Tense Times In Iran

The angry reaction to the official result of the election in Iran continues. Supporters of the opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi have called off a rally planned for today after government officials said it was illegal. They accuse the government of rigging the results of last week's poll, to make sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was returned for another term as president. Many of the Mousavi supporters are young students, and dark rumours are filtering through from the university of an alleged massacre last night. Reports say the campus is draped in black banners today.

From a western perspective, this is not a situation that anyone wanted. Sure, western leaders would generally have preferred a clear victory for the more moderate Mr Mousavi over the anti-American Mr Ahmadinejad. But another four years of President Ahmadinejad wouldn't necessarily be the worst outcome, because at least he would offer a certain stability in what is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter. And stability keeps the price of oil down. The disputed election result has led to this current crisis, which threatens to cause not just instability in the oil markets, but also a lot of bloodshed on the streets of Iran. Western leaders and the rest of us can do little more than wait, watch, and hope for the best.

Photo Finish In Iran

It's the last day of campaigning in Iran's presidential election. Four contenders are standing, but only two have a chance of winning, current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi.

It looks as though it's going to be very close, and the result matters for the rest of the world. Arguably the biggest byproduct of the Iraq War has been the rise of Iran's influence, as it pursues its nuclear programme and shows growing signs of meddling in the affairs of neighbours and near-neighbours from Afghanistan to Lebanon. Partly this confrontational stance has been driven by the hardline position of Mr Ahmadinejad, along with the clerics who still hold huge sway over the politics of Iran. The veteran Mr Mousavi on the other hand, would probably be more conciliatory were he to win the election. A man the west would find it easier to do business with, perhaps. Although having said that, those clerics would demand that Iran remains a tough, strong player on the regional and international scene. And they would also insist that the nuclear programme continues.

Although his rivals have accused Mr Ahmadinejad of isolating Iran with his extreme outbursts which make headlines over here from time to time, it might be a more familiar subject which leads to his defeat - the economy. He's under pressure for allegedly lying about the state of Iran's finances, as the country struggles because of high inflation and the lower price of oil. But if Friday's vote does indeed mean the end for Mr Ahmadinejad, western leaders won't care too much about what causes it.

Netanyahu Returns

Israel's President has asked the leader of the Likud party, Benjamin Netanyahu, to try to form a government. Netanyahu, a former prime minister, now has six weeks to put together a coalition to give him another turn in the job. Although Likud finished one seat behind the Kadima party of outgoing PM Ehud Olmert in the recent elections, the success of other, smaller, right-wing and religious parties ought to allow Mr Netanyahu to make a deal with them to ensure his return to power.

It's quite a turnaround for the veteran politician. The brother of an Israeli military hero who died at Entebbe, Mr Netanyahu first came to global attention during the first Gulf War, when, as Israel's deputy defence secretary, he was a regular sight on TV screens during Iraqi air raids. He took a tough line during his spell as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, and having later rejoined Ariel Sharon's government as finance minister, he quit over the Gaza pullout in 2005. Months later, Mr Netanyahu led the once-mighty Likud party to a humiliating fifth place in the general election of 2006, and it looked as though his political career was finished.

But things have changed since then. The relatively weak premiership of Ehud Olmert, which included the fiasco of the war with Hizbollah in 2006, and the continued firing of Hamas rockets into Israel, has arguably led Israelis to believe they need a strongman at the helm once again.

There's certainly reason to believe any attempts at a peace deal with the Palestinians may make little progress with Mr Netanyahu in power, even if President Obama pushes hard for progress - after all, Bill Clinton's relationship with Netanyahu was notoriously bad during his attempts to move the peace process forward back in the 90s. But if there's someone who'll be taking particular note of Mr Netanyahu's likely return to the premiership, it's Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Benjamin Netanyahu has regularly compared Iran and its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons to Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Expect him to order an Israeli air raid on an Iranian nuclear facility, similar to this one, sooner rather than later.

Standing In The Way Of Control

Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr is trying to regain control over his Mehdi Army militia in Iraq, by ordering it to stop its activities for six months. He's telling his estimated 60,000 fighters not to attack US and British forces, or anyone else for that matter, which certainly sounds like good news.

There's one main reason why al-Sadr's had to do this, and that's Iran. Despite his recent denials that some of his men have been trained, equipped and funded by Tehran, it's widely believed that elements within the Iranian regime have been doing exactly that. Today's development is a tacit admission by al-Sadr that he's lost control of groups of fighters, who seem keener to do the bidding of Iran's Shia clerics. If those men continue to follow Iranian orders, it would be foolishly optimistic to expect much of a reduction in violence.

"We Have Not Asked For Iran's Help"

The radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has given an interesting and rare interview to the Independent, in which he denies claims Iran has been arming and helping his private militia army in its battle against the British and Americans in Iraq. He also tells the paper his Mehdi Army has played "an important role" in forcing British commanders to realise it's a war they can't win.

