To Iranians, 2016 election is not a choice of lesser of two evils

For almost four decades, the relationship with the United States has been Islamic Republic of Iran’s top foreign policy priority. Both countries have experienced political power shifts in recent years. The destiny of the two countries is so intermingled that some Iranians believe they should have a voice in deciding who sits in the White House.

“Gmail is telling me where I can vote. People of the Middle East should definitely be granted the right to vote, because of so many times their destinies have changed due to the decisions made in the White House.”

“So far it was just the election night in Iran that we couldn’t sleep. Add American election to it now. God, don’t let me be carried away.”

Many Iranians have been following the 2016 election in recent months and could sometimes identify with Americans having to settle for a “lesser of two evils,” a reminder of their own 2013 election. They have also been making comparisons with Iran’s election in 2009, as reflected in the following tweets:

“Isn’t it election night in America? So why isn’t their Internet cut? Why aren’t their cellphone carriers interrupted?”

“Is it the same in the US that they sleep at night and when they wake up their votes are lost?”

But, to understand better how Iranians feel about today’s election, let’s review their experience since the Islamic revolution of 1979. They lived through eight years of war with Iraq. They have suffered from international sanctions for many years, because of the country’s nuclear program. Thanks to the sanctions, thousands have lost jobs. They have suffered an inflation rate of 40 percent.

Three years ago, Iranians voted for a moderate president, hoping he could improve the country’s international status and end the sanctions. President Hassan Rouhani negotiated a nuclear deal with the United States, Russia, France, Germany, Britain and China. It brought hope to the country. But, now, that hope is threatened by today’s election.

It is no longer a matter of the lesser of two evils to Iranians. Whoever wins could potentially harm US-Iranian relations.

Iranian have more reasons than Americans to dislike Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Neither is a friend of Iran.

Those friends who say they don’t have any problem with American people: These candidates attack Iran just for the sake of attracting their people’s attention!

Clinton recognizes and supports the nuclear deal with Iran, but says she would take an approach of “distrust and verify”. To Iranian hardliner politicians and to ordinary people, this statement translates as a continuing threat to the nuclear settlement. The historical distrust between the two countries could provide Clinton with a reason to end the deal whenever she feels like it.

Hillary is very different from Obama. She believes that in Iran’s case he has made a mistake. No one follows a former president in America.

Considering the current chaotic condition of the Middle East, this is a conspicuous risk to Iranians.

On the other hand, Trump has said that his “number one priority” would be to “dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran.” That would be as disastrous as it sounds, wiping out years of difficult negotiations. There is also a fear that if he is elected, sooner or later extremists will come to power in Iran, too.

“Those who advocate Trump in Iran want Trump to win and bring more enmity, so they can say: Hey, look! We were right that the US is bad.”

We will know soon enough what Iranians will have to worry about.