Every dictatorial regime needs to be condemned. It refuses to “grant” its people the “favor” of recognition, for that is the manifestation of the rejection of many of the methods of that system. It wants to dwarf its people’s aspirations, but at the height of a crisis, the dictatorial regime has to determine whom to blame. It wants to retain the option to open towards the United States, but as for Great Britain, there is plenty available to confirm the accusation that it is inciting the Iranian people against its leaders. From the beginning of this year, Iran was concerned with the BBC’s opening of a Persian-language television station beaming towards Iran and Afghanistan. The dictatorial regime was able to destroy the static and the mobile, but how could it destroy what is in the ether? But when this regime felt it was weakening, it arrested Iranian employees working in the British embassy in Tehran. The accusation was for foreign consumption, but aimed at strengthening its hold over the people. The Iranian government’s confrontation of the demonstrators or opponents from among the Iranian people have been turned from a resistance to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and the “confirmed” president Mahmud Ahmadinejad and driven underground. But a division exists between the reformists and the rest. The government never trusted the people and this shows the leadership’s weakness.Click here to see the rest of the article. Click here to hide the rest of the article.
But how will the leadership work to recover its legitimacy domestically?
Steve Clemons, the program director at the United States New America Foundation in Washington said, “There are two outcomes for Iran’s dealing with this situation: One is that Iran will try to point to a foreign crisis in the Middle East to justify a crack-down against its own people, to push the people into uniting with the leadership in the face of a foreign enemy. I am very afraid that this is the likelier outcome. The other arose when the President Barak Obama administration announced the return of an ambassador to Damascus. Many supporters of Iran, such as Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and splinter groups from the Muslim Brotherhood, have their legitimacy linked to the societies in which they move and, in my opinion, their cooperation with Iran will become more knotty and they will feel that this cooperation will decrease their power and credibility because of Iran’s efforts against its people.” He added, “We can call the current junction the “elastic moment” in which Hezbollah and Hamas will examine their behavior, not because of Obama, but because they have seen weakness in the Iranian government. Hezbollah and Hamas and other parties want to preserve their legitimacy in the eyes of their compatriots, but this legitimacy has begun to come under question because the fundamental body with which they are connected has had its legitimacy shaken.”
Many things can be expected to be obtained in this “plastic moment”, but it is important, in his opinion, that America, Europe, and Israel not interfere and demolish the positive reaction that might come, “that might arise with the appearance of a new flexibility among these parties. Indeed, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah are concerned with diversifying their sources of connections and relations to defend their interests, and so are prepared to show some flexibility.” Clemons said that Israeli Premier Benyamin Netenyahu’s statement that Israel is a friend of the demonstrations in Iran—and this is something that President Obama never did, despite all the pressure put on him—this statement is stupid, as if one wanted to replace the Iranian slogans “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” with the cry, “Death to the dictator.”
Syria had expressed its interest in resuming indirect negotiations with Israel during the Iran crisis. This is remarkable because during the July 2006 war in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah backed by Iran, Syria resumed indirect negotiations with Israel.
Clemons said, “Syria is part of the “plastic moment” too. It will never become America’s best friend, or Israel’s best friend, but you are seeing a diversification of its relations, and there is the beginning of a diminution of its reliance on Iran, which has insinuated itself into its regime a specific weakness.
“A British diplomat told me that what is worse than any Iranian dictator is a wounded Iranian dictator. The demonstrations bloodied Ahmadinejad and he will focus on those who showed their loyalty to him in the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij. One must not expect that he succeed in opening to America, for this would leave him open to the accusation of capitulating to the demands of the reformists and the demonstrators. On the contrary, Ahmadinejad will give the Guards and the Basij free reign in the Sunni Arab world, particularly in Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and even Lebanon. This British diplomat believes that this summer will be a fiery one in the Middle East.”
Clemons said, “I am very worried about this. Iran’s efforts to create a foreign problem to unite its security forces worries me. I believe that the Sunni Arab countries should be seriously on guard and prepare their armed security and military forces to face this difficulty.” He added, “Indeed, needs to behave this way, and every government like the Iranian regime nurtures internal difficulties and creates external crises to get out of [domestic] crises.
“What concerns me in this matter is that in addition to the domestic crisis of confidence suffered by the people of Iran, there is the problem of the Revolutionary Guards. This military force is suffering from internal divisions, too, and it is unclear who controls the army, which stayed out of this crisis and never intervened. It is an institution which is not the best armed or funded. These conditions might limit Iran’s eagerness to intervene abroad, but with Ahmadinejad, nothing is certain.”
