Was the latest Iranian election really rigged or merely an unfortunate minority outburst of dissatisfaction? The consensus of most impartial observers continues to be that, even if an honest count would have given President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a slight winning margin, the claimed landslide result is a discredited fiction.

According to New Statesman magazine (June 22, 2009), opinion polls showing a strong opponent leading the incumbent Iranian president on the eve of the election suddenly morphed into an overwhelming victory for President Ahmadinejad. The New Statesman article went on to reveal nine other credible reasons why the wide margin of victory was most likely a gross falsification of what really happened.

Iran a pseudodemocracy

One able Iranian commentator observed: "Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic republic has organised 31 elections at different levels. All have been carefully scripted, with candidates pre-approved by the regime and no independent mechanism for oversight" (Amir Taheri, "Iran's Dictator Gives Up Pretence of Democracy," The Sunday Times, June 21, 2009).

As far as this insightful writer is concerned, "On Friday, June 19, the Islamic republic died in Iran." He went on to describe two Irans. "One is prepared to support [Ayatollah] Khamenei's bid to transform the republic into an emirate in the service of the Islamic cause. Then there is a second Iran—one that wishes to cease being a cause and yearns to be an ordinary nation...The fight over Iran's future is only beginning."

One thing is for sure. The so-called results of this election have brought many thousands, if not millions, into the city streets to protest Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection. Severe repression, already resulting in at least 17 deaths and many injured persons, will probably crush this popular protest for the time being and perhaps force it underground. But it won't disappear.

Meanwhile this cruel regime, still claiming landslide support, promises to be even more vehemently forceful than ever in its threats against the state of Israel, Britain and the United States.

Britain to blame?

The head man in Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, employed the usual dictatorial methods in justifying the reelection of President Ahmadinejad. "He tried to deflect blame on Iran's international 'enemies,' notably Britain, which he described as 'the most vicious of all'" ("People Power in Iran Can Carry the Day," The Sunday Times, June 21, 2009, emphasis added throughout).

There are reasons, whether justified or not, for this historic antipathy against Britain. In 1941 (during World War II) the United Kingdom invaded Iran and exiled the reigning Reza Shah, seriously suspected of pro-German attitudes. His son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was installed in office. Then in 1953 the British assisted in removing Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. Iran also deeply disliked the strong British defense of Iranian author Salman Rushdie, sentenced to death in absentia by a fatwah for writing what was considered blasphemy in his novel Satanic Verses.

These historical events serve as background to the current situation. On June 21, 2009, the BBC's chief correspondent was asked to leave the country, allegedly for distorting the Iranian protest movement.

Britain has expelled two Iranian diplomats in response to the expulsion of two British diplomats from Iran. And according to the June 24 lead editorial in The Times, "Iran's belief in Britain as an arch conspirator has small historical warrant and is an absurd depiction of modern international relations."

Presidential tirades against Israel and the West

President Ahmadinejad has acquired a reputation for rambling tirades against the West, particularly the state of Israel. Consider his comment on the Jewish Holocaust: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets" ("The Wit and Wisdom of President Ahmadinejad," New Statesman, June 18, 2009).

His observations about Israel and Zionism include: "The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (ibid.). This promotes nothing less than another horrendous Holocaust. As one astute Newsweek reader wrote: "Ahmadinejad has said again and again that he will wipe Israel off the face of the map. Should Israel not take him seriously?" (Letters, June 8, 2009).

Then during a speech at the racism conference held in Geneva, the Iranian president branded Israel the "most cruel and repressive racist regime" (Chip Cummings and Charles Forelle, "Ahmadinejad Calls Israel 'Racist,'" The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2009). He has adroitly managed to inject this spiritual venom into many of his supporters. Just prior to the recent election Joe Klein reported for Time magazine, "About 20,000 supporters of the President were inside the building [in central Tehran], being entertained by a series of TV stars, athletes and religious singers... Inside a TV host led the crowd in chanting 'Death to Israel.' 'Squeeze your teeth and yell from the bottom of your heart,' he implored" ("Ten Days in Tehran,"— June 29, 2009).

But Israel is not the only state to come under the Iranian president's verbal fire. In an echo of his previous Holocaust denial, "Mr. Ahmadinejad, in his rambling speech Monday, castigated the U.S. and Europe for acting after World War II to make 'an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering'" ("Ahmadinejad Calls Israel 'Racist' in U.N. Rant," The Wall Street Journal, April 21, 2009). He apparently was referring to the Palestinians in the context of the founding of the nation of Israel in 1948, an event that created the first Jewish national homeland in some 2,000 years.

What's behind the rhetoric?

Part of the basic problem may simply consist of pining away for a lost heritage of yesteryear. Recall that the late Saddam Hussein dreamed of becoming another Saladin (A.D. 1138-1193, a Kurdish Muslim who became sultan of both Egypt and Syria)—partially resulting in Hussein's failed attempt to annex Kuwait. Iran's leaders may be bitten by a similar bug.

