Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama stumbles: A chilling week in which we forget that engagement is a tactic not a goal...
Like any new president, Barack Obama has stumbled as he grappled with the learning curve associated with the world's most demanding job. Given the range of issues with which he was confronted from his first day in office, it has only been fair that he should be not be judged too quickly and that his ideas and his team had time to take root and grow. In some areas, he has achieved notable success, such as his efforts to improve America's image in the world and his effort to move quickly to respond to the economic crisis. In others, such as the efforts to restart the auto industry or make meaningful changes in the regulation of the financial sector, the jury is out. As for real health care reform and meaningful steps to combat climate change, the key legislation is still being shaped, the key votes months away.
But as this week comes to an end, I think it is fair to say that Obama's foreign policy has suffered its first major failure, one that may haunt it for a long time to come. As those of you who have been reading this blog for the past few days know, I've been grappling with the issue of the administration's response...or lack thereof...to Iran's stolen election and the opposition's efforts to contest the results in the streets. Because I see the merits in stopping and evaluating a situation before responding. And I understand the reasons to maintain an open dialogue with the regime in Tehran.
But as each day of the week has gone by, America's silence seems less defensible. Do we really intend to engage the current regime as if nothing had happened? Do we really believe it is useful to send a message that America doesn't care any longer, won't act, won't speak out, won't penalize or criticize or seek to pressure those who compromise or crush democracy?
The administration seems to be saying that we can't afford ill will from anyone, even countries whose regimes denounce us and our allies. They seem to be worried that by supporting the opposition they will be tainted by association with us rather than empowered by it. And they seem to be saying that they can't think of any approaches better than their silence to advance our interests.
Why? Because multilateral diplomacy is so difficult? Britain, France, and Germany have all made stronger statements, we could have made one together? Why? Because the Chinas of this world would never go along with our statements because it puts them in a difficult light? The statement could have come from western powers alone. We don't need unanimity in matters like this. We need a forceful message that countries that violate the basic rights of their citizens should expect to pay a price for such behavior in the international community. Those who rise up in those countries should also know that the international community or a substantial portion of it will work tirelessly to support them to make the risks they are taking worthwhile.
We can seek engagement without checking our values at the door. Indeed, to do otherwise is to make engagement pointless. Why engage if it is not to advance our interests? How naïve it is to think that won't involve challenging, offending, even battling those with whom we are engaged. That doesn't mean our battles must be wars or produce the needless rifts of the Bush years.
But we must ask, in our silence did we send a message to Ayatollah Khamenei that might make he and his cronies feel more comfortable in using violence to suppress the pro-Democracy protestors? In our weak response to Kim Jong Il do we send a message that he may proceed with his nuclear and missile provocations effectively unchecked? In our desire to undo the damage of the Bush years by reaching out to former enemies, do we strengthen those who we should seek to weaken, tolerate the intolerable, fail to take action where action is called for?
I'm afraid the answer is yes. We are back on our heels. This does not make the world safer or conflict any less likely. Quite the contrary. Bush debased American leadership with his actions. Obama should remember that it is just as possible to do so through inaction.
There are many things this administration could have and should have said that would not undercut that which is sound in their foreign policy. They could have said… ideally in chorus with our allies… that the international community was disturbed by apparent irregularities, that any recount or investigation should be made by objective observers, that the suppression of peaceful protests would be viewed with great concern, that Iran would jeopardize its talks with the international community if it undertook violence or condoned voter fraud, that nuclear weapons agreements depend on trust and that countries that seek such trust must act accordingly, that while we seek to maintain engagement, there are limits to what we will tolerate and that we reserve all our options to advance our interests. They could have convened a meeting among like-minded countries to discuss options, sent an envoy, formally postponed further discussions of the nuclear issue until this situation was clarified. They could have raised a doubt in the minds of the leaders in Tehran about how we would react in the face of a crackdown, that there might be consequences.
If all this would make the Chinese uncomfortable because they might fear they could be accused of similar indifference to the rights of their citizens, well, that's too bad. It's a message they too need to hear. Capitulation to them on every issue simply because they are big (and yes, I am talking to you, Google management) creates terrible precedents and invites further bad acts.
