The word ‘pragmatism’ is what is on everyone’s lip
By M K Bhadrakumar
The transition
of power next week in Tehran makes Iran look what it is in actuality in the volatile Middle eastern region — an oasis
of stability. What makes this orderly possible is the political legitimacy of
the Iranian regime and its very substantial social base, the erosion that is
inevitable through decades in power notwithstanding.
So, we now know
that President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is returning to his profession —
academia. No heartburns there. The irony is there, of course, that the new
university proposes to specialize in nuclear engineering. But then, obviously, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei approves it.
The
president-elect Hassan Rouhani is also having his way putting together his
cabinet and it is taken for granted as his prerogative to summon back the old wizard of Iran’s
all-powerful oil ministry Bijan Zanganeh to handle matters once again —
presumably, in anticipation that the industry needs to be revved up,
technologically upgraded, hopefully with western technology and investment, so
that Iran can emerge as a major exporter, hopefully to the western
market.
Of course, do we
see a hand of Rafsanjani in Zanganeh’s recall? Yes, we do. Indeed, the word
‘pragmatism’ is what is on everyone’s lip, which explains the high level of
interest among the regional countries to attend Rouhani’s inauguration next
week. Representaives of 40 countries are attending but all eyes will be on who
is traveling from Riyadh to Tehran — although Asharq Al-Awsat report keeps the
suspense.
Meanwhile, in
the West, the debate continues. Broadly, three strands of thinking have emerged
— other than Israel’s doomsday predictions that Rouhani is a ‘wolf in sheep’s
disguise’, which no one takes seriously.
There is general
consensus that Rouhani is a good thing to happen. The stunning disclosure by
the former French ambassador to Tehran Francois Nicoulland regarding Rouhani’s track record as Iran’s
nuclear negotiator underscores this and in turn opens up vast vistas of possibility in
the coming weeks on the diplomatic front.
The timing of
the New York Times article is fascinating. Conceivably, the Obama administration
is aware of what Nicoulland has disclosed.
Yet, there are
Doubting Thomases in the US think tanks who would insist that Rouhani should not be ‘trusted’ – whatever that
may mean, considering that diplomats seldom ‘trust’ anyone. They are plainly
unhappy with the engagement of Iran by the Obama administration. But this breed
of opinion makers are losing appeal. They come out as Israel’s ‘B Team’.
Especially so,
when taking into account that Financial Times, which has been no friend of
Iran, has featured an audacious editorial proposing the need for the West to be
imaginative and not to hustle or bully Iran but to be rational and conciliatory
in the negotiations in a step-by-step manner (which was somethign frist
proposed by Moscow).
It stands to
reason that the FT reflects the prevailing thinking in London and Washington. It’s here.
No comments:
Post a Comment