Iran: Rich, armed and angry, how dangerous is it to the world?

Iran: Rich, armed and angry, how dangerous is it to the world?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article323335.ece
The President wants Israel exterminated, defies international outrage and
may soon have nuclear weapons. Angus McDowall in Tehran, Raymond Whitaker
and Marie Woolf assess the true Iranian threat
Published: 30 October 2005

When a country seemingly on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons calls for
one of its neighbours to be "wiped off the map", the world surely has every
cause to worry. When the country making the threat is vast, volatile Iran,
and the object of its hostility is Israel, the worries multiply.

The statement by Iran's hardline new President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was
roundly condemned by the UN Security Council, and appeared to bring the
possibility of sanctions closer. Mr Ahmadinejad, however, was undaunted,
joining hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in Tehran to chant " Death to
Israel!" and "Death to America!" It did not appear to concern him that this
reinforced the image of a dangerous regime which might not shrink from using
nuclear weapons once it had acquired them.

Yet Iran is a complicated and confusing country, as visitors to Tehran soon
become aware. The stern, black-browed visage of Ayatollah Khomeini, the
deceased revolutionary leader, glowers down from huge murals all over the
capital, but in the streets below, fashion-conscious girls in tight jeans
and heavy make-up trip past. Other murals proclaim official hostility to
America, the "Great Satan", but the capital's youth are well up with trends
in American movies and R&B music. Even though it is Ramadan, when the entire
populace should be fasting from dawn to dusk, it is common to see people
eating or smoking in cars or discreet corners of city parks.

And when you look more closely at the political rhetoric, the picture is
also less monolithic than at first glance. Although President Ahmadinejad's
call to erase Israel from the map was a direct quotation of Ayatollah
Khomeini, it is years since such an inflammatory statement was made by
anyone so senior in Iran, and other figures quickly uttered more soothing
words. All the President was seeking to do, they said, was to draw attention
to the world's failure to implement UN resolutions condemning Israel's
treatment of the Palestinians.

But for many in the West, these reassurances sound too similar to those
about Iran's nuclear ambitions. For years the regime has insisted that its
programme is aimed purely at developing civil nuclear power, despite the
fact that it is one of the world's leading oil exporters and has more
natural gas reserves than any country apart from Russia. It has been less
than frank with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear
watchdog, and has reacted belligerently under pressure. With the stakes so
high, the President's aggressive language on Israel could not be allowed to
pass unchallenged.

Among those most clearly toughening their stance was Tony Blair, who warned
that the Tehran regime would not be allowed to become a "threat to world
security". Speaking at a one-day European summit at Hampton Court in London,
the Prime Minister said he felt a "real sense of revulsion" at President
Ahmadinejad's remarks.

"These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable," Mr Blair went
on. "I have never come across a situation where the president of a country
says they want to wipe out another country ­ this is not acceptable. Their
attitude towards terrorism, towards nuclear weapons and towards Israel is
not acceptable."

Iran would be making "a very big mistake", said Mr Blair, if it believed
Western leaders were too preoccupied with other issues to deliver a strong
response. But was President Ahmadinejad actually speaking for Iran? For all
his braggadoccio, the extent of his influence over foreign and security
policy is debatable. That in turn, however, raises the question of who
really does have power in Tehran. There is no doubt that the answer matters.
As Friday's chanting and flag-burning showed, Iranian hardliners feel they
are riding the crest of a wave. Spurred by their success in the summer's
elections, fuelled by record oil revenues and buoyed by the failure of the
US occupation in Iraq, they have become emboldened. When the US invaded Iraq
in 2003, it looked ready to roll on and tackle Iran. That is now out of the
question. Iraq's new government is composed of old Iranian allies among the
Shia and Kurdish parties. And the US military is bogged down in a guerrilla
war that has left it overstretched and vulnerable. Iraq's instability has
also gifted Iran another huge advantage in rising oil prices.

