One point down on the Axis of Evil

Iran's endorsement of the re-election of President George W. Bush last week marked the first time the two countries have been this confused about their relationship since 1998.\nYes, that's right. \nIt was in the 1998 World Cup that Iran claimed its first World Cup game victory ever. The team achieved this by beating the U.S. 2-1 in first-round matches. While I'm not accusing former U.S. and Iranian players of having political inclinations, I think the incident sheds light on the volatile relations between the two countries. During the last century, the two have had strong diplomatic ties and been engaged (indirectly) in wars against one another. Like old dirty political friends, they've participated in underhanded activities, too, like the Iran contraband scandal in the 1980s. \nDespite the apparent absurdity of Iran's approval of President Bush and the Republican Party, the statement has some logic behind it. \nNormally, a country nominates a foreign political party because they feel they will benefit from that party being in power. \nSo why does it seem so absurd that Iran is endorsing Bush? \nFor starters, they've been labeled as part of the "axis of evil" by the Bush administration, accused of harboring terrorists and been threatened with sanctions over their nuclear aspirations in the last two years. \nBush shrugged off the support. Scott Stanzel, Bush campaign spokesman, said it was "not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," in an Associated Press article.\nFurthermore, the country has struggled under U.S. sanctions for the past decade.\nIran takes issue with Democratic initiatives like former president Bill Clinton's order to halt all U.S. trade and investment in the country in 1995.\n"We haven't seen anything good from the Democrats," said Hasan Rowhani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, in an Associated Press article. Rowhani added that, historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans.\nIt should also be noted that many beneficial deals for Iran have involved Republican administrations. It could be argued, for example, that Iran was responsible for Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, partly because of Jimmy Carter's ineffectiveness at dealing with the 52 Americans that were being held hostage in the nation's capitol, Tehran. Reagan, who was sworn in the day Iran agreed to release the hostages, was, in turn, involved in illegally supplying Iran with weapons during their war with Iraq. \nThere could be similar parallels with the current relationship between the two countries. By deposing governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the United States. has simultaneously eliminated alleged terrorist cells and also gotten rid of possible threats to Iran.\n"Iran is a very complex society grappling with social issues, economic issues and regional issues," said Shayar Daneshgar, a professor in the Central Eurasian studies department at IU. "These things cannot be solved in one day. Iran realizes that it cannot do this itself ... (it needs) to be a part of the international community."\nDaneshgar, who lived in Iran until he was 20 years old, said that the current government had many elements, including Islamic hardliners and reform-minded people, but the solution to this problem is not ousting the oppressors and establishing a new government. Iraq and Afghanistan are perfect examples of such foreign policy measures and -- although the nations have shown some promise -- they will need continual financial and military support to foster a democracy.\n"Societies have to go through changes themselves. We cannot impose changes (effectively) from the outside," Daneshgar said. \nCurrently, the public of Iran does not have any influence over what their government says. Iran, similarly, has no influence over Bush or the United States. Perhaps this dilemma could be solved more easily on the football pitch, though the axis would have home advantage.