The Story of Two Elections.
Ahmed Hany
June 24, 2009
The story of two elections.
ahmedhany55@hotmail.com
The Middle East witnessed two elections recently, the first was in Lebanon, the regional political lab and the second was in Iran the regional power that is at odds with most of the world. However the political structure in both countries did not change. The importance of these two elections is that it showed that moderation in the region is forwarding.
In Lebanon, the defeat of Hezbo-Allah and its allies proved that the majority is a real one. It also proved that the Lebanese refuse to play for other regional powers. Yet the road is not rosy. The winner of the elections in Tehran insists that his country plays the Lebanese card through his agents in Hezbo-Allah. The tiny Arab country started another round of tiring debate about the blocking third that the armed minority wants to bully the next government.
In Tehran, the moderates were disappointed that their candidate lost. One month before the election, the authorities blocked their sites on the net after their early success in opinion polls. Even if the moderate candidate won his chances to apply his agenda would not be easy. The Superior Guide Khemeini, triples as the Superior Commander of the army and the commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He has the authority to block any presidential decision by issuing a religious edict that annuls even a law or a parliamentary decision.
However, both Iran and Lebanon will witness internal policy changes. In Iran, the eagerness to openness and moderation along with the disappointment of the defeat made supporters of the defeated presidential candidate to have clashes with police forces in Tehran. Two weeks before the election clashes between Sunnis and Shiites in the city of Zahdan in the Eastern part of the country should have alarmed the government and showed that the minorities will not be patient anymore.
Reformists doubted the value of military expenses and expansionist projects at the expense of poor and unemployed. Inflation sky rocketed to 25% while revenues of oil export benefited from the period of high prices that had reached one hundred and fifty dollar for a barrel. They ask about the benefits and privileges of scholars in a country that more than 40% of its people are under poverty line. If the scholars-merchants-military alliance did not start internal reform towards the economy and the minoritiesī rights, Iran would face a period of instability.
There will be some reflections on the external policy. Continuing confrontational policies means more sanctions and more military expenses. However succumbing to Western pressure would tarnish the image of the rhetoric president. The question would be asked by the reformists as which is more important the Iranian citizen and his welfare or spending on expansionism and proxy war that might lead to a full scale war. Reformists have Saddam a clear example. This problem could be solved through the Superior Guide who could issue an edict stating that the Iranians should come first. This scenario happened during the Iraqi-Iranian war. A president started his contacts to have a truce. Imam Khomeini impeached him and this president was killed in France. Few years later Imam Khomeini said that he accepted peace while his heart bled because he put the Iranians first. After all neither Israel nor the US excluded the military option. Developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan will force Iran to look more eastwards.
While looking eastwards the Persian state will try to play the doubtful Syrian and Lebanese cards. In Lebanon, the elections gave legality to the government. If Hezbo-Allah used its arms internally as what happened in 8th May scenario it would put not only its arms but its legality on the stake. Not only the moderate Arabs but also the international community would be forced to save the majority from bullying by militias. This weakens the Lebanese card in the Iranian hands.
George Mitchell, the US presidentīs envoy to the Middle East met the Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad in Damascus. He was accompanied by a military delegate to discuss security in Iraq. The US gave Turkey the green light to continue mediating between Israel and Syria. Both Israel and the US want Syria to disengage from the Iranian alliance. Syrians want to postpone this request until Israel withdraws from Golan. However if Washington gave Damascus a written promise that Golan will return to Syrian sovereignty, Iran would find the Syrian card sliding from its hands as well.
However there is an alternative scenario. If the Iranian Superior Guide let his president go on his the confrontational policies, drastic confrontation in Lebanon might lead to a civilian war. This would be round two proxy war between Iran and the West. If Israel joined the club, the peace process would be aborted again. In fact there is no real antagonism between the Israeli project and the Iranian project. Peace limits both projects to their borders. Stirring troubles in the region help both states to unit their communities interiorly.
President Obama said that there was a hope for the Iranian-American dialogue. This means that he gives policy a chance. If Iran insisted on confrontation the US will not allow it to ruin its global strategy by blocking the US-Islamic World reconciliation. In this scenario with the start of instability in Lebanon, the violence in Iran between the government and the minority will increase to unprecedented level that would threat the existence of the regime. Both Mitchell and Solana visited the region at the same time. Solana met a MP from Hezbo-Allah. The message is clear to Hassan Nasr-Allah. Playing with fire will burn your fingers this time. Kheimini in Tehran got the message too. He knew when to stop as he told students that his country support Palestinians spiritually during Gaza War. He knows that his last chance to talk with the West and the US is coming soon. After that he has to defend his regimeīs existence.
ahmedhany55@hotmail.com
The Middle East witnessed two elections recently, the first was in Lebanon, the regional political lab and the second was in Iran the regional power that is at odds with most of the world. However the political structure in both countries did not change. The importance of these two elections is that it showed that moderation in the region is forwarding.
