It certainly was inspiring to see all those Iraqis voting, but the preliminary results from Baghdad are a lot less encouraging. They show parties with strong ties to Iran winning an overwhelming victory. We recall a spokesman for the State Department back in 1995 or 1996 giving us this explanation for why ousting Saddam Hussein would be a bad idea – it’d allow for the spread of Iranian influence, the argument went. We’re not buying that logic, but it’s not too soon to flash a yellow light about the results of this election, in which a truckload of phony ballots was reportedly intercepted coming into Iraq from Iran.

American election laws outlaw the spending of foreign money to influence an outcome, as President Clinton learned in the battles over Indonesian and Chinese money flowing to the Democratic National Committee. Iraq has a less highly developed system of campaign finance regulation, allowing Iranian influence to run amok. There’s an argument for America remaining neutral and allowing Iraqis to choose their leaders, but standing by while the Iranians steal a free election is another matter entirely.

It may be that this cautionary note is overwrought. Votes are still being counted. But we’ve long warned, with Michael Ledeen and others, that President Bush will have a hard time winning the Battle of Iraq without also winning in Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia. Iran-style government is less and less popular in Iran; it’s hard to see it catching on long-term in Iraq. Our sense is that the Iraqi electorate will sort this out in the medium term. But in the meantime, America needs to be on guard against Iranian influence in Iraq while working to bring to Iranians the genuine freedom enjoyed by Iraqis.