Asserting its influence on Middle Eastern politics and power relations, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused "Western powers" of wielding the media for "full-fledged psychological attacks as a lever to influence nations against their better judgment," reports Press TV.

The media's ability to shape the relationship between Iran and other nations has been increasingly analyzed and exploited in the weeks prior to the first significant negotiations between Iran and Western powers. Press TV further antagonizes this divide by referring to "Western powers" throughout the article.

Indirectly referring to Israel and the US, Ahmadinejad alleged that media campaigns led by "some regimes" have become "the prime weapon-of-choice against other countries" to advance their political agenda rather than properly report on Iranian affairs.

Khalil Sheikh, writing for the Daily 49er, laments the "aggressive right wing rhetoric," and the lack of factual analysis of Middle Eastern politics that led many people to be "blind under the umbrella of misconception that Iran is a threat to the ‘free world.'"

Ahmadinejad's comments coincided with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) takeover of Iran's telecommunications monopoly, reports the New York Times. The acquisition "amplified concerns in Iran over what some call the rise of a pseudo-government."

The Guards, whose mandate is to "protect the revolution," oversee Iran's nuclear and missile programs. According to the New York Times, the Guards tightened their political and economic control following this summer's elections.

It remains unclear as to whether the Guards taking over major sectors of the economy will significantly impact Iranian media freedom or foreign policy. Some analysts believe that the Guards' growing influence will further hamper opening up to the West.

"It's not just a matter of the Guards dominating the economy, but of controlling the state," commented Alireza Nader, an expert on Iran. Any integration on a global scale would require greater transparency, which the Guards are averse to do since it may imply having to relinquish some of their control.

On the eve of major negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, experts are extensively scrutinizing President Obama's policies.

Daniel Greenfield, writing for Canada Free Press, asserts that Obama's policies toward Iran are driven by the "concerns of Saudi Arabia." In Greenfield's opinion, Saudi Arabia is mainly concerned with its Sunni influence in the Middle East jeopardized by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"Muslim holy wars that are fought against other Muslims are often indirect," writes Greenfield. "The Sunni powers in the Middle East understand that when Ahmadinejad talks about destroying Israel, he only means destroying Israel first, and them second...Israel is not the endgame, they are."

According to Greenfield, Obama's policy of "soft power, engagement and appeasement" arises directly from Saudi influence that seeks to defuse the Iranian threat "without war or any democratization or regional political instability that might rebound back in Riyadh." Consequently, "Obama is dithering on Iran, because the Saudis are dithering on Iran," a policy direction rejected by Greenfield.

The conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia is epitomized by various accusations that Iranian and Saudi Arabian media outlets have exchanged since the contested 2009 Iranian presidential elections, writes the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

Iranian television channels allege that Saudi media is "waging an anti-Iran campaign in coordination with Israel in the West," and that Saudi Arabia is an "absolutist dictatorship" with "no status whatsoever in the Islamic world."

In response, Saudi papers have accused Al-Qaeda of being an "Iranian front organization," whose operations are primarily designed to benefit Iran. Iran's nuclear ambitions and "alleged aspirations to take over the Middle East" are repeatedly condemned and the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh called on Arabs to protect themselves "with a force that recognizes the struggle between opposites."

Unlike Greenfield, Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Shirin Ebadi supports a soft power approach, according to The Washington Post.

Ebadi claimed that the Obama administration has made several mistakes regarding Iran, arguing that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to US security than deals on nuclear energy, because nuclear programs would not be a threat in the hands of a government that did not view America or Israel as enemies.

"If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause," argued Ebadi. "But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Obama declared that "the voice of the people needs to be heard," she continued, "but he needs to repeat the statement again and again, so that people in Iran hear him."