However banal the phrase “wolf in sheep’s clothing” may be, it accurately describes Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani.
Far from the “moderate” that some claim him to be, Rouhani is yet another aggressively anti-Western pawn of the Iranian regime, à la Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
One can easily find evidence of Rouhani’s calculated deceptions. During an interview on Iranian state television, Rouhani boasted how he, as Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator at the time, defied a 2004 agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The terms of this agreement called for Iran to “suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.” In response to the interviewer’s claim that Iran stopped its nuclear activities as a result of this agreement, Rouhani stated, “We halted the nuclear program? We were the ones to complete it.”
In a Sep. 24, 2013, speech at the United Nations, Rouhani committed yet another deception with his offer “to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks.” The subsequent negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 resulted in little more than a temporary deceleration of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is still able to enrich uranium and maintain facilities that could, with some effort, be used in the production of nuclear weapons. Israel’s president, Benjamin Netanyahu, is understandably mortified by the terms of this agreement, which he called a “historic mistake.”
Rouhani has certainly been open concerning his hatred of Israel. Following his attendance at a pro-Palestine rally in August, Rouhani told reporters that the “Zionist regime has been a wound on the body of the Islamic world for years and the wound should be removed.” The Islamic Society of North America, which reported Rouhani’s remarks, later edited their translation to exclude his call for Israel’s removal. Rouhani’s anti-Israel sentiments remain, regardless of whether he explicitly called for the destruction of that nation.
Like previous Iranian presidents, Rouhani is a puppet of the Ayatollah. Iran’s Supreme Leader, not the president, has the power to make declarations of war and peace and to command and mobilize the armed forces. The Supreme Leader is given sweeping powers by the nation’s constitution, which states that he is responsible for the delineation and supervision of the “general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Rouhani’s position as an instrument of the regime is similarly demonstrated by current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s constitutionally granted power to dominate presidential elections. In order to remain on the ballot, presidential candidates must, in the eyes of the Guardian Council, a 12-member body appointed by the Supreme Leader, have a “firm belief in Islam” and a “good reputation based on trustworthiness and piety.” In addition to these more theocratic stipulations, candidates are also required to be religious or political figures, hold Iranian citizenship and be of Iranian origin.
As a result of Khamenei’s stranglehold on the electoral process, the pool of presidential candidates was reduced from 678 to just eight. Two more candidates would later exit the race. That this vetting process is, at the very least, greatly influenced by the Supreme Leader’s own political desires cannot be doubted. The sole benefit of this process is the conspicuousness of the Iranian government’s inherent corruption. The possibility of a democratically elected candidate is wholly destroyed by these circumstances.
Our political leaders’ apparently credulous natures may have fatal consequences. Trusting Rouhani, who is open concerning his desire for a nuclear Iran, will allow that country to increase its influence in the Middle East. A healthy skepticism in diplomatic engagements, while certainly off-putting to some nations, will allow the U.S. government to accurately assess their motives and conditions. An optimism bordering on gullibility, such as that demonstrated by the P5+1 in their negotiations with Iran, will only further destabilize the Middle East.
Rouhani, like his predecessors, is primarily a puppet of the Iranian regime, and to argue otherwise would be to disregard that government’s policies. The president’s status as a “moderate” among some commentators is wishful thinking at its most dangerous, given his relatively transparent nuclear ambitions and concurrent deceptions.
In all diplomatic relationships, we must judge foreign leaders on their actions, rather than their words.
Corbin Brown is a University College freshman.
