OU-BA-MA AST ("HE IS WITH US"): IRAN AND THE RISE OF BARACK OBAMA

Number 23 ● 23 June 2008

While the American Presidential primaries have aroused much interest in Iran, the meteoric rise of Illinois Senator Barack Obama has particularly focused the attention of Iranians. The color of his skin, his middle name—Hussein—and the fact that he had attended a Muslim school in Indonesia significantly contributed to the interest raised by the presumptive Democratic Party candidate for president.

Some regard his moderate stance towards Iran during his election campaign and his willingness to hold direct and unconditional negotiations with Tehran as reason to hope that the United States might change its policy towards Iran. Even Iranian officials could not ignore the “Obama Phenomenon.” Encountering reporters at an international conference on Iraq in late May, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki expressed his hope that American policy would change following the presidential elections. Although Mottaki refused to offer an Iranian official position on the three presidential candidates, he did respond to a question concerning Obama’s willingness to consider a meeting with the Iranian President. Mottaki stated that it was obvious that American citizens clearly wanted change in their government’s policy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also referred to the U.S. election campaign in an interview he gave to the divish daily "El Pais" in March 2008. While also avoiding any clear position regarding his favorite American candidate, he nevertheless assessed that the American political system would not allow Obama to become president.

Obama's strengthening position aroused special interest among Iranian reformists. Iranian bloggers identified with the reformist faction expressed their hope that the winning of the Democratic candidate would pave the way towards improved relations between Iran and the United States. Some of the bloggers also noted their appreciation for American democracy in light of Obama’s success and compared it with the status of democracy in Iran. Others even asserted that removing the threat of American military attack against Iran might strengthen the reformists in Iran. The Iranian blogger Farhad Afshar, for example, wrote that Obama's ideas on foreign policy towards Iran made Iranian reformists happy, since peace and dialogue were considered a “dangerous poison” for the conservative group in Iran, whose political existence relied on violence and war. Afshar also discussed his appreciation for American democracy considering the fact that Obama had won a majority in Iowa even though most of its population was white. The editor of the Iranian blog New Perspective (Negah-e Now) wrote in an article entitled “American Democracy and Its Lessons for Iran,” published a few days after Obama's first victory in the primaries in Iowa in January 2008, that the elections in the United States were a significant achievement for democracy and that the main problem faced by Iran was the lack of sufficient progress regarding political and economic freedoms, civil society, political parties and freedom of expression, which were the basis for democracy.

But just as Obama’s statements in favor of direct negotiations with Iran led to a cautious optimism in Iran, his recent statements concerning the Iranian nuclear program caused a sober reassessment regarding the possibility of a major change in American foreign policy. Obama’s address before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in June 2008, in which he assured his audience that he would not allow Iran to acquire nuclear arms, was met with immediate suspicion in Iran. Iran’s Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Mohammad 'Ali Hosseini, said Obama’s comments were “biased and unacceptable” and expressed regret that the stances adopted by Obama were influenced by the Zionist lobby.

The Iranian press also expressed a more sober tone about a possible change in American policy following an Obama victory. The Iranian website “Asr-e Iran,” which is identified with the pragmatist-conservative faction, published (June 5th) an article written by Seyd Ziyaa’ alladin Ehtesham entitled: “Is he with us?” (In Persian: Ou-ba-ma ast?). Many in Iran, Ehtesham said, sympathized with Obama since he had taken the least aggressive approach towards Iran from among the three presidential candidates and even spoke about the necessity of unconditional negotiations with Iran. His election as the Democratic presidential candidate could indicate American society’s overcoming of its racist past. If Obama actually won the general elections, the American people would deserve appreciation for its success in turning a racist approach into an equal one.

However, the article stated, dwelling on the question of whether Obama’s election was good for Iran expressed a lack of understanding concerning the political situation, as a future American approach towards Iran would develop only in accordance with its national interests. If the Americans reached the conclusion that their national interests required them to negotiate with Iran or even to resume their relations with it, they would pursue this policy even if John McCain became president. On the other hand, if the American national interest required an American military attack against Iran, such an attack would be approved by Obama as well. Therefore, the article asserted, there was no need to rejoice in Obama’s victory as there was also no need to be concerned over McCain’s possible victory. What was important for Iran was to carry out a policy which would make the Americans conclude that they should prefer rational conduct towards Iran over military one.

The Farda website, also associated with the pragmatic-conservative faction, referred to the change in Obama’s attitude towards Iran as evident in his address before AIPAC. In an article entitled: “He is not with us” (in Persian: Ou-ba-ma nist, June 5th), Mazyar Radmanesh wrote that now, as Obama had become the final Democratic candidate, he knows that he needs AIPAC’s support in order to receive the keys for the White House. The idea held by some Iranian officials that “Obama is with us and McCain is against us” was a simplistic description of the situation. If Obama was to win the elections, wrote Farda, it would be the same Obama who talked about the right to boycott the Revolutionary Guards. the need to maintain the military option on the table, and to preserve Israel’s security. and not the Obama who was ready to negotiate directly with the next president of Iran.

The reformist daily Kargozaran also referred to Obama’s recent statements in an editorial entitled: “Obama and the War’s Bell” (June 8th). Hossein Dehshiar asserted that those statements demonstrated how much the expectations of him were not based upon a true understanding the American political system. Obama’s moderate statements at the beginning of his campaign were only meant to separate him from Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy positions in light of their similar stances on domestic policy. Obama’s advisors belonged to the Democratic Party’s school of thought which asserted that the United States should pay any price in order to defend the stronghold of Western culture and civilization in the Middle East. Dehshiar wrote that there was no reason to attribute importance to the Democratic candidate’s middle name, skin color or to the values of his father, who had raised him for less than two years, and to expect a major change in American foreign policy in the Middle East. He even warned that considering the political global reality and the balance of powers between the United States and Europe, such a change was not only unpredictable, but that the chances for war might even increase if Obama won the elections, since he might receive the support of the European left, which would be willing to cooperate with the Western world’s first black liberal president.

Obama’s recent statements increased the Iranian assessment that there are few significant differences between the two parties’ presidential candidates and that no real change in American foreign policy was to be expected following the upcoming elections. Iran, however, is likely to keep following the American presidential elections in the next few months. The internal political debate in the United States concerning possible ways of dealing with Iran has increased the Iranian assessment that the chances for an American military attack against Iran have been reduced. As long as Iran’s evaluation of the current situation remains unchanged, it is expected to use the internal debate in the United States in order to continue its belligerent policy towards the West, whatever the U.S. elections results might be■

Tel Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv 61390, Tel Aviv P.O.B. 39040, Israel

Email: IranCen@post.tau.ac.il Phone: +972-3-640-9510 Fax: +972-3-640-6665

Iran Pulse 23 ● June 23, 2008 © All rights reserved.