 |
Many people attribute Iran's economic problems to Ahmadinejad’s confrontational approach towards the West. |
Like all voters around the world, Iranians are more interested in economic rather than foreign policy issues. However, the Iranian case is slightly different as foreign policy issues attract much attention domestically because of the pressure foreign powers put on Iran, and the apparent connection between economy and foreign policy in the minds of Iranians.
Iran's economy gets affected by changes in the international market, and many people attribute Iran's economic problems to Ahmadinejad’s confrontational approach towards the West. On the other hand, others argue that Ahmadinejad’s policies that have restored Iran’s dignity and enabled it to impose its conditions on the United States and challenge Israel.
Ahmadinejad’s confrontational policy was criticized not only by the Reformists, but also by many Conservatives, who described his stances as "extreme and inconsistent with the Conservative thought."
The Reformists and moderate Conservatives criticized Ahmadinejad for a number of reasons: 1) engaging Iran in unjustified disputes; 2) transforming the issue of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program into a battle with Israel; 3) portraying Iran as a terrorist state; 4) diverting national attention and resources to the Palestinian cause; and 5) causing Iran to lose all of its European and Asian partners.
On the other hand, Mousavi portrays himself as a "Reformist who is committed to the principles of the Islamic Revolution," and who wishes to change Iran’s “extremist” image while honoring the country’s official stance on its nuclear program.
According to Mosuavi, the Islamic Republic can remain loyal to its principles while adopting a diplomatic foreign policy. Mousavi points out that there is "no reason to transform all the nations of the world into enemies."
Iran’s former prime minister blames Ahmadinejad’s rigid stance on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program for pushing Iran towards what he calls international isolation. Also, Mousavi has criticized the incumbent president’s fiery statements against Israel, and his
Mousavi’s electoral slogans calls for detente and dialogue with the Obama administration. Also, he criticized the Ahmadinejad’s statement about having solutions for the world’s problems.
“The government should solve internal problems first before thinking about global problem...," Mousavi continues.
The 68-year-old candidate also accused Ahmadinejad of establishing relations with Latin American countries, such as Venezuela and Uruguay, that are the ideological antithesis of the Islamic Republic instead of focusing on Iran’s neighbors in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and the Middle East.
Thus, Mousavi’s supporters believe that he is the only person capable of "reviving the Imam Khomeini thought," which advocated peace and cooperation with the rest of the world.
If elected, Mousavi is expected to use a diplomatic tone that does not cause controversies or hatred, and to revive Iran’s relations with its old allies.
Iran on the Edge of an Abyss?
| Some people prefer a Conservative president who is able to fulfill his promises to a helpless Reformist president. |
When it comes to Rezaei, the former head of the Revolutionary Guards argues that Ahmadinejad’s policies have put Iran on the edge of an "abyss," and that his speeches are characterized by "recklessness."
Rezaei believes that "the West and the United States need...[Iran] today"; therefore, Tehran should be responsive to the US initiatives. Furthermore, he implicitly criticizes Ahmadinejad's statements about the Holocaust, describing it as a "historical issue that should not be raised for political reasons."
One of Rezaei’s most important electoral slogans is starting a dialogue with the new US administration on the social level and on the basis of mutual respect and equality. The Conservative candidate also announced his intention to establish an international coalition that includes the United States, Russia and the European Union for enriching uranium in Iran. Such a suggestion aims for quelling the West's concerns about Iran's nuclear program.
Being a traditional Conservative and an adherent to the principles of the Revolution, Rezaei is expected to receive the support of the Supreme Leader if elected.
Some people prefer another Conservative president who is capable of fulfilling his promises and improving Iran’s image to a helpless Reformist president.
Rezaei’s opponents, however, believe that he is incapable of winning the election, and fear that his victory might cause problems on the international level because of the arrest warrant that was issued against him.
In a similar fashion, Karroubi pledges to start a dialogue with the president of the United States, and improving Iran’s relations with European countries. His Reformist supporters describe him as as a brave man and a competent technocrat who is capable of fulfilling his promises.
