The year of 2008 was dominated by the US Presidential elections and as we Americans are finally taking a break from constant campaign coverage and rhetoric many other states, both friends and foes to the US, are about to have their own electoral shake-up.  RealClearWorld has done a nice job breaking down what they see as the world’s five most crucial elections in 2009.  Let’s go over them (in no particular order):

1. Israel – This Tuesday the people of Israel will vote for a parliamentary majority just days after the recent war in Gaza, which has no doubt helped shape the domestic political landscape.  It has been predicted that former Prime Minister Ben Netanyahu and his Likud party will be able to form a right leaning parliamentary majority, but Tzipi Livni’s Kadima party and Ehud Barak’s Labor party may crash the parliamentary party.  Whoever wins will be in charge of trying to rehabilitate the peace process and decide what to do with an Iran charging toward a nuclear weapon.

Khatami: 'I'm Back, Baby!'

2. Iran – Speaking of the Islamic Republic, Iran’s Ahmadinejad is up for reelection against the most recent other president of the country, Mohammad Khatami.  Khatami’s 8 year term as president promised major changes which plain and simple did not occur.  It will be interesting to see who the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei endorses as he is the true decider on the country’s direction.  If Khamanei puts his support behind Khatami it could mean a possible rapprochement with the US, emphasis on ‘possible.’

3. Japan – Here the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) looks primed to unseat the Liberal Democratic Party for just the 2nd time in five decades.  Incumbent Taro Aso of the LDP will face the popular Ichiro Ozawa for a parliamentary majority.  Though neither party will likely change Japan’s foreign policy or the US-Japanese alliance very much, the economic future of the powerful island nation will be a key issue to watch.

4. Germany – Leader of the Christian Democrats and Chancellor Angela Merkel faces off against Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the Social Democrats (SPD) for a clear parliamentary majority in late September of 2009.  Merkel’s reputation has taken hit during the current economic downturn and this election could led to another grand coalition where the SPD and CDU share an uneasy power structure with Merkel likely staying on top.  Merkel has made it a priority to strengthen US-Germany/EU relations in four years while at the same time acquiescing to an aggressive Moscow.  

5. Afghanistan – We have previously discussed the delay of the Afghan presidential election here.  The election which was constitutionally set for this spring, has been pushed back to the fall as more time was needed to get the country on a stable footing. Hamid Karzai, who’s rule has been under fire from DC and from the Afghan citizenry, will face off against two former government ministers Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, but still figures to remain in power as he holds to the key most financial and security apparatuses.  It will be interesting to see how much or little the Obama administration backs him in the months ahead.  In any case, it appears that the US is primed to reach beyond the Afghan government in dealing with the Taliban insurgency.

Which upcoming election do you deem the most important?  Which one will have the greatest impact on the United States?  Other Great Powers?

*Contributing Writers:  From time to time, GPP will have a couple regular and guest contributers write posts about issues related to their background and expertise, for instance Hubbel Relat’s Latin American post below.  These contributers will have varying political orientations and nationalities, hopefully bringing fresh perspectives to many pertinent foreign policy issues.  Look on the About page for their bios.

Iran, Iran, Iran. That about says it all. US-Iranian relations have been one of the most contentious and provocative elements of world politics over the last 30 years and even if a rapprochement is formulated by both sides, this should not change. US rapprochement with Iran was a superficial hot topic during the presidential debate, never going further than the discussion of whether or not it was right policy for the US president to have unconditional talks with his Iranian counterpart. Obama leaned in this direction and McCain did not, and it went no further.

No matter how much the US wishes or denies it, Iran is a regional power, and US policy towards the country must be based on this assumption. This does not mean the US should yield its regional influence to Iran, it just means that Iran’s strategic interests must be taken into account. After Obama won the election, Iranian President Ahmadinejad sent him a congratulatory note, but since then the Iranian government has backed off reconciliation;

“People who put on a mask of friendship, but with the objective of betrayal, and who enter from the angle of negotiations without preconditions, are more dangerous,” Hossein Taeb, deputy commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps “The power holders in the new American government are trying to regain their lost influence with a tactical change in their foreign diplomacy. They are shifting from a hard conflict to a soft attack.”

Iran's Missile Test (Source Washington Post)

These lines of course were stated just days before Iran successfully tested a new generation of long-range missiles which could travel over 1,200 miles.

Many have argued in favor of a full reconciliation by both sides, US end the containment and military threats and Iran the terrorist and anti-American acts and speeches, yet it has not happened. Why not? And will it happen soon with Obama in the White House and Ahmadinejad possibly replaced early next year?

There are many reasons why the two sides have been at each other’s throats, both of the external strategic and domestic variety. The Middle East and after 9/11, Central Asia, are both central to US foreign policy and security, basically because of oil and transnational terrorism. (we must also not forget the battle for influence against the Soviets during the Cold War) While Iran, a nation with a strong imperial past in the region, also has strategic security interests in both areas, so it is not surprising that the two butt heads on more than a few occasions. The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which basically pin Iran down in the middle, are two of the biggest strategic elephants in the room in history for the Iranians. The US desires stable and friendly Afghan and Iraq states, while Iran desires them even more! The state of Israel cannot be ignored, as these two behemoths seem to be on opposite sides of the spectrum in defending/antagonizing the Jewish state, though scholar Trita Parsi reminds us that Israel and Iran were not always such enemies.

Domestic politics also are a wedge in a future partnership between the two powers. The Islamic Republic, Iran’s government since the overthrow of the US supported Shah, bases a decent amount of its legitimacy on its anti-Western, anti-US policy. The US is the straw man for Ayatollah Khamenei, the real leader of Iran, not Ahmadinejad, as Akbar Ganji points out this month in Foreign Affairs. If things are going wrong in Iran just blame or start bashing the US is one of Khamenei’s favorite policies. It is important for all to know that when Obama speaks of meeting with Iranian leaders, he, or at least he should be, meaning Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad. Because of the nature of the Islamic Republic and its leader, it would take quite the external and internal strategic maneuver in order for Khamenei to maintain his government’s legitimacy and more important for him, authority. In US domestic politics, Obama would face much resistance from the American right if they believed he was either handing Iraq or nuclear weapons into Iran’s hands.

Back to rapprochement: it appears that the Bush administration may make some moves in his final couple months in order to take off some of the pressure of Obama’s first term. First off, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, two former Bush NSC members, are loudly voicing their approval of such a policy and Stratfor’s George Friedman claims to have ‘sources’ that confirm Bush’s support of such a policy. Bush would need to have Iran’s cooperation in Iraq in order for a deal to be made it appears. The issue of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, like in this post, was largely ignored in Friedman’s analysis though.

Any way you slice it, President-elect will have his hands full on the Iranian issue for probably most if not all his presidency. I would like to think that the chance of a major thaw is on the horizon, but strategic interests, domestic politics, and history tell me otherwise.