The Iranian religious regime, which celebrates today the thirty-first anniversary of its declaration, is waging a confrontation against nearly the whole world over the nuclear issue. Yet the real fight is the one taking place between it and the Iranians themselves, as indicated by the broad internal division, and, to a lesser extent, between this regime and Iran's direct Arab and Muslim neighborhood, as a result of the comparison it has made yet again between the “Revolution” and the “Republic” and of choosing the former, making the currently raging nuclear issue the mere result of such a choice. In 1988, after eight years of a destructive war against Iraq at the cost of millions of lives and of massive and long-term losses for the economy of both countries, Khomeini, who had laid down the bases of the new system on the principle of “exporting the revolution”, made a first comparison between the two choices. Yet he accepted to “drink the hemlock” after he realized that he was unable to continue the war alone against both the region and the world, beginning the period of “withdrawal”, characterized by the coming of a president open to the world (Rafsanjani) who made it his mission to rebuild and to strengthen state institutions, followed by a moderate reformist president (Khatami) who worked on establishing a kind of reconciliation both domestically and at the foreign level, giving rise to a détente in Iran's foreign relations. Yet such a trend quickly broke down with the “coup” undertaken by radical conservatives led by Supreme Leader Khamenei during the last two years of Khatami's second term, preparing the coming of Ahmadinejad with the purpose of returning its luster to the choice of “continuing the revolution”, after considering that the West had “deceived” them by showering them with promises it did not commit to, and that its real purpose was to overthrow the regime, making it imperative to return to confrontation. And this is how it happened. Thus in his first term Ahmadinejad, relying on the support of radical authorities, waged two proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, resulting in terrible consequences for the Lebanese and Palestinian people. Yet he considered them both to be unparalleled victories, regardless of their practical results, because they returned the “revolutionary” Iran to the forefront and aborted the possibilities of peace in the region. In fact, the specter of renewed fighting still looms over these two regions, allowing Israel, which in turn produced a radical leadership, to elude the requirements of the peace process, pretexting the threats represented by Iran's proxies. Also under Ahmadinejad, Iran's influence has spread in every direction, tension and arm-wrestling has returned to its relations with its neighboring countries, including those with which it is supposed to have good relations. Thus the populist president began using the metaphysics he is burdened with for inspiration for his political and economic stances and to plan the future of his country, in a blundering course which led to the domestic reformist movement taking shape once more after it had become withdrawn. This movement thus gathered its forces to wage the presidential elections in the middle of last year, but was faced with the insistence of the radicals and their security apparatuses on preventing change through falsification and force. Hence the conflict erupted into oppression that continues to this day, and is unlikely to end anytime soon, although the battle between the two sides is completely unbalanced. Today, on the anniversary of its establishment, the Iranian regime is facing the increasing likelihood of further UN economic sanctions being imposed on it, after repeatedly rejecting offers to enrich uranium abroad, sanctions which will lead to more isolation, will certainly have painful repercussions, and could develop further. Yet the path taken by the current Iranian leadership, at both the domestic and foreign level, does not suggest that it is ready to emulate the experience of the regime's founder in terms of changing its choices.
