IRÁN , LA CARA Y LA CRUZ.

Hace ahora 12 años, contra todo pronóstico y contra el núcleo duro del régimen iraní, se alzó con la victoria en las elecciones presidenciales de Irán un líder carismático, reformista y dialogante, Mohamed Jatamí, que concitó la esperanza de cambio de millones de iraníes, sobre todo mujeres y jóvenes urbanos, que exigían un cambio en el integrismo medieval impuesto por el régimen teocrático.

Estos días, el escenario previo a las elecciones ha sido muy similar. De nuevo jóvenes y mujeres han impulsado a un candidato, Mir Hosein Musavi, en el que han proyectado sus anhelos de una sociedad menos encorsetada y más libre. Pero el resultado ha sido diferente. Oficialmente Musavi no ha obtenido la victoria que ha sido otorgada al actual presidente y candidato a la reelección Mahmud Ahmadineyad, representante del sector más intransigente del régimen.

La victoria de Jatamí, en 1997, cogió con el pie cambiado a la jerarquía iraní, que se vio forzada a reconocer su victoria. Un triunfo que impulsó toda una corriente reformista que desafió la estructura de poder del régimen. Éste, viéndose políticamente amenazado, puso en marcha un proceso de boicoteo sistemático de cualquier reforma que Jatamí y sus seguidores pudieran impulsar. Pese a ser reelegido en 2001, la presidencia de Jatamí pasó a la historia marcada por la frustración de los sueños no cumplidos y demostrando que un cambio desde dentro del régimen parecía inviable.

Ahora el régimen iraní no quiere correr ningún riesgo e impone la victoria de Ahmadineyad. Haya obtenido o no más votos, el sistema electoral iraní, con el Consejo de Guardianes eliminando a los candidatos que no considera “idóneos”, actúa de manera determinante sobre el resultado. Pero en esta ocasión se ha encontrado con la calle, con esos jóvenes y esas mujeres que están ya hartos de que pisoteen sus derechos, frustren sus expectativas, les impongan una teocracia en pleno siglo XXI. Ellos saben que el propio régimen no permitirá las reformas que desean y por eso han salido a las calles. No parece tanto la defensa de un determinado resultado electoral como la toma de conciencia de que los cambios tendrán que ser peleados con uñas y dientes.

No lo van a tener fácil. El régimen iraní cuenta con un engrasado aparato represivo y está dispuesto a utilizarlo. Pero Irán y los iraníes parecen haber llegado a una terrible encrucijada: o luchan por el cambio o se resignan a la frustración.

-Fran Sevilla-

Este artículo es de la revista TIME, escrito por un ex miembro de la CIA , si sabes inglés será interesante que lo leas, ya que como otros han dicho, no me sitúo a favor de Ahmadineyad, pero también es bueno un poco de información diferente a lo que nos ofrecen los MASS MEDIA.

There is no denying that the news clips from Tehran are dramatic, unprecedented in violence and size since the mullahs came to power in 1979. They're possibly even augurs of real change. But can we trust them? Most of the demonstrations and rioting I've seen in the news are taking place in north Tehran, around Tehran University and in public places like Azadi Square. These are, for the most part, areas where the educated and well-off live — Iran's liberal middle class. These are also the same neighborhoods that little doubt voted for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rival, who now claims that the election was stolen. But I have yet to see any pictures from south Tehran, where the poor live. Or from other Iranian slums.

Some facts about Iran's election will hopefully emerge in the coming weeks, with perhaps even credible evidence that the election was rigged. But until then, we need to add a caveat to everything we hear and see coming out of Tehran. For too many years now, the Western media have looked at Iran through the narrow prism of Iran's liberal middle class — an intelligentsia that is addicted to the Internet and American music and is more ready to talk to the Western press, including people with money to buy tickets to Paris or Los Angeles. Reading Lolita in Tehran is a terrific book, but does it represent the real Iran?

Before we settle on the narrative that there has been a hard-line takeover in Iran, an illegitimate coup d'état, we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been a popular hard-line takeover, an electoral mandate for Ahmadinejad and his policies. One of the only reliable, Western polls conducted in the run-up to the vote gave the election to Ahmadinejad — by higher percentages than the 63% he actually received. The poll even predicted that Mousavi would lose in his hometown of Tabriz, a result that many skeptics have viewed as clear evidence of fraud. The poll was taken all across Iran, not just the well-heeled parts of Tehran. Still, the poll should be read with a caveat as well, since some 50% of the respondents were either undecided or wouldn't answer.

No doubt, Iran will come out of last Friday's election a different country. But it would serve us well to put aside our prism that has led us to misunderstand Iran for so many years, an anticipation that there would be a liberal counter-revolution in the country. Mousavi is far from the liberal democrat that many in the West would like to believe he is. The truth is, Ahmadinejad may be the President the Iranians want, and we may have to live with an Iran to Iranians' liking and not to ours.

The absolute worst things we could do at this point would be to declare Iran's election fraudulent, refuse to talk to the regime and pile on more sanctions. Hostility will only strengthen Ahmadinejad and encourage the hard-liners and secret police. We should never forget that Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatullah Khameinei, along with Ahmadinejad, have the full, if undeclared, backing of both the Revolutionary Guards and the army, and they are not afraid to use those resources to back up their mandate.

Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.