The Powers Of Elected Iranian Presidents.

The elected president of the Iranian Republic has no authority over any of the autonomous states mentioned above. He is only head of the formal state and, as such, his powers are limited by the various arms of the theocracies which are headed by Khamenei's appointees. Ahmadi-Nejad's fiery pronouncements are only intended to give outsiders the impression that he sets policy in Iran, which is far from the truth. In reality, Ahmadi-Nejad has become the most unpopular president inside Iran since the theocracy was established. Even among Iran's young and poor, who form the big majority of the Iranian population, Ahmadi-Nejad has turned out to be a disappointment; and to the pragmatic and reformist wings of the theocracy he has become an embarrassment.

Yet Ahmadi-Nejad is the mouthpiece of the supremacists who have deliberately allowed him to become a loose cannon in their efforts to weaken the pragmatists and reformists, as well as Khamenei. This is why Khamenei has allowed Rafsanjani to form a broad alliance, including the reformists, to win the majority in the March 2008 parliamentary elections and in the 2009 presidential elections.

Contrary to the assertions of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger on Sept. 24, Ahmadi-Nejad is no "petty and cruel dictator". He is an elected president with very little power, frequently at odds with Iran's religious leadership and its parliament. If Iran had a nuclear arsenal, his finger would not be on the trigger. Ahmadi-Nejad is extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons; if he runs for president again in 2009, he will almost certainly be defeated. He does not determine Iranian foreign policy.

On the other hand, it is most likely that the IRGC's hand would be on the nuclear trigger. This is what worries the allies of the US in the Arab world and nearby regions, including Russia and China. The allied Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, are even more worried than the US, Israel and Europe - perhaps also Russia and China as well as Pakistan and India - about the prospect of Iran developing atomic weapons and controlling the world's biggest energy reservoir.

True, the last time Iran attacked a neighbour was in the 17th century. But the Arab states opposed to the Iran-led axis say this does not necessarily mean the Shi'ite theocracy is not expansionist - judging by the behaviour of Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Shi'ite militias in Iraq and the various Shi'ite communities elsewhere in the Muslim world. What is equally worrying to these states, particularly those led by Saudi Arabia (the GCC) plus Egypt and Jordan, is the tactical alliance between the Iran-led axis and the Neo-Salafi movement. Despite the fact that the latter movement is Sunni and regards the Shi'ites as heretics, its temporary alliance with the Shi'ite theocracy - sponsored by the Syrian regime - has potentially the most serious threat to world peace. This is because, like the Shi'ite theocracy which is universal rather than being regional, the Neo-Salafi movement is trans-national and its ambition is to establish a universal Sunni caliphate.

Although this means potentially there will be a war between the Sunni and Shi'ite theocracies, the danger is that it could be a nuclear war of universal proportions. The Arab states are among the first targets of the Neo-Salafi movement; and for them containment of Iran through Iraq and other parts of the Middle East is a priority (as explained in fap4-IraqDecentralisationOct8-07 and the other monthly series such as RIM and SBME).

What also worries the allied Arab states is that the Shi'ite theocracy, as in the case of the Neo-Salafi movement, is not capable of becoming a peaceful and democratic states with normal relations with all other countries, including the US. Equally worrying for them, however, is that the Bush administration has preferred the stick to the carrot, starting with consigning Iran to the "axis of evil" in January 2002. The White House currently insists it is exercising the diplomatic option with Iran; but the allied Arab states believe it is not. Bilateral Iranian-US sessions in Baghdad have consisted of little more than staking out adversarial positions.

The US is demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment as a precondition for serious negotiations. But Iran is legally entitled to carry out enrichment as part of what it calls an "energy programme" and both the Iranian public and the theocracy are strongly supportive of that right.

US insistence on Iranian capitulation in advance of any talks means the negotiations are intended to be a non-starter, leaving only a military solution to the Iran problem. Many of the claims of Iranian interference in Iraq and Afghanistan are still based on unverifiable assertions by the Pentagon or have been contradicted by the Iraqi and Afghan governments, both of which insist they have positive working relationships with Tehran. Now whether or not Tehran really favours a stable Middle East - in terms of its own self-interest - remains to be seen.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA and now a Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defence Alliance, last week made this conclusion: The passage of a more punitive Iran Sanctions Act in July, coupled with a more recent approval by a 77 to 22 US Senate vote of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defence Procurement bill, have provided a "virtual carte blanche for the White House to attack Iran at will".

Kyl-Lieberman called for classifying the IRGC as a terrorist group and provided the White House with language to justify the use of military force against Tehran. The unwillingness of the Senate and House to insist on a bill forbidding a new war without Congressional approval, Giraldi said, "demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans alike have difficulty in seeing past Ahmadinejad to consider the genuine downside that would result from another conflict in the Middle East".

A lengthy story by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker posted on Sept. 30 suggesting the Bush administration was ready for "surgical strikes" against Iran has been widely contested both in the West and the Arab world. Hersh wrote that Iran's alleged activities in Iraq have caused the White House to shift from plans for a "broad bombing attack" on nuclear and military targets in Iran to "surgical strikes" on IRGC elements deemed a source of attacks in Iraq. He added: Bush told US Ambassador Ryan Crocker in Baghdad in early summer that he was thinking of such a strike. He quoted a former intelligence official as saying: "There is a desperate effort by [Vice President Dick] Cheney et al to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible".

However, former CIA analyst and now a columnist, wrote in The Daily Star of Oct. 6 an article with under title: "Washington is looking to avoid a war against Iran".