The current administration is trying to back its domestic methods of oppression with military means in the foreign policy domain. High defense expenditures despite this country's fragile economic situation, military exercises and suspicious nuclear efforts were to help increase Iran's coercive capacity. This calculation may not be that wrong, but it's not sustainable, either. The Iranian government, which has so far justified its generous military investments through its anti-American and anti-Israeli stance, has always tried to build its domestic authority on a fear of “others,” as is the case in most nationalistic currents. But now the “other” is not exactly how Ahmadinejad describes it because it is changing. In other words, the Obama administration does not serve the interests of actors who are used to developing policies based on alienation of the US.The present situation makes Ahmadinejad lose legitimacy in the country and in the eyes of people who sympathize with him in other countries. The problem is that he has chosen to adopt a more aggressive position instead of reviewing his policies according to the new global conditions. He claims that Western powers, especially European states, are behind these protests. However, in the 21st century, people are able to learn quite easily what's going on in foreign countries, technology is accessible to the great masses and people are almost instantly informed about everything. So the presence of a “secret plot” is not always necessary to provoke action within a country. It's useless to look for “Western” powers behind every popular movement; Iranians are perfectly capable of developing opposition against their government on their own.
It unfortunately seems that the Iranian authorities will become more aggressive. They have shown this determination with a huge military exercise carried out in the Persian Gulf. The Arab states of the region are quite frightened and the European wing of the Western world has reacted. Apparently France didn't install a military base in Abu Dhabi in vain. The Europeans' reaction made Ahmadinejad even more threatening against Western countries. At the same time, we've also noticed that there has been an increase in terrorist attacks in Pakistan and in Iraq, as the recent bombing in Kirkuk demonstrates.
The tension is even perceptible in the northern Caucasus, if we take into account the recent developments in Ingushetia. Russia, which has decided not to lose Georgia to the “Westerners,” seems instead to be losing Iran, which is usually Russia's greatest support in certain areas. Besides, as Barack Obama doesn't give the impression that he is threatening anyone, several actors have lost their rival or “the” enemy, once represented by the US; additionally, European countries, which were more indulgent toward Iran during the George W. Bush presidency, have now become Iran's new targets.
All these events demonstrate that new rivalries and new conflicts are arising on the global stage, and Europe is stealthily becoming the essential actor breaking Russian influence in the Black Sea-Caspian basin. It appears that those who have always wished to bypass the US will, at the end, be obliged to ask Washington to save them from trouble. The events in Iran help shape a conjecture allowing a redistribution of cards. It would be better if Europe took a better look at Turkey's file.
