Tuesday, June 16, 2009 WASHINGTON: The election victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to complicate US President Barack Obama’s new approach to his country’s conflict with Iran.The reason behind the foreseen obstacle is neither the US nor Iran’s refusal to engage in future dialogue, but rather, Israel’s insistence on a hard-line approach to the problem. Iran’s presidential elections on June 12 were positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. That depiction, which conveniently divided the Middle East, according to the prevailing US foreign policy discourse, to pro-American and anti-American camps was hardly as clear in the Iranian case as it was in Palestine and most recently in Lebanon.Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir Hussein Mousavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister for eight years (between 1981-1989) during one of Iran’s most challenging times — its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a ‘moderate’ then. More, Mousavi was equally adamant in his country’s right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means. As far as US interests in the region are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country’s attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing or, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country.This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Mousavi during Iran’s lively election campaigns did, indeed, promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to present two convenient personalities to the outside world, a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on ‘wiping Israel off the map”, and a soft-spoken, learned ‘moderate’ ready to ‘engage’ the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor.Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image, tainted as such by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of
Israel, won.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 WASHINGTON: The election victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to complicate US President Barack Obama’s new approach to his country’s conflict with Iran.The reason behind the foreseen obstacle is neither the US nor Iran’s refusal to engage in future dialogue, but rather, Israel’s insistence on a hard-line approach to the problem. Iran’s presidential elections on June 12 were positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. That depiction, which conveniently divided the Middle East, according to the prevailing US foreign policy discourse, to pro-American and anti-American camps was hardly as clear in the Iranian case as it was in Palestine and most recently in Lebanon.Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir Hussein Mousavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister for eight years (between 1981-1989) during one of Iran’s most challenging times — its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a ‘moderate’ then. More, Mousavi was equally adamant in his country’s right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means. As far as US interests in the region are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country’s attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing or, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country.This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Mousavi during Iran’s lively election campaigns did, indeed, promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to present two convenient personalities to the outside world, a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on ‘wiping Israel off the map”, and a soft-spoken, learned ‘moderate’ ready to ‘engage’ the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor.Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image, tainted as such by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of
Israel, won.
Comments