It looks as though Ahmadinejad’s grip on power is not that strong. As Amir Taheri writes in today’s New York Post,

Four years ago, he won as a populist candidate who owed no debt of gratitude to “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei (who had tacitly endorsed another candidate). His prestige was further enhanced when, in a second round of voting, he crushed former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, a grandee of the Khomeinist nomenklatura. Ahmadinejad could claim that he was his own man, relying on no establishment cabals.

The June 12 election changed all that. Whatever the truth of allegations about massive fraud, the fact is that many Iranians, perhaps a majority, believe that Ahmadinejad didn’t win. To many, his re-election seems merely the result of plotting by a power clique centered on Khamenei.

He and his protector may still come up on top. But their failure to have quashed the opposition, three weeks after the elections, suggests that they now stand on shaky ground.

Supporting the opposition has been depicted as “meddling” and that may well be accurate. But keeping our hands stretched to the regime is also starting to look the same — given that the “business as usual” posture adopted by engagers ends up strengthening the tyrants. Perhaps this is a time to stand aloof then — and simply say, how can we engage someone who has no power to deliver anything?

If the opposition comes out on top, how embarrassing would it be for the West to be found engaging the losing tyrants? Holding off talks indefinitely seems the least the West can do at this time.