President in a Tight Spot
Published in Süddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 28 April 2009
by Stefan Kornelius (link to original)
They’re going to the polls shortly in Iran – that’s why President Ahmedinejad has been directing all his remarks toward the domestic front. Iran is feeling the pressure brought on by Obama’s offer to negotiate.
It pays to keep one thing in mind whenever discussing Iran: June 12th is election day there, and even if Iran is no shining example of democracy, election day will be a day of reckoning, especially for current President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Anyone who thinks politics comes to a standstill during election time in Germany should take a look at what’s happening in Iran. Everything that’s being said and done there happens with the ballot in the background. Above all, every message is directed inwardly.
That’s why all of Ahmedinejad’s comments, relative to Obama’s offer to negotiate or to peace in the Middle East, should bear the footnote: “Caution! What he says isn’t necessarily what he means.”
Ahmedinejad is under pressure from two sides. First, Obama has stolen his thunder by offering friendship. The United States isn’t the only one to give up a bogeyman; Iran lost its favorite scapegoat as well. And second, pressure is increasing in Iran for someone to lead the country out of its growing isolation and thus, out of its economic emergency. Is Ahmedinejad the right man to do it?
Everything Ahmedinejad says leads one to believe that he doesn’t know how to go about freeing himself from the bind he’s in. He’s suddenly in favor of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Great, but a short time later he reverses himself. He rejects talks with the U.S., only later to endorse a structured dialog with America, along mutually agreeable criteria.
It’s right that contact between Tehran and Washington isn’t being attempted long-distance, that is, via speeches, videoconferencing or interviews. If President Obama wants to send an electronic, Persian New Year's card, that’s mainly a symbolic gesture. If the Iranian president wants to make approaches in an interview, every word requires interpreting.
One perception, however, is correct: There’s movement again on the stage of Near East politics; but this dynamic still lacks direction and judging. Obama’s government is probing; it talks a lot, but says little. And it hasn’t yet been truly tested. On the other side, Iran feels challenged.
Ahmedinejad has to prepare for the big finish with the U.S. – but he really can’t do that, because he still doesn’t know whether he’ll even be allowed into the starting blocks. Thus, the American strategy scores its first points: Iran, a country that has always wanted to meet eye to eye with the U.S., is suddenly unable to cope and has to improvise during the run up to their election.
This phase may well prove that Ahmedinejad is the wrong man for these new times.
It pays to keep one thing in mind whenever discussing Iran: June 12th is election day there, and even if Iran is no shining example of democracy, election day will be a day of reckoning, especially for current President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
Anyone who thinks politics comes to a standstill during election time in Germany should take a look at what’s happening in Iran. Everything that’s being said and done there happens with the ballot in the background. Above all, every message is directed inwardly.
That’s why all of Ahmedinejad’s comments, relative to Obama’s offer to negotiate or to peace in the Middle East, should bear the footnote: “Caution! What he says isn’t necessarily what he means.”
Ahmedinejad is under pressure from two sides. First, Obama has stolen his thunder by offering friendship. The United States isn’t the only one to give up a bogeyman; Iran lost its favorite scapegoat as well. And second, pressure is increasing in Iran for someone to lead the country out of its growing isolation and thus, out of its economic emergency. Is Ahmedinejad the right man to do it?
Everything Ahmedinejad says leads one to believe that he doesn’t know how to go about freeing himself from the bind he’s in. He’s suddenly in favor of the two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Great, but a short time later he reverses himself. He rejects talks with the U.S., only later to endorse a structured dialog with America, along mutually agreeable criteria.
It’s right that contact between Tehran and Washington isn’t being attempted long-distance, that is, via speeches, videoconferencing or interviews. If President Obama wants to send an electronic, Persian New Year's card, that’s mainly a symbolic gesture. If the Iranian president wants to make approaches in an interview, every word requires interpreting.
One perception, however, is correct: There’s movement again on the stage of Near East politics; but this dynamic still lacks direction and judging. Obama’s government is probing; it talks a lot, but says little. And it hasn’t yet been truly tested. On the other side, Iran feels challenged.
Ahmedinejad has to prepare for the big finish with the U.S. – but he really can’t do that, because he still doesn’t know whether he’ll even be allowed into the starting blocks. Thus, the American strategy scores its first points: Iran, a country that has always wanted to meet eye to eye with the U.S., is suddenly unable to cope and has to improvise during the run up to their election.
This phase may well prove that Ahmedinejad is the wrong man for these new times.
Next article![]( "A Hundred Days of Hyperactivity")