Anciently Iran was known as Persia—once a sophisticated, powerful and influential civilization with conquerors and potentates like Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes.

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in The Return of History and the End of Dreams: "As Ray Takeyh observes, Iran believes that by 'virtue of size and historical achievements,' it has 'the right to emerge as the local hegemon' in the Middle East and Persian Gulf...

"As more than one Iranian leader has made clear, Iran defines and ennobles itself by its willingness to stand up to the United States, the predominant and overbearing superpower, which also happens to be [from their viewpoint] the Great Satan. These passions and ambitions long preceded the Bush administration, as did Iran's conviction that only as a nuclear weapons state could it fend off pressures from the American superpower and its allies" (2008, p. 47).

President Ahmadinejad, and others like him, would like nothing more than to restore the former glory and influence of Persia.

Apparently many in the country speak of themselves not as Iranians, but as Persians. According to the 11th edition of Andrew Boyd's An Atlas of World Affairs, "In Iran's population of 70 million, not much more than half are Farsi-speaking Persians" (2007, p. 146).

Iran obviously wants to exercise complete and total control over the Persian Gulf waters and widen its political, military and economic influence throughout the Middle East. It may see Israel as a threat to its national ambitions of becoming the new regional superpower.

However, obtaining nuclear weapons would constitute a master step toward realizing Iranian national ambitions in the Middle East.

Iran's aggressive quest for nuclear weapons

James Forsyth, in The Spectator magazine, reminds us not to lose sight of "the race to stop Iran from getting the bomb." He tells us that this is really what counts. It outweighs what's now taking place in Iran. "The immediate decision facing President Obama is what to do about Iran's fast-moving nuclear programme" (June 20, 2009).

Later in his article Mr. Forsyth states: "The West faces the question of whether it should do business with him [President Ahmadinejad]." Should the United States even negotiate with a country with Iran's track record? American President George W. Bush labeled this nation as one of the three constituting the "Axis of Evil." Ideally, any nation should never compromise with evil in any form!

Yet the sad truth is that Washington's viable options are very few and narrow. The much-applied sanctions to rogue states don't seem to have helped much, especially when other nations have proven more than willing to cut deals in exchange for Iranian oil. America has apparently already jettisoned the military option (as well as twisting Israel's arm to do the same) and nothing much seems to remain except diplomacy—with Iran mastering stalling tactics to continue its nuclear program without interruption.

Franco Frattini, Italy's foreign minister, was quoted in Newsweek's closing column "The Last Word" as saying, "In a conversation with [Richard] Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton, we decided that I should try to involve Iran at the highest political level below their president" ("Solidarity With America," June 8, 2009). In the end Mr. Frattini apparently did not even visit Tehran, perhaps mainly because "there is an informal agreement that until a final solution on the nuclear dossier is found, no political contacts can be made with the Iranian authorities except by [EU foreign minister] Javier Solana."

Where do we go from here?

So what future really lies ahead in the diplomatic realm? A Times (London) editorial stated that "Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the sort of man to show magnanimity or statesmanship in victory: a more likely reaction is to redouble the provocations abroad, to spurn the US open hand and to offer further threats to Israel in the expectation of a Netanyahu reaction" ("Tehran Spring," June 15, 2009).

In response to the postelection violence and following the lead of other Western leaders, "President Obama condemned Iran's 'iron fist'" ("Barack Obama Strikes Out as Tehran Tightens Its 'Iron Fist,'" The Times, June 24, 2009).

Time magazine columnist Joe Klein in his "Ten Days in Tehran" wrote, "The massive protests have shaken Iran's rulers. But that won't make them any easier to deal with" (June 29, 2009). President Ahmadinejad was once asked about his unusual energy in traveling to all of Iran's provinces. His reply: "My heart is powered by nuclear fuel" (ibid.).

So where does the United States and the Western world go from here? Two booklets will help us understand. The first is The Middle East in Bible Prophecy. Why does the news pouring forth out of this troubled region of the world so often dominate our Western headlines? Why has this area of world geography been a source of conflict, violence and bloodshed for so long? Does Bible prophecy reveal the major events that will happen here in the future? For answers, request or download your free copy of The Middle East in Bible Prophecy at www.wnponline.org.

The second booklet is The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy. It will tell you why events don't seem to go as well as they used to for America. It explains the national legacy of these two countries both in history and prophecy. It also tells where they are headed in this unsteady and uncertain world.

You may also wish to consult a past issue of Good News Magazine containing the feature article "Is Iran the New Mideast Superpower?" by Melvin Rhodes (January/February 2009). It can give you the necessary biblical background to better understand the prophetic implications of this current article.

Remember that there is some very good news if we look beyond the bad. To learn more, read our free booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom. Ultimately everything is going to be set right! WNP