Is Iran truly changing under Rouhani?

One may not be blamed for thinking that in some of its aspects the political discourse of Iran’s Hassan Rouhani administration points not to simply a mere change but perhaps to a coup in Iranian politics.

The new discourse is mostly addressed to the West and more particularly toward the US. Above all, the ‘new Iranians’ are keen to inform the world of the desire of the new administration to sever ties with the recent past, a past in which the former Iranian government positioned itself in an extremely hostile posture vis-a-vis the US, proclaimed by Khomeini to be the devil. They say it is a severance with ideologically inspired politics in favour of politics motivated, dictated or necessitated by interests, or to use a more technical idiom realipolitik.

The ‘new Iranians’ confess that the main catalyst for such a transformation, which started with allowing an election to produce a ‘moderate’ president, has been the economic sanctions. The upper echelons of authority in Iran feared that the hardships created by the sanctions were likely, at any time, to spark a new popular uprising. That would have been more than devastating at a time when Iran and its allies in the region were actively engaged in suppressing another popular uprising in Syria.

Severing ties with the past includes a campaign aimed at discrediting the previous administration, which is accused of massive scale corruption and the squandering of billions of dollars of public funds. These accusations, some of which have been reported in the world press are routinely spoken about in the closed meetings referred to above.

The administration of Ahmadinejad is alleged to have given loyalists huge funds, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, to hide in foreign bank accounts under their names but on behalf of the government. The funds and those to whom they were entrusted disappeared and are nowhere to be found.

One of the curious claims made by the ‘new Iranians’ is that Iran never sought to develop nuclear weapons because “this would contravene Islamic values”. The ludicrous explanation prompted someone to ask: “Would you consider Pakistanis bad Muslims because they developed the nuclear bomb?”

On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the ‘new Iranians’ endeavour to say as little as possible. If pressed to give an opinion they say that whatever the Palestinians and the Israelis agree amongst themselves would be acceptable to Iran.

An Iranian academic close to Rouhani was unequivocal, stating: “Who are we to decide on behalf of the Palestinians what they should or should not accept?”

This position is confirmed by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials who had recently been to Iran on an official visit. They say they were assured by the Iranians that the new regime would support whatever the Palestinian people choose and that whatever the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians yield is their business.

According to one PA official the Iranians treated them with utmost respect at the time when Iran’s “relations with Hamas continue to be at their worst”.

The efforts of the ‘new Iranians’ to open up to the West is unprecedented and has not been seen at least since Mohammad Khatami was president. Asked whether Iran, under the new administration, would be willing to recognise Israel, the Iranian academic said: “Let the Palestinians and the Israelis reach a deal and then we’ll see.”

As for the accusation that Iran intervenes in the domestic affairs of its neighbours, the ‘new Iranians’ deny any intervention in the affairs of Bahrain. They even claim that the Shia Muslims in Bahrain criticise Iran for doing very little to help their uprising against the monarchy there.

On Syria, the ‘new Iranians’ are defiant. “Of all the dictatorships in the region, why do you want to bring down the Syrian regime?” asked the pro-Rouhani academic. Whatever question he is asked, his cliche answer is: “Why are you picking on Iran when all other regional and international powers have their fingers immersed in Syrian affairs?”

It is interesting to note that in such discussions there is no reference whatsoever to Iran’s role in Syria in terms of supporting a regime that is resistant or opposed to Israel.

Some observers, who claim to know what is going on inside Iran, say that there is a conflict within the circles of power between the ‘moderates’ and the ‘radicals’. They advise that one should not underestimate the repercussions of the pragmatic drive of the Rouhani administration.

On the other hand, there are those who see the ‘apparent’ change in Iranian discourse as nothing but a division of labour. They reject the notion that what is observed implies an essential shift, insisting Iran’s warming up to the West is a mere ploy to ease, if not end, the sanctions imposed on it.

Dr Azzam Tamimi is the author of Hamas: Unwritten Chapters and Rashid Ghannouchi: A Democrat Within Islamism

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.