Until recently, Iran was thought to be shifting towards a more conciliatory
approach. With half the population under 30 and apparently less interested
in politics than in jobs and having fun, the government was expected to
become more accommodating. Iran started to open up, allowing pop music and
foreign films at home and offering a "dialogue of the civilisations" abroad.
Now the older post-revolutionary slogans are being shouted again, calling
down death to the enemy and eternal life for revolutionary martyrs.

>From one perspective, Iran is a country dominated by a small clique of
hardline revolutionaries who keep the young population disenfranchised by
manipulating a false democracy. In another, the Islamic republic has been
granted legitimacy by its people, who regularly turn out to vote in large
numbers, and ensure that enough interest groups are represented in
decision-making to give balance to the state.

At the very top, the system is opaque. The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, holds ultimate authority. He inherited the role from the
charismatic Ayatollah Khomeini on the latter's death in 1989. Under Iran's
system of Vilayat-e Faqih ­ rule of the jurisprudent ­ power is vested in
the clergy because they can best interpret God's intentions for mankind.

Under the Supreme Leader is the elected government ­ the President with his
cabinet, and the Majlis, as the parliament is known. Arch-conservatives took
control of the Majlis in February 2004 after an election many Iranians
thought was rigged by the banning of reformist candidates. Mr Ahmadinejad
then won the presidential election this summer, promising to improve
conditions for Iran's poor by better sharing the $37bn (£21bn) of oil
revenues earned last year.

But a series of other groups have a stake in the process too. The Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps has grown in power in recent years, and many
Iranians believe it controls most of the voices around the Supreme Leader,
to whom it expresses total devotion. Mr Ahmadinejad is a former guardsman,
as are many of the new Majlis deputies.

The force, 150,000 strong, receives all the best military equipment, and has
started to play a significant role in Iran's economy, bidding to take over
big oil engineering projects. It is also in charge of the Islamic Basij
militia, formed during the 1980-88 war with Iraq as a volunteer unit
comprising young boys and old men who wanted to seek martyrdom for the
revolution. It was block voting by the millions of Basij members that
ensured Mr Ahmadinejad's June election victory.

With his arrival in office the right-wing allies of the guards corps seemed
to have taken power completely. For the first time since the Islamic
revolution in 1979, all the branches of power were being run by a single
political faction. But Ayatollah Khamenei has since moved to restore some
political equilibrium to the process of rule. Last month he increased the
power of the Expediency Council, headed by defeated presidential candidate
(and former president) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, giving it new authority
over the other branches of power.

"More senior hardliners are now saying to the President: Look around you,"
said a Tehran-based political analyst. "Your economic team has achieved
nothing and your foreign policy is a mess. It's time to get serious."

Despite appearances, foreign policy works by consensus too. It is made by
the leader and the Supreme National Security Council, a body that includes
many senior officials, including the President. It ensures that all the big
decisions ­ on the nuclear issue, Iraq and relations with the West ­ are
agreed on by all the people at the top.

For most of these influential figures, staying in power is the most
important goal ­ a goal that is inimical to any sort of direct attack on
Israel. In all probability, the naive outbursts of Mr Ahmadinejad were as
much of an embarrassment and irritation to them as his self-image as a
blacksmith's son who speaks for the people. They would do well not to treat
him altogether as someone who can safely be ignored, however. He is far more
representative of popular feeling than the urban sophisticates of Tehran.

In his election campaign, Mr Ahmadinejad used to full advantage the paradox
that oil has always been a mixed blessing. Many Iranians feel aggrieved that
despite the fortune flowing into the country, little seems to trickle down
to them. They often accuse their leaders of siphoning off petrodollars to
line their own pockets rather than investing to help the poor. In fact, most
of the money goes on badly managed subsidy and state employment programmes.

