resident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a disputed re-election. There is evidence, mostly circumstantial, that the election was rigged. The interior ministry of Iran first informed the opposition candidate that he was the victor. Then President Ahmadinejad was declared the victor over the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, before a large percentage of the votes had been counted. The disputed re-election has led to rioting in Tehran. It took a couple of days for the mood of the masses to turn from an initial festive mood into an outpouring of disbelief, fury and recrimination.

Public dissent is seldom tolerated in that country, making the demonstrations quite remarkable; not simply for their size but for the public display of defiance against the powerful police and state authorities.

For those whose paramount concern with Iran is their rapidly advancing nuclear weaponry potential. The program will assuredly continue and probably would have under the leadership of Mousavi. The outcome of the election, though challenged in the streets, is unlikely to impact on the outcome. Iran's supreme power, Ayatollah Ali Khameni ,has called Ahmadinejad's win a "divine assessment".

The outcome of the election is not good news for the United States foreign policy and the Obama administration,Their government has ignored president Obama's offer for direct talks. Should it happen that Iran does agree to talk, it would almost certainly send their hard-line negotiators. Mousavi would have been far more likely to be open to talks with the United States.

There could still be a real backlash against Ahmadinejad. Even if they continue to proclaim that he received 63% of the votes, one third of Iranians voted against him. And what should the Obama administration do? Wait and watch.

The demonstrations were remarkable, not just for their size, but fort the display of defiance against the powerful state authorities. In that country, public dissent is not easily tolerated. Violence has flared across Tehran, Shiraz, Esfahan and Rasht ; Far more serious than the student protests of 1999. Who knows what it portends.

The New York Times put it well in a lead editorial, "If the election were truly 'real and free' as Mr. Ahmadinejad insisted, the results would be accepted by the voters and the government would not have to resort to such repression. After 4 years of the man's failed economic policies and ceaseless confrontations with the West, many of Iran's people clearly were yearning for a change. Mr. Moussavi appeared to offer that change; he also promised greater personal freedoms, including for women. The mullahs have held a very tight rein on Iran until now, but perhaps they should remember what happened when the Shah lost his people's trust. "