Imagine your reaction if, during last November’s presidential contest, the mullahs of Iran had suddenly launched a tirade of criticism against the American system of democracy and beamed their message onto our television sets and radios for all of us to hear: democracy in the United States, the mullahs might perhaps have claimed, is a corrupt process that is determined largely by the influence of the wealthiest donors, and a process that wholly fails to address the religious needs of a secular, materialist culture.
The Bush Administration and Iran’s New President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory in late June was a surprise
for pundits both inside and outside Iran. Not only did the proverbial favorite
Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani not win, but the turnout was around 60% in both rounds,
so the much-debated election boycott did not reduce participation to historic
lows. Ahmadinejad, Tehran’s mayor, with the help of the security-military
apparatus, mobilized his conservative base in the first round of balloting
to force an unprecedented second-round runoff against Hashemi-Rafsanjani. The
mayor then reached out to the political independent masses to win over 60%
of the vote. The unpredictability and close nature of the result (as well as
of Mohammad Khatami’s victory in 1997) are especially significant in
the Middle East, where elections, when they do occur, are often formalities.1
The U.S. and Iran: Democracy, Terrorism, and Nuclear Weapons
The election of the hard-line Teheran mayor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, over
former President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani as the new head of Iran is
undeniably a setback for those hoping to advance greater social and political
freedom in that country. It should not necessarily be seen as a turn to the
right by the Iranian electorate, however. The 70-year old Rafsanjani—a cleric
and penultimate wheeler-dealer from the political establishment—was portrayed
as the more moderate conservative. The fact that he had become a millionaire
while in government was apparently seen as less important than his modest reform
agenda. By contrast, the young Teheran mayor focused on the plight of the poor
and cleaning up corruption.
Iran and the Forgotten Anniversary
The talk of regime change in Iran that now fills the air in Washington is not new. Although very few Americans are aware of it, August of this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of a vital, yet little-known chapter in American foreign policy–a military coup against the elected leaders of Iran orchestrated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
Bush Administration Divided Over the Road to Tehran
After the occupation of Iraq, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush appears to be torn between moving from Baghdad on to Tehran, or refocusing on al Qaeda as the main target in the “war on terrorism.”
Implications for Iranian Democracy: The Student Movement and Social Change
After September 11, Iranians set aside their differences with America and expressed public support for our loss in a candlelight vigil held in “Azadi” (freedom) Square in Tehran. Now, almost two years later, the U.S. may have lost a window of opportunity to improve relations with Iran, and currently faces resentment throughout the Islamic world. By proclaiming Iran as part of an “axis of evil,” continuing to implicate it in state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear weapons production, and threatening regime change, the U.S. has alienated a key regional player.
Solidarity and Student Protests in Iran
Is Tehran Back in the Crosshairs of the Neocon Crusade?
Reports that top officials in the administration of President George W. Bush met Tuesday, May 27th to discuss U.S. policy toward Iran, including possible efforts to overthrow its government, mark a major advance in what has been an 18-month-old campaign by neoconservatives in and out of the administration. Overshadowed until last month by their much louder drum-beating for war against Iraq, the neocons’ efforts to now focus U.S. attention on “regime change” in Iran has become much more intense since early May and has already borne substantial fruit.
From Baghdad to Tehran?
With Iraq under U.S. occupation and Syria’s leaders shaken by a series of high-level threats from top Bush administration officials, Iran has come under increased U.S. pressure. As officials in Washington talk about “Iranian agents” crossing the border into Iraq to foment trouble for the U.S. occupation, a leading neoconservative strategist Monday said the United States is already in a “death struggle” with Tehran, and he urged the administration of President George W. Bush to “take the fight to Iran,” through “covert operations,” among other measures.
Iran: the Next Target?
President Bush’s State of the Union address comes as near to a declaration of war on Iraq as is possible without the guns beginning to fire. It rehearsed all of the reasons for an attack relating to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, made no mention of oil, and made it clear that the U.S. was prepared to go to war with minimal international support if need be.
