Rouhani - a pragmatist, but no dove...

To avoid any confusion, let me start by saying that there is no question in my mind – none, whatsoever – that Hassan Rouhani is an improvement upon his erstwhile predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. However, I do feel that we have been somewhat lulled into a false sense of security by the optimism that has pervaded the media surrounding Iran in the last few months.

Perhaps we are due more confidence than before, but it is important that we are not blinded by this unprecedented wave of optimism.

Dismissing Rouhani as a largely impotent but well-meaning dove is a risky conclusion to make, nevertheless, though, many are doing exactly that. With The Guardian’s recent report that the Israelis are fearful that the US will be ‘taken in by Rouhani’s charm offensive’, I, as someone who does not often find themselves agreeing with Tel Aviv, very tentatively, would suggest doing something similar.

Sure, the Iranian president’s ‘less-than-confrontational comments’ are better than before. But that does not mean, as the above-quoted CNN profile of Rouhani seems to suggest, that he himself is less-than-confrontational. He is, after all, a product of the clerical regime, someone who has stood with it since its very inception through thick and thin, mass executions and crackdowns on democracy-driven demonstrations.

Perhaps – and this is where I imagine I differ from the Israeli government – he does hold a vision of some future, liberalised Iran and, perhaps, he does want cordial relations with the West to be renewed. Regardless of these “perhapses”, though, he has not stood out and openly (let alone loudly) expressed opposition to the current centre of Iranian power. Many will say this is but a necessary evil. Whatever it is, though, to call him a “dove” is probably a error.

What we see in Rouhani is pragmatism at its finest. He is a man who has worked his way through the system, not offended where offense would end his political career, but not sat back silently when doing so would be a bane on his popularity with the surging youth population. Operating in such a manner, he was able to find himself among the eight Khamenei-approved presidential candidates (of no less than the 680 that applied) for this year’s elections.

What remains to be seen is what he does next. Will it be a case of his acting as a gatekeeper, at long last, real reform in the Islamic Republic? Or will his presidency be remembered as one the Iranians were left enduring under unacceptable political hardship with the international community looking on in blind admiration at a man who is the least-worst option? Well-placed, well-calculated diplomatic – not economic, nor military – pressure from the West needs to be exerted on the new president. If he is indeed a pragmatist, he will see that the boons of domestic reform vastly outweigh the benefits of towing the dated Khomeinist line.

Only the next four years will tell; in the meantime any forecasts of Rouhani being the Islamic Republic’s Mikhail Gorbachev are brazenly overconfident, to say the least.