The results of the presidential elections in Iran on June 24th, 2005, have disturbed the western media that, all of them, had betted for a second round victory of Alí Rafsandyani. Although some people resort to university professors in order to understand what is going on, the majority gives the floor to neoconservative “experts” who have had to correct their speech after the most recent events.
The results of the presidential elections in Iran on June 24th, 2005, have disturbed the western media that, in majority, had betted for a victory of Alí Rafsandyani.
Destabilized, the German media look for the opinion of university professors who are specialists on the subject. Austrian newspaper Der Standard turns to the director of the institute of Iranian affairs of the Academy of Sciences of Vienna, Bert Fragner, who affirms that the situation in Iran is completely unforeseeable. The western media have focused on aspects related to customs, ignoring the social aspect, which is the most important for the Iranians. Today, the election of Ahmadineyad represents the taking of power of a sincere revolutionary, completely identified with the socio-religious dimension of the 1979 Revolution. Interviewed by Deutschland Radio, the director of the Africa and Middle East Department of the Institute of Research on International Relations, Johannes Reissner, shares this analysis. There is great uncertainty as to the intentions of the new power; only the untarnished revolutionary nature of the new president is known. Thus, he urges analysts to be careful when naming him a “conservative”, which does not have the same meaning in Iran as in the West.
In fact, Ahmadineyad wants to find a genuine Iranian development model, without any western references.
The surprise of these elections brought a moment of indecision in the Atlantist propaganda against Iran. The western media has repeated its neo-conservative stance according to which the results of the Iranian presidential elections would not change anything and the power would continue in the hands of the fundamentalists.
Thus, the opening gestures of the new president should not be taken into account. This communication strategy betted for Iranian president Rafsandyani. He was described as a moderate and it was important to show his duplicity in advance, showing respectable face while he maintained a hard line, and Tehran’s astuteness. Articles published by Le Figaro before each of the election rounds, were a perfect illustration of this tactic.
Before the first round of the elections, the French conservative newspaper had published a text by Maryam Radjavi saying that the elections would not change anything and urged to overthrow the regime. On the second round election day, the French daily gave the floor to the pretender to the Iranian throne, Reza PahLayi. He said that Rafsandyani had called for the destruction of Israel and had been accused of criminal conspiracy in Germany. Thus, he urged France to prepare for a change of regime in Iran by supporting the opposition.
This attack could not continue after the election of Ahmadineyad. In the face of an almost unknown leader, another approach is necessary.
On the second round day, an editorialist of the Tehran Times, Hassan Hanizadeh, announced that, faced with the US-backed destabilization attempts, the Iranian people would remain united. This editorial, similar to the official position, showed the Iranian authorities’ fear of ethnic tensions more than anything else. The strategist of the Pentagon and the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies), Edward N. Luttwak, makes referente to this topic in Los Angeles Times and refers to a mistake of its rival. He affirms that Ahmadineyad is a puritan and a xenophobe that goes against the aspirations of the Iranian ethnic minorities and youth. Thus, he sees this election as an opportunity of confrontation between these groups and the Islamic regime, which will provoke the fall of the latter.
The expert of Benador Associates, editorialist Amir Taheri, says, for his part, in The Australian and Gulf News, that Iran can not continue playing with its divisions. For a long time, the Islamic Republic has used the divisions of its elites to make the West believe that it was possible to negotiate with one group against another. Today, the fundamentalists have all the powers in their hands and the situation ids thus clear. It is the duty of the Iranians and the Europeans to draw their own conclusions.
For its part, the Washington Times does not pay much attention to this election and works in demonizing Tehran. In three parts, the extreme right news daily publishes excerpts of Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, by Kenneth R. Timmerman who is a journalist and writer and who is always lobbying for imperialist wars, the complete rearmament of the United States and who is also a member of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. These three parts are a torrent of propaganda elements, one more outrageous than the previous one. In a disorderly manner, in a novel style that will captivate the fans of James Bond, (and even of Austin Powers), it is said that Iran has links with Al-Qaida since 1992 through Sudan and, later, through Hezbollah; that Tehran is an accomplice of the September 11 attacks and that, currently, Iran is building nuclear weapons ... with the complicity of Germany! If there have been no leaks of information about the issue it is because the US intelligence services are focused on ideas that do not allow them to see the reality.
Maybe the hawks still do not know what arguments they will use to justify an aggression against Iran, but they certainly have plenty of choices.
This author's articles
To send a message
Authors : diplomats, economists, geographers, historians, journalists, military servicemen, philosophers, sociologists. You can send us 
