Jeremy Hall & Robert Patman: Nuclear Iran likely whoever wins poll

Opinion

The campaign to succeed Mohammad Khatami as President of Iran has raised hopes that the era of confrontation in United States-Iranian relations may soon be a thing of the past. But such hopes could prove to be premature.

After the June 17 poll, former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and the hardline conservative Mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are poised to contest a run-off presidential poll today.

With half the population under 25, the youth vote in Iran is now considered a force to be reckoned with, and the race for the presidency reflects this changing social and political context.

Rafsanjani, a pragmatic conservative, seems to be the favourite. He says he wants to form "a multi-coloured coalition government" and embark on a ambitious programme of change, including amending the constitution, relaxing social codes of conduct and improving relations with the outside world - including the US.

In a recent interview, he said it was now possible to end hostilities with Washington. Although there are now unmistakable signs of hope for Iran-US relations, there have been enough false dawns over the past 25 years to suggest caution.

Since 1979, Iran and the US have viewed each other through hostile and often emotional lenses. Resentment against American political and economic domination during the Shah's rule was a central drive among Iran's revolutionary generation.

Today, Iran's nuclear programme is the biggest stumbling block to rapprochement. Since September 11, American leaders have fretted openly about the possibility of a "perfect storm" coming to pass in national security: Islamic radicals armed with nuclear weapons.

Concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions flared in earnest in March 2004 when Tehran was revealed to have secret uranium enrichment facilities. After a confrontation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, Iran was eventually prevailed upon by the European Union to temporarily suspend its enrichment activities. Iran has never denied the existence of a nuclear programme, but has maintained that it is for peaceful purposes only.

While the EU sought a diplomatic solution, Washington steadily positioned itself as the military enforcer if these efforts were to fail.

But if the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons is viewed with profound disapproval by the US, such weapons are simply unacceptable to Israel. There are credible fears that even if Washington finds a way to accommodate Iran, Israel could act on its own.

Crucially, the dissatisfaction many Iranians feel with their Government does not extend to nuclear policy. Like the people of India and Pakistan, many Iranians have rallied around nuclear power as a symbol of national independence and technological prowess. Ironically, the American invasion and occupation of Iraq have reaffirmed nuclear weapons as the single durable guarantee against foreign intervention.

The two contenders for the Iranian presidency are aware of the importance accorded the nuclear programme and the near impossibility of abandoning it in the face of external pressures.

* Jeremy Hall completed an MA thesis on Iran's unconventional weapons programmes at Otago University. Robert G. Patman is an associate professor in the department of political studies at Otago.