Spotlight on Iran November 2012—Aban 1391 Week of November 6‐13, 2012 Editor: Dr. Raz Zimmt Highlights of the week Iranian reactions to Obama win reflect different voices on United States Restrictions imposed on import of “luxury” products after last week’s export restrictions Flying isn’t cheap anymore: domestic flight costs have gone up by 65% Who is in charge of funds at the Supreme Leader’s office? Iranian blogger’s death in prison sparks controversy Iranian reactions to Obama win represent different voices on United States The Iranian reactions to Barack Obama’s re-election for president of the United States represented the different voices in the Iranian discourse on the United States and the possibility of launching negotiations with it. An official reaction released by Ramin Mehmanparast, the spokesman for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that Obama’s re-election is a message from the American people against a radical policy and a manifestation of their demand that Obama fulfill his promises of a fundamental change in American policy and pay more attention to the domestic affairs of the United States and the welfare of its citizens. Public opinion in the Middle East and the Muslim world is still waiting for the U.S. president’s promises to be fulfilled, and believes that it is only by adopting a policy based on non-intervention in the affairs of the region’s countries that the United States can regain some of the prestige it once had among Middle Eastern nations. In the past 33 years Iran has had experience with different presidents from both parties, who have 229-12 2 taken a hostile approach towards the interests of the Iranian people, and it believes that the Iranian people’s distrust of the United States administration can only be lessened if their wishes and rights are respected and if the United States implements a fundamental, practical change in its policy towards Iran, said the announcement released by the speaker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Fars, November 7). The conservative press, which stressed even before the elections that there is no actual difference between the two presidential candidates, continued to play down the significance of the elections after their results were published. In an editorial published on the eve of the elections, the daily Kayhan said that, whichever way the elections go, it won’t matter much for Iran, and that no change is forthcoming in the overall hostile stance taken by the United States towards Iran. The TV debate between Obama and Romney has proven that both parties in the United States are united in their opinion on the anti-Iranian sanctions, the nuclear program, and Israel’s crimes, and that there is no difference whatsoever between them. Similarly, the election results make no difference for the possibility of a military option against Iran, and in any case such an option is impractical because of the economic crisis and the budget deficit of the United States. Talking about war given the current economic, social, and political situation of the United States is a lie, and both presidents will likely proceed with the anti-Iranian sanctions project. Those who say that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in case the candidate it supports wins the elections are also mistaken, and Israel’s choice for the next president of the United States is not at all clear. The struggle between Islamic Iran and the Great Satan is not a tactical issue that can be easily changed, the newspaper concluded, but rather a fundamental struggle that cannot be hidden away (Kayhan, November 6). An article published by the daily after the election results were published said that the elections are not particularly significant because of the persistent weakness of the United States. For American voters, it was a choice between bad and worse, the article said. Kayhan noted the weakness of the United States in contrast to the growing strength of the Muslim world, with Iran at its center, the weakening of the Zionist lobby in the United States, and the increasing differences of opinion between Israel and the United States. Even though Prime Minister Netanyahu congratulated Obama on his victory, the relations between the two countries have reached an unprecedented level of tension this past year. 229-12 3 The daily estimated that, given Obama’s weakness, he will be unable to solve the significant foreign policy challenges, mainly the Palestinian problem, the Islamic awakening, and the Iranian challenge. Obama is currently as weak as former President George Bush, and the United States of 2012 is the same United States of 2001. The crimes committed by the United States during the Obama administration are no less grave than those of the Bush administration, and the United States continues to be involved in crimes perpetrated as part of the regional conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Bahrain, Yemen, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Kayhan, November 8). The daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami also argued that the election results will have no effect on the policy pursued by the United States towards Iran. In its summary of weekly events, the daily said that, contrary to the considerable interest aroused by the presidential elections inside the United States, the world does not consider them particularly significant and believes the two candidates to be two sides of the same coin. It doesn’t matter who wins the elections, because every president is bound by a predetermined policy and works in accordance with the dictates of “world Zionism” and the imperialist objectives of the United States (Jomhuri-ye Eslami, November 8). Another article published by the daily earlier this week said that the only difference between Romney and Obama is their chosen style of foreign policy. This exterior difference has led some non-U.S. commentators to speculate that Obama’s re-election will bring about a change in the American policy, but the fact is that as long as the American policy is influenced by “Zionist networks” and the rich, it will remain unchanged (Jomhuri-ye Eslami, November 11). 229-12 4 Media affiliated with the pragmatic conservative bloc and with the reformists manifested a more optimistic and positive approach towards Obama’s victory, and noted that several opportunities have been opened up for Iran thanks to his re-election. In an article published by the daily Tehran Emrooz, international affairs commentator Hassan Hanizadeh estimated that, in light of the broad support given by the “Zionist lobby” to Mitt Romney, Obama will likely distance himself from Israel in the next four years and take a more independent approach compared to the past. His drifting away from the “Zionist lobby” gives Iran an opportunity to examine Obama’s foreign policy to have the economic sanctions lifted. Considering the positive signals Obama has sent to Iran these past several years, it is not out of the question that the sanctions will be lifted, even though the international atmosphere in the shadow of the continuing pressure exerted by the West on Iran is not conducive to promoting negotiations with the new American administration (Tehran Emrooz, November 8). Mehdi Mohtashemi, former director of the United States desk in Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, also estimated in an interview given to the Asr-e Iran website that the United States’ policy towards Israel may undergo certain changes in the coming several years because Obama is no longer concerned with being re-elected and may put more pressure on Israel to come back to the negotiating table. The Iranian diplomat estimated, however, that the Obama administration is likely to persist with its current policy towards Iran, particularly the escalation of economic sanctions and providing a possibility for progress in the negotiations between the G5+1 countries and Iran. With Obama, at least Iran knows what it can expect. If Mitt Romney had been elected, however, it would have been difficult to predict his actions (Asr-e Iran, November 7). In an article published by the reformist daily Arman, political commentator Sadegh Zibakalam argued that Romney’s victory would definitely have been worse for Iran than Obama’s victory, considering the former’s statements about Iran during the election campaign. Zibakalam estimated that Obama would continue his current policy towards Iran, adding, however, that this depends to a great deal on how Iran will conduct itself with the American administration. He discussed the gradual change among Iran’s conservatives with regard to possible negotiations with Iran, and expressed his hope that this change will continue and eventually pave the way for negotiations between the two countries that will serve Iran’s national interests (Arman, November 8). Hamid Reza Asefi, who served as spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs during President Khatami’s administration, also argued that the future of Iran-United States 229-12 5 relations depends to a greater extent on the internal developments in Iran than the election results in the United States. Asefi said that there are no significant differences between the two major political parties in the United States as far as foreign policy is concerned, and that the American policy towards Iran reflects a doctrine that does not change between presidents. According to Asefi, the Iranian presidential elections will have a greater impact on the relations between the two countries, which are influenced by Iran’s foreign policy more than they do by the American foreign policy (Arman, November 8). The different approaches prevalent in Iran towards the United States could also be seen on the official website of the Ministry of Intelligence.