rational regime might have stolen the election. But they would not have stolen it like this, where there is no doubt of the theft. This is like robbers leaving muddy footprints and a home address. Tehran's evident vote-tampering is tempting both domestic revolution and international isolation. That they appear to fear neither says something very unsettling about the mental state of the regime.

Klein makes two mistakes here. The first is that arguments about the rationality of the Iranian regime on the world stage are independent of the internal affairs of Iran. Just because a regime abuses its power and deprives the people of their vote does not mean that they lack rationality internationally. Some might question the illegal behavior of former presidents, but that does not mean that their foreign policy lacks rationality.

The second mistake Klein makes is that the regime's actions have in fact bolstered arguments about its overall rationality. Neocons have made the argument that Iran is like a suicide bomber, meaning it cannot be deterred or reasoned with. Neocons blame this on Jihadism. Well, the Iranian regime has revealed itself to be no more attached to religion than it is to democracy. Stealing an election is a rational act committed by people who wish to retain their power. A commitment to a suicidal form of Islam makes the guise of an election pointless. What was pointless was the guise of Islam. This isn't a theocracy or a religious police state. It's a police state, it's an autocracy.