I will start by quoting The Economist : “Those who try to understand Iran are ill-informed. The results of the elections showed once again that Tehran is one of the most unpredictable countries from the political point of view. Frustration is big; the political parties originally under Jatami are so frustrated that they have been abandoned. The reformist Mostafa Moin was abandoned in the first round and they were even more determined to abandon Rafsanjyani. Surprisingly, Ahmadineyad is not gripped by fear.
Obviously, Rafsandyani would have been elected if it had only been just a question of liberalization of the way of living, but it was also the question of unemployment rate that is 40% sometimes, the housing difficulties in the whole territory. Those things were not addressed by Jatami administration. It seems to me that there is another interesting thing: Ahmadineyad is not a theologian; he was 20 years old at the beginning of the Revolution, of which he has been a main actor. His family is from the countryside, but he grew up in the South of Tehran where he started in a technical school and completed his studies in Narmak, which during the 70’s was a center of political thoughts and ideas. The young generation was born there, whose socio-revolutionary commitment is in religion. Maybe the real actors of the revolution have the word today, but not those who have been supported and have failed.
This elections showed a socio-political orientation and discussions about the top-down distribution: one of the objectives of the Revolution was to make out of Islam the replacement of Marxism-Leninism. Better said, it is the old south of Tehran of the time of Shah that talks. However, this South of Tehran is not what it used to be. The 26 years of the Islamic Republic and modernization process affected precisely the lower-middle and lower classes. There is still the question of whether what was expressed in the elections was the nostalgia for this time or a desperate gesture. The material, social and economic conditions of life, are they more important than the way they should get dressed, contrary to what we usually think here?

This result is a little bit surprising. I thought that Rafsandyani had a lot of possibilities to be the winner. The poor turnout should have led to the victory of the new president in this election. Obviously we will witness overall changes in the ministerial apparatus with new ministers less oriented towards reform. What will definitely change: concessions to poorest classes. A real redistribution remains to be seen.
We should not rely on the prejudices towards the ultra-conservatives...Obviously we will be able to see a greater gap with regard to the West. The example of China speaks for itself. A country can develop economically and take another direction in terms of politics and ideology. What do we need the West for? That is the question people ask in Iran. That may seem unreasonable and old-fashioned, but the people are not concerned about that. There is no doubt that communication will be more difficult.
It is possible to anticipate an escalation between Iran and the United States. The Americans have already said that the elections were unfair and Iran was getting away from the democratization undertaken in the region. It seems from now on that a pragmatic approach is impossible. I do not think that most of the youngsters are fundamentally-oriented. This election is about a change of generation, the arrival of a generation that has taken the first political steps in the frontline at the time of the war against Iraq. It is not the same political experience of the revolution, and that is the big difference. These people are conscious that they have fought for eight years and want to have their part. They do not want to be manipulated by the rich class from the North of Tehran which only speaks of democracy. There are different trends among the neoconservatives, neofundamentalists, between the youngsters and old people.

We participated today in the run-off of the Iranian presidential election. The Iranians knew very well that, whatever the result might be, it was unlikely that their votes would be properly counted. That was what the Minister of Interior has stated. Anyhow, whoever gets “elected”, the theocratic power will decide. The Supreme Guide will continue incarnated in sovereignty. The predecessor of the next president did not make any reform despite his promises and we wonder why he had to change the theocracy. What is the point in voting under these conditions?
The supporters of Rafsandyani ascertain that if the turnout is poor, the country will be dealing with a fascist religious that would ride roughshod over the liberties and increase the international tensions through a more active support to terrorism. The sensitive point is when Rafsanyani is the last resort. It is true that Rafsanyani has to convince the Supreme Guide that he is the man of the situation, that he would be able to contain the growing cholera in the West. Why? Was he not who recommended the use of a nuclear weapon against Israel? Who was sentenced for that in a German court? What makes him a moderate?
Today, Iran is ready for the change. A new generation of Iranians is emerging and will contribute to the greatness of their country. I hope this new generation of Iranians considers France as a credible and reliable friend. But France needs to introduce in the center of negotiations with the Islamic regime the question of human rights. France, after spending more than a year and a half in unsuccessful negotiations with a corrupted regime, should be able to understand that the perspective of a new accession to the WTO will not make those who get rich through dark exchanges to give up. Neither the threats of the Security Council could make it difficult for the Iranian system due to its ties with China and Russia. In this context, only a strong pressure in terms of human rights and democracy in Iran could yield to the authorities that support the Islamic regime. This is its Achilles’ heel.

Tomorrow, the Iranians will determine the destiny of the nation. In this decisive moment, the Iranian nation should participate tirelessly in order to pass the most important test to our country. Despite the propaganda of the United States and Western media to discourage the Iranian voters, there was a massive turnout at the polls in the first round. The participation rate of 63% has surprised the analysts and sent a clear message to the world: the Iranians will never abandon the national and revolutionary causes. They have demonstrated that over 26 years ago.
In view of the difficulties, cohesion prevails in Iran more than ethnic or geographical dispersion. The conspiracy of the Iraqi war against us, imposed by the United States, terrorist groups, assassinations, plots to create ethnic tensions and U.S. embargo, have not disturb the Iranian unity.
Today, the Muslim nations are faced with velvet revolutions aimed at confiscating the resources of these countries by the United States and establishing a defensive area for the Zionist regime. In the run-offs, the Iranians will vote to prove that they will not be manipulated.