Is the vision a world in which engagement becomes the ultimate objective of all foreign relations? Just as critics once rightly reminded the Bush administration that terror was not an enemy it was a tactic, so is it worth remembering that engagement is also just a tactic and not a goal in and of itself? While we should sacrifice to preserve our core values and interests, we should not sacrifice those values and interests to preserve our tactics.
JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
David Rothkopf is the author of Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making and Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power. He is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf, a Washington, DC-based international advisory firm.
really very well said. obama
really very well said. obama timidity was accetpable, even understandable, but only unto a point. he needs to come out and be strong, now. the iranian people, and the free world need him to.
Too Late - now he really should shut up
Hey look, the Bozo in Chief has really lost this one. The revolution in Iran is over, and it wasn't televised, because of one Affirmative Reaction candidate moron, who hogs all the airtime!!!
It's too late. We lost, and its because Retardeo couldn't be bothered to open his mouth. Hitler won an election, and no one raised their voice, and the stupid media was too confused, and so everyone else was confused.
But salutations to FP - it was a rare oasis of reason, and Rothkopf and Rozen and Drezner were on top of it.
Your premise is flawed.
Obama has not been silent. He will continue not to be silent. His response will track with events.
I'm with you on this David
I'm with you on this David BUT
There is something fishy going on.
Remember Axelrod?
Astrotufing.
Making it look natural.
Making it look bottom up.
Obama even used the same rhetoric today - "story" people have their "stories". This is pure Axelrod.
Conclusion?
There is a possibility, that the game has changed. Axelrod and Comp. are extremely confident in their game-plan. They can afford to sit there playing dumb (as they did during the elections while smearing Clinton as a racist, and a bigot). Today is the Iranian tipping point. And we may win it - by virtue of Axelrod.
This would explain, why the intitial EU reaction was forceful, and then dissappeared. Sarkozy was fed some info, and he piped down.
I dare say, there are other tell-tale signs here. Just need to aggregate them. Believe it or not - Ahmedinedjad is right - we are behind this, after all. Maybe we need to review 1954? I remember the BBC-Iran had some harsh words for the government back then.
Believe it or not -
Believe it or not - Ahmedinedjad is right - we are behind this, after all.
Ah, you're starting to think it out. Good.
So how deep are we in this? And what is the goal?
This ought to be amusing
If you want any chance at all, any, of Moussavi winning and/or the US successfully engaging with Iran, then the US government needs to resist the temptation to "take sides" in what amounts to an internal Iranian dispute.
Remember, "blaming the foreigner" (particularly the US and UK) is an established way in which the Iranian regime maintains its hold on power - witness Khamenei's speech, when he blamed foreign interference and criticized the UK as the worst. He's playing on a deep well of suspicion of foreign intervention among the Iranian populace, and for the US to say "This is all fraudulent bullshit - Ahmadinejad is no legitimately elected president!" would be as good as signing the political death warrant for Moussavi.
In Iran, they will. Khamenei is already trying to exploit the "foreign interference" card.
Because aside from Great Britain, none of those countries have been viewed as the "boogeyman" inside Iran. Even the UK largely kept their mouth shut until Khamenei's remark on them being the worst of all foreign countries interfering in Iran, and their response amounted to dressing down the Iranian ambassador.
Like what - harsh rhetoric? God knows the world has enough hot air, and that certainly hasn't stopped, say, Burma or China.
You're like Christian Brose over on the "Shadow Government" blog - you seem to be living in some fantasy world where the US actually has some leverage over a country it has no diplomatic and even few commercial relations with, with said country specifically using the threat of US interference as a boogeyman to unify the populace on nationalistic grounds.
Here's a hint - all the progress we've seen so far, such as the repeated protests and the willingness to stand up to Khamenei and the Basij on this by the opposition, has been done by the Iranian people, and them alone. This is their problem, and for the US to interfere would be severely counterproductive if we want anything to change in the Iranian status quo during this situation.
Sometimes, choosing not to engage is the best choice. Considering Iran's case, I think it is the best choice in this situation.
And as others with far more expertise on Iran than either you or me have said, actively trying to take sides, to insert ourselves in this situation, would be counterproductive. It would be against our interests, since Khamenei could then use it as a political tool to knock down challenges to this control.
