On June 12, Iran will hold its tenth annual election, the most important election of the year. The illusion of democracy in Iran is stronger than ever before: the first televised presidential debate will air this week and a handful of reformist candidates have adopted the campaign slogan of “change.” For a nation in which women are required to wear headscarves and homosexuality is a crime punishable by death, democracy is just that- an illusion. The president holds no real power; he is a puppet of the top religious authority, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Even so, the reformist candidates offer some hope for a more conciliatory approach to the West. While Iran will not abandon its nuclear program any time soon, we can at least hope for a president who will support stability in the Middle East above nationalistic or anti-Zionist aspirations. The current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is up for reelection. In the past four years he has undoubtedly marred Iran’s relationship with the U.S. by creating a negative image of his country. His fierce support of a nationalistic uranium-enrichment program to form nuclear weapons has earned Iran three sets of UN Security Council sanctions. Furthermore, he has antagonized many nations by opposing the existence of Israel; his denial of the Holocaust has discredited his image throughout the world. Ahmadinejad’s popularity in Iran makes him a dangerous candidate. He won in 2005 by emphasizing his “common man” image: the son of a poor grocery-store owner, he claims to represent Iran’s basic values, which he feels are rooted in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. As President he refuses to reside in the presidential palace, preferring a more modest home, and he continues to run a public email blog. Even so, recent polls indicate that more and more people are welcoming the prospect of change. Young people, such as the students of Tehran University who have protested Ahmadinejad’s policies, are in favor of the new candidates. With a 30 percent inflation rate, many hope that a new administration may alleviate the economic downturn. The most popular reform candidates are Mehdi Karroubi, who disagrees with most of Ahmadinejad’s policies, and Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who proposes a more moderate approach for reform. Karroubi intends to reconsider the nuclear issue, while Mousavi’s stance is less compromising to demands of the West. However, both intend to restore many personal liberties denied in Iran by increasing women’s participation in government and allowing more freedom in speech and press. These reforms are necessary for establishing a more true democracy. Unfortunately, Iran’s current political system will not allow significant change to occur in the next few years; a reversal of Iran’s nuclear program will be impossible. All we can hope for is a president who will open up dialogue and ease up on Ahmadinejad’s antagonistic rhetoric. Since the government blocks most reformist candidates from running, Karroubi and Mousavi have a rare opportunity to bring new ideas to the table. President Obama hopes for “steady progress,” a realistic goal for an illiberal society. Of course, the United States shares responsibility in establishing a more cooperative relationship with Iran. Ahmadinejad grew up during the regime of the U.S.-supported Shah, an era in which the ruler’s extravagance and brutality inspired much protest and anti-American feeling among the people. Since the 1979 revolution, which marked the end of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran, neither side has made a significant attempt at reconciliation. “Iran is ruled by men who suppress liberty at home and spread terror across the world,” Bush said in 2005, only deepening the anti-U.S. sentiment in Tehran. Ahmadinejad supported Obama’s election, hoping for a less aggressive U.S. foreign policy. President Obama must be careful: conciliation only works if it comes from both sides. The recent cooperation to end drug trafficking in Afghanistan, an issue that both the U.S. and Iran care about, represents an important first step to working together. But it will take more compromise and dialogue to deter Iran from building its nuclear arsenal or from preaching the demise of Israel. I hope that nationalistic aspirations will not bring more turmoil to the Middle East. I hope that the U.S. will achieve the right balance between dialogue and admonition to quell Iran’s dangerous policies. But most of all I hope that by June 12, the Iranian people will find courage and cause to elect a new leader, one who will seek peace before power. Eric Sirakian is a three-year Upper from Andover, MA. esirakian@andover.edu
