Back to Articles

Iran and four more years of George W. Bush

By M.Behnoud

US elections are over. It was a victory for Mr. Bush which the Times of London called a ‘victory for faith’. The simple truth is that religion helped neoconservatives more than anything else and it should teach a lesson to those who think they know everything about politics. This result can be analysed from many perspectives but I want to concentrate about those relating to Iran and Iranians.

First of all, in this election, Iranians living in America have actively participated. Furthermore, press reports indicate that Iranian domestic media showed immense interest in this presidential election. I can testify that during my forty years of service in media I have never witnessed such interest amongst people, though US elections have always been important for Iran’s future, sometimes more important than domestic events. However it had always remained a subject of discussion amongst politicians and statesmen and not the public.

This new reaction, that should be a cause for many celebrations, demonstrates that Iranians are sensitive about Iran’s political destiny, and pay little attention to governing system’s propaganda that it made no difference who became the new US president as none of the candidates were Islamic Republic’s friend. They even tried to make similarities between the US Electoral College and Iran’s Guardian Council to show that elections in America, like Iran, is controlled by the ruling clique. However it seems that the Iranian urban middle class and youth who are public opinion makers knew the truth.

It is not up to Iranian militants to decide. It is a simple fact that America is the world’s superpower. Even when it was not the only superpower, its internal developments had an obvious and direct effect on us. It is widely believed that if Democrats had won the 1952 elections, the August 1953 events would not have taken such a shape.

Seven years later, John Kennedy’s victory in 1960 presidential elections, forced the Shah, who was by then dominating the political scene, to start some reforms that later were known as the “Shah and People’s White Revolution”.

In 1968, Richard Nixon became president and gave the Shah the best opportunity to get what he wanted. Those were the Shah’s golden years, even after Watergate forced Nixon to quit, as Ford and Kissinger continued Nixon’s policy.

However in 1976 there was a change in the US and Gerald Ford gave way to Jimmy Carter, a Democrat. At that time many people believed that Iran had become such important and the Shah such a big person that a change in US presidency could not have an effect. But the Shah himself was not one of them. He was absolutely devastated by Carter’s electoral victory, especially as Carter had criticised Iran’s human rights record in his campaign.

Shah had tried for many years to become the symbol of alliance with US in the region and the policeman of the Persian Gulf. He was accused by his enemies of being a puppet of America. But he did not mind as long as he could get the best military equipment from Washington and build his nuclear power stations. But Carter’s simplistic approach coupled with the Shah’s illness gave his enemies encouragement and started a process that culminated in the Islamic revolution and the Shah’s downfall.

Four years later, the Islamic Republic of Iran was the hottest news all around the world. United States was preoccupied with its hostages in Tehran and President Carter could do nothing. The leaders of the new Iranian regime had found the best opportunity to influence US internal politics and, as a result, demonstrate their power to the world and tighten their hold on Iran. They kept the hostages until they were sure that Carter was beaten and Ronald Reagan was the new American president.

At that time people like Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, were worried that the newcomers in Iran were not aware of how the world politics worked. He wrote a letter to Ayatollah Khomeini that Carter was much a suitable choice for the world peace as opposed to Reagan who seemed to be an extremist. Castro was thinking of the future of Communism and Eastern bloc. However Ayatollah Khomeini was mindful of the credibility of his new regime and the international Islamic movement.

Later events showed that the clerics of Iran were fully aware of world politics. What is known today as Iran-Contra affair that shook the Reagan administration was not less shocking than Watergate. It is widely believed that if it was not for Reagan’s widespread popularity and also for relative calm of American economics, he would have become the second US president overthrown by the Iranian influence.

In 1992, US public preferred a young Kennedy-like intellectual liberal to Reagan’s heir, George H. Bush, who had ruled the world during the collapse of the Soviet Union and commanded an alliance to kick out Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.

At that time, I wrote that, despite what some Iranians thought, Clinton’s rise to power did not mean the world would become a heaven and America would become harmless. However, I wrote, the presence of Clinton would give an opportunity to those who wanted to reform the past and put an end to Iran’s international exclusion.

I was attacked then by fundamentalist press as a “westernized intellectual”. But my point was proven after a while. Iranian People’s victory in May 1997 election proved that Clinton’s Human Rights pressures and his encouragements had worked. He not only showed interest in Iran’s reform movement but went further to improve relations with Iran. However reactionaries in Iran did not let the government to welcome Clinton’s gestures.

History has shown that American Republicans have been more inclined to talk and deal, and sometimes fight, with undemocratic regimes. Examples are Nixon’s dealing with China and Reagan’s friendship with Gorbachev. American Republicans, even moderates such as Eisenhower, have been a better representative of militarism than Democrats such as Bill Clinton or, probably, John Kerry.

In 2000, George W. Bush came to power. But before he could follow Reagan, 9/11 happened and neoconservatives found the opportunity to hasten their plans. They reached Iranian borders and what has happened since, has demonstrated that the world conservatives understand each other’s language, namely force. During both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iranian conservatives did what their counterparts in Washington wanted, despite the rhetoric on both sides. In such atmosphere, peaceful reforms in Iran were forgotten.

Now that President Bush is re-elected, hidden joy of Iranian conservatives in understandable. It is also understandable why reformists are worried. However the happiness of some of those opposed to the Islamic regime in questionable. Some of them naively believe that because of warm relations between the late Shah and American Republicans and because the Iranian revolution happened during the presidency of Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, the chances of the Shah’s son are increased. However, it is wiser to say that as Republicans were happy with Shah’s autocratic but economically progressive government and had never questioned his Human Rights record, Republicans such as Bush are much more comfortable with conservatives who follow the same policies.

And for those who think that George Bush, in his second term, will continue the process of removing Middle East regimes and, eventually, will reach Iran, it must be said that almost all opposition groups are, at least in public, oppose such plans. It shows that they know such a solution has no place among Iranian people. It is only democracy that guarantees the backing of the people.

Nov. 5th. 2004