It's not our fight, Rothkopf. I know it goes against your grain to accept that, but we need to simply stand back and let the Iranians settle their own shit, without giving the authorities tools to undermine change within the system.
Khamenei and his supporters don't particularly give a shit as to whether or not the US approves of their efforts to violently suppress the pro-Democracy protesters. They did severe repression and crackdowns even during the Khatami period, when the US did respond with condemnation.
Again, I must re-emphasize - criticizing Khamenei and the situation at this point, taking sides, would be playing into Khamenei's hands. He's fond of exploiting the "foreign meddling" card, and we would just be giving him more ammunition.
Funny that few Iranians, plus neither of the actual governments of France and Germany (both of whom have said things akin to "We know the US can't get involved in this right now, that's okay, we'll speak out") seem to agree with you.
When did you become such an idealist, Rothkopf, believing so strongly in the power of multilateralism and the US's rhetorical "power"?
I don't know what's more sad - the fact that you think this would actually make a difference (considering that there's been plenty of international condemnation for prior Iranian crackdowns before, with little influence), or the fact that you think that the current governments will lift a finger to punish Iran for its election irregularities.
In this case, considering Iran's history, it is a bad tactic.
I can honestly say this is one of your more disappointing posts, David. It's woefully ignorant of Iranian politics and history, as well as the actual influence that the US has in the situation.
You call this Obama's first great foreign policy failure - I call it one of his first triumphs. He's shown restraint, realized that there are times when US words and engagement can be more harmful than beneficial, and because of it, the ability of Khamenei to successfully blame foreign interference has been blunted, not enhanced. That's no mean feat in dealing with a country where "resistance" was the foundational principle of the regime after the Shah's fall.
It's actually been a blazing success,
in which Obama is receiving stellar marks in experienced diplomatic circles, neoconservativism has been shown to be a dead letter in the halls of power (at least for the moment), its adherents and liberal fellow-travellers have been on display for their irrelevance, and America stands as a potential beneficiary of epochal change in Iran if the cards go one way, but with very few chips on the table should they not. A 'coup,' if I may be so bold.
Moreover, what Obama said this week need not necessarily have intersected with, and certainly not predetermined, how the engagement agenda goes forward or is held up (though in point of fact it has interstected, as Obama's central message, contra Rothkopf's misleading account, has been that we are watching and what we see will affect our view of the regime, thus implicitly our relations). That discussion (the state of relations going forward) is obviously a legitimate and necessary one, which I would think should be gotten underway when the new status quo becomes apparent, though obviously David has thoughts on it now. But he is mistaken that our rhetoric around democratic and civil values during the crisis must be of a piece with our diplomatic approach (or decision to refrain from one) afterwards.
Far from stumbling, Obama has in fact looked strong in resisting pressure to escalate rhetoric, or even overreact in concrete ways as we see urged here.
Dumb
How absurd that this person is taken seriously. He actually thinks that Khamenei would think twice if Obama gave him a stern warning???!!! What's Obama going to do? Send the Rangers in from Iraq?! Rothkopf is a cretin, why anyone would pay him a penny for his insight into anything is baffling, the man's 24 karat dunce.
The truth is that the fuel that is driving what is happening in Iran is generated within Iran. It is building in intensity and potency and will topple Khamenei sooner or later. Any interference beyond what the President has already said would be incredibly foolish. Imagine if McCain were President, Oy!!!
In the meantime Rothkopf needs to check into a retirement home.
Kissinger
I see that Rothkopf used to run Henry K's shop. Did he not hear K's support of Obama's position on Fox News of all places! Again, this man's as dumb as a rock.
It looks like Obama responded
It looks like Obama responded with a statement, although he still kept it mostly to criticizing the Iranian government for cracking down on its people.
You mean
another statement. Doing that more strongly now as the violence escalates.
Embarrassing that Rothkopf is carried here
This is embarrassingly bad advice. Rothkopf seems to have no sense of how poor such a statement of condemnation would go over in Iran, how it would play precisely into the reactionary faction's hand.
How he ever got this gig at FP or any other gig in foreign policy circles is beyond me. Sad because there are people at FP like Lynch and Walt that really know their stuff, and then there is Rothkopf who is neocon light, which is actually worse than being a neocon. The neocons actually know what they want-- they want Obama to condemn the Iranian government precisely because they want to empower Admadinejad. See Daniel Pipes' blog for one example.
