By: Meir Javedanfar - www.meepas.com

Subscribe for free to meepas Middle East Analysis Review send an e-mail to - subscribe@meepas.com

21/06/2005

Introduction:

Iranian politics has managed to produce yet another surprising result. The election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad the conservative right wing ex-Mayor of Tehran was unexpected. After all when it come to popular expressions of political choice (when available) the right wing of the Iranian politics was beaten decisively since 1989 when Rafsanjani (a reformist) rose to the post of President. The reformist torch was then carried by President Khatami Iran's chief reformist until now.

Therefore what has changed? What caused the sensational rise of Ahmadinejad the modestly dressed former member and instructor of Iran's religious militia? (called the Basij).

There are a number of internal and external reasons behind the rise of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The following piece by meepas© will focus on the external factors.

Ahmadinejad is a locally known figure. Especially with poor residents of southern Tehran such as the neighbourhoods of Shoosh and Molavi as he improved municipality services there. However Ahmadinejad has not had any major dealing with foreign countries. This is due to his lack of professional experience in areas where he would be exposed to contacts with foreign governments or political figures.

Nevertheless a major foreign force may have inadvertently helped him prior to the elections. In this case according to the opinion of meepas© the foreign force is the world's most powerful man - President George Walker Bush.

One of the major factors which has bolstered the popularity of the current regime has been hostility from the US. After 26 years the Iranian hard liners have become masters of manipulating US hostility be it words or deeds to their advantage.

It is such a useful tool to them that on many occasions they have provoked the US in order to get a response. The siege at the US embassy in Tehran was one case in point. The failed US commando raid to rescue the hostages was one of the most powerful images used by the Islamic Republic time and again as justification for its fight against the “Great Satan” who it accused of wanting to take over Iran. Its propaganda worked. The majority of Iranians who are from the rural areas bought the propaganda as they saw they had no access to any other opinion. Exactly in line with the government's strategy. The Iranian government went on to exploit this strategy over the years through other acts such as attacking US shipping in the Persian Gulf and by supporting anti-US groups.

Iranian hardliners became so professional in exploiting US hostility towards the regime that they even started to export this tactic to their allies abroad. In the late 1990s both Hamas and Hezbollah (both Iranian government allies) on many occasions provoked attacks by Israel because the response was a powerful tool which they masterfully manipulated to strengthen their position at home and in the Arab world.

Ways and means

Many foreign observers ask that how is it possible that the people of Iran choose to believe the word of an unelected group of persons (ie Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council) over statements made by a democratically elected leader of a country such as the US which itself is home to almost a million Iranians?

The answer lies in Iran's history and in the Iranian culture.

It is true that many people in Iran are yearning for change. However any successful change must be Iranian in its totality. This is because history has taught Iranians that siding with foreigners always carries a price. As a result any political group who has brought in direct foreign involvement into Iran's affairs, no matter how legitimate their goals may have been has been labelled as a puppet, or worst a traitor. Politically this is a costly label to carry.

There are a number of examples. Unlike the Iran of 2005, Iran of 1950s had a Prime Minister called Mosadeq who was democratically elected by the parliament. Mosadeq was however overthrown by US and British intelligence in “operation Ajax”. The main reason for his overthrow was because Mosadeq nationalised Iran's oil industry which as far as millions of Iranians were concerned was being exploited by the British. In his place the Shah took complete command of the country and the parliament lost its political power.

Despite the fact that the Shah markedly improved Iran's economy and standard of living (especially for city dwellers), the fact that he was brought into power with US and British help after the fall of Mosadeq meant that he was labelled as a Western puppet. Suspicions were further heightened as Iran's oil industry under the Shah was increasingly being run by Western companies – again.

It seems that the Iranian imperialist movements based today in the US have not learned from their previous mistakes. Despite the fact that some people in Iran still have fond memories of the Shah and yearn for the return of the economic prosperity under his rule nevertheless the imperialist and nationalist movements based in the US have failed to garner effective support in Iran. This is due to the fact that many of their leaders constantly talk about their support for American backed “regime change” in Iran. Such talk makes them look like puppets to the majority of Iranians who are the masses of farmers and traders living in the provinces and not the well educated class of north Tehranis with relatives in the US.

To the average Iranian worker living in Tabriz or Mashad a nationalist movement who is truly popular with the people does not need foreign countries such as the US to assist it to invade Iran and to change the regime.

