On the eve of the presidential election in Iran, the international press is studying the challenges of the ballot and what is to be expected from it. It’s the time, par excellence, for analysts to present their vision of an exhausted Iran regime with a considerable loss of support from its people.
In the Christian Science Monitor and the Gulf News, researchers and experts on Iran Haleh Vaziri and Bahman Baktiari considered that the country is holding the most democratic election since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. However, the next president, who is believed to be Ali Hashemi Rafsandjani, will face great difficulties. A second round will give him less legitimacy than its predecessors had before the religious power. Iran difficulties come mainly from the dual nature of its regime: democratic and theocratic at the same time. As long as Teheran does not settle this paradox, the regime will be facing difficulties.
So, only one round elections would be a sign of dictatorship, while two rounds would mean weakness. Any argument seems to be good to stigmatize Iran.
On the other hand, the fear of reviving the strong tensions that took place following the 1979 revolution and eight years of war have led Iran to build a system where each political faction forms a whole with the government. This multiple cohabitation paralyzes many initiatives and, though it may reflect a democratic distribution of power, leads eventually to a blockade of the society. However, for the neo-cons who dream of a new military adventure, such evolution of the regime, which by now has nothing to do with what it used to be in 1979-1980, must be rebuffed at all costs. Iran must still be presented as a reactionary and fundamentalist country that represents a threat for both the region and the world. This is a sine qua non for convincing the public opinion of the need for war.
Neo-con “experts” are dedicated to decry, in advance, the next Iranian president and to dim the scene out.

In the New York Times, Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute asserted that the next election of Rafsandjani is a maneuver of the Iranian power. Europeans have understood that the Teheran’s government was laughing at them during the negotiations on the nuclear issue. The interlocutors have to be renewed so that the farce may continue. To make a real change in Iran, it is necessary to “support the Iranian democrats”. But who’s hiding behind this name? Let’s point out that Donald Rumsfeld’s adviser Richard Perle, a researcher like Mrs. Pletka at the American Enterprise Institute, participated in a great demonstration of the People’s Muyahidines on January 24, 2004. This organization, openly in conflict with Teheran since the 1980’s, has the support of Washington’s hawks and tries to wipe out from memory the crimes it committed in Iran, and then together with Saddam Hussein. Its chairwoman Maryam Radjavi lodged herself up in Le Figaro as an appeal against the Iran government. She stated that her country is in the hands of a dying regime that threats both the region and the world by supporting terrorism and getting equipped with nuclear weapons. She condemned the negotiation policy of the EU, but considered that war is not essential. The means have to be given to the democratic opposition, that is, to her movement, in order to take power. Therefore, she urged the Western governments to turn the page of the crimes committed by her organization and to recognize it as a respectable interlocutor, at the same time that she is reactivating a campaign of bomb attacks in Iran.
Israeli analysts Nir Boms and Elliot Chodoff equally affirmed in the Washington Times that elections won’t change anything. Power does not belong to the president of the Republic of Iran, but to the leader of the Revolution Guardian Council Ali Jamenei. However, international pressures have proved useful against Iran in Hamid Pourmand’s case, in such a way that they have called the international community to reject any kind of discussion with the puppet regime and to threaten Teheran. To Radio Free Europe specialist - CIA propaganda instrument - Abbas William Samii, rather than the Revolution Guardian Council, the blockade comes from the armed force of the Revolution Guards. In the Daily Star, he described in his own way the infiltration attempt of the members of this army in the political circle at all levels. He recalled that four of the eight candidates during the first round were part of this corps, just like 90 Iranian representatives. Compared with them, Rafsandjani is undoubtedly a better solution, but it shouldn’t be forgotten that he was a repressive leader. Consequently, the author sees no good solution for Iran internally.
It is true that the Revolution Guard force is unquestionably in the center of Iran’s future, but not as presented by Abbas William Samii. Today, Washington’s elites are divided in relation to an attack on Iran. Within the core of the debate is the answering capacity of the Islamic Republic. The Revolution Guards are an essential part of the Iranian defensive system. If the high-ranking officials of this army were corrupt, as those of the Iraqi Republican Guards were, the invasion of Iran would not have further difficulties. Let’s also recall that a few years ago, a non-clarified plane accident caused the death of almost the whole General Staff, which led to the replacement of it with new leaders, probably less associated with the Islamic Republic than the historical combatants of the 1979 Revolution that had just died. However, not everybody dreams of war in the United States. The NED/CIA prefer to evaluate the opportunities for organizing a colored revolution in Teheran. The co-directors of the Project on Iranian Democracy at the Hoover Institution Abbas Milani and Michael McFaul (from NED), are satisfied with the disagreements brought about by the presidential election within the Iranian elites. It’s too early to analyze what is happening in the former Soviet area, but why not think about this for the future? In Iran, the analysis of the elections is obviously quite different. In the Tehran Times, editorialist Hassan Hanizadeh signed a text close to the official release. While the Western media suffered from an unprecedented abstention, he said that the people were joining these elections enthusiastically due to the uncertainty associated with the results, whose first samples seem to confirm he was right. However, he expressed his concern about the attacks perpetrated in southern Iran on the eve of the election. Upon denouncing a low trick of the U.S., he asserted that his fellow citizens won’t yield to these maneuvers.