How he ever got this gig at
How he ever got this gig at FP or any other gig in foreign policy circles is beyond me.
The first time I got a computer programming job, the head of the company explained to me that it wasn't so important that I was excellent at programming because in reality that was only about 10% of the job. I thought that was silly. If I was going to be a programmer then of course the job was programming.
My predecessor left because he found a job in Denver, a much better place to raise his family. He was not good at programming. Looking at his logs, I saw that it often took him days or even weeks to do things I could complete and test in minutes. But then I started interacting with customers. "Bob's gone? What the hell? We need Bob!" He was great at explaining things to customers, which I found surprising since I saw no indication that he understood the things he was explaining to them. They loved his estimates. I gave them estimates with confidence intervals, and they hated it. (It turned out they didn't want error bars on the estimates, they wanted promises.) And then there was communicating with the other programmers. It didn't help that I saw problems a long way away when I couldn't convince them about it or explain the problems so they could see how to avoid them. And there was communicating with the boss. Whenever she thought something had gone wrong she wanted to figure out whose fault it was, and at least half of the job was to do things in a way that would avoid blame.
It turned out that because I was so good at programming, the job was only 5% programming instead of 10%. Getting the programming done with half the effort meant I had a little bit more capability to do the rest of it.
How he ever got this gig at FP or any other gig in foreign policy circles is beyond me.
All you see is his posts. But posting is surely only a small fraction of the actual work to be a successful blogger. Other things might easily be more important. You can criticise his posts if you want to -- you see them. But don't criticise his ability to do the job until you demonstrate you can do it better.
More than meets the eye to blogging?
Though I agree it is best to stick to criticism of the views expressed and not the person or his abilities, I do wonder what the elements of the position of blogger are that a blogger's overall aptitude for the task can't be fairly judged by inspection of the totality of the output.
MDrew, I'm glad you asked
MDrew, I'm glad you asked that.
Sometimes people think that mastery of the subject matter is central to blogging. But this is far from the truth. A blogger who wants comments, who presents a perfect jewel of a post that covers all the bases with perfect expertise will not get any comments worth having.
So it's more important for a blogger to present good questions than to provide good answers. You can see this often at Rick's blog. He covers lots of military topics, and he doesn't claim to be expert in many of them. If he did claim that then many military and ex-military readers would shun him as an ignorant fool. What he does instead is to present things as if he's an amateur, and then he lets them present professional opinions and he encourages them to argue with each other. While he does strongly take sides, he gives each military commenter a respectful hearing and they flock to him -- they get a forum. To some extent they get a chance to persuade civilians, and a chance to persuade Ricks who's influential and ignorant, and they get to argue with each other in an unofficial semi-anonymous place. Often it works out well.
A good blogger must attract commenters. But that isn't enough. Anyone who has enough readers can start an israel/palestine or israel/arab or israel/muslim thread and get comments. But far too often it's just the same people repeating the same tired old stands. Walt and Rothkopf both occasionally post things in ways that encourage something new, a fresh look. This despite their both having firm doctrinaire opinions themselves. It's hard to analyse how they do it. I have some complex theories about it, but I can't begin to predict which times it will work. I think the best explanation so far is that they are people that new ideas sometimes happen around.
Then there are the social aspects. Bloggers quote each other and throw audiences to each other some. I think the hope isn't so much that they'll vampire-suck readers from each other. I think it's more that when it's just the same commenters on one blog it gets stale, and when they swap out some they both get new points of view. There are various invisible skills connected to this.
Also, a carefully-arranged enmity can help two blogs. People who like to watch other people fight will show up for a glorious argument when they'd ignore rational solutions. Some of them will make interesting comments, too. How does a blogger decide which attacks to respond to and which to ignore? I don't know. I don't even know how to tell which approach is correct in any given case.
How does a blogger decide which topics to follow? Not from his own expertise, which is irrelevant provided he knows enough that the majority of readers aren't embarrassed for him. To do it well requires a good feel for what the rest of the blogging community is doing. Consider The Argument and The Call, both of which have ignored iran recently. Some blogs are getting impassioned knockdown arguments about iran, but they want no part of it. It's a big world, and people who want political blogs but who're sick of iran need a place to go. These blogs satisfy that need. It's like each blog is attempting to fill its own unique ecological niche. How do bloggers pick a good niche? Another imponderable.
