There is no precedence since the victory of the revolution in 1979 for a president to directly or indirectly accuse the supreme leader of the Islamic state to appoint individuals to the most important positions in the country who are tainted with financial fraud or corruption, as stated by the president. Whether this was intentional or not, but the president ignored the fact that the most important economic, political and social decisions during all these ears have been made with the consent of the supreme leader. He has been the ultimate decision maker of the foreign policy of the country during the last two decades which means that issues such as the nuclear program have under his direct management. So to call the 2003 nuclear agreement between Iran and the international community is an indirect attack on the leader of the Islamic Republic’s management and thus calling him unqualified in this regard.
By making serious accusations against previous administration, Ahmadinejad is simply saying that the Islamic system rests on the shoulders of influential and veteran individuals who have also been corrupt. This is certainly not the picture that ayatollah Khamenei wishes to be portrayed of the Islamic state.
But the question really is why did Ahmadinejad do this? Three explanations have been put forward for the president’s remarks. The most popular one is that just as the president has brought about Iran’s regional and international isolation because of his inconsiderations and lack of knowledge, and just as he has created the worst economy for the country in the past 15 years, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has now pinned himself against the whole state in an effort to stay in the presidential office for another four years at any cost. And he does this by touching on issues that will bring him the support of the public. He believes that anyone who appears to be a candidate who opposes the current state of affairs, he will have plenty of popular support and vote, which is why he is acting to be the champion of battling corruption.
The other explanation that some talk about is that this issue had been planned in advance with the coordination of the leader as an effort to weaken such senior clerics as Hashemi Rafsanjani who could be the leader’s rival in the power struggle. While this view may make sense on paper, it has a practical problem which is that the fate of the leaders of the Islamic state are all tied to each other. Furthermore, whenever the state as a whole is weakened and its senior leaders are accused of corruption in public, the whole regime will be confronted with the question of its legitimacy.
The third view is that Ahmadinejad has deliberately crossed the line of the leader for the purpose of weakening the leader himself. By accusing the previous administration and senior officials of being corrupt, he really questions the leader’s management of the state. This is viewed as a stepping stone for him so that he could impose himself on the system at the right moment and, like Hugo Chavez of Argentina, remain president as long as he wishes. In this scenario, Ahmadinejad plans to utilize all his resources in the military, para-military, and government bureaucracy to extract – by any means- his votes from the ballot boxes so that he can remain in power for the second term by removing his rivals in a strike and impose himself on his opponents and establish his position by creating a police state.
I personally believe the second and third scenarios are bogus and will not take Ahmadinejad anywhere because of what I understand of the Islamic Republic. Neither the political establishment of Iran nor the leader of the Islamic Republic based on twenty years experience will risk allowing him to do something like this.
In conclusion, Ahmadinejad’s corruption accusations against the most senior leaders of the Islamic Republic are the results of his misunderstanding of the political realities of the country and are thus a fatal political blunder. This event has resulted in the inclusion of more influential elements of the regime, in addition to the pro-reform and pro-democracy forces, to stand against him.
One should not forget that leaders of the Islamic regime are not interested in destroying their position for the sake of a novice whose ambitions have no limits and who is willing to do anything, including the destruction of state agencies and their authorities to achieve his personal goals.
