Rafsanjani Elected as Speaker of Assembly of Experts in Iran

It has emerged that former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been elected as speaker of the Assembly of Experts, a group whose key role is to supervise Iran's Supreme Leader. The BBC reports:

Mr Rafsanjani will succeed Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, who died in July.

Correspondents say the appointment further consolidates the authority of Mr Rafsanjani, who is already a powerful figure in Iranian politics.

Considered a "pragmatic conservative", Mr Rafsanjani's victory will also be seen as a blow to Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says there is now a clear divide in Iranian politics between supporters of Mr Rafsanjani and those of Mr Ahmadinejad, and a complex power struggle is being carried out behind the scenes.

This development is crucial to the future of Iran. The panel itself has a big say in who will become the next Supreme Leader, where the real power is held in Iran (see post on Ten Percent for more detail on the make-up of the Iranian constitution). Although Rafsanjani is still a conservative, he is more open to the West and Russia. He has also taken a more cautious approach than Ahlmadinejad with respect to the nuclear issue. This has lead to somewhat of an internal struggle between the more moderate forces that Rafsanjani represents and the hardline faction behind Ahlmadinejad.

A military attack at this point would be foolish in the extreme. Given that much of Ahlmadinejad's rhetoric is based on the idea that the West is eager to strike at Iran, any military action would have very serious consequences. A military strike would shore up Ahlmadinejad's support and make it harder to win support from the Iranian people. The growth in influence of Rafsanjani is an opportunity for the West to resolve this situation peacefully without resorting to the high number of civilian casualties that would undoubtedly result from any attack. At this time, it would be wise of the West to remain cautious in response to developments in Iran. As Rafsanjani's influence increases, the more likely it is that his faction will see off the hardliners that back the current Iranian President. The chance of a peaceful resolution is in the offing. The question is, will the West take it.

Change in the Air???

Encouraging signs have been emanating from the Middle East. Indications suggest that two of the destabilising forces in the region could be on the verge of losing their leaders. It would appear that the pressure is really starting to grow on both Olmert and Ahmadinejad from within their own countries. In Olmert's case it is hard to see how he can continue to hold on to power much longer. Already embroiled in corruption scandals, he has now been accused of incompetence in the Winograd Report. For Ahmadinejad, the forces of the opposition are starting to gain momentum and his disastrous policies look likely to seal his fate.

The Winograd Report, put together by a government appointed committee looking into the second Lebanon war, has been scathing of Olmert's handling of the crisis. The partial report accuses Olmert of "severe failure" in exercising judgment, responsibility and caution during the outset of the war. According to the report, Olmert acted hastily in leading Israel to war without a comprehensive plan. He was also criticised for failing to consult military experts before rushing into war. From Haaretz:

"The prime minister made up his mind hastily, despite the fact that no detailed military plan was submitted to him and without asking for one," the report said. "He made his decision without systematic consultation with others, especially outside the IDF, despite not having experience in external-political and military affairs."

Olmert was also censured for failing to "adapt his plans once it became clear that the assumptions and expectations of Israel's actions were not realistic and were not materializing."

"All of these," the report said, "add up to a serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility and prudence." [my emphasis]

Despite the strong criticisms levelled at Olmert, he is refusing to stand down. In a live television address, he said:

"It would not be correct to resign and I have no intention of resigning."

Luckily, Olmert has some friends in very high places. In response to the report, Tony Snow claimed that George W Bush:

"works very closely with Prime Minister Olmert, and thinks that he's essential in working toward a two-state solution. The president remains committed to it."

Of course, the war with Lebanon had the full backing of Bush and Blair, who refused to call for a ceasefire as innocent people were killed in the ongoing conflict.

Despite this backing, it seems clear that the pressure is going to mount on Olmert until the inevitable occurs. The families of those who died will clearly need some serious questions answered by Olmert. What with this report, and the ongoing corruption scandals, it looks like time is running out for Ehud Olmert.

