Both sides of conflict, the US and the Iranian regime, have common concerns which can help us understand their allegedly unreasonable behaviours over something not really awesome (the ability to produce nuclear bomb). That common concern is the growth of independent strong opposition to both theocracy and the US hegemony. The opposition is hardly reflected in Western Media let alone the Iranian media. The opposition has become highly autonomous and strong since the collapse of governmental reformism by Khatami. A simple glance into the society, despite strong censorships, can show us the importance of the issue. Just about 50% of people, according to official data publicized by the regime, boycotted the last election. 15% voted for Rafsanjani a pragmatist corrupt clergy who is in favour of compromise with the US and 35% voted for Ahmadi-Nejad, as he was highly unknown with strong slogans against corruption. One could say this is similar to the US patterns of election, but we should remember that Iran under Mullah’s regime is supposed to be a mass society with at least 90 % turnout for elections. Besides, in comparison with the elections that led to the overwhelming victory of reformists during 1997-2000, this formally reported portion of boycotters is significant. To this fact, one can add huge number of reports about the growth of opposition among workers (who are experiencing job lost, low wages, and the lack of rights for having unions), students, weblogers, the youth, and revolts by ethnic minorities in Provinces like Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and Baluchistan just during the last year.
The growth of opposition is very important for both sides of power, especially for the US, as the opposition can bring about an autonomous democratic alternative to the whole region; a non- or anti- American democracy without affiliation to any Leftist or Rightist ideology for the first time in the whole history of region. Iranians are not alienated from such a prospect. They are the first nation in the East who had a revolution for constitution exactly one century ago. With two other following revolutions against unjust dictatorship (one for the nationalization of Oil in 1951-2 and the other in 1979), they have a great record of demands for freedom. Iranians among other Muslim societies have a particular position in terms of their historical experiences. They have experienced both corrupt secular and corrupt religious governance. Moreover, their main reactions to both have bean highly active directed from within their culture. Iran has a long history of despotism but at the same time, it has a long great history of opposition. In the American side, the growing opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the economic and political crises in the US, and the failures in Iraq are real matters for the Bush administration.
Regarding the above domestic dilemmas for the both sides of conflict, one can easily understand why both need to exaggerate the importance of nuclear issue. They need to create a new crisis to overlook the current real crises. Can they tackle the crisis after investing too much of their energy and rhetoric? Or would they lose their control over the crises? This depends how global civil society, peace movement, Iranian and American people will react.