Then there are the things that are completely hidden. Rothkopf occasionally talks about important people he knows personally. His old college roommate, people he's gone on vacation with, whatever. Do readers want to read a blogger who knows important people? Maybe. Did his connections help him get into the Foreign Policy network? Likely. Is there somebody who could do a better job of actually running the blog but that nobody's ever heard of? Probably, there are so many many people that are mostly unknown and who therefore have no chance to show their stuff that a few of them would probably be superb. Having connections is an important part of it. You could say it should not be, but it is.
There are potentially so many invisible qualifications for the role that you should not decide who's good at it unless you're good at it yourself. And even then you might not understand what it is you do right.
A lot of very interesting thoughts there.
A few reactions/questions.
1) I certainly understand that a lot of different things go into whether someone is able to turn out a good blog, and the person has to put a lot of different things into the blog to make it good. And a lot of those behind-the-scenes factors aren't themselves directly visible on the blog. That seems intuitive. I think my question remains the same though: what is the reason we shouldn't judge whether all those things are being mixed with the right alchemy to make a good blog by looking at the blog (to include its comments and the reactions it gets)?
2) The social aspect is certainly an important part of having success as a blogger. No doubt a good portion of the linkage and readership-sharing that goes on flows as much out of networking and off-line relationships as from 'earned' recognition gained purely through producing excellent content. And the success gained that way is certainly considered by hosting publications (and their ownership) as pertinent to various bloggers' aptitude. My focus was more explicitly on quality as experienced by the reader. In general, a greater number of quality links on a blog improve my experience of it, but all the links in the world don't replace quality, thoughtful, well-reasoned, and provocative posts. Reader enjoyment is obviously subjective, but I would venture to suggest that few blog consumers, as opposed to hosts, would say a blog is a better reading experince because it gets higher traffic.
3) You do bring up an important exception to the idea I am exploring (that blogging proof is in the pudding): the VIP blogger. In cases where the person blogging has special connections to the matters s/he discusses (esp. in quarters average folks don't have access to), the question of the value of the product is lifted off what appears on the screen, in a sense. That is to say, if we have enough information about who the blogger is and therefore whom he knows (and how), we can glean things from what he (or she) does or doesn't say with respect to these contacts, or draw conclusions about the veracity of his speculations -- so forth and so on. Then again, in another sense, all that is still dependent on what the guy (or gal) posts, is it not? I mean...Rahm Emmanuel could start a cooking blog; would it be essential political reading merely by dint of his position?
4) Andrew Sullivan does not host comments at all (except via email). Is he not a good blogger, or do you simply mean that a successful blog generates reaction, even if it is not hosted on the site?
5) Where can we read your blog?
I think my question remains
I think my question remains the same though: what is the reason we shouldn't judge whether all those things are being mixed with the right alchemy to make a good blog by looking at the blog
You're right, it's fine to do that.
I was originally responding to the comment "How he ever got this gig at Foreign Policy is beyond me" where the commenter disagreed with Rothkopf's own conclusions and considered that reason for Rothkopf to fail. But blogging success doesn't depend on saying things that commenters agree with, or even things that are objectively true. Contrary to common wisdom it doesn't even depend on reader satisfaction, any more than successful businesses necessarily depend on customer satisfaction. (They need customers to buy and preferably to keep coming back to buy again. Customer satisfaction is one thing that can influence that result, it isn't an end in itself and it isn't necessarily helpful.)
Andrew Sullivan does not host comments at all (except via email). Is he not a good blogger
That's my own bias. I don't read Sullivan for that reason and I don't consider him to be blogging. He's successful at what he does.
Where can we read your blog?
I've forgotten. I posted there some, mostly about original political ideas. Most of the responses I considred spam, things like "That's an interesting and important idea and you can read more about the topic on my blog [link]" and "I never thought of it that way. Free porn![link] Buy a genuine Rolex[link]!"
It took a significant time to delete the spam, and usually once I did that there were no comments left. There were a couple of interesting comments about health care, though.
