Thursday, October 27, 2005
Hormuz blues
Why deliberately add to the annoyance of two countries, Israel and the United States, that are your sworn enemies and both of which ostensibly have far more powerful and capable forces than you do? What signals are you sending, to who? And why now? I will be glad to hear of an analysis that puts the whole thing together in a way that makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Can it just be put down to inexperience, as Simon Tisdall at the Guardian reports Ray Takeyh at the CFR as saying?
Slogans fail to cover up a lack of experience
Simon Tisdall
Friday October 28, 2005
The Guardian
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's greenhorn president, sent a shiver of alarm across Europe and the Middle East with his demand that Israel be "wiped off the face of the Earth". But even if the remark was more than mere rhetoric, Mr Ahmadinejad's ability to pursue a confrontational policy is severely circumscribed.
Real power in the Islamic republic lies not with the presidency but with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The fundamentalist Mr Ahmadinejad is a protege of the ayatollah, who backed him last summer against reformist candidates. And the unelected supreme leader, along with the mullahs' Guardian Council, has the final say on major issues of state.
Mr Ahmadinejad is in a minority even among conservatives. According to Ray Takeyh of the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, a consensus emerged during Muhammad Khatami's presidency that post-revolutionary Iran could no longer afford global isolation of the kind this week's gaffe engendered
Mr Khamenei did much to undermine Mr Khatami's modest political reforms. He would not countenance a rapprochement with the "Great Satan" (America). But he encouraged bridge-building elsewhere.
"By cultivating favourable relations with key international actors such as China, Russia and the European Union, Tehran has sought to craft its own 'coalition of the willing' and prevent the US from multilateralising its coercive approach to Iran," Mr Takeyh wrote.
"Although the Islamic Republic continues its inflammatory support for terrorist organisations battling Israel and is pressing ahead with its nuclear programme, its foreign policy is no longer that of a revolutionary state. This perspective will survive Iran's latest leadership transition."
Mr Ahmadinejad, a blacksmith's son, former revolutionary guard and ex-mayor of Tehran, based his appeal to voters on social justice and personal humility. His demand for a "second revolution" implied criticism of corrupt clerical and secular elites controlling much of Iran's oil-funded economy.
He has almost no experience in international affairs. His appearance at the UN last month, when he denounced the west's "nuclear apartheid", was adjudged a diplomatic disaster.
And he has a stubborn streak. One of his first actions was to appoint a fellow hardliner, Ali Larijani, as head of Iran's nuclear negotiating team. The talks quickly hit the rocks. In apparent defiance of Mr Khamenei, he has reportedly sought counsel in Qom from Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, the fundamentalists' anti-western "spiritual father". But the president faces additional constraints. His defeated rival, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, continues to chair the influential Expediency Council. The council has gained an expanded role overseeing all branches of Iran's power structure. Earlier this month, Mr Rafsanjani appeared to reprimand the new leadership for "sloganeering".
Mr Ahmadinejad's electoral honeymoon has also been brief. He is under fire for failing to share out oil income and create jobs. There have been rows over cabinet appointments and control of the oil ministry. And there are insidious suggestions that he is out of his depth. All this may explain his apparent need to adopt "bold" leadership postures. But spectacular international own goals and domestic underperformance suggest he could become a liability to his turbaned tutelars.
Post a Comment