Anna Fifield
For Hizbollah, losing the Lebanese parliamentary elections was bad enough. Losing the support, or even the attention, of its key backer would be disastrous.
Iran’s allies around the region – from Hizbollah and Hamas, the anti-Israeli movements, to the government of Syria – are closely watching events in Iran, as opposition protesters continue to try to call the Islamic republic to account over this month’s disputed presidential election.
This is an unprecedented crisis and has the potential to shake Iran’s foundations, said Amal Saad Ghorayeb, a Hizbollah expert at the Lebanese American University in Beirut. That instability is going to be very worrisome for Hizbollah and Hamas, and let’s not forget Syria.
They are worried about the negative effects . . . because of course Iran will be paying much less attention to its allies and its foreign policy in general, she said.
Supporters of Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the moderate candidate declared to have been resoundingly defeated by incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad on June 12, have vowed to continue protesting against the result, despite a clampdown by the authorities. They have warned the protesters to stop, but there is no end in sight to the dispute.
Although Ahmadi-Nejad had actively courted the Arab world, many states there have been wary of Tehran’s increasingly expansionist aims since he won power in 2005, with its support for Hizbollah in Lebanon and for Hamas – which controls the Gaza Strip, the active role it has played in Iraq and its close co-operation with Syria.
The election result was unlikely to change Iran’s military and financial support for its regional allies – all candidates were committed to the Islamic republic and Iran’s support for Hizbollah and Hamas transcends the government. But the unrest now creates uncertainty for these allies, who are biding their time to see how the biggest uprising in Iran in 30 years unfolds.
Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah, Hizbollah’s leader, sent a letter of congratulations to Ahmadi-Nejad immediately after the election, but is now opting for a diplomatic silence in the wake of the protests.
Hizbollah can’t not be worried about what is happening in Iran, said Kamel Wazne, a Shia political commentator close to Hizbollah. But Iran still very much supports its allies in the region and its foreign policy won’t change over the longer term.
Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad won 97 per cent of the vote after his father died in 2000, is also likely to be watching the events in Iran closely, analysts say. Mr Assad is part of the minority Alawite sect, a Shia offshoot, in a majority Sunni country and his government actively suppresses dissent from democracy and human rights advocates.
Syrian state media have reported little of the protests, perhaps for fear of giving its own citizens ideas.
Walid al-Moallem, the Syrian foreign minister, this week told his Dutch counterpart, Maxime Verhagen, that the west is mistaken if it thinks it can change the government in Iran and warned against any interference.
Indeed, the biggest risk for Iran’s allies is not domestic unrest but the prospect of western intervention.
Barack Obama, US president, on Tuesday condemned what he called the appalling crackdown on the opposition and denied any western powers had interfered, as the Iranians have claimed, in the post-election protests. Two British diplomats were expelled from Tehran earlier this week and several other European countries have criticised the election result.
What role will foreign powers play? Will the US stay out? asked Ms Saad Ghorayeb, saying this uncertainty gives Hizbollah and Hamas, considered terrorist entities by the US and Israel, most cause for concern.
Even if the protests in Iran stop and Ahmadi-Nejad retains power, as almost all analysts expect, the dispute may do irreparable damage to his reputation in the Middle East.
