The Illusion of Ringing Bells
A number of Afghan political observers accuse Iran of masterminding post-election protests of Dr. Abdullah. Are their claims substantiated
Political analyst of afghanpaper.com writes: "although it is the natural right of a neighboring country with common history to be concerned with the election process, this worries should not lead to intervention".
Afghans’ worries did not start from the days of electoral campaign or vote-counting but when their neighboring country, Iran, faced technical problems in holding the elections. Post-election violence and protests in Iran drew attention towards Afghan and international observers of Afghanistan’s presidential elections.
Their responsibilities were regarded the most sensitive concern of elections. The first sign of Iranian influence was noticed in Abdullah Abdullah’s behavior. Like one of the objecting Iranian candidates, he turned into the chief critique of his country’s president. But neither his chances to win nor odds of Karzai’s fall were as strong as in Iran.
Developments of the last two months in Afghanistan -the natural impact of the behavior followed by its neighbors, i.e. Iran and Pakistan- have now arrived at a critical stage and smell of unpleasant future. Even Afghanistan does not witness massive protests against Karzai; it is prone to polarization and tacit protest of citizens, which will be a new challenge for Karzai.
Abdullah Abdullah’s objection to the procedure of vote-counting and likely manipulations has filled the political atmosphere of Afghanistan with distrust and illusion. These distrusts have in turn reinforced the illusion of Iran’s intervention in Afghanistan elections.
Today, there are political observers in Afghanistan searching for the mastermind of Afghanistan’s post-election uproar. What they believe to be valid documents is Abdullah Abdullah’s imitation of Iranian candidates’ behavior. Author of the analysis in afghanpaper.com believes that Karzai and Ahmadinejad pretend that the two neighbors enjoy warm relations, but that is not the truth and there are disagreements rooted in Americans’ presence in Afghanistan.
According to the author "Iranian officials have always avoided meddling in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. They represent themselves as supporters of the incumbent administration. However, realities lead to other conclusions, which can not be simply overlooked."
The bottom line of this article is that in Afghanistan’s presidential elections Iranians have overtly backed Dr. Abdullah, "a figure who has had good relations with Iranians and has enjoyed Iran’s aids. Although Dr. Abdullah has frequently denied the charges of being under Iran’s influence but apparent events talk of something different".
Abdullah campaign’s patterning on Iranian models (blue T-shirts –said to be produced inside Iran- and headband) is one of clearly thin arguments presented by those who support such claims. Obviously any candidate of the presidential elections could resort to such methods. Another assumed proof is Iranophile figures’ support for Dr. Abdullah. This was the strongest cause of suspicion for Iran’s intervention in Afghanistan’s presidential election. The writer of that article also refers to the support of Shiite seminaries –believed to be funded by Iran- for Abdullah Abdullah. However, he finally admits that such suspicions are circulated among common people and Iranian leaders may have never thought of supporting a certain candidate in Afghanistan. Interestingly, the writer’s confession that common people have such a feeling shows that rather than being substantiated, analyses of this type root in increasing political strife in Afghanistan and fear of political unrest similar to the ones which occurred inside Iran.
Before the beginning of electoral campaigns in their country, some Afghan officials feared Iran’s likely intervention to fuel rumors of vote-rigging in Afghanistan and Iranize its neighbor in order to show the futility of foreign troops’ presence in Afghanistan. At any rate, all these comments are based on conjectures and no documents can substantiate them.
Afghans’ worries did not start from the days of electoral campaign or vote-counting but when their neighboring country, Iran, faced technical problems in holding the elections. Post-election violence and protests in Iran drew attention towards Afghan and international observers of Afghanistan’s presidential elections.
Their responsibilities were regarded the most sensitive concern of elections. The first sign of Iranian influence was noticed in Abdullah Abdullah’s behavior. Like one of the objecting Iranian candidates, he turned into the chief critique of his country’s president. But neither his chances to win nor odds of Karzai’s fall were as strong as in Iran.
Developments of the last two months in Afghanistan -the natural impact of the behavior followed by its neighbors, i.e. Iran and Pakistan- have now arrived at a critical stage and smell of unpleasant future. Even Afghanistan does not witness massive protests against Karzai; it is prone to polarization and tacit protest of citizens, which will be a new challenge for Karzai.
Abdullah Abdullah’s objection to the procedure of vote-counting and likely manipulations has filled the political atmosphere of Afghanistan with distrust and illusion. These distrusts have in turn reinforced the illusion of Iran’s intervention in Afghanistan elections.
Today, there are political observers in Afghanistan searching for the mastermind of Afghanistan’s post-election uproar. What they believe to be valid documents is Abdullah Abdullah’s imitation of Iranian candidates’ behavior. Author of the analysis in afghanpaper.com believes that Karzai and Ahmadinejad pretend that the two neighbors enjoy warm relations, but that is not the truth and there are disagreements rooted in Americans’ presence in Afghanistan.
According to the author "Iranian officials have always avoided meddling in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. They represent themselves as supporters of the incumbent administration. However, realities lead to other conclusions, which can not be simply overlooked."
The bottom line of this article is that in Afghanistan’s presidential elections Iranians have overtly backed Dr. Abdullah, "a figure who has had good relations with Iranians and has enjoyed Iran’s aids. Although Dr. Abdullah has frequently denied the charges of being under Iran’s influence but apparent events talk of something different".
Abdullah campaign’s patterning on Iranian models (blue T-shirts –said to be produced inside Iran- and headband) is one of clearly thin arguments presented by those who support such claims. Obviously any candidate of the presidential elections could resort to such methods. Another assumed proof is Iranophile figures’ support for Dr. Abdullah. This was the strongest cause of suspicion for Iran’s intervention in Afghanistan’s presidential election. The writer of that article also refers to the support of Shiite seminaries –believed to be funded by Iran- for Abdullah Abdullah. However, he finally admits that such suspicions are circulated among common people and Iranian leaders may have never thought of supporting a certain candidate in Afghanistan. Interestingly, the writer’s confession that common people have such a feeling shows that rather than being substantiated, analyses of this type root in increasing political strife in Afghanistan and fear of political unrest similar to the ones which occurred inside Iran.
Before the beginning of electoral campaigns in their country, some Afghan officials feared Iran’s likely intervention to fuel rumors of vote-rigging in Afghanistan and Iranize its neighbor in order to show the futility of foreign troops’ presence in Afghanistan. At any rate, all these comments are based on conjectures and no documents can substantiate them.