When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

Iran: Western Sanctions Helped Elect Rohani - Will They Undermine Him Now?

Iranian voters rejected the regime's hard line on the nuclear issue that led to a deep economic crisis. Now whether Hossan Rohani softens Iran's stance also depends on the West.

Rohani shifted the conversation
Rohani shifted the conversation
Christophe Ayad and Serge Michel

-Analysis-

PARIS - Did the West's economic sanctions, those controversial diplomatic “weapons,” actually lead to the surprise victory of the most moderate candidate in the Iranian presidential campaign?

That explanation alone would be forgetting the irrepressible thirst for freedom of the Iranian youth and the great mobilization of the “green” reform movement that helped Hassan Rohani win the June 14 election in the first round, with 50.7% of the votes.

The Iranian voters bitter about outgoing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s catastrophic record are the ones who were key to this victory, qualified as a “divine surprise” by the urban population. The results were celebrated in most of the country’s cities as soon as they became official on Saturday night.

They celebrated the end of eight years of Ahmadinejad presidency, synonymous with economic crisis, isolation and confrontation with the West on the issue of Iran's nuclear program.

Until now, no one had publicly claimed a connection between the catastrophic state of the country’s economy (inflation above 30%; 25% unemployment rate and even higher for the youth) and the government’s unwielding stance on the nuclear program.

While the regime was busy accusing western injustice, it should have been busy overcoming the sanctions by diversifying its economy and enforcing a “resistance” policy.

But then reality kicked back: revenue from oil dropped to half its levels of 2011 and 2012; the automotive industry collapsed (from 1.5 million to 1 million between 2011 and 2012 and expected to dip to 500,000 in 2013); difficulties in paying wages; imported medication absent from the shelves and national currency losing 75% of its value in a year and a half.

Every Iranian knows this, but it took a fight between the presidential candidates on which policy to adopt to make the voters feel free to express the discontent with their ballots. The presidential campaign was going according to script until the third televised debate on June 7 between the eight remaining candidates.

Sensing a change in the wind, hardliner Said Jalili attacked Rohani who had negotiated the nuclear dossier for Iran from 2003 to 2005, and accused him of caving into the West, and therefore betraying the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

In the light of day

Rohani responded forcefully that his decision to suspend the program in autumn 2003 had prevented Iran from being the target of the UN Security Council, while the team that succeeded him racked up four resolutions of condemnation.

Ali-Akbar Velayati, a candidate close to the Leader, took on Jalili too, saying that “diplomacy is not a minbar,” the chair on which the sermons are proclaimed.

For the first time, what used to be kept for private discussions was now exposed in the light of day.

Iranians finally understood that the conservatives were in fact quite divided over the issue, and candidates were ruled by their emotions to the point that they were not respecting the Leader who remains the true head of the Iranian State. The withdrawal of the only other reformer candidate, Mohamed Aref, finished the job for Rohani.

It is significant that the nuclear issue hadn’t been discussed before it came up in the debate. The Iranians had been judging their leaders more for how they were handling negotiations, rather than on the nuclear program itself.

“The sanctions failed to stop the Iranian Nuclear program and change the regime,” says Bernard Hourcade, research director at France's national scientific research center (CNRS). “But they did weaken and isolate Iran, and the Iranians had had enough.”

For Ali Khamenei, the election of Rohani isn’t such a bad outcome: as the leader is recovering bits of his popularity lost since 2009, when he had to back the shady reelection of Ahmadinejad. He may now send onto the international stage someone he completely trusts, someone who will earn more respect than his predecessor who'd been discredited by his blaring declarations on the Holocaust and Israel.

But what Rohani actually can offer will also depend on the West.

His election was saluted by Washington which declared the US was “ready to cooperate directly” on the nuclear issue. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough sees in this vote a “potential sign of hope.” The monarchies of the Gulf, longing for Iran’s withdrawal in Syria, also welcomed this electoral turn of events.

On the other hand, Israel Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu who is going to have a harder time convincing people of the “need” to bomb Iran, urged the international community not to “trust illusions,” and to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program “by all means necessary.”

Instead of a new regime or even a new policy, the West was delivered a new atmosphere. Will they help Rohani, facing an entire nation’s high expectations, in his endeavors? The 2003 events don’t indicate this will pan out: Rohani hadn't obtained much from the program's suspension. And in 2005, it was back on track.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
In The News

War In Ukraine, Day 222: Ukrainian Army Makes New Gains In Regions Annexed By Russia

The Ukrainian army is pushing the front line forward in several directions.

Fire after a rocket attack by Russian troops in Kharkiv

Anna Akage, Meike Eijsberg and Sophia Constantino

The Ukrainian army is pushing the front line forward in several directions, including the liberation of two more cities – Arkhangelske and Myrolyubivka – in the southern region of Kherson. There were also reports Monday of major breakthroughs by Kyiv forces along the Dnipro River in the south.

Ukraine has also made progress in the past 48 hours in the region of Luhansk. Notably, these are two of the four regions that Vladimir Putin announced that Russia had annexed on Friday.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

With these advances by Ukrainian forces, along with gains in Donetsk (see below) and Zaporizhzhia, Russia does not hold the full territory of any of the areas of occupied Ukraine that Moscow now claims as its own.

Fighting has also intensified in the northeastern Kharkiv region, where Ukraine has also made significant advances and Russia continues shelling in response.

The successful counterattacks by the Ukrainian military in Kherson and the Kharkiv region since last month has left Russian forces controlling less Ukrainian land than they did at the start of the war in February 2022, an analysis by CNN found. Russia’s first massive push overnight into February 24 allowed it to secure or advance on one fifth of Ukrainian territory, or about 119,000 square kilometers. Russia now controls roughly 3,000 square kilometers less land than it did in the first five days of the war.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