Before the day is over, we will have known the name of the winner in the Iranian presidential election. I do not need to guess, which candidate has the advantage over the other, although public opinion polls - some of which are American - have shown a clear lead by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his «reformist» opponents Mir-Hossein Mousavi, and Hussein Karroubi. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was never described as a «moderate» during his presidency, but now he is counted as being among the moderates. As for Mohammad Khatami, he maintained the quality of moderation all throughout his years in power, and was then succeeded by Ahmadinejad. This latter, who is now being described as a «radical» or an «extremist», is competing against Mousavi, who is running for the elections on reformist and moderate slogans. This is despite the fact that he was the prime minister during the war with Iraq in the eighties, and was never known for his moderation. Meanwhile, Karroubi is at the heart of the religious establishment in Qom, no matter how moderate he claims to be. I find that describing Iran's rival presidential candidates of being either moderate, extremist, or reformist is much exaggerated, even if these tags sometimes do apply in what pertains to domestic issues. Issues such as Mousavi's demand for giving more freedoms for women - within the limits of the Islamic Republic's regime, of course - or the proposed liberalization of the economy from the grip of the state, since Ahmadinejad had placed it in the service of the poor, to the extent of bribing them with cash. But extremism and moderation do not mean anything when it comes to the foreign policy of Iran, or specifically the Iranian policy, which interests the outside world. The current, former and future presidents are all, without exception, in favor of continuing Iran's nuclear program, particularly the enrichment of uranium suitable for use in peaceful programs, but also in the production of nuclear bombs. Although Ahmadinejad's fame comes from his calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, he is in copying the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, and this position remains the same as that of the ruling cast in Qom; the «moderate» Mousavi had also expressed the same view in the past. I had previously described Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in this column as a hollow drum, and was subsequently subjected to a campaign by Iran's supporters. However, I insist on my previous opinion about him. The difference between his policy and the policy of his predecessors, and of those who are competing with him now, is in his political discourse and not his policy itself. The president's statements have not served any purpose but giving the enemies of Iran and of the Muslims political ammunition to use against them. He denies the Holocaust as if he was himself accused of committing it, and threatens Israel with death, although all that is required of him is to talk softly but carry a big stick, as Americans say. Despite my opinion of Ahmadinejad, the known Iranian ambitions in the Gulf, and Iran's clear strategy to penetrate the Arab and Islamic depth, I support Iran's nuclear policy, and I even hope that Iran is lying about its program in that it's a military program and not just a peaceful one. I apologize for this repetition, but the optimal solution of this issue is a Middle East free of all weapons of mass destruction, and not one with Israel remaining the only country possessing a nuclear arsenal with the means to deliver nuclear weapons unto their targets. I call for all Arab countries to possess nuclear weapons, especially those with the means to do so, in response to Israel's nuclear armaments. When the Jewish lobby AIPAC, a key ally of Benjamin Netanyahu, organized its annual conference in Washington last month, U.S leaders from the Vice-President Joe Biden all the way down to members of the House of Representatives and the Senate – about half of total congressmen were attending - gave speeches at the event. The main subject on the table was Iran, and not peace in the Middle East as one would expect. And when Netanyahu arrived in Washington for talks with Barack Obama, the U.S. president said: two states, but the Prime Minister of Israel said: Iran. And when the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its report last week calling for greater monitoring of Iran's nuclear program, the Israeli Foreign Ministry, where the bouncer Avigdor Lieberman is the foreign minister, issued a statement requesting from the agency “fast and determined” action against Iran and Syria. Israel is a neo-Nazi expansionist military state that kills women and children, then demands action against Iran and Syria upon suspicion only, although its possession of nuclear weapons is certain and it threatens both neighboring and far countries, and there is no one to put it under scrutiny. From utter arrogance to blatant lies and debauchery, that's the specialty of Netanyahu specifically. He alleges that Iran's nuclear program poses a threat to Israel's existence, and even claims that it is a threat to Europe and America, while that is impossible. Tomorrow there will be a new Iranian president. Whether it is going to be the same “extremist”, or it is going to be the "moderate" one, the foreign policy of Iran will remain the same.