It's difficult to believe his denials about Iran. Although it's certainly in Washington's interests to try to paint the Iranians as among the villains in Iraq, there seems to be compelling evidence that elements within Iran are helping the Mehdi Army and others build the bombs that regularly kill and maim US and British soldiers.

But al-Sadr has two other interesting things to say, that could point to a better future for Iraq. First, he seems to suggest al Qaeda is as much an enemy of his group as the US. He says those Shias who've stood against the terror network in Ramadi have "written their names into our history books." Any hopes al Qaeda might have to turn Iraq into the sort of haven it used to enjoy in Afghanistan therefore seem far-fetched.

Then there's his remarks on the UN, saying: "if the UN comes here to truly help the Iraqi people, they will receive our help in their work." Whatever happens in Iraq once the Americans and British have gone home, a much bigger role for the UN is clearly essential.

Target Tehran

The US is going to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards force as a terrorist group. The unit is an official military group in Iran, and it'll be the first time such a unit has ever been listed as a terrorist force by the US.

There are two main reasons why the Americans are doing this. The main impact of the designation is that it'll allow the US to target the financing of the Revolutionary Guards. Washington hopes that'll affect the Guards' ability to supply and train the various insurgent groups operating in Iraq and, increasingly, Afghanistan. Iran shares large and porous borders with both countries, and has long been accused of helping fighters attack American and British troops.

The second main reason for targeting the Guards, is to try to up the pressure on Tehran in the standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions. The threat of a military strike by the US on Iran has receded over the past year, as they've followed a course of diplomacy to try to resolve the dispute. This action against the Guards is a sign of Washington resuming a tougher stance. Although there's no question of the lame-duck and weak Bush administration starting a war against Iran now, this move makes it slightly more likely the next occupant of the White House could choose that option.

Keeping The US Onside

The new Foreign Secretary David Miliband has insisted Britain isn't about to go wobbly on Iran. He's used an interview in the Financial Times to suggest Britain will support further sanctions against Tehran, if it continues to be belligerent over its nuclear programme.

This is less of a warning to Tehran, and more of an attempt to calm nerves in Washington. The Bush administration's been privately worried that the new British government under Gordon Brown won't stand quite as squarely alongside President Bush on issues including Iran, as Tony Blair did. Those fears grew when Mr Brown revealed his new cabinet, with Jack Straw, who was sacked as Foreign Secretary by Mr Blair because of his opposition to the possibility of military action against Iran, back in a top job. David Miliband wants the Americans to know the special relationship will still be special in the Brown era too.

Blair Rolls Back The Years

The 15 British marines and sailors held by Iran for almost two weeks have been freed. Britain didn't have to publicly apologise, so it's a bit of a climbdown by the Iranians. But on the other hand, President Ahmadinejad got to hog the spotlight and the airwaves around the world, which is exactly the sort of thing he enjoys. So let's call it a score draw.

The major personal winner of this crisis is not Ahmadinejad though, but Tony Blair. His perfectly-judged remarks today - sombre instead of triumphant, and forceful as he pointed the finger squarely at the Iranian regime for helping kill more British troops in Iraq - were a lesson in statesmanship. It was the last stretch of a sensible course that he steered throughout the whole standoff. Steadily gaining support around the world for his position while keeping the let's-go-and-get-our-boys brigade relatively onside was extremely difficult to pull off, especially without giving anything to the Iranians in the process. But Blair managed it.

He looked comfortable on the international stage soon after taking office. Kosovo, Sierra Leone, 9/11 and Afghanistan all saw Blair strutting around acting like a confident leader of a confident country. Perhaps Iraq can be partly explained by the idea all that success went to his head. His reputation has rightly never recovered, and never will.

Or maybe it will just a little. As his final weeks in office roll by, he's already reminded us of former glories with his recent deft handling of Northern Ireland. It's difficult to see Gordon Brown or David Cameron acting in such an assured manner under the pressure of a crisis like Iran. On future days like today, Blair will be missed more than anyone now imagines.

Stormy Waters

The words 'Iran hostage crisis' were once enough to finish off an American president. The current one involving 15 Royal Navy marines and sailors isn't quite on the scale of the one that did for Jimmy Carter, but the stakes are still pretty high.

It's difficult to see how Britain and Iran can resolve the situation, without one or the other having to give in. The most obvious way to sort it sees either Britain admitting they were trespassing, or Iran bowing to all the international pressure and simply handing them back. Both very embarrassing.

And so it's become a question of saving face. The British diplomats are trying to come up with a way the Iranian leaders can hand the detainees back without looking weak and stupid in front of their own people. As this stunt probably has a lot to do with trying to boost their reputation at home as powerful men standing up to the west, Ahmadinejad and the rest must desperately want such a solution. But the mere fact the British seem to feel the need to allow Iran to save face at all, shows how strong Tehran has already become.