|
Abrahamof
Press•Agency @B®ª•A.P.A.
Niue
5334 Posts
|
 Posted?-?01 Nov 2008?:? 11:47:36 ? 
|
 Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD International Law, Persian Journal Oct 31, 2008 © Iranian.ws
On a state visit to India in April 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said at a press conference, among other things, "Do you think they will allow a black man to become president of the U.S.? We don't think they will allow Obama to be president in America." Ahmadinejad proceeded to add, "Of course, it makes no difference to us who wins power in the U.S. Regardless of the outcome, the U.S. is no longer what it used to be; it is a power in decline." (Tabnak, "Ahmadinejad: Obama and Clinton Will Not Be President," April 29, 2008.)
In an earlier interview on March 4, 2008 with the Spanish newspaper El Pa's in Tehran, Ahmadinejad said, "I consider it highly unlikely the behind-the-scenes apparatus at the White House will let Obama go to the White House. Not that it makes any difference to us who finds his way into the White House. What matters is that the person going there should understand conditions in the U.S. and the world." Ahmadinejad added, "I have been saying for more than two years that I am ready to debate [President] Bush in New York in the presence of the mass media. There is nothing wrong with talks. But I consider it unlikely they will allow Obama to come and be president. You understand power politics in the U.S. They act very violently when it comes to power issues, and people's votes are not guaranteed [respect]." (Iranian Presidential Website.) Notwithstanding Ahmadinejad's professed impartiality, remarks such as these show a preference by him and others in the Iranian leadership for an Obama victory in the U.S. presidential elections.
Iranian scholar Naser Hadian, close to the government of Iran, has written the following:
"The election of Mr. Obama, in restoring moral authority and credit to America's global leadership, could have both positive and negative consequences [for Iran]. On the positive side, he could ask Iran for the establishment of ties - something the world would support. Then it would be up to Iran to decide whether or not it intended to resume ties with the U.S. So it seems that, for Iran too, the less costly option for resumption of ties would be Barack Obama.
"On the negative side, should Iran fail to respond to the demands of the West, he would tighten the economic sanctions against Iran, and this would hurt Iran in the long term. Nonetheless, I am confident that Obama is not considering the military option against Iran.
"If McCain is elected, however, one could not discount the possibility of military action. With his background, McCain is an expert in military, international security and foreign policy affairs and could credibly use U.S. power and force. Here he can also draw support from certain European countries. Unlike George Bush, he is cognizant of international issues, and his beliefs give him the authority to exercise U.S. power at the global level. Thus, I believe McCain's policies would be more dangerous for Iran.
"In the face of a regime of sanctions, Iran has a chance to revise its policies. The military option, however, would render a change in stance or policy more remote. Therefore, I believe Obama would be a more profitable option for Iran. In the meantime, the U.S. administration will hold off implementing any policy towards Tehran until the 10th presidential elections [June 2009] and their outcome." (Naser Hadian, "Obama, A Less Costly Option for Iran," Iranian Diplomacy, October 9, 2008.)
Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian Majles and a possible contender in the upcoming president elections (June 2009), made a trip to Bahrain recently. At a press conference, in response to a reporter's question about Iran's preference between the candidates, he said: "That is an internal issue for Americans. Nonetheless, what Obama says makes more sense, but he must show more in actions than in words." (Tabnak, October 24, 2008).
Tehran mayor Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, another potential contender in the next presidential elections in Iran (having lost in 2005), said on a recent trip to Australia, "I believe he [Obama] has clearer and more transparent positions towards important issues such as Iran and the Middle East." ("Ghalibaf: I Have Made No Decision about My Candidacy," Shahab News, October 24, 2008).
What is Obama's draw for these Iranian hard-liners?
Iranian officials seem to prefer Obama simply because he has promised to talk to Iran without preconditions. The more important issue, however, is their belief that with Obama the military option would be off the table. That would limit his maneuvering to negotiation, which is desirable from the perspective of the Iranian regime, for it might allow Iran's leaders to stall for time while they have a chance to advance their nuclear program. It would also leave them free to actively oppose Israel, continue efforts to export revolution, support Hezbollah and Hamas, intervene in regional matters, and, ultimately, govern the Iranian people with an iron fist.
|
|
Klacht indienen
|
|
?
?
?New Topic 
?Topic Locked
