The Iranian elections’ impact on Lebanon
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad casts his ballot Friday at a polling station in Tehran. (AFP/FARS NEWS AGENCY/Ebrahim Norozi)
Just halfway through 2009, three major elections that will have major impacts on the Middle East have already occurred. In January, the United States inaugurated Barack Obama; in February, Israel elected a right-wing government headed by hardliner Benyamin Netanyahu; and last weekend in Lebanon the March 14 coalition won the parliament majority. Today, one more election – this time in Iran – is bringing voters to the polls to cast their ballots in what has been a hard-fought campaign.
The choices Iranians are faced with as they enter the polling stations today appear stark – two hard-liners, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Revolutionary Guard Commander Mohsen Rezaii; and two reformists, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former Speaker of Parliament Mehdi Karroubi. But the fact that four candidates are running means there will likely not be a clear winner declared immediately, and there will probably be a runoff a week after the election.
The two blocs – reformist and conservative, each divided between two candidates – will likely coalesce around whichever two men come out on top. The most talked-about candidates in the running, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are expected to perform the best.
But despite the seeming polarization of the camps, there are few big issues that separate them. And even fewer issues pertaining to Lebanon’s internal affairs or national security are up for debate.
All candidates support organizations such as Hezbollah (whose coalition’s recent defeat in the Lebanese elections could be seen as a blow to Iran’s role in the region) though Mousavi, who has been focusing on the economy during his campaign, did say it would be financially and politically unwise to continue funding outside groups, and that the president should instead focus on domestic issues.
In fact, the debate over how to manage Iran’s tanking economy (inflation is at 28%) seems to be the most central, and will likely be the issue that determines the final outcome of the elections.
The issue at stake in Iran that most likely affects Lebanon is Tehran’s negotiations with the United States, as Iran will likely use its connections with Hezbollah as a card in any talks.
All candidates agree that negotiations are necessary, but analysts believe that a reformist president would pursue discussions with the United States more wholeheartedly.
For example, a report on the elections by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that Mousavi “advocates negotiations [with the United States] as long as Iran is not required to ‘pay a heavy cost.’” President Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and threats toward Israel would make it difficult for America to engage fully.
However, the president of Iran is limited in his ability to pursue foreign policy items on his own as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is much more powerful in such matters.
Dr. Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, author of an upcoming book on Iran’s regional alliances, told NOW Lebanon that not only does the Supreme Leader control many of the country’s important institutions, but many of the overall themes of Iran’s foreign policy are actually written into its constitution, which “talks about helping the oppressed... Muslim unity [and] anti-imperialism.” Saad-Ghorayeb said that because of these restrictions, “there is no way a grand bargain can be made by the executive branch alone.”
The one area of foreign policy that the president of Iran can influence is perception and rhetoric. The combative styles of both President Ahmadinejad and former US President George W. Bush stoked tensions between the two countries and pushed them even further apart. Since US President Barack Obama has moved to a dialogue-based approach, the room for understanding between the two countries may have increased significantly. “If a reformist does win, I think we will see a period of détente,” said Saad-Ghorayeb. “I think we will see more conciliatory tactics, we’re going to see more dialogue. And even if the ultimate end will not be any different, that will relieve people temporarily. It’s a temporary reprieve on the foreign policy issue.”
But any possibility of such a breakthrough depends on the election of a reformist, the likelihood of which is still unknown. The Supreme Leader, however, has lent tacit support to hardliner Ahmadinejad, who has stood strongly behind Hezbollah and increased Iran’s support to the group.
Furthermore, many believe Mir-Hosein Mousavi is not as much of a reformist as he portrays himself to be, and, according to Haaretz, was in fact the Iranian leader who began the country’s pursuit of nuclear weapons when he authorized the purchase of centrifuges.
Successful dialogue with the United States may relieve some of the tension between it and Iran, and a reformist president could change the level of the country’s support of and aid to Hezbollah.
The people of Iran – and the world – must wait for the results to see.
Article published in NOW Lebanon on June 12, 2009.