This is because memories are still fresh in Iran from the 1950 CIA backed coup in Iran against Mosadeq. Furthermore to many Iranians in Iran, Los Angeles based Iranians dressed in sharp suits who use the influence of right wing Christian senators in their campaign seem out of touch with realities of a Moslem country in the Middle East.

The Iran Communist party also lost its popularity in Iran. Although it did have support amongst the poor in Iran it gradually lost its members because it sided openly with Russia. This is due to the fact that on numerous occasions Russia attacked Iran and took its territory in the 1800s. Russia also was a major supplier of weapons to Iran's main competitor Iraq since the 1960s and backed its claims for sovereignty over the Shat al Arab waterway. It also supplied billions of dollars worth of weapons to Iraq during what many in Iran viewed as an imposed war against their country.

The Iranian Mujahedeen Khalq Organisation (MKO) made the same mistake as the Shah. Although the organisation's Socialist Islamic ideology was viewed by many in Iran in the early 1980s a viable alternative to monarchy and Islamic Republic, nevertheless as soon as it set up forces in Iraq and sided with Saddam it found that its popularity decreased. After all to many in Iran Saddam Hussein was murdering Iranian civilians in cities during the war. Therefore which truly Iranian movement which claims to want the best for Iran would side with one of the chief enemies of its people?

Even before the time of the Pahlavis, the Qajar dynasty who ran Iran in the 1800s are one of the least popular dynasties in Iran's history precisely because they involved foreign powers, especially the British and Russia in Iran's affairs. The price of that “friendship” is still evident today. Anyone will be hard pressed to find an Iranian of any political orientation who doesn't sigh when the subject of former Persian territories such as Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Azerbaijan is brought up. All such territories used to belong to Persia (which later became Iran) but were lost by the Qajars because of their corrupt leadership.

Furthermore according to Iranian culture bringing outside intervention into one's affairs is viewed as a sign of weakness and interference, both of which are viewed as negative. Even at family level when there are disputes children are taught to keep it in the family because telling others would bring shame. Therefore in some cases its preferable to suffer in silence than to bring shame on te sacred family reputation by involving outsiders who may not always want the best for the family. This psyche and way of thinking also applies in an aggregate mode at national level.

Therefore not just Iranian history, but also Iranian culture views foreign intervention in Iran's affairs as negative.

The key for analysts and politicians who wish to make a impact is to understand this phenomenon and apply a suitable strategy based on it.

Therein lies the success factor of the Islamic regime. The regime of Ayatollah Khomeini realised this and thus from the beginning tried to rid itself of being labelled as a puppet because it learned from the Shah's and the Qajar's mistake. So much so that it risked turning Iran into a hermit state by turning (at times violently) against the US capitalist and USSR communist system. Although this cost Iran dearly in terms of diplomatic relations and ability to secure the purchase of weapons in the war against Iraq, nevertheless it provided the regime with an important factor which it used to legitimise itself.

Basic mistakes

On the eve of Iran's elections President Bush attacked the election process. In a statement he said "The Iranian people deserve a genuinely democratic system”. The US President went on to say that "Today Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world. Power is in the hands of an unelected few who have retained power through an electoral process that ignores the basic requirements of democracy."

To many Iranians the US President through its statement made the basic mistake of making itself look like a foreign party who wants changes to be made in Iran because it does not like what it sees. This view was further reinforced as the US government stated that it would have nothing to do with Iran until it changes its policies.

According to the outlined set of historical and cultural values of Iran against foreign interference, whoever seemed most against the foreign interferer would stand to benefit the most.

In this case Ahmadinejad the most right wing and anti – US of the Presidential candidates was in front of the queue to collect the benefits.

Conclusion

In the corporate world US companies are some of the most successful. One of the reasons behind their success is because they try to get to know their audience by studying their characteristics such as habits, needs and desires. Using that information such corporations deliver products which meets the market requirements.

It seems that the US administration does not follow the same strategy as proved by the bad timing and contents of the statements made by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice prior to the Iranian elections which seemed to ignore Iranian sensitivities and values. This mistake played right into the hand of Iranian hardliners.

In the opinion of meepas© the main source of the problem is due to the American leadership's assumption that by knowing how and what the Iranian expatriate community in the US thinks the White House also assumes that the same applies to Iranians living in Iran.

This is a mistake.