Given his long experience as the parliament speaker, he is capable of facing radicals in both the Conservative and Reformist camps. And though it is unlikely that he wins the election, Karroubi is capable of increasing the turnout.
Karroubi’s opponents argue that his electoral program is similar to that of Mousavi, and that he is offering nothing new. His chances of winning the election are weak, but his candidacy will split the Reformist vote, reducing Mousavi’s chances of Mousavi achieving victory.
False Expectations?
| Foreign policy issues are totally in the hands of the Supreme Leader. |
Many observers argue that the victory of a Reformist candidate would result in more moderation in Iran’s foreign policy. However, such expectations should be examined for a number of reasons.
First, foreign policy issues are totally in the hands of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenaei, and the position of president is of second importance to that of the Supreme Leader.
Any future change is strongly connected to the vision and will of the Supreme Leader, and the president’s role is confined to determining the methods of applying this vision.
Thus, the policies remain the same, and they continue to serve the same goal: turning Iran into a major regional power that participates in regional security measures in manner that suits its status, and that protects its interests).
Second, by examining Ahmadinejad’s recent speeches, it can be argued that if he is re-elected, Iran’s will still start a dialogue with the United States, but with a different tone. Notably, regional and International developments dictates a degree of moderation, regardless of the president’s stance; or rather, it encourages the Supreme Leader to embrace a more diplomatic approach towards the West.
Such developments include the impact of the international financial crisis on the US foreign policy, and the influence of the decline in oil prices on Iran’s economy. Furthermore, the ascendance of Obama to power has created a more suitable international and regional environment for dialogue and rapprochement.
It is important to note that many of the controversies between Iran and the United States are not related to rigid, dogmatic stances; rather, they have a pragmatic nature that allows for agreement, which has been clear recently in Iraq. Also, the Iranian stance on the peace process is not rigid, which was reflected in the absence of any condemnation of Syrian-Israeli negotiations from the side of the Iranian government. .
US-Iranian Detente?
| The idea of starting a dialogue with Obama rather than with the United States is what is in the minds of all candidates. |
A number of hints about a more lenient attitude towards the United States were dropped during Ahmadinejad’s recent speeches. After Washington’s declaration of adopting new strategies for dealing with the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, the Iranian president said that Iran wanted to have better relations with the United States.
However, the Islamic Republic continued to pursue its fluctuating policy towards the United States by imprisoning the American-Iranian journalist then releasing her after she had won her appeal.
Notably, it seems that the idea of starting a dialogue with Obama rather than with the United States is what is in the minds of all candidates, including Ahmadinejad, in varying degrees.
However, the changes on the international and US levels are not enough because corresponding developments should take place on the Iranian political scene. The most important of these developments is the stance of the Supreme Leader.
Ayatollah Khamenei is still adopting a cautious attitude towards the United States, which was reflected in his refusal to start a dialogue with Obama. He stated that could not see any real change in US policies, calling for "real changes" to be made to US stances in order for the two countries’ relationship to improve.
Furthermore, Iran’s Supreme Leader has urged the United States to stop adopting a hostile attitude towards Iran, and to stop interfering in its internal affairs. The Islamic Republic’s most senior figure exclaimed how Obama congratulated Iranians on their new year while accusing Iran of supporting terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons in the same speech.
Thus, the upcoming change would probably be confined to Iran adopting a less confrontational discourse while dealing with the West in general and the United States in particular. This would be the case in the event of the victory of any of the four candidates.
It can be argued, however, that Ahmadinejad’s chances to win the elections are still high, followed by Mousavi. The shift hence will take place on the rhetorical level while Iran’s ambitions will remain the same: defending its right to a peaceful nuclear program, and consolidating its status as a major regional power.
Yet, it is important not to underestimate the effect of such a change because a shift in Iran’s tone can have a significant impact on its relations with the outside world. Owning real sources of power and having the political will to use them if necessary gives much significance to any country’s discourse.
|
