Iran was once on a path of liberalization and reform before the US Military began sowing destruction throughout the Middle East and Central Asia following the attacks on the United States in 2001.
Although now largely forgotten, the last president of Iran,
Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), was a liberal-minded reformer who
fought for freedom of expression, tolerance and civil society. He
was open-minded about building diplomatic relations with other
states, including those with which Iran has had problems in the
past.
He even waged something of an intellectual battle against
American academic Samuel Huntington, who argued on behalf of a
‘clash of civilizations.’ Khatami advanced the concept of “dialogue
among civilizations,” which seemed the more promising and peaceful
idea. The former Iranian president’s proposal became so popular
that the United Nations proclaimed the year 2001 as the United
Nations’ ‘Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.’
Eventually, however, ‘clash’ trumped ‘dialogue’ as America’s
reckless ‘War on Terror’ seemed to recognize no clear boundaries,
and even less good judgment.
For the past decade, Tehran has watched with increasing
apprehension as a US-led coalition has launched a series of
military offensives throughout the region, most notably in
bordering Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a highly controversial
drone campaign inside of Pakistan.
It came as little surprise that Khatami’s liberal policies began
to fall out of favor as the Islamic Republic was forced to confront
the specter of US military might massing on its borders.
Khatami’s liberal agenda was overshadowed by a relative unknown,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the conservative hardliner who was elected to
the presidential post with a stunning 17,046,441 votes out of a
total of 27,536,069 cast in the runoff election. Ahmadinejad’s
two-term presidency (the maximum permitted by Iran’s constitution)
will come to an end in June as Iranians prepare for presidential
elections.
Judging by the way the US Military is entrenching itself in
Iran’s immediate neighborhood, it will be interesting to see who
replaces Ahmadinejad. The Iranian President has declared his
support for his Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who has
been described as a fervent “religious-nationalist.”
Iran’s present political trajectory does not promise to change
much, since the top eight contenders for the presidential post have
been described as “hardline conservatives.” Thus, any hope that the
upcoming elections will produce a candidate who will be willing to
sit down and talk with Iran’s enemies (much as US President Barack
Obama pledged to do on the dusty campaign trail) do not look very
promising.
Given the ideological conformity of this year’s presidential
candidates, who have been vetted by the Guardian Council — a
12-member council of senior clerics and judges whose task it is to
“safeguard the constitution” — it looks doubtful that there will be
any repeat of the problems that hampered the 2009 presidential
elections.
Following accusations by the opposition that the voting was
rigged, supporters of main opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi
took to the streets to vent their anger. After nearly a week of
tensions, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorsed
Ahmadinejad’s 2009 bid, saying the vote difference was too large to
have been manipulated.
It remains a matter of speculation as to what degree the US
Military’s activities in the region have altered Iran’s political
landscape.
Although the Pentagon has said it will start withdrawing its
troops from Afghanistan next year, the long-awaited drawdown comes
with a catch: Uncle Sam wants to keep nine military bases
operational in the country for an indefinite period. That’s a very
large military footprint. Earlier this month, Afghan President
Hamid Karzai agreed to Washington’s demands, if they were ever his
to refuse.
Much the same could be said for Iraq, which endured NATO
occupation for almost 9 years.
“The military pullout a year ago… did not end Washington’s
engagement,” AP reported. “The US Embassy in Baghdad, a
fortress-like campus as big as Vatican City, remains a highly
visible reminder of America’s ongoing interest in Iraq’s
future.”
America’s de facto role as Iraq’s biggest arms supplier
guarantees a high level of US military oversight in the country for
years to come. Now add to Afghanistan and Iraq the US naval
presence in the Persian Gulf, and Iran is quite literally
surrounded by US firepower.
Meanwhile, tensions over Iran’s nuclear program continue to ebb
and flow.
Last year, as the possibility of a unilateral Israeli attack on
Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons program seemed plausible,
Iran threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, through which 18
million barrels of oil — roughly 35 percent of the world’s total —
flows every day.
It goes without saying that any disruption of this supply route
would have a huge impact on oil prices, and by extension the global
economy.
In September, the United States was at the helm of a 12-day,
25-nation naval exercise in the Persian Gulf. Though these war
games are conducted annually, last year’s games were clearly an
effort to intimidate Tehran: Three full US carrier groups
participated in the exercises, each accompanied by dozens of
support vessels and carrying more aircraft than the entire Iranian
air force.
Earlier this month, another US-led naval drill began in the
Persian Gulf in a second such display of maritime strength in less
than a year. The exercises involved 35 ships, and 18 unmanned
submarines and aircraft.
Whether a new Iranian president can resolve the simmering crisis
remains to be seen, but the odds, it seems, are not
encouraging.
Robert Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight
in the American Empire, which examines the dangerous
consequences of extreme corporate power now prevalent in the
US.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
This article originally appeared on: RT