As for Ahlmadinejad, it also looks like the end is near for the West's favourite bogey man. According to a report in today's Guardian:

A grand coalition of anti-government forces is planning a second Iranian revolution via the ballot box to deny President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad another term in office and break the grip of what they call the "militia state" on public life and personal freedom.

It would appear that opposition forces are coming together to ensure that his reign collapses sooner rather than later. Centred on the former president, Mohammad Khatami , the opposition intends to capitalise on the President's growing unpopularity to win control of the Majlis in the upcoming general elections. According to opposition spokesmen, the goal is to:

bring down the fundamentalist regime by democratic means, transform Iran into a "normal country", and obviate the need for any military or other US and western intervention.

And that is the key. The change that is necessary can be achieved without intervention from the West. In fact, it is very likely that any moves by the West will lead to a very hostile response by the Iranian people and a subsequent rise in support for Ahmadinejad's hardline policies. Given the West's background in the region, through support of the Shah, the Iranian people are very wary of Western influence and any attempts to influence the country should be resisted at all costs. Despite the eagerness of Bush and Blair to see another bombing campaign in which hundreds of thousands of people will die, the best solution is to allow the natural progression of Iranian politics to bring about a softening in rhetoric. Intervention is not the answer to the problem.

With the growth of opposition movements in Israel and Iran, there is hope that the end of days is coming for two leaders who have done much to damage their countries in the eyes of the world. It is hard to be optimistic in this part of the world, but maybe there is a glimmer of optimism amongst the darkness.

Further information: The main findings of the Winograd partial report on the Second Lebanon War, Inside the struggle for Iran and Reformists prepare to take on Ahmadinejad and his militias.

Shift Away From Ahlmadinejad in Iran

Much of the media seems to continually portray Iran as a country run by 'mad mullahs' intent on the destruction of Israel and the West. Given the current appetite for an attack on Iran, this is perhaps unsurprising. Whenever there is talk of destabilisation, Iran's name nearly always crops up. The truth is, as always, a little more complicated than that.

As reported in today's Guardian, the supreme leader of Iran is growing increasingly distant from the current President. The recent election defeats for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have had a damaging effect on the President's credibility. This has been reflected in the recent shift in position by the supreme leader. After receiving a signed letter by 150 parliamentarians, Khamenei is sure to distance himself further from the President. He is said to be blaming the recent UN resolution imposing sanctions on Ahmadinejad, and has even refused to meet with him on occasion. According to one Iranian political commentator:

"Ahmadinejad's golden era is over and his honeymoon with the supreme leader is finished. He has problems even meeting the supreme leader. The countdown to his dismissal has already begun. There is a probability that he cannot even finish his current four-year period."

In the meantime, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been critical of the President's policies, has seen his stock grow with the Iranian people. As a result of the recent council elections, Rafsanjani received over 1.5 million votes recording a massive victory over Ahlmadinejad's supporters and this was a crushing blow for his radical agenda.

It is clear that the recent hardline approach by the President is not shared by many of those who really hold the power in Iran. However, it is also clear that any attack on Iran by an outside party could lead to disastrous consequences for the region. Iran is now seen as the real power in the region by many political observers. The war in Iraq removed their greatest threat and the war in Lebanon further consolidated their position in the region. Furthermore, their relationship with the PA is also strengthening in light of the sanctions placed on Hamas. The problem is that, with all these factors, we have played a major part in strengthening the role of Iran within the region. We invaded Iraq, we stood by and watched the destruction of Lebanon and we enforced sanctions on Hamas. All these events have made Iran, not the US, the major power in the region.

It is clear that the US is keen to reassert it's authority in the region, and perhaps an attack on Iran is at the forefront of their minds. After all, there is only room for one major power in the region. Taking any action against Iran would lead to a situation that few of us could ever comprehend. Recent history has taught us the effects of meddling in the political affairs of another country, we would do well to heed those lessons.