Real losers of Iran's election

Philip Steven column on Financial Times for June 15th speak eloquently of the problem Iran
an Mussavi. In his article titled 'Iran exposes the gap between idealism and realism for Obama', Steven highlighted the ideological problems of running Iranian election under the reflexes of current Islam mode. The Iranian election was between the incumbent Ahmadi -Nejad and Hossein Mussavi, and reactions after the election seem to indicate Mussavi as the American strategic interest in the election. The fact that the election was supposed to be closer to Western style in conduct may have been an exaggeration on the of Obama and his European colleague, a problem which exposed the fact that Obama and his colleagues underestimated the problem of ideology between Iran and America. Of course the Americans and their European counterpart were hoping for a win, perhaps a political end of Ahmadi-Nejad and his threatning language of violence and Nuclear ambition. The result of the election is that against all expectation, Mussavi lost the election. But wo were the real losers of that election.

Hossein Mussavi who lost 2009 Iranian presidential election to Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad, may have widened the gates of democracy in Iranian but the real losers of that election may not yet be our own American government rather, companies acting for the their own interest in terms of government deals from Iran. We know of Halliburton and their problems of corruption in oil rich parts of the world but what many Americans don't really know is that the world of oil is not only a competition opened to them. Was Mussavi the real loser of that election? techinically yes, but still more, the answer take into account what a victory would have meant for Iran. Aside from the democracy and opulence that a right wing ideology would have brought to Iran, there is a great issue of government contracts and expenses which for many years have been the real acme of war behind the scenes of Iranian politics.

It is impossible to say if Mussavi would have made a better president than Ahmadi-Nejad. Yet America if not the world could have been better served with any one other than the rantful current incumbent. There is also the facts of a more 'realised' possible defeat of Ahmadi-Nejad which was entirely narrow. In fact the outcry for change in Iran and the nature of that election may have surprised a lot of Iranians, especially the concept of demonstration in Tehran on the claim that the election was full of malpractices. But in reality who really expected that change to be that quick and eminient in Tehran Iran. The heavy locus of that change is how many European companies will become frustrated with a new American backed contestant. Pension workers in either of these continental interest would go the distance of realigning themselves to the problem of Global market and that could trip off the issue of lobbying.

It is the faith of many countries in the world to host a congregation of lobbying giants, and in near East and in Middle East, this has been the case. Saudi Arabia reflects the problem of that oil world and in that case, many lobbyist move than the area with all their portfolio. In Iran, since the Americans began to make a wish list for Iran, the Iranian Government under Ahmadi-Nejad had made serious contact with oil companies from around the world. In many parts of oil rich countries in the world like Nigeria, the relationship between state pension and any form of investment in oil has often led to death, sometimes catastrophic death. The environmental consequence is still that much and above all, companies from different parts of the world with lots of new idea are twisted out of shape by older partnership with such countries. In essence, the continuing argument on whether Iran is a terrorist country comes own heavily on what the business people in Iran think.

The aspect of business oversight and what the media houses are saying on Iran come down on the lobbyist group for giant companies are saying. Many of these American companies and European counterparts are busy lobbying the news Media on the consequence of Iranian terrorism. In spite of the face we give Iran, there are many American business men and women, have serious contact with Iran and many of them deal. For instance the problem of Bill Clinton's Saudi Arabian and UAE interest which emerged during the last Democratic candidature involving Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama. It was surprising to many people that Hilary Clinton voiced out that UAE and Saudi Arabia and United States relarliate against Iran, if possible attarck attarck Iran, that is if Iran should invade Kuwait. Such issue is however unlikely to surprise traders since Hilary Clinton and Bill Clinton have extensive business interest in UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and have international heavy lobbyist. There is no mistake that her group of lobbyst and media driven were seriously following the development of Iranian election, which would have seen Mussavi succeed as a new world of oil interest begun.

In a new book by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, published here in New York in 2008. The book cited that the following companies are dealing and willing in Iran, a country called the terrorist states. According to the book, one of those companies who recently signed deals with Iran to intergrate its highspeed submarine cable is Alcatel SA & Lucent technologies, the deal was supposed to cost billions of dollars. The project will provide all kinds of business opportunity for Iranians and many companies will do anything to keep others away from Iran while at the best time keeping them enemies of the United States.

The book went on to say what is going on in Iranian and American business. In 2005 Iran secured loan business with US regarding a 'fire year deal'. There is also Commerzbank AG carrying Iranian EuroBond which has since its inception penned down over 400 million dollars.
There is the severe problem of oil and oil companies doing their bidding in Iran, for instance Sinopec China petroluem and Chemical corporation) owned by China and operate "all levels of the Crude oil discovery extraction and refining process". Royal Dutch Shell has thousand of workers in Iran and have their lobbyist in US. All these companies had part time business with Iran now owe substantial business contract with Iran in the last few years. Under George Bush and Dick Cheney America were all about the invading these enemy states and that's still the case in current American invasion of Iran.

The main event in the whole losers and winners of Iranian election come down to Hyundai, which is South Koreans may also have their deals with the said people, in fact Hyundai and Rotem have a huge Rail transport understanding with Iran. Hyundai had to outbid others in the process of building 39 ships for oil and are supposed to use the 'converted interest from investors' that is some companies and investors of American weight were welcome to do business with the company. The problem on pension and helpful policy had been a source of interest for Americans, had the companies that were once based Iran should gain what they were looking for, they will go along way to determine the sort of policy that it useful for USA best companies. The paralysis of the current problems of Crude oil and pricing go the distance to help us understand why the victory of Ahamdi-Nejad and his government policy might have saved the business in Iran.

By Iroabuchi Onwuka