A View from Outside
Iran’s tenth elections is held in a highly critical periods of its history and has gained the attraction of many countries. It may not be an exaggeration to say that the outcome of elections will affect global developments.
Since Iran went under the rule of a central government, it has always been affected by regional equations and relations between world powers. West’s interests in the region, war against Communism, oil resources and support for the monarchy have all been pretexts for them to intervene with Iran’s domestic affairs in the last century.
U.S and U.K’s intervention in oil contracts, overthrow of governments, removal figures against West’s policies, support or opposition against Shah’s reformist efforts etc. have been all recorded as instances of direct or indirect meddling with Iran’s political developments.
Although Western powers’ influence and the pressure they put on Iran’s economy can affect Iranians’ choice in elections, and turn them against the incumbent government, the Islamic Republic has managed to gain the consent of the public and hold the elections in its desired framework.
Currently, West’s pressure on Iran has no electoral purposes. While Iran is undergoing the hardest times in economy and foreign diplomacy, and as many analysts believe with summer approaching new economic crises are to appear, we should remember that the pressures from world powers have been always at operation and not only related to the elections. About three months ago Nicholas Sarkozy stated that West prefers to start talks with Iran after the elections, implicitly reiterated by United States and Britain, but no manifest effort has been shown by these countries to put an impact on Iran’s political developments.
Ahmadinejad supporters try to show he is United States preference for presidency. They claim that Ahmadinejad’s aggressive policies and muscle-flexing towards West has forced the United States and its allies to sit at the table of negotiations. His policies have stopped their move forward his supporters believe.
Undoubtedly the reactions made by West, and particularly Barack Obama, who have called for diplomacy against enemies has provided Iran’s hard-line administration to –despite withdrawing some of its promises and welcoming negotiations with United States- with a chance to follow its aggressive policies. Ahmadinejad’s diplomacy has exceptionally united West against Iran and brought a smile to Israel’ face. In some cases, his remarks –and not his actions- have bestowed Israel with desired resolutions in the United Nations and have aggravated mistrust towards Iran among Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Arabs’ distance from Iran and their differences in supporting Iran are a blessing for Israel while it has paid no price for it. Europe has allied with United States, Russia and NATO are getting closer, European countries have initiated military presence in Persian Gulf with the Iranophobia wave, Americans are not leaving Iraq under the pretext of countering Iran’s interventions, resistance groups are cracked won and Iran’s influence in Syria and Lebanon is curbed. These are all achievements of Ahmadinejad’s foreign policies.
So we are not pessimistic when we say that the continuance of this trend is more beneficial for West than democratic reforms. In fact, the ascension of a reformist nominee to power will fetter West against imposing further sanctions, and will fail Israel’s plans which are based on isolating Iran and are only achievable in case of tension between Iran and Arab states.
Iran’s return to reformism and peace with the world may be favored by United States since helps them with solving the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it will definitely be a blow to the plans of Israel and Iran’s other regional competitors.
U.S and U.K’s intervention in oil contracts, overthrow of governments, removal figures against West’s policies, support or opposition against Shah’s reformist efforts etc. have been all recorded as instances of direct or indirect meddling with Iran’s political developments.
Although Western powers’ influence and the pressure they put on Iran’s economy can affect Iranians’ choice in elections, and turn them against the incumbent government, the Islamic Republic has managed to gain the consent of the public and hold the elections in its desired framework.
Currently, West’s pressure on Iran has no electoral purposes. While Iran is undergoing the hardest times in economy and foreign diplomacy, and as many analysts believe with summer approaching new economic crises are to appear, we should remember that the pressures from world powers have been always at operation and not only related to the elections. About three months ago Nicholas Sarkozy stated that West prefers to start talks with Iran after the elections, implicitly reiterated by United States and Britain, but no manifest effort has been shown by these countries to put an impact on Iran’s political developments.
Ahmadinejad supporters try to show he is United States preference for presidency. They claim that Ahmadinejad’s aggressive policies and muscle-flexing towards West has forced the United States and its allies to sit at the table of negotiations. His policies have stopped their move forward his supporters believe.
Undoubtedly the reactions made by West, and particularly Barack Obama, who have called for diplomacy against enemies has provided Iran’s hard-line administration to –despite withdrawing some of its promises and welcoming negotiations with United States- with a chance to follow its aggressive policies. Ahmadinejad’s diplomacy has exceptionally united West against Iran and brought a smile to Israel’ face. In some cases, his remarks –and not his actions- have bestowed Israel with desired resolutions in the United Nations and have aggravated mistrust towards Iran among Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
Arabs’ distance from Iran and their differences in supporting Iran are a blessing for Israel while it has paid no price for it. Europe has allied with United States, Russia and NATO are getting closer, European countries have initiated military presence in Persian Gulf with the Iranophobia wave, Americans are not leaving Iraq under the pretext of countering Iran’s interventions, resistance groups are cracked won and Iran’s influence in Syria and Lebanon is curbed. These are all achievements of Ahmadinejad’s foreign policies.
So we are not pessimistic when we say that the continuance of this trend is more beneficial for West than democratic reforms. In fact, the ascension of a reformist nominee to power will fetter West against imposing further sanctions, and will fail Israel’s plans which are based on isolating Iran and are only achievable in case of tension between Iran and Arab states.
Iran’s return to reformism and peace with the world may be favored by United States since helps them with solving the problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But it will definitely be a blow to the plans of Israel and Iran’s other regional competitors.