Home >> Middle East >> Iran

     Email   Print 

Iranian Elections

Angelique van Engelen - 5/20/2005

In order to get a perspective on the Iranian nuclear issue, one will have to view it from the angles of all immediate parties involved and build in some space to account for domestic elections to be prepared for the scenario that is likely to unfold in the near future. To be precise: the scenario that's starting with Iran's resumption of its nuclear program.

Time will tell if the Iranians are able to come up with foolproof procedures for withstanding international pressures, maintaining membership of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and continue on the path of nuclear fuel proliferation. But it claims it can juggle all three. Last weekend, Iran told European representatives it will resume the nuclear testing it abandoned last November at the request of Britain, France and Germany.

The European-Iranian relationship over the last few months has been tried and tested to the limit by the Iranians, who have used the Europeans more or less as a playground in anticipation of tougher dealings with the international world as represented by the US and the UN.

To begin with, the Europeans are likely to show what their words are worth in reality as they make good on their promise to refer Iran to the UN in order to get sanctions going, the procedure that the US had envisaged way sooner.

The Irianian stance on the US and Israel is intertwined. Not so much because of the Iranians themselves, but simply because recent US, which is not directly talking with Iran, has recently adopted a policy that appears to be evidence that it considers Israel as a second option. In case diplomacy fails, the Israelis now have some pretty hefty US machinery at their disposal that is apparently capable of destroying underground nuclear facilities of the sort Iran is building.

Iran's nuclear plans are featuring highly in its elections, but again, it is frustratingly unknown what the status of the plans is for all contestants involved. A recent opinion poll by the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) showed that the incumbent Islamist President Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who's likely to run again, is not very popular. Analysts say the nuclear plans might be as count for him or against him, depending on how other candidates play the issue.



Rafsanjani attracted only 13.8 percent support in the IRNA poll and it is unlikely how nuclear plans are really conceived by the Iranian electorate. Even though it is clear as of now already that a credible anti-regime candidate could win the presidency hands down in next month's elections, it is not sure that the leader is going to allow this, what the opponent's position on nuclear power is likely to be and how much freedom the opposition will have to use the issue for political gain. Even if there's an amount of freedom, there is hardly any good indicator what people's opinions are on the issue.

As for Israel, the Iranians do not have any diplomatic dealings with this country. Rather, Israel appears to feature on their radar screens in just the macabre fashion everyone fears and which is the sole reason for Israeli purchases of the highly sophisticated US bombs. The security forces of Israel tend to believe that safety is more important than gambling in the hope that something turns out right. Some say that all Israeli defense actions based on this premise are the reason that the Israeli population is still largely alive. It is uncertain how the idea will feature in any future scenario should Israel and Iran come to blows, but the references in the Israeli press to the bombing of the Iraq town of Osiraq which its army was lucky enough to hit in precision bombings in 1981, just ahead of its being fueled by its French contractors, are perhaps indicative of an attitude that is -unlike the US Soviet stance during the Cold War- more offensively focused than defensively. If Israel is going to be drawn into an Iran war, the time might be sooner rather than later, some people believe, on the basis of the country's actions against Iraq. Bombing a facility that has enriched uranium stored is way more disastrous than bombing one that's still empty.

There are few certainties in the course of action over the next couple of months. One of the uncertainties has been taken out of the equasion; Iran is going to pick up where it left off (or to continue all along) with its nuclear program. Officially for the purpose of either just fuel, but likely for production of 'fuel plus'. This is the big issue in the drama that Anti War.com believes is already dictating US politics in ways solely for the purpose of destroying all possibilities of further developments. Perhaps the extra months Iran gained by (faking) compliance with AEIA regulations were all it needs to complete a process of uranium enrichment. There are even worse beliefs out there. Some say Iran has had the bomb for years. Others believe that its recent upgrades of conventional weaponry means it has converted into a nuclear capability. And there is the issue of the missing nuclear weapons from the Ukraine, a story the FT of London broke a few months ago. Apparently the Ukranian nuclear devices were rather sophisticated too and its possibly these that have been fitted into the Iranian produced conventional weaponry. Most reports sound precariously like the ones written about Iraq a few years ago.

It is irritating, for want of a more appropriate word, to think that nobody really knows what the potential of these very days that we are living might prove to be in the annals of history. Especially in the wake of the Iraq debacle. On the one hand, you can hardly begin to imagine the horror if something really is amiss yet on the other hand Western actions against Iraq proved too unforgivable for a repeat.

For the time being, international law appears to offer enough solace to remedy the dilemma in as far as the known facts match reality on the ground, or more like, under the ground in Iran. The Iranians have the law on their side so far, when they claim that even though in the past few years they might have bent the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency, they are now fully compliant and are only preparing to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. In this sense, it is unlikely that members of the Security Council are going to be too hard on it.

There are added reasons to believe this too. Russia, for example, is offering the Iranians the technology for its plant in Busheer and has already indicated that it believes Iran is totally peaceful in its motives to want to go ahead with the nuclear program. China, another country with a veto power, is keen to buy its oil and has itself a bomb. So is Japan, whose nuclear example Iran claims to copy. At the same time, Iran would not do itself any favors if it engaged in any war at the moment. It has indicated during its talks with the European Union that it is in need of technology boosts. Also, top Iranians are very keen to be employed elsewhere in the world, something this fast growing population could do with. These are the kind of considerations offered by economic analysts but which people do not repeat too often in their stories about the dilemma. The Economist hits the nail on the head when it reports in its lead article that if countries like Iran were "offered the right sort of assurances by the US, the nuclear genie might be pushed back into the bottle. But this will take unity, co-ordination and statecraft of a kind the world has not seen for many years".