Editorial: Time running out for Iran's ageing regime

Opinion

It is 30 years since Iran's last political eruption when the Islamic revolution swept the Western-backed Shah from power. Generational change is in the air. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets to protest against a presidential election result that gave the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a landslide victory. They believe the result was rigged and, more fundamentally, seek greater personal freedoms and economic reform. This is the way in which ageing revolutions go to their graveyards.

Both the President and Iran's non-elected ruling clerics will not hand over power easily, of course. They have reacted shrewdly to the student-led protests. After an initial crackdown on dissent, they have tried to cool tensions. Brief reports on the protesters have appeared on state television, and security forces have, in the main, not moved against them. Iran's rulers know they must minimise the number of martyrs to the protesters' cause. Shia Muslims revere martyrdom, and the thousands killed in rioting against the Shah prompted the popular outpouring that led to the Ayatollah Khomeini's rise to power.

In another placatory gesture, the country's current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has directed Iran's Guardians Council, a body comprising clerics and experts in Islamic law, to do a limited recount of disputed votes. The outcome is like to satisfy few. Major questions arise from the speed of the vote count and the lack of detailed election data normally released by officials. Additionally, Mir Hossein Mousavi, the President's reformist challenger, appeared to run a strong campaign, yet did badly even in his Azeri heartland.

Nonetheless, the White House has been right not to make dogmatic statements about the election outcome. It is clear the populist Mr Ahmadinejad retains considerable support among the poor and in the Iranian countryside. Targeted policies to aid those sectors have been enough to offset inept economic management that has produced an unemployment rate of 17 per cent and rampant inflation. The thumbing of the hardline President's nose at Israel and the West is also popular, even if he is an absurd figure to most non-Iranians.

It is plausible, therefore, that Mr Ahmadinejad scored an election victory, even if not to the extent of the officially recorded 62.6 per cent of the vote. But it is even more apparent that time is running out on him and, possibly, the clerics. About a third of the eligible voters are under 30, and a quarter of Iran's population of some 70 million is 15 years or younger. They will determine the country's political future, if not now then over the next five to 10 years.

At the moment, youthful and urban middle-class Iranians are rallying around Mr Mousavi, a former Prime Minister who held office during the bloody war between Iran and Iraq. He is no radical, and would be unlikely to discontinue the nuclear programme that has become a point of pride to Iranians. Nor, necessarily, would he drive any move to repudiate the constitution created by the Islamic revolution. But he does support a less confrontational approach towards the West, which would dovetail with the United States' new-found willingness to engage in dialogue.

That is a far more palatable scenario than four more years of Mr Ahmadinejad's aberrant hostility, paranoia and regional interference. At the moment, it is unclear whether the present movement against the President will gather momentum and, perhaps, target the very basis of Iran's theocracy. But even if the protesters' anger is quelled on this occasion, the restrictions implanted by the country's rulers will continue to gnaw away at young Iranians. In time, they will have their way.