For the government, the billions of dollars flowing into the country allow
them to buy off the public with short-term spending programmes ­ and leave
plenty left over for other projects like arms spending and the nuclear
programme. Iran's enormous natural gas reserves have also come into play.
China and India are both hungry for Iranian gas deals, but it is uncertain
how far they are willing to offer any strategic alliance in return. Last
month India voted against Iran on the nuclear issue, accepting that its new
alliance with the US is more important. However, talks for a
multibillion-dollar gas pipeline through Pakistan continue.

With Iran's conservatives on such a high, many people expected them to make
more thorough changes. But so far, they seem to be more interested in
cosmetics than fundamentals. The tone has been more religious at home and
more stridently nationalist abroad. They have attacked foreign investment
programmes initiated by the reformists and Mr Rafsanjani's technocrats, and
have changed the cultural mood by barring most foreign films from television
and cinemas.

"There used to be a pretty flexible line between the people and the
government, but now it is completely rigid," said Ali, a middle-aged
government employee in a mainstream suburb of Tehran. "I don't feel as
though the government pays us any attention at all any more."

Ultimately, the hardliners know their electoral base is insecure. Only about
half of Mr Ahmadinejad's votes came from the conservative core. The rest
were people who responded to his traditional image and his pledges to
eradicate poverty and corruption. Most Iranians may not feel particularly
worked up about the need for new freedoms, but judging by the mood on the
street they would react angrily if many of those achieved by the reformists
were revoked.

More than anything else, they are focused on their own opportunities and
standard of living ­ things that can be improved in the short term by
spending oil income, but in the long term need political stability and
painful economic reform.

For the rest of the world, the dilemma is how to deter the blinkered
hardliners and encourage the positive trends in Iran. Yesterday Downing
Street sources made it clear that despite Mr Blair's strong words, Britain
would continue to work in the UN and with its European partners and Moscow
to bring Iran to the table. But No 10 said that the Prime Minister's remarks
did amount to a toughening of the British position. Iran was not " getting
the message", said a senior aide to Tony Blair.

What Britain and other Western countries privately admit, however, is that
sooner or later this opaque, bewildering nation will almost certainly have
nuclear weapons. It is less likely to make reckless use of them than might
be feared, but that is due more to its own internal checks and balances than
any outside influence.

Who wields the real power in Tehran?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Took over as supreme leader on the death in 1989 of his mentor, Ayatollah
Khomeini. Figurehead of Iran's conservative establishment, strongly
anti-American

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Populist ex-mayor of Tehran. Religious conservative little known abroad, won
presidency as voters reacted against unfulfilled promises of reform

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani

Ex-president whose comeback bid failed. Retains major influence as head of
unelected Expediency Council, which has recently been given more power

Ali Larijani

Head of Supreme National Security Council, which co-ordinates foreign
policy. Presidential bid was unsuccessful, despite his being backed by the
mainstream conservative coalition

Manouchehr Mottaki

New Foreign Minister, little known before his appointment this summer. Has
exhibited tough line on defending Iran's nuclear programme and in opposition
to Israel and the US

General Rahin Safavi

Hardline chief of Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which has huge
influence over Iran's nuclear programme as well as control of its ballistic
missile programme and special forces



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PING Mulay: Is this the start of WW3?
    ... Iranian leadership threatening Israel is nothing more than obvious ... all know that if a nuclear weapon was ever used against Israel, ... Israel’s forthcoming military attack against Iran. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Lets Stop a US/ Israeli War on Iran
    ... It's More Important Than Halting Nuclear Proliferation ... Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran ... But the "normal political forces" in both the U.S. and Israel have ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • rzydzi pomoga Ameryce tak jak kiedys pomogli Europie
    ... Attacking Iran for Israel? ... nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. ... assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, ...
    (soc.culture.polish)
  • Why Israel will not bomb Iran nuclear plants.
    ... why Israel will not bomb Iran nuclear plants. ... and is working on nuclear weapons. ... If Israel were to decide to act alone and attack Iran's nuclear ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Why Israel will not bomb Iran nuclear plants.
    ... > why Israel will not bomb Iran nuclear plants. ... and is working on nuclear weapons. ... Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)