The outcome of the upcoming Presidential election in Iran has been sealed by the Guardian Council’s decision to exclude candidates at will and to favor the Supreme Leader’s trustees. The current appointed body has prevented Rafsanjani and Mashaei, along with several other hundreds, from running for the seat, while the Green Movement has been prosecuted. But even though none of the remaining eight candidates can be labeled as pure reformers or as liberals, they do have different approaches on important matters that have significant impact on the country and the region, such as their stances on the nuclear program and on the economy.

Iran has been in the forefront of international interest during the last years due to its nuclear program and strategic position for the Middle Eastern affairs. However, Iran’s internal political arena is equally turbulent to its international relations. After the 2009 elections and the crush of the Green Movement a new power struggle has emerged within the Iranian regime. President Ahmadinejad’s attempt to create a loyal elite around him was met with a fierce response from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s side which stripped him off his power, attacked his associates and might even cancel the position of president itself. The outcome of this “internal war” is crucial for both regional and global politics

As a result of the Syrian crisis, Shia’a and Sunni sporadic clashes are taking place mainly in northern Lebanon, including vindictive abductions and even arrests of politicians. Many analysts and politicians have been warning of a highly possible spillover of the Syrian crisis in Lebanon. First due to the intense sectarian character and vulnerability of Lebanon and second due to Hezbollah’s influence -backed by Syria and Iran- in the Lebanese political arena. The domestic realities of Lebanon and the critical situation of Hezbollah’s allies are bringing Hezbollah to a crossroad: will it join the fight to support Assad or not? The decisions to be made by the ‘Party of God’ at this point will be decisive not only for itself but for Lebanon as well.

“It is quite common to hear high officials in Washington and elsewhere speak of c hanging the map of the Middle E as t, as if ancient societies and myriad peoples can be shaken up like so many peanuts in a jar”, says Edward Said in Orientalism. T he lates t threats for the region are –no surprise- direc ted agains t Iran and with US elec tions fas t approac hing the various candidates are busy in talking themselves into a possible US -backed Is raeli s trike. In case this psyc hological warfare leads to war, a Global Armageddon Sc enario could be in the offing.

Three main factors seem to affect the stance of Iran towards the wave of uprisings that have shaken the Arab world since January. The first is the ideological paradigm of the Islamic revolution while the second comprises the real strategic possibilities for Iran to exploit the situation and gain pre-eminence in the region. The last factor is the internal political situation, which has demonstrated that the regime is not immune to similar popular upheavals.

The wave of regional uprisings reached Syria in mid- March, with opposition organisers and protesters being rounded up daily. The Syrian regime responded immediately using disproportionate force in order to quell protesters and emphasise the consequences of dissent. However, Syria’s internal frustration is of particular importance due to the country’s regional significance.

The drama is old; its acts change regularly while its protagonists stay the same embodied by Egypt and Iran. It is a play about regional power which has not reached its final yet as it is perpetuated by envious divas, capricious artists and dangerous stunts. Its audience epitomized by the U.S. and Israel, interferes constantly in its events and hence nurtures its maintenance. The play?s newest act deals with the recent war on Gaza and a Hizbullah cell lately discovered by Egyptian authorities, which has been accused of attempting to overthrow Mubarak?s regime.

?I call upon all of you, politicians and citizens, to start a new phase called Lebanon and the Lebanese ? in order to achieve the interests of the nation.? This was General Suleiman?s appeal at his swearing-in ceremony in Beirut last May. His election as president was the result of the Doha accord which brokered a deal to end clashes between Hizbullah and its allies against Future Movement militias which brought back haunting memories of the civil war. However, recent developments imply that Sleiman?s words do not reverberate in politicians? ears anymore. May?s euphoria seems to be fading away as the problem of power sharing in Lebanon is still visible. Lebanese factions still draw strength and support from outside while allowing foreign forces to use them for the advancement of their cause

Cataclysmic territorial encroachment by the IS/ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) towards Baghdad and in Iraq's Kurdish region beyond Mosul remains as ascendant as it is in northern Syria despite the aerial attacks and some external assistance to the recently installed Haider al-Abadi administration in Iraq. With the air campaign proving less effective, the United States and other Western allies have accentuated pressure on Turkey to commit its troops on the ground so as to blunt the IS forces. Interestingly, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the main antagonist for the IS, Ankara and the NATO, may be receptive to the idea of Turkish troops fighting fellow Sunnis so as to provide him both a needed legitimacy and some respite since President Tayyip Erdogan remains a persistent foe for the Baathist regime in Damascus. Concurrently, the Kurds divided across several post-colonial states and often seeking sovereignty and unification, begrudge Turkey for not helping their co-ethnics in Syria and for keeping its involvement limited to strictly settling down displaced Arabs and Kurdish refugees. In the same vein, the Iranians are equally engrossed in this fratricide on the side of a beleaguered Assad and a vulnerable Baghdad regime while poised against the troubadours of a Sunni Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In fact, they are relishing a field day since their favourite Shia Houthis obtained an upper hand in a war torn Yemen. Another major Iranian ally, Hezbollah, is already well-ensconced in Lebanon besides fighting the Sunni opposition to Assad, whereas rest of the world seems to be largely focused on IS's assault on Ain-al Arab (Kobani), a strategic town straddling the Turkish-Syrian borders. If the IS was able to capture this town, it would have the entire swathe of territory from Kirkuk in Iraq to Aleppo and eastern Mediterranean in Syria under its control bestowing it some of the most fertile valleys along with facilitating the munificent export of gas.

The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has frequently remarked that Iran is among the most democratic countries, with open and fair elections since its inception thirty-four years ago. The claim that Iran is a vibrant democracy is based on the fact that Iranians have gone to the ballot box on multiple occasions, voting for presidents, parliamentarians and city council members. The presidential election of June 14th with nearly 73% of the electorate participating is a case in point. However, what makes the Iranian elections non-democratic is the vetting of candidates by the Council of Guardians, consisting of twelve members, six of whom are clerics appointed by the Supreme Leader while the other six are jurists selected by the Parliament.[1] All are conservatives and all profess their loyalty and allegiance to the Supreme Leader.