In Lebanon, the defeat of Hezbo-Allah and its allies proved that the majority is a real one. It also proved that the Lebanese refuse to play for other regional powers. Yet the road is not rosy. The winner of the elections in Tehran insists that his country plays the Lebanese card through his agents in Hezbo-Allah. The tiny Arab country started another round of tiring debate about the blocking third that the armed minority wants to bully the next government.
In Tehran, the moderates were disappointed that their candidate lost. One month before the election, the authorities blocked their sites on the net after their early success in opinion polls. Even if the moderate candidate won his chances to apply his agenda would not be easy. The Superior Guide Khemeini, triples as the Superior Commander of the army and the commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He has the authority to block any presidential decision by issuing a religious edict that annuls even a law or a parliamentary decision.
However, both Iran and Lebanon will witness internal policy changes. In Iran, the eagerness to openness and moderation along with the disappointment of the defeat made supporters of the defeated presidential candidate to have clashes with police forces in Tehran. Two weeks before the election clashes between Sunnis and Shiites in the city of Zahdan in the Eastern part of the country should have alarmed the government and showed that the minorities will not be patient anymore.
Reformists doubted the value of military expenses and expansionist projects at the expense of poor and unemployed. Inflation sky rocketed to 25% while revenues of oil export benefited from the period of high prices that had reached one hundred and fifty dollar for a barrel. They ask about the benefits and privileges of scholars in a country that more than 40% of its people are under poverty line. If the scholars-merchants-military alliance did not start internal reform towards the economy and the minoritiesī rights, Iran would face a period of instability.
There will be some reflections on the external policy. Continuing confrontational policies means more sanctions and more military expenses. However succumbing to Western pressure would tarnish the image of the rhetoric president. The question would be asked by the reformists as which is more important the Iranian citizen and his welfare or spending on expansionism and proxy war that might lead to a full scale war. Reformists have Saddam a clear example. This problem could be solved through the Superior Guide who could issue an edict stating that the Iranians should come first. This scenario happened during the Iraqi-Iranian war. A president started his contacts to have a truce. Imam Khomeini impeached him and this president was killed in France. Few years later Imam Khomeini said that he accepted peace while his heart bled because he put the Iranians first. After all neither Israel nor the US excluded the military option. Developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan will force Iran to look more eastwards.
While looking eastwards the Persian state will try to play the doubtful Syrian and Lebanese cards. In Lebanon, the elections gave legality to the government. If Hezbo-Allah used its arms internally as what happened in 8th May scenario it would put not only its arms but its legality on the stake. Not only the moderate Arabs but also the international community would be forced to save the majority from bullying by militias. This weakens the Lebanese card in the Iranian hands.
George Mitchell, the US presidentīs envoy to the Middle East met the Syrian President Bashar Al-Asad in Damascus. He was accompanied by a military delegate to discuss security in Iraq. The US gave Turkey the green light to continue mediating between Israel and Syria. Both Israel and the US want Syria to disengage from the Iranian alliance. Syrians want to postpone this request until Israel withdraws from Golan. However if Washington gave Damascus a written promise that Golan will return to Syrian sovereignty, Iran would find the Syrian card sliding from its hands as well.
However there is an alternative scenario. If the Iranian Superior Guide let his president go on his the confrontational policies, drastic confrontation in Lebanon might lead to a civilian war. This would be round two proxy war between Iran and the West. If Israel joined the club, the peace process would be aborted again. In fact there is no real antagonism between the Israeli project and the Iranian project. Peace limits both projects to their borders. Stirring troubles in the region help both states to unit their communities interiorly.
President Obama said that there was a hope for the Iranian-American dialogue. This means that he gives policy a chance. If Iran insisted on confrontation the US will not allow it to ruin its global strategy by blocking the US-Islamic World reconciliation. In this scenario with the start of instability in Lebanon, the violence in Iran between the government and the minority will increase to unprecedented level that would threat the existence of the regime. Both Mitchell and Solana visited the region at the same time. Solana met a MP from Hezbo-Allah. The message is clear to Hassan Nasr-Allah. Playing with fire will burn your fingers this time. Kheimini in Tehran got the message too. He knew when to stop as he told students that his country support Palestinians spiritually during Gaza War. He knows that his last chance to talk with the West and the US is coming soon. After that he has to defend his regimeīs existence.
Print
Email
