Iran is now deep in the throws of a "political" crisis. The extreme Islamists that hold real power in government, the Council of Guardians, has banned hundreds of "reform"-minded candidates from running in "elections" scheduled for next month. Now Iran's top extremist, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is claiming to have intervened on behalf of the reformists. So am I to believe that the man responsible for ruling the world's "most active state sponsor of terrorism" (Iran) is helping reformists? I'm not sure if I even believe the "reformists" are really reformers. Here we have Iran's pretend democracy. I don't know what else to call it.

In a true democracy, no one group can hold absolute power. But in Iran, the Islamists can and have overruled the decisions of the country's pseudo-democratic institutions. Absolute veto power is not checks and balances. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami won a landside election in 1997 on a platform of reform. He won a second term in 2001. He took some limited steps in liberalizing Iran. For example, he introduced legistlation into the Majlis (parliament) that would've limited the power of the Council of Guardians. The Guardians promptly vetoed the bill, ruling it unconstitutional (of course). Many Iranians have since protested against Khatami and his Islamist puppet-masters. They're obviously unhappy with the slow pace of reforms.

So now Iran's Supreme Leader claims to be supporting the reformist candidates. According to the BBC's Jim Muir,

It is Mr Khamenei who will act as the fulcrum around which the balance settles. He alone has the authority to intervene in case of deadlock or a danger of tensions exploding out of hand.

His influence with the GC [Guardian Council] cannot be gainsaid - of its 12 members, he appoints six outright, and the other six (although endorsed by parliament) are appointed by the head of the judiciary, himself a Khamenei appointee.

Ayatollah Khamenei is not a power figure with an independent base in his own right. His authority is drawn from his position, but in reality he is an arbiter trying to balance conflicting pressures and use his influence to persuade or dissuade.

Translation: Khamenei is an unelected thug who will play whatever games are necessary to maintain the tenuous status quo in Iran. What is that status quo? It is the rule of a religious elite who have created sham elections and sham pseudo-democratic institutions in an attempt to pacify an allienated, frustrated, and disenfranchised populace. What a dangerous game Khamenei is now playing. If he lets his Islamist friends win outright and ban all the candidates they dislike, there will likely be popular demonstrations of discontent. The Islamists will react by sending in the riot police to beat up enough Iranians to suppress the demonstrations. After all, Mr. Muir admits,

Some hardliners have made it clear they would like to see the reformists, whom they regard as little more than traitors pandering to the West, eliminated from political life.

But Khamenei is too shrewd to let the conservatives get their way completely. He'll force them to allow some of the candidates back into the elections, hopefully enough to prevent mass demonstrations. But he'll allow his thugs to disqualify enough candidates to keep the right-wingers happy. Khamenei wants to have it both ways: Keep the conservatives from overreacting and keep the populace from staging a mass uprising. Thus he ensures the status quo. The elite stay in power and the people remain not miserable enough to overthrow their Islamist overlords.

Indeed a dangerous game. Suppose the Supreme Leader miscalculates, either by not appeasing the conservatives or by alientating his own people -- again. Which is worse? In one scenario, the Islamists feel too threatened by reformist candidates and send in the thugs to beat people up, which may cause a popular uprising. The other scenario: a popular uprising ensues due to candidate disqualifications, and the Islamists send in the thugs. How long can this precarious balance be sustained? How long can pretend democracy keep the people down? And how many of the "reformers" are really reformers if they can actually survive in a system ruled by Islamist thugs?

I've recently suggested that Iranians could topple their current government through sit-ins, work slow-downs, general strikes, mass demonstrations, underground newspapers, and online opposition blogs. They have showed no signs recently of doing so en masse in response to the current political crisis. The terrible earthquake in Iran last month, and the Islamists' pathetic attempts to help it victims, didn't seem to evoke much of a response either. Maybe many Iranians are just disillusioned or tired of getting beat up. I don't know. How long can the lid be forced the stay on the pressure-cooker?

I urge all people sympathetic to the plight of the Iranian people to listen in tomorrow to a live virtual conference which advocates a "plan for the peaceful removal of the Islamic Regime."