President Bush received a heck of an endorsement this week: from Hasan Rowhani, head of Iran’s Security Council. This should give pause to those who think that Mr. Bush is viewed everywhere as an enemy by America’s enemies, and Senator Kerry as their friend. In fact, many Middle Eastern leaders prefer to stick with President Bush.
Rowhani said that a Bush victory would be good for Iran, because, he claims, Democrats have often hurt Tehran more than Republicans. “We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton,” he said. “Despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he didn’t take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran,” said Rowhani.
Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said that “Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran.” In other words, since he knows that America under Bush will not act against Iran–only talk–he sees Kerry as more of a threat. Kerry might actually get international sanctions passed, and at least bring economic pressure to bear against Iran.
But what about the destruction of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein?
In terms both of regional politics and Islamic beliefs, Iran has always viewed those regimes as enemies. Iran spent years–and thousands of lives–trying to destroy Saddam. It took our help to make the dream a reality. The Iranians were similarly happy when the Taliban fell.
Mofidi said that getting rid of the Saddam and the Taliban was the “biggest service any administration could have done for Iran.” Bush has ended the most direct regional threat to Iran, creating a power vacuum–and a more porous border–that the Shiites are struggling to fill. Hopefully the Iraqis will fill this vacuum, since Mr. Bush has chosen not to allow the American army to win.
Iraq has also made it more difficult for Bush to make the choices needed to use military force against Iran. “The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran,” Mofidi said.
By all indications, Mofidi is right, although not because Iran–which could not beat Iraq–is as yet any great power. But to attack Iran, Bush will have to overcome massive opposition at home, confront his friend Putin of Russia, convince an international coalition–central to all of his actions to this point–to join us, and counter Iran’s claim that they, like us, have a right to nuclear weapons. The Iranians know how hard this will be.
“It’s not an endorsement we’ll be accepting anytime soon,” said a Bush campaign spokesman. “Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council.”
American troops in Iraq should be a huge deterrent to the Iranians. But, if the mullahs think we lack the will to act against them, then that force will be no threat. To Mr. Rowhani, economic boycotts and human rights condemnations are more dangerous than any potential American military attack. He obviously thinks that Kerry will be more dangerous at the UN than Bush.
Rowhani is not alone in his endorsement. The Middle East Media and Research Institute, which monitors the Middle Eastern media, presents many reports in which the leadership in the Middle East prefers Bush to Kerry. To cite one commentator, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, former editor-in-chief of the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and director-general of Al-Arabiyya TV:
“Regarding Bush, the truth is that he is the only president who publicly undertook to support the establishment of a Palestinian state