But how will the new Iranian situation affect the United States and its interests and plans in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon?
Clemons believes that “the new situation might complicate matters for President Obama, too, for Iran will be seriously preoccupied with its internal affairs and the president there will find his situation precarious, and so perhaps Khamene’i and Ahmadinejad will try to show that no matter how ugly he’s become, Ahmadinejad is able to conclude constructive agreements. It would be a wise act of Khaneme’i for him to turn Ahmadinejad abroad and work with Europeans and Americans to rebuild the foundations and heal the international strategic chasm.” He added, “Perhaps Khamene’i will use Ahmadinejad, rejected by his people, to achieve what the majority of Iranians want.
“In the context of this crisis, Washington has expressed its readiness to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program. Some have advised Obama to put Brent Skowcroft back in his administration. After the Tienamin Square troubles in China, President George Bush the father sent his Advisor on National Security of the time, Brent Scowcroft, who reached common ground with the Chinese, and Obama should once again do likewise with the Iranians. But if they refuse to receive him or negotiate with him, then relations will become more difficult and knotty.”
Clemons does not believe that Dennis Ross will play Scowcroft’s role, and perhaps National Security Advisor Jim Jones or Minister of Defense Robert Gates will.
At the International Summit of the Group of Eight, which will be held in Italy next week, some want to propose isolating Iran. But these cannot accomplish anything unless Russia and China agree with America’s goals. [Moreover], how can the Obama administration isolate Iran when it needs that country in Iraq and Afghanistan and more? Clemons replied, “If two countries can find the means to trade insults in public about some matters, they will agree and cooperate and build trust in others.”
He added, “If we take a step back and look on American-Soviet and American-Chinese relations, we will notice that one must not put all ones eggs in one basket. Thus, we must solidify Iranian-American relations based on what they have in common. [If a] fire breaks out between the two countries, they should tolerate the heat which will be generated as a result of harsh words between Ahmadinejad and Obama over some eventuality, but there should be some kind of a connection on other eventualities. I believe that Obama will work along these lines and go along with the Iranian sense of chessmanship.”
Perhaps this is also what Iran wants. Iran does not want the reformists to run the dialogue with America, but the hard-liners, and this accounts for the insistance of Khamene’i and Ahmadinejad and others to confirm Ahmadinejad’s presidency. And this is the logic according to what Clemons said: “Indeed, we need a Richard Nixon for Iran, someone who was one of the most bitter anti-Communists but went on to lay the foundations for relations with China, and Iran needs the most severe anti-American, like Ahmadinejad.”
In the past, Iranians poured out their cup of wrath on America because of its involvement in overthrowing Mosaddeq. Today, it is the current Iranian regime which has snatched from its people its right to vote, and so the Iranians feel that their government has taken the place of America in 1953 in depriving them of their rights. And just as they hated America because of Mosaddeq, they will hate this regime because of the outcome of these elections. But the Iranian regime will not change, what ill happen in it is what happened in China. It will become a different kind of an Iranian Islamic regime, but with capital, projects, and profit.
http://www.aawsat.com/leader.asp?section=3&article=525843&issueno=11174
Translator’s note
A link to this article appeared on my Facebook page, posted by none other than Steve Clemons himself. It was written by a famous Lebanese journalist and published in a famous Saudi-run daily. I started translating it, thinking it would provide an interesting Arab perspective on the recent events in Iran. Well, I was wrong. In any case, the points raised by Mr. Clemons are interesting. I find the idea of a rapprochement with an Ahmadinejad government troubling, thought I suppose it needs to be discussed. There’s more to be said, but it’s time to put the blog to bed…
“There’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip,” as the Bard said, and this is certainly true in translation. Mr. Clemons’ words have been translated from English into Arabic and now back to English again. (Reminds me of the Woody Allen story of how, when some vandals broke into his high school library and translated all the books to French, he was called in to translate them back.) So let’s just be aware that this essay reflects Mr. Clemons’ views at some remote.
If there are any copyright issues, I hope they can be resolved civilly.
Huda al-Huseini, a Lebanese national, is a columnist for ash-Sharq al-Awsa
This blog's proprietor is Evan Siegel. He is a professor of mathematics. He has been a student of Iranian history, culture, and politics since the seventies. Click 