A look at how the Arab world has accepted the Iranian crisis following the presidential elections of June 12 is very instructive, not only because it allows for a more complete picture of the international reaction to this crisis, but also because it reveals a very multifaceted manifold and the Iranian issue, which can only enrich the interpretation that is fairly one-dimensional data in the West of the events currently underway in Iran. In the Arab world the history of Iran have been followed with great care and with mixed feelings. Arab leaders have preferred to keep a wait recital, at least officially, the movement of Iranian protests as an internal matter for Iran. This attitude was echoed in the media of government, who have

largely kept a low profile on this issue. But in reality the situation is being monitored very carefully, since the outcome of the political battle currently underway in the country depend on the future direction of Iranian foreign policy, particularly those related to nuclear issues and those related to regional position of Iran. If no one expects major concessions on the nuclear program, on the other hand, many in the Arab world are convinced that Mousavi would adopt policies more favorable to dialogue and compromise. The situation is far from unique, because in general many Arab leaders, while they fear a nuclear Iran, look with suspicion on the other a possible Iran-American dialogue which, in their view, could go to the expense of Arabs. Then there is the problem of Iran in the Middle East region, with particular reference to the Palestinian question. From this point of view, many Arab politicians seem to be convinced that a victory would certainly Mousavi went to benefit the peace process, since it would have taken away half of the incendiary rhetoric of Ahmadinejad, would have led movements like Hamas and Hezbollah attitudes toward more conciliatory, and Israel would have stolen a good excuse to distract international attention from the Arab-Israeli conflict, instead pointing to the "threat" represented by Ahmadinejad. In any case, opinion seems to be fairly common in political circles that the Arabs, however, will end the crisis of these days in Iran, the Shiite will emerge relatively reduced and weakened at the regional level. This has led some to predict a similar reduction of the so-called movements of 'political Islam "throughout the Arab world, while others (perhaps wisely) that they spoke the same vitality, however, accompanied by a gradual move towards their positions" center "and in a sense more conciliatory. However, others advise caution that, in the event of a victory of Ala Amhadinejad and Khamenei, is not ruled out a tough and aggressive reaction of the system outwards to deflect attention from its internal weakness. If a policy seems to prevail an Arab wait, both public and media more independent, the Iranian crisis has revealed all the contrasts and the different guidelines exist in the Arab world. From some, the Iranian regime is viewed with suspicion because of its hegemonic policies in the region, is seen by others with sympathy because it is the only Middle East regime that dares to defy face the United States and Israel. Based on these different approaches, there are those that side for the protest movement led by Mousavi, and those who prefer to Ahmadinejad and his rhetoric, pro-Palestinian and anti-Western. Then there are those who look with envy to the Iranians who, for the second time in three decades, are trying to change the regime from within, while almost all the Arab countries continue to languish under authoritarian regimes, without being able to promote change through popular movements rooted in society. But beyond these multiple and contradictory reactions, the interesting point that emerges from the analysis and the comments appeared in the Arab press is that, along with an interpretation similar to that dominant in the West - which sees the events in Iran as the result the clash between a popular movement seeking reforms and democracy and an authoritarian, undemocratic and fundamentalist - it shows another, perhaps better able to grasp the complexity of braids and pushed into play in, dramatic evolution of the system Iranian. This interpretation highlights the contradiction inherent in the very structure of the Islamic Republic (the contradiction, namely, between the authority and authority of religious people), reveals the various souls who actually make up the so-called movement "reformist", and the that it is not an expression of the Iranian people as a whole, and denounces the unilateral nature and distorted Western media coverage on events in Iran.