The majority of people in Iran have for the last 26 years been exposed to a completely different system of values and education. Therefore they have become sensitive to other issues which the Iranian community in the US has not been exposed to in their daily lives.

To majority of Iranians who are those living outside Tehran and unlike the Tehranis do not have satellite dish or internet, memories of US siding with Iraq during the war against Iran are still fresh as many lost loved ones in the war. Although in some cases it was the Iranian government's provocations which lead to severing of relations with the US, nevertheless majority of Iranians have been exposed to media and opinion for the last 26 years which has not taken this into consideration. Therefore what they can see and hear is America who supported Iran's enemy Saddam Hussein is now trying to manipulate events in Iran. Furthermore accusations of foul play by the US in the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in the Persian Gulf in 1988 are still rife in Iran. Although US investigations found that the crew of USS Vincent did genuinely believe that the Iranian Airbus was a F-14 fighter jet, nevertheless a BBC investigative programme in 1996 found that the US ship was in fact inside Iranian waters when it shot down the passenger plane and thus outside its jurisdiction.

The Iranian government used all such opportunities to its advantage. However miscalculated US timing and strategy in efforts to reach the people of Iran has only made things more difficult for Washington. It is the opinion of meepas© that US plans to communicate with the people of Iran must be readdressed.

It is true that many people in Iran want change. They are sick and tired of the corruption and abuse of power at home. However viable alternatives to the current regime for many Iranians are few, because many of the opposition groups are seen as being out of touch as they are closely related to foreign governments.

If the US is genuinely interested in assisting the people of Iran to think and decide their own future for themselves then it must learn to base its actions and strategy on the historical and cultural sensitivities of the people of Iran.

One of the first lessons to come out of that would be that when it comes to judging how and what Iranians think, it must find out the pattern of thinking and beliefs in the provincial areas of Iran because that's where the majority of Iranians live. More importantly that's where the revolution started and that is where majority of the government support is based.

Tough talk coming out of Washington in support of economic sanctions by the international community (in addition to present US sanctions) against Iran must be stopped as such moves have the opposite effect. They reinforce the image of the US as the enemy of not just the regime, but of the Iranian people too because as in Iraq sanctions will hurt the public the most. Furthermore sanctions could in fact increase support for the government. Iranian history has already proven that. In the 1950s Britain placed oil sanctions against Iran due to the fact that Mosadeq's regime nationalised the oil industry which was formerly run by the British. Although the sanctions did have an enormous economic impact, nevertheless they galvanised the public for the government against the British as the public saw the sanctions as a plot by a colonising power who wanted to control Iran. Therefore as soon as Mosadeq's replacement Prime Minister Ahmad Qavam gave in to British demands the public was so outraged that they demonstrated until Mosadeq was reinstated. It is true that Ayatollah Khamenei is no Mosadeq, nevertheless the example is a good illustration of Iranian people's reaction to foreign interference and even worst, foreign punishments.

Also when it comes to openly commenting on Iran's internal affairs, as far as Washington should be concerned from now on, the less the better.

The most successful strategy to assist the people of Iran to decide for themselves as to whether or not they want democracy is to treat the Iranians inside Iran with the same dignity as the Iranians in the US are treated by the US government. This is especially in areas of economic and educational opportunities. Success stories of hundreds of thousands of Iranians in California are very powerful in reaching out to the people of Iran. Grants for Iranian students to study in the US, increased visits and exchanges by US and Iranian intellectuals in Iran and abroad and support of Iranian NGOs in the international forum will also be very positive in improving relations.

However most important of all according to meepas© increased trade as against the current US sanctions can be the most powerful means of improving relations between the US government and the Iranian people who are the only people who can decide on and nurture a democratic system in Iran. Poverty leads to fundamentalism and support for the current regime. Reduction of poverty through increased trade with Iran can only decrease support for the government and thus increase calls for democracy. For all those in Washington who say that trade with Iran will only bolster the pockets of government officials they should take note that government officials are rich enough as it is. The sanctions by the US have not taken away their business conglomerates. Trade with Iran will have a smaller impact on their wealth however it will have a significant positive impact on the lives of ordinary Iranians who after all are the most important element in the equation. No government should forget that.

End of Analysis

Subscribe to the meepas Middle East Analysis Review subscribe@meepas.com

Logon to meepas.com for access to detailed background and current political and economic analysis of 16 Middle Eastern countries.

www.meepas.com All rights reserved - Site Rules