By: Tony Burman Special to the Star, Published on Sat Jun 22 2013
The Toronto Star

The overwhelming reaction of international governments to the dramatic outcome of Iran’s presidential election was cautious but hopeful. Some even wondered whether it might lead to a historic breakthrough in the dangerous nuclear conflict between Iran and the West.

In contrast, the response of the Canadian government — dismissing the vote as “effectively meaningless” and calling the newly elected Iranian president “one of Ayatollah Khamenei’s puppets” — was cynical and extreme.

Should it surprise us that Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird was in Jerusalem shortly after he made that statement, listening to his comrade-in-arms, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying essentially the same thing? In today’s polarized Middle East, there must be something promising afoot if both the current Israeli and Canadian governments oppose it.
Many of the thousands of celebrating Iranians who streamed onto the streets last weekend seemed surprised at what they had just done. In fact, if the U.S. and the West respond to this new opportunity with wisdom and restraint, Iranians may have taken the first small step in rewriting their country’s troubled history. With a turnout of more than 70 per cent, Iranians stunned everyone by electing a centrist cleric and former nuclear negotiator, Hasan Rowhani, with 51 per cent of the vote. He was the only candidate to run as a moderate in a field of conservatives.

Speaking to journalists on Monday for the first time since his victory, Rowhani said he wanted to reduce tensions with the U.S., calling them “an old wound, which must be healed.” His election was a clear repudiation of the vile belligerence of outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and was seen by many as an indirect rebuke to the despised Iranian regime itself, led by its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In Iran, Khamenei is the ultimate boss, not the president. The Supreme Leader has the final say over security issues, including Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard, as well as the country’s controversial nuclear development program. But the president sets much of the tone on foreign policy, has considerable domestic authority and is able to bring in his own people at all levels of government.

President-elect Rowhani has the added benefit of having a political career at the centre of Iran’s conservative establishment. He is seen as a pragmatist who will work toward bridging the growing gulf between Iran’s clerics and its people, who are suffering under the crushing burden of international sanctions. In his campaign, he frequently made the connection between the lack of agreement on the nuclear issue and the country’s shattered economy.

There has never been any question of whether Iran will abandon its nuclear program, which it consistently says is intended solely for peaceful purposes. That would never be accepted in Tehran. But the issue of nuclear weapons is different. Iran says it has no desire to move toward nuclear arms, but it has failed to convince the international community with sufficient safeguards. This is where the new president is expected to direct his attention.

However, Rowhani will tread carefully. In 2003, when he was Iran’s nuclear negotiator, he signed on to a voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment as a confidence-building measure with the West. But this was denounced within Iran as a betrayal of the country’s interests. His conservative critics accused Rowhani of making concessions without getting anything back from the U.S. and the West. The backlash led to the conservative election sweep in 2005 that brought Ahmadinejad to power. Rowhani has undoubtedly learned from that experience.

Most observers of the nuclear impasse believe it is now up to the Americans and their allies to make the next move. So far, they have only offered to lift some of the international sanctions in exchange for Iranian concessions. For Iran to consider a deal, it is believed the West will need to offer significant sanctions relief in return for genuine limits to the Iranian nuclear program.

As for the likelihood of military conflict with Iran, that possibility has receded. Netanyahu and his allies who favour a military strike have lost their Iranian foil with Ahmadinejad’s departure. To their chagrin, Iran will soon have a moderate face, at least for the time being, and there will be little that Netanyahu — or John Baird — can do about it. We should be thankful for this.

Tony Burman, former head of Al Jazeera English and CBC News, teaches journalism at Ryerson University. (tony.burman@gmail.com )

We value respectful and thoughtful discussion. Readers are encouraged to flag comments that fail to meet the standards outlined in our Community Code of Conduct. For further information, including our legal guidelines, please see our full website Terms and Conditions.

Comments (128)

ScaryBill
9 Minutes Ago
We will know who is correct in short order, but I do expect that unfortunately it will be Baird. Iran is a religious dictatorship, that has not changed.
ShareReply
rutsliwi
45 Minutes Ago
This election was a sham! It is Khameini’s post which should be up for election! The role of president is essentially that of a puppet, a marionette! Khameini may deceive the likes of Tony Burman but John Baird is right. “It is essentially meaningless”! Iran is a dangerous theocracy.
1
ShareReply
Joe Q_ Smith
7 Hours Ago
I do admire the courage of the Iranian people in electing the most moderate of candidates to be President. One can only imagine who they might have elected had the field of presidential candidates been open (not subject to vetting by the Ayatollah). Furthermore, as Burman correctly states, the new President’s decisions will ultimately be subordinate to those of that same Ayatollah. In that respect, there is some truth to Baird’s comments — the election, in some ways, was meaningless.
1
ShareReply
Dilipss
1 Hour Ago
Let’s hope Baird and Kenny look after the human rights of imported TFWs and FSWs……you know dem modern day slaves taking jobs away from Canadians
ShareReply
Lloyd
11 Hours Ago
It is amusing to watch right-wingers in both countries (Baird / Kolmenie) espouse fundamentalist conservative values while hating each other. The difference is one of religion but the fundamentalism is the same.
6
1 more
ShareReply
ScaryBill
6 Minutes Ago
To compare Canadian Conservatives to Iranian religious radicals is typical Canadian leftie propaganda, and as usual ridiculous in the absurd. Good work, Lloyd!
ShareReply
Chaz_Martel
9 Hours Ago
A cultural relativist who imagines there is moral equivalency between Judeo/Christian values on the one hand and the values of the Religion of Pieces on the other. One wonders how some even manage to find their way out of their homes in the morning to go their indoctrination classes.
2
ShareReply
David J C Cooper
5 Hours Ago
Chaz. Change your name. You are too predictable.
Share
cyberdundeen
12 Hours Ago
Once again, another photo of a Conservative with his mouth wide open. Don’t these fools ever shut up?
6
1 more
ShareReply
Load more comments