THE Iranian presidential election took place on June 12, and the next day the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was declared the winner. This led to protests, as Mir Hosein Mousavi and his supporters challenged the outcome of the election. The US and many countries in the West also made official statements about "irregularities" in the election.

Protests took place in Tehran and some other cities and towns of Iran, and as the protests were more or less peaceful, the security forces did not intervene. But things turned ugly when demonstrators were attacked by the Revolutionary Guards on the plea that the protesters became violent due to the encouragement and support they received from the politicians and the media of the West. About 16 people were reportedly killed on the streets of Tehran.

It seems that Ahamadinejad would have probably been elected anyway, maybe by a lesser margin. One pre-poll survey done by a research organisation in the US stated that Ahmadinejad got some 62% as the majority of the rural

votes were in favour of him.

However, serious questions arose when the election decisions were given by the Grand Ayatollah, chief of the Guardians Council, as something like "divine assessment." though at some stage, because of strong protests, the council said it would order investiga tion of irregularities in some 50 districts. The Guardian Council should not be entitled to give a verdict on a matter ofpeople'sdecision.

However, the real promise for change has been shown by a large number oi Iranians, which may lead Iran in the long run towards useful reform in Iran s constitution and governance. It wax obvious that many of the educated people did not like the way the Guardians Council acted.

In any case, the outside powers should not get involved in the internal affairs of Iran or any other country. The world still recalls how the UK and the US got involved in a coup for reinstalling pro-Western Shah of Iran in 1953. Similar things have happened in Latin America and elsewhere. So. why lecture others on democracy? It is good that President Obama decided not to lecture, but to listen.

On the Iranian election. President Obama very correctly maintained a balance^ pos^t^ipp ^i^ came p^^r^, political, pressure mainly from his former opponent John McCain. President Obama s earlier position was that the US should not appear to "meddle" in Iranian election i.e. internal affairs.

His basic position was that the US 'hould be ready to deal with the gov-cinment in place, and it is up to the Iranian people to decide who should be their president. This is what should be the basic element of the foreign policy of a democratic country.

The US presidential elections are also not flawless. Serious irregularities took place in Florida, and partly in Ohio when George Bush and Al Gore contested the election. But no one condemned the US when it mismanaged its own election matters in Florida.

President Obama, however, had to change his earlier stand, and become more forceful in his rhetoric when Congress became highly critical of Iran. On June 23. he said he was "appalled and outraged" by the Iranian government's handling of the street protests. He also added: T strongly condemn the unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."

On the shooting of the young woman. Neda, Obama said: "We have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful, we also know

this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history."

,, (Thi^ jSt^temenj js ,fqll, pf ^eqtitpent., but diplomatically less offensive, and' should cause no serious problem in terms of relations with Iran.

The main objective of President Obama is to negotiate with Iran on the nuclear issue. There must not be anymore nuclear bombs in the world, but what about Israel? As Israel has the bomb, how does the US and some of the West, with the bomb in their own arsenal, stop any other country in having it as a deterrent, and particularly a country in the same region7

The US and the West do not trust Ahmadinejad, but how do they trust Netanyahu? How would they ensure that Israel will never use it against Iran or a neighbour? Even if Iran develops the bomb, how would it affect Israel or the rest of the world?

If Iran ever launches a nuclear bomb at Israel -- it would be complete madness. then Israel's bomb would indeed land on Iran even before the Iranian bomb reaches Israel's border! It would mean total destruction of the region. Thus there is no chance of anyone using it. So why bother?

The majority of Israelis are ready to live with a nuclear Iran. These Israelis are undoubtedly intelligent people. They know that a nuclear bomb is not a thing that can ever be used in today's world.

Or Muslehuddin Ahmad is a former Secretary and Ambassador, and the Founder VC of North South University.

*****On the Iranian election, President Obama very correctly maintained a balanced position till he came under political pressure mainly from his former opponent John McCain. President Obama's earlier position was that the US should not appear to "meddle" in Iranian election i.e. internal affairs.****