Mr. Ahmadinejad’s reign brought a complete deadlock in the talks over Islamic Republic’s nuclear program with the West resulting in the worst economic sanctions on the republic which is seen differently by different people. Ahmadinejad was no doubt a hero of his kind; he talked against the West, termed ‘Holocaust’ to be a set of lies and claimed that Iran would be able to stand all these challenges but the grounds realities seem to be bitter than all these. Iran is in its worst economic downfall since the Islamic revolution of 1979 and people have started shouting against this rigid behavior; though not much openly. But it is reported that most of the people who are suffering, seem to be unhappy of all these. Mr. Ahmadinejad was able to gather mass protests against the West showing that his stance was correct, but the way he lost his support in his former political patrons and became much unpopular in the public, shows the other side of this picture. It is said, had there been another term for him, he could have suffered the worst defeat of the history of Iran. At the same time, an opinion is getting strong inside Iran that the nuclear program should not be the matter of ‘Do or Die’, risking the whole economy of the country. The number of political analysts who support to take a middle path are increasing in number but still they are unable to make their voices heard loud due to the strong system prevailing in the country.
In the given circumstances, the election of Mr. Rouhani has emerged as a hope, both for the people of his country and the Western powers. Mr. Rouhani was selected this June and he will take his office next week. His selection is also taken as a switch in the opinion of public who were looking for a person who should sail them out of economic woes by following a middle path.
There is a growing optimism in Iran and in the West that Mr. Rouhani is ready to restart serious talks on the nuclear issue. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the United States this month that Mr. Rouhani was ready to start direct talks and the Obama administration has indicated willingness to engage in head-to-head dialogue after years of inclusive multiparty negotiations.
In his campaign for president and again in recent weeks, Mr. Rouhani has made it clear that he is deeply concerned about his country’s growing economic troubles and is determined to soften the harsh tone and intransigent tactics of his predecessor, Mr. Ahmadinejad that have stalled nuclear negotiations and cut off relations with most of the developed world. But the question, as always in Iran, is the extent to which President Rouhani can accomplish these goals.
Out of these challenges, the most important is to convince the Supreme Leader of Iran, who remains as the most powerful identity in the political and social arena. It must not be forgotten that it was Mr. Rouhani who convinced the Supreme Leader that Iran needed to suspend nuclear enrichment which resulted in an agreement with the Western powers in 2003. It was the only nuclear deal between Iran and the West in the past 11 years.
However, this agreement was torn apart in 2005 which brought down the political stature of Mr. Rouhani to zero and he was criticized for showing ‘weakness’ in the negotiations with the Europeans, though his supporters would call it reasonableness.
Second would be to face the pressure from the public. Throughout the history of nuclear strife between the West and Iran, the traditionalist leaders have benefitted from the sympathy and support of public by convincing them that West is the worst enemy of Iran and nuclear program is one of the most essential requirements of this state. But the passage of time has made this cloud to evaporate and now, people have started thinking in direction other than those shown by their leaders. This mindset of Iranian voters was evident from the results of the elections in June when Mr. Rouhani was given the passage to the power who promised to redirect his country to the moderate course by stressing greater individual rights, a relaxation of tensions with the West and the repair of Iran’s flagging economy.
Instead of facing the pressure from public, it would be a better and stable strategy if the efforts are made to make the public realize the true picture and make them think about the things with a reason instead of emotions; that has long been driving the direction of Iranian politics and social attachments.
Third, there would be the need of convincing the moderate powers of the world that no country of the world needs to fear the nuclear program of Iran and it is intended for peaceful purposes. Both Iran and its Western foes have been busy in convincing the world about their view points on the nuclear program but most of the countries of the world seem to be afraid of Iran, given its background of rigid Islamic interpretation and opposition of the West. If Islamic republic succeeds in convincing the rest of the countries of the world about its peaceful nuclear program, it would be able to win their support and the cries of opposition against its nuclear program may considerably decrease.
On the other hand, the way the West has handled this issue is also criticized by some of the political analysts. The sanctions being laid on Iran by the West and US have brought no good result except to add to the misery of common public inside the country. No doubt, people seem to be much affected by recent economic shrinkage resulting from the economic sanctions, they are equally not happy of the West who, in their opinion, has used its powers unethically to bring a country on its knees. It has further strengthened the views of traditional religious Iranians that the West will never be the friend of Iran and they should be willing to face all the hardships in this regard. These sanctions are especially criticized on ethical and humanitarian grounds as the political war has been dragged into the houses of common public who are paying by nose to the strife of which most of them are absolutely unaware.
It is also a logical point that like other nuclear powers of the world, it should be the right of every country to be benefitted from the nuclear energy. It would be both illegal and unethical if a country is deprived of this right on the basis of religion or region. It is said that both Iran and North Korea would use the nuclear program for making nuclear weapons and as these radical countries are the strong opponents of the West so they would emerge as prime threats for the Western powers and US but till today, these claims have never been supported by any kind of tangible proof and it is just like the fears of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq or use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government forces. Weapons of Mass Destruction were never recovered from Iraq and both the Syrian government and opposition forces are accusing each other of using chemical weapons but still, these accusations are to be verified by a neutral source.
In the end, it is clear for all of us that confrontation would not do any good and in order to bring an end for the economic suffering of the people of Iran and save the world of additional nuclear weapons, the table of negotiations is left as the only point to start the process of repair and recovery.