Reuters
Paul Hughes
Wednesday, October 27 2004
Iran's clerics lean towards Kerry to ease pressure
TEHRAN, Oct 27 (Reuters) - Iranian officials like to portray U.S. presidential elections as a choice between bad and worse but there is little doubt they would prefer Democratic challenger John Kerry to win next week.
Since President George W. Bush took office the Islamic state has been dubbed an "axis of evil" member, seen U.S. forces mass on its borders in Iraq and Afghanistan and faced concerted U.S. accusations that it has a covert atomic arms programme.
Kerry is unlikely to ease the pressure on Iran, which will remain a key U.S. foreign policy challenge whoever wins the Nov. 2 vote.
But the Massachusetts senator's emphasis on a multilateral foreign policy approach and hints he would negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programme appeal to the country's bazaar-rooted instincts to bargain its way out of a crisis.
"Logically speaking, everything points to Iran supporting Kerry," said Tehran-based political analyst Mahmoud Alinejad.
"If Bush is re-elected it will be on a platform of a radical strategy to democratise the Middle East, if necessary by force. At least what Kerry has hinted at provides the possibility for Iran to get out of this deadlock, to buy some more time."
Conservative strategist Amir Mohebian, who advises some of Iran's top policymakers, agreed.
"We prefer Kerry because he favours diplomatic methods rather than pressure. Iran is better off if he wins," he told Reuters.
NORMALLY PRO-REPUBLICAN
Washington broke ties with Iran in 1980 after an angry mob seized the U.S. embassy and held 52 hostages for 444 days.
Iran has tended in the past to favour the pragmatic, business-oriented style of Republicans over Democrats who were perceived as more pro-Israel and tougher on human rights.
"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," said Iran's Supreme National Security Council chief Hassan Rohani.
"We should not forget that most sanctions ... were imposed on Iran during the time of (former President Bill) Clinton," he told state television.
"And we should not forget that during Bush's era, despite his hardline and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he did not take, in practical terms, any dangerous measures against Iran."
Despite his insistence that Iran favoured neither Bush nor Kerry, Rohani's comments fuelled media speculation that Tehran still felt more comfortable with a Republican in the White House.
But Bush's presidency marked a watershed in Iranian thinking.
"Going into the last election Iran strongly favoured Bush," said Siamak Namazi, managing director of Atieh Bahar Consulting.
Not only was Bush a Republican but he was from an oil state, Texas, and his running mate Dick Cheney was linked to an oil company, Halliburton, with large business interests in Iran.
"But that was before Sept. 11, the emergence of the neo-conservatives and the 'axis of evil' speech. That stood the pro-Republican theory on its head," said Namazi.
Arguments that Bush rid Iran of two arch foes and is a known quantity compared with Kerry hold little water, said Alinejad.
"Bush did topple Saddam and the Taliban but he certainly didn't do that as a favour for Iran."
FEELING CONFIDENT
In Tehran, concern that it may be next in line for regime change after the swift military victory over Saddam Hussein has given way to growing confidence as U.S. forces struggle to stabilise Iraq.
"Even if Bush wins, an attack on Iran is not on the agenda," said Mohebian. "The cost is too high. Bush's hands are empty."
After loudly cheering pro-democracy protests last year, U.S. officials appear to have backed away from theories that Iran's clerical regime is ripe for collapse, analysts said.
The risk that surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear plants could unite one of the region's least anti-U.S. populations behind the clerical leadership is also a concern in Washington.
"The U.S. is afraid that if it bombs Iran it will reverse the process towards moderation," said Namazi.
Iraq is another card held by Tehran. Although U.S. officials frequently accuse Iran of stirring up trouble there, diplomats say Iran's tentacles of influence in Iraq could wreak havoc if the Islamic Republic ever felt really threatened.
Ultimately though, analysts said, Iran's leaders dearly want to strike a grand bargain that would yield security guarantees, recognition as a regional superpower and normalisation of ties with the country they call the "Great Satan".
"One of the problems with our negotiations with Iran is that the things they really want, like security guarantees, can only be given by Washington," said a European diplomat in Tehran.
Any rapprochement would require a big gesture.
"The stakes are getting bigger," said Namazi. "The time for small steps like wrestling-mat diplomacy is over. Bolder, more concrete moves are needed. But this is extremely difficult to do given the level of mutual mistrust."