Iran’s political system is complex and confusing.  But the basic point is that it is a form of dictatorship with Supreme Leader Khamenei in charge.  The protests on the street suggest it is weaker than ever before.  My research with David Lucca and Tomas Sjöström suggests regimes which are neither democracies nor dictatorships but something in between can be the most aggressive of all.

I used this idea for an opinion piece in the New York Times. Here it is:

A stolen election, and what it reveals about the security of Iran’s ruling elite, means that it is more important than ever to engage with Iran.

So far the signs from the Obama administration are encouraging: “The administration will deal with the situation we have, not what we wish it to be,” one senior official said. Let’s hope the administration understands what that situation is.

President Obama is in a difficult position. He under pressure to speak out more and take a tougher line with Iran, as Senator McCain has. But the main issue is not whether the election was stolen or not, but what it reveals about Ayatollah Khamenei’s hold on power.

If we respond with our own saber-rattling, this is more likely to inflame the situation than ever before.

Under Khamenei’s leadership, the Revolutionary Guard has become more powerful and taken over parts of the economy. The disputed election suggests that Khamanei’s position has become weaker as the public distaste for Ahmadinejad’s policies has grown. If we respond with our own saber-rattling, this is more likely to inflame the situation than ever before. A strong dictator can be passive in the face of aggression and still survive in power. But a weak dictator must respond forcibly to every threat to his rule.

The key question is whether Khamenei will ratchet up aggression to survive in power. One way to consolidate power is to win a war. If the regime’s survival is in question, it may destabilize the region and pursue nuclear weapons in a bid to consolidate internal support. A democratic leader may also try to use aggression to drum up support for re-election.

A careful study of history finds that weak dictatorships like Iran, that lie in between full democracy or strong dictatorships, can be the most warlike of all.

I might add one more point:  I would love for the Obama administration to “help the demonstrators” somehow.  But making a statement in their support will backfire as it will give an excuse to display demonstrations as American sponsored.  Iranian TV can just run footage of Obama making the statement, translate it and interpret it in a biased way and literally beat protesters over the head with it.