Perhaps if I had worked hard enough at it and schmoozed well enough I might have eventually turned it into something that made a modest living. But I found it much more fun to comment on other people's blogs. Sometimes people respond who would never have searched out my blog . The name was "The Radical Center" and it's surely choked with spam now. I came up with the name 20+ years ago, but Michael Lind published it as a book title before I used it.
Lots of agreement
Commenting is fun, and a good part of the value of reading blogs. I wouldn't necessarily give all credit for good discussions to the blogger, but some certainly has to go there. I think we may have fundamentally different ideas about what makes a successful (or a good) blog, but that's the name of the game.
Thanks for a good discussion.
One other comment
What is really astounding in this post is that Rothkopf speaks of "our values" in such a naive and ingenuous way that it takes one's breath away. As if such "values" have not been compromised again and again by US actions like the Iraq invasion or uncritical support of 40 years of Israeli occupation or support of the Saudis and the Mubarak regime or intervention after intervention into the affairs of other countries. Does Rothkopf really think that the average Iranian protester is not aware of these inconsistencies? Does FP really think that its average reader is not aware of such inconsistancies? The last thing those protesters on the street need right now is the support of the US government.
Cut this blogger loose and replace him with someone that actually knows his stuff. Just embarrassing. You could hire any hack at the the UK's Guardian or the UK's Independent and get more for your money.
I can't help but observe...
What an interesting thread here. I'll avoid commenting on whether or not I cut the mustard as a blogger except to say that blogging is not like writing opeds. It is about sharing views even as they evolve, even when they change, as a stimulus to readers own thoughts. Even the hostile ones. Obviously, I'd prefer it everyone thought I was right all the time. Or smart. Or funny when I was trying to be. But all I can offer in the end is my own voice. If people find that interesting, all the better.
As for the comments of the likes of "Madrid" that this post offers stupid advice...well, I'll leave that for others to judge. The recommendations I made here on Friday however, as to the sum and substance of what the Obama Administration could constructively say vis a vis Iran actually track pretty closely with what they have said in the days since, starting with their Saturday statement. They may be wrong too of course. But I thought I would note it...for your consideration.
Your critics who keep coming
Your critics who keep coming back are in some way approving of your ability as a blogger.
Fook Hussein!
Well, I posited two hypotheses -
1) Obama was a sphynx, because he was over-confident in the new-Axelrodian revolutionary methods, or
2) Obama was an idiot. So he was clueless, and knew not what to say.
Apparently, it was the latter.
We destroyed Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. Now, we took away their only chance at democracy. And the bozo who went apologizing for 1953, is the one who made 2009 possible.
What's that old saying about history having a sense of humor...or no, it was Marx - history repeats itself - first time, as tragedy, second time as a farce. FARCE isn't the word! It makes Bush's lies on WMD's look like a game of dreidle!
Clap clap clap. Husseino - affirmative action candidate - clueless. Ready on day-one - To kiss ass and appologize, for a history her apparently hates, or fails to identify with.
The Messiah - spreading Peace through submission, ignorance, incompetence.
Predictable.
I said it on day one. The comments of foreign policy prove it.
We destroyed Iran's
We destroyed Iran's democratically elected government in 1953. Now, we took away their only chance at democracy.
What are you sniveling about now? Whyever would you think this is iran's only chance for democracy?
England got many many chances for democracy over a period of 800 years or so. They're doing pretty well even though they missed a lot of chances.
How does a big mob in the street lead to democracy? Usually it doesn't. Lots of communist states started that way. You start with a lot of people in the street against the government, and the government falls apart, and somebody steps up to start a new government and they let him. Will it be democracy? Who knows?
Iran probably won't have a secular homosexual president any time soon. But would they anyway? I expect the USA won't unless he's very much closeted.
So the contested election will play out legally. Maybe the faction at fault will suffer for it, or the particular people who did it, assuming as seems plausible that it's found to be wrong. Presumably they'll make their elections somewhat more transparent and harder to fudge.
Meanwhile the minority that doesn't want islamic rule at all will continue to be entirely shut out of the elections, rather like people in the USA who don't like capitalism but somewhat more so. There will be many more chances for "regime change". Maybe this one isn't over.