Ahmadinejad, Sharon and the dynamsm of politcs

Politics is probably one of the most dynamic phenomena in our world. Since it is some how a reflection of human nature, its uncertainty and unpredictability makes it interesting to follow. The following two examples do not share that much of similarity, but still show how much alliances and divisions in politics are fragile and dynamic:

I. 6 months ago, when Ahmadinejad became the president of Iran, most people including myself thought that Iran's leadership has finally reached a point of monopolitic stability where the right wing or the conservative wing has the full control of the affairs. Some people went even ahead and speculated that deeper issues like relations between US and Iran will be resolved in this government. Surprisingly, since the first day of this new government the power struggle within the conservative camp started to shape. A clear reflection of this battle has become evident in the parliment disapproval of the oil minister. It is a unique event in the history of Iranian parliment where three choices for a ministry have been rejected. And considering the fact that this is about ministry of oil which is the heart of the economy of the country, the depth of the political battle becomes more clear. Although majority of the people in this new battlefield are corrupt and soley with power ambitions, but we should not forget that these people (including the president himself) have gained the trust of some circles of people with their populist and shallow socialist slogans around the concept of social justice. This early power struggle although doesn't have any democratic value, but at least shows the true mafia nature of this conservative gang. The sooner things get cleared, the price of will be less. And I won't be surprised in the near future if I see some of the reformist (!) faces of yesterday join any side of these new power struggle.

II. Another example of unpredictability of politics: In 2001 when Arial Sharon was elected as the prime minister of Israel. He had a brutal background in Israeli army filled with massacres in souther Lebanon, and Palestinian territory and also as an outspoken voice of right wing Israeli resistance to the Peace process. He actually started his primer tenure with brutal response to the 2nd Palestinian Intifada which resulted in the death of hundreds of Palestinians and Israelis. But now, look where Sharon stands today: He had to withdraw from his Likud party and create his own party which has a strong message of peace and is against non-compromising nature of the right wing Likud. It is unclear to me where does really Sharon stand with respect to the right of Palestinians to have an independent and prosperous nation. It is also unclear to me what does he really mean by peace. But even this much of change in rhetoric of Sharon is the result of the dynamic nature of politics and also the practicality that comes with the power in hand.