Tweet
Ahmadinejad re-elected: Israel and Obama's Iran puzzle
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jun 22, 2009, 00:17
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' vs. `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 Moussavi 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, Moussavi 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 Moussavi
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 Moussavi 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 personaliti
`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. The
election outcome in Iran presents the young Obama with a major
challenge: if he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft
overtures towards Iran, ruled by a supposed Holocaust-denier, he will
certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to perceive
Israel's interests in the region as secondary; on the other hand,
Obama cannot depart from his country's new approach towards Iran, a
key player in shaping the contending forces in the entire region.
In some way, Ahmadinejad's victory was the best news for Israel. Now,
Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to `act' against Iran, for
the latter, under its current president is an `existential threat' to
Israel, a claim that few in Washington question. `It is not like we
rooted for Ahmadinejad,' an Israeli official told the New York Times
on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that
Ahmadinejad won another term in office.
But considering Israel's immediate attempt to capitalize on the
outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran's
`moderate' camp was not a best case scenario for Israel. Iran will
continue to be presented as the obstacle in future peace in the Middle
East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid any
accountability as far as the `peace process' is concerned. In fact,
with an `existential threat' not too far away, few in Washington would
dare challenge Israel's settlement policies in the occupied West Bank
and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its
confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter
seen as an `Iranian-backed militia.'
Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Sh
s in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran's
elections, he said, `blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran
was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its
nuclear program.' Ostensibly, Shalom's message was directed at a small
audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target audience, was in fact Obama
himself.
Obama's overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a
fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of
Iran's growing influence in the region, and the US' desperate and
failing fight in Iraq. It was Obama's pragmatism, not a moral shift in
US foreign policy that compelled such statements as that made on June
2 in a BBC interview: `What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate
energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the
international community has a very real interest in preventing a
nuclear arms race in the region.'
For Israel, however, Obama's rhetoric is a deviation from the past US
hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a
discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran's nuclear
ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East.
Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute John
R. Bolton expressed the war-mongering mantra of the pro-Israel crowd
in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: `What if
Israel Strikes Iran?': `Many argue that Israeli military action will
cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge
the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied
by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse
population against an oppressive regime.'
Ahmadinejad's victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with
Iran is not an option from the point of view of Israel and its
supporters in the US. Whether Obama will proceed with his positive
rhetoric towards Iran is to be seen. Failure to do so, however, will
further undermine s country's interests in the Middle East, and will
prolong the cold war atmosphere of animosity, espoused by a clique of
neoconservative hard-liners throughout the Bush administration of past
years.Ramzy Baroudis an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers
and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London,)
and his forthcoming book is, `My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza
The Untold Story' (Pluto Press, London).
By Ramzy Baroud
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jun 22, 2009, 00:17
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' vs. `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 Moussavi 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, Moussavi 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 Moussavi
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 Moussavi 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 personaliti
`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. The
election outcome in Iran presents the young Obama with a major
challenge: if he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft
overtures towards Iran, ruled by a supposed Holocaust-denier, he will
certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to perceive
Israel's interests in the region as secondary; on the other hand,
Obama cannot depart from his country's new approach towards Iran, a
key player in shaping the contending forces in the entire region.
In some way, Ahmadinejad's victory was the best news for Israel. Now,
Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to `act' against Iran, for
the latter, under its current president is an `existential threat' to
Israel, a claim that few in Washington question. `It is not like we
rooted for Ahmadinejad,' an Israeli official told the New York Times
on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that
Ahmadinejad won another term in office.
But considering Israel's immediate attempt to capitalize on the
outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran's
`moderate' camp was not a best case scenario for Israel. Iran will
continue to be presented as the obstacle in future peace in the Middle
East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid any
accountability as far as the `peace process' is concerned. In fact,
with an `existential threat' not too far away, few in Washington would
dare challenge Israel's settlement policies in the occupied West Bank
and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its
confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter
seen as an `Iranian-backed militia.'
Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Sh
s in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran's
elections, he said, `blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran
was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its
nuclear program.' Ostensibly, Shalom's message was directed at a small
audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target audience, was in fact Obama
himself.
Obama's overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a
fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of
Iran's growing influence in the region, and the US' desperate and
failing fight in Iraq. It was Obama's pragmatism, not a moral shift in
US foreign policy that compelled such statements as that made on June
2 in a BBC interview: `What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate
energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the
international community has a very real interest in preventing a
nuclear arms race in the region.'
For Israel, however, Obama's rhetoric is a deviation from the past US
hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a
discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran's nuclear
ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East.
Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute John
R. Bolton expressed the war-mongering mantra of the pro-Israel crowd
in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: `What if
Israel Strikes Iran?': `Many argue that Israeli military action will
cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge
the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied
by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse
population against an oppressive regime.'
Ahmadinejad's victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with
Iran is not an option from the point of view of Israel and its
supporters in the US. Whether Obama will proceed with his positive
rhetoric towards Iran is to be seen. Failure to do so, however, will
further undermine s country's interests in the Middle East, and will
prolong the cold war atmosphere of animosity, espoused by a clique of
neoconservative hard-liners throughout the Bush administration of past
years.Ramzy Baroudis an author and editor of
PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers
and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian
Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London,)
and his forthcoming book is, `My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza
The Untold Story' (Pluto Press, London).