Mullahs even more marginalized in Iran

FT story and editorial.

Story claims the split "deepens Ahmadi-Nejad's woes," but me thinks not.

The trigger:  "a highly controversial interpretation of the Shia faith advanced by close allies of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who advocate a radical mixture of Islam and nationalism."

In effect, Ahmadinejad's guys are saying that Shia Muslims "do not need the clergy . . . to connect with God and that direct links can be made with the last, or 'Hidden Imam', who is believed to have disappeared in 1947."

How convenient--for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Meanwhile, we are told that "the supreme leader is under enormous pressure . . . to remove Mr Ahmadi-Nejad."

Still think the two are on the same side?

As I've argued for years now:  Ahmadinejad's whole scheme is to create a non-clergy-centric, president-centric single-party state with a firm grip over the economy--less a revolutionary state than a sad rerun of Brezhnevian USSR.  The generation of Iran-iraq War vets wants their piece of paper acknowledging their great "triumph" and accomplishments, just like Brezhnev and crew needed that piece of paper from Nixon declaring them a co-equal superpower (lot of good it did them).  

In the end, Ahmadinejad does God's work (pun intended) by disintermediating the clergy and aping the Sovs' sad ideological and economic decline.  He remains a step forward, despite the costs and risks, because, ultimately, those two will prove his undoing.  Nukes will buy him nothing but organized regional resistance, Sunni rapprochement with Israel, etc.

I still bet on Turkey cleaning up--hopefully with our blessing.

Maybe the clergy will strike back at the president, but I continue to bet that the Revolutionary Guard has won decisively in its military putsch and will continue to consolidate power.