Why Ahmadinejad’s ‘win’ could be a good thing

I might not the most authoritative source on all things Middle East, Lebanese or Iranian. Or all things for that matter. But the news today that Iran’s incumbent, Mahmood Ahmadinejad, has won Friday’s election, should be viewed with positivity here in Lebanon.

Coming six days after the Lebanese voted in their first post-Syrian elections- in which the ruling March 14 coalition won the majority of parliamentary seats – Iran’s electorate seem to have backed a hardliner and his antipathetic views towards the West.

The Lebanese election result was reported widely – if oversimplistically – as a victory for the West over Hizbullah’s support for (and from) Iran. Much of the Western press’ coverage centred on this reductive dichotomy of West vs East, of petrodollars and liberalism vs resistance and Islamist rhetoric.

While many March 14 supporters have made it clear that they don’t wish to see the firebrand Ahmadinejad at the helm of a country with potential nuclear ambitions for another four years, Iran’s decision gives legitimacy to a voice which was at risk of being drowned out in Lebanese politics - in spite of winning more of the popular vote - should comfort many in the Middle East.

Hizbullah’s ties with Iran are no secret, and the fact that a large proportion of voters turned out for the Shiite group on Sunday shows that this is a not altogether unpopular allegiance. Ahmadinejad’s election could avert widespread unrest among March 8 supporters who may have felt drowned out had Mousavi taken the victory he claimed late last night.

The fact that a Western-leaning coalition triumphed in Lebanon and Ahmadinejad, with all his anti-American, anti-Zionist rhetoric won in Iran, shows clearly the duplicitous nature of political views in the Middle East. It also reiterates the need to give both sides of the argument a voice in the ongoing peace process.

Doubtless some here will argue that a re-election of a president who once proclaimed his wish to “wipe Israel off the map” is counter-productive to any long standing peace in the region. Others will be incensed by what they perceive to be Iranian interference in Lebanon’s sovereignty.

But, as Barack Obama’s oratorical shift demonstrates, all sides of the argument must be consulted in order for any progress in the Middle East to be lasting.