The harsh postures of Palestinian organization Fatah authorities against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be interpreted as the beginning of a new phase in the international standing of the Islamic Republic. While representatives and leaders of foreign countries, except Israel, have until now had only a critical view of the behavior of the Islamic Republic and have only on some occasion expressed their criticism through declarations, interview and resolution, the recent announcements by the Palestine Authority is of a different type as it views Iran’s president to lack legitimacy and just like Ahmadinejad speaks of him and the Islamic Republic with disregard for diplomatic protocol.

Despite the harsh criticism of the regime by some members of the international community, the three branches of the Islamic regime and their leaders have been viewed as legitimate and recognized as such. But Fatah has opened a path that may be followed by other foreign governments. Prior to this, the spokesperson of the Russian government had used strong words against Ahmadinejad and charged him with being deceitful. Then came Fidel Castro who expressly condemned the position of the tenth Iranian administration in denying the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people. These events and the along with the intensification of the economic sanctions and their gradual negative impact on the structure of the Iranian economy and the security of the country are signs of the difficult days that lie ahead for the ruling circles in Iran on the international scene. Fatah’s harsh remarks and the announcement that Ahmadinejad lacked legitimacy is a clearly in line with the views of most Iranians regarding the current administration and is even in a sense similar to the demands of the green movement in its calls for non-recognition of the coup government in Tehran.

While it does not appear that the purpose of this posturing by Fatah is to support the pro-democracy movement in Iran, the real reason lies in Iran’s negative declarations against the recent round of peace talks between the leaders of Israel and Palestine and the destructive activities of Hamas and other Palestinian groups supporting Iran in supporting Iran.

In general, this new posture and the new international climate against Iran, creates new serious problems for Iran’s diplomatic maneuvers. Farah used exactly the same language against Ahmadinejad that the latter has been repeatedly using against international institutions and the major powers around the world. Ahmadinejad undiplomatic language and posturing which most of the time disregards respectful protocol, gives him the opportunity to play his game even as the leaders of foreign states respect and follow international standards and etiquette in their international dealings. This situation brought about delight by that section of public opinion that was critical of the inequalities around the globe which also attributed Ahmadinejad’s aggressiveness to be indicative of his strength. But the violent crackdown of the peaceful protests of Iranians following the 2009 presidential elections has largely eroded this positive view.

Those groups and individuals no longer laud Ahmadinejad for firmly standing up to the major powers of the world who humiliated them through his indecent language. In this atmosphere, the Palestine Authority’s has in fact neutralized Ahmadinejad’s aggressive attitude and even has the potential of making him defensive. Generally the public diplomacy of the Iranian administration, which the ninth and tenth government prided themselves with, and which has been useful to it because of its aggressive nature, requires that there be some support for its views and posture among its target audience. The new atmosphere indicates that Ahmadinejad has been stepping away from his aggressive posture and is getting closer to a defensive posture. But the rapid and significant drop in the popularity of the Iranian leadership after the among public opinion of Muslim countries and the developing countries after the rise of the green movement had already constrained the active and aggressive diplomacy even prior to these events. And now the express and open criticism made by Fidel Castro indicates that Iran’s luck is rapidly eroding even by the non-aligned countries.

The indefinite postponement of Mottaki’s trip to Egypt and the withdrawal of Egypt’s invitations to him are further signs of the government’s isolation. Iran’s foreign ministry has for a while been aware of this crisis and has requested that the government stop the immature and irresponsible remarks by the president’s appointees. Clearly his request is also indirectly against Ahmadinejad himself. The president’s rude and foul remarks and his logic are no longer directly only at the opposition and reformers, but have even been recently used against the senior authorities of the state including the head of the Majlis and the judiciary.

As the president has attempted to pursue his own foreign policy ideas and goals and has appointed individuals to follow them, the head of the diplomatic apparatus has officially requested that the president end his shadow foreign policy pursuits, something that has received the backing of the leader of the regime as well.

As a regional and consensus is building against the regime and particularly the administration and new economic and political sanctions are initiated, this may result in a complete end of the government aggressive and public diplomacy and in fact throw it into defensive. Specialists had warned in the past about the un-thought through policies in the past but the government decision makers, under the influence of some outside groups and media, ignored the warnings.

A look at Ahmadinejad’s foreign policy behavior indicates that he acts from the perspective of an authoritarian, and that when his aggressive postures are met with silence, he increases his attacks. But just like the responses to the Soviet leaders if his behavior is met with a harsh response, he becomes quiet and more cautious.

In general, Ahmadinejad’s aggressive posturing in response to the West’s soft reactions works in the sense that the latter does not respond. Taking the position that the administration lacks legitimacy and credibility limits the range of propaganda options for the government at the international level. In this scenario, the administration cannot no longer turn to the foreign domain to distract attention from domestic problems.