Mahmud Ahmadineyad - winner of the Iran presidential elections version - has been deceitfully presented as an ultraconservative. Actually, he is a fundamentalist, xenophobe and populist who thinks that Iran has become too tolerant regarding sex, and too moderate in foreign policy. He drove a campaign promising a salary increase and a price reduction, which was backed by the most extremist fundamentalists obsessed with Puritanism and xenophobia.
Ahmadineyad was a founder of the student group that took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979. Though he is not in control of the foreign policy, he could create a xenophobic atmosphere in the country, which would lead to tensions among Arabs, Kurds and Persians in Iran. He garnered 38% of the votes of those registered and solely won because his opponent Rafsandyani was morally unaccepted for corruption reasons. Today, Ali Jamenei controls the whole machinery of power. However, extremists haven’t been able to control the youth or the minorities.
Ahmadineyad is running against the evolution of his country and he won’t be able to stop the big clashes ahead.

The second round of Iran presidential elections has caused an earthquake. Mahmud Ahmadineyad has become president, defeating one of the regime’s greatest leaders since 1979. Ahmadineyad is the most learned of all Iranian presidents and is the first president of the Islamist Republic who has a military background (he is Colonel of the Revolution Guard Reserve Army). He is also the first to come from the people and not to have amassed a fortune for the last few years. But behind his victory is, without a doubt, his great loyalty to Ali Jamenei.
Though Ahmadineyad’s election has clearly been manipulated, it represents an important event for the country: this is the first time that a mullah has been defeated by a non-mullah. It is, first of all, the victory of the regime’s toughest faction - that which controls the whole machinery of power. It represents the end of more than 20 years of divisions within the government. Jatami could rightfully have stated that he was never abreast of everything that was happening in the country, and that is true. But this argument wouldn’t be valid now. Ahmadineyad’s election proves that Iran cannot be reformed from within.
Nonetheless, these elections set a clear choice for both Iranians and Europeans. And this could be convenient.

Part I
On September 12, 2001, the majors of the Iran Revolution Guards gathered in Teheran and started a meeting reciting a verse from the Koran: “He who fights Allah, will see Allah fight him”. General Ayahi applauded the terrorist attacks in the United States. He asked his friend - the head of the Qods Battalion, responsible for the murders and attacks abroad - whether Iran had something to do with that. His friend answered with a simple “hey,-you’d-better-not-know-it” smile
It was only on October 26, 2001 that Paul Wolfowitz found out through a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) agent that Al Qaeda members were going to Iran to get official documents there that allowed them to travel to Europe and then to the U.S. If the Deputy Secretary of Defense was not warned before, it was because the report that had been just sent to him was in direct conflict with the rooted convictions of the U.S. Intelligence Service. Those ideas could be rated as “Concept”. According to such ideas, Teheran quit all terrorist actions since Jatami’s election in 1997. Also, according to this “Concept”, Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists never act together. Consequently, the news agencies set out to deny all the reports that affirmed the contrary.
Actually, Iran and Al Qaeda have worked together since 1992 - the year where Teheran created a training center in Sudan. Afterwards, Iran got closer to Ayman al-Zawahiri - an Egyptian linked to Al Qaeda. Then, Iran was used to access Afghanistan and as a meeting place with the Iraqi service.

Part II
One week before the Research Commission on the 9/11 Attacks handed in its report, its director Philip D. Zelikow summoned all the members of the Commission to a singular meeting. A series of documents regarding the links between Al Qaeda and Iran was presented to each one of the members. The authors of the report understood that if it was published without taking into account such elements, their work would lose credibility. Consequently, they arranged an urgent meeting. However, the CIA had told them once and again that there was no link at all between Iran and Bin Laden. In the end, the Commission dedicated only two pages to the issue. They could have done more, considering the importance of the case.
The “Concept” blindfolded the U.S. Information Service. The disturbing thing is that the United States has evidence of the links between Iran and Al Qaeda through Hezbollah’s Imad Mugniyeh. However, this man is not mentioned in the final report, for lack of time.

Part III
U.S delegate to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s Board of Governors Jackie Sanders was losing patience. We were in Vienna during Thanksgiving weekend, and, although the IAEA was witnessing once more Iran’s inappropriate behavior, no sanction was decided against this country. It was the sixth time, since Mohammed El Baradei had been participating in the Agency’s direction, that this had approved a resolution condemning Iran’s attitude, but that was all. His British counterpart Peter Jenkins said to Sanders’ assistant Christopher Ford that the Europeans had an agreement with Teheran and that they must be relied upon.
After Mohammed El Baradei explained again that Iran, despite having promised to stop enriching uranium, had continued to do so, it was the German delegate Friedrich Groning’s turn to affirm that they had to trust Europe. Sanders could no longer keep his temper and asked why Europe had to trust Germany knowing that Germany was Iran’s major trading partner. On that same day Der Spiegel was disclosing that Iran had a secret nuclear program. In January 2005, the Iranian authorities admitted the facts and that the building material was originally from Germany.
However, Baradei made every effort so that they forgave Iran, thus undermining the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the credibility of his own Agency.