Rouhani re-elected; supporters sweep Tehran council

[Minoosh]

I don't see a thread on this so I'll start one. From the BBC:

Iran elections: Pro-Rouhani reformists in Tehran power sweep

I am cautiously optimistic.

 

[Oystein]

There are of course serious limits to who can run for office in Iran. But within those limits, elections are suprisingly free, and results make differences.

It is depressing that the USA elects to treat Iran as the biggest, even only "enemy" in the middle east, while pussyfooting the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia etc.

The Iranian civil society traditionally, and still, is diverse and pluralistic. This is somewhat reflected in different centers of power - the conservative clerics, the revolution leader, the revolutionary guards, parliament, Guardian Council, and ultimately the Assembly of Experts.
The latter will get to elect a new Leader of the Revolution in the not-so-far future, as Ayatollah Khamenei is 77 years old and said to be in less than excellent health. It is not beyond imagination to assume that the Assembly will have an eye on the mood of the population as expressed in elections when selecting the nexr supreme leader. So it's good that this election has results consistent with the previous elections - such stability of popular opinion is encouraging.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The latter will get to elect a new Leader of the Revolution in the not-so-far future, as Ayatollah Khamenei is 77 years old and said to be in less than excellent health. It is not beyond imagination to assume that the Assembly will have an eye on the mood of the population as expressed in elections when selecting the nexr supreme leader. So it's good that this election has results consistent with the previous elections - such stability of popular opinion is encouraging.

If I recall correctly, the senior faqih under serious consideration are as old as or older than Khamene'i. The other viable candidate is Khomeini's grandson. If they end up with a rapid succession of very old rahbas, that could have very bad implications for the stability of the republic.

 

[Minoosh]

There are of course serious limits to who can run for office in Iran. But within those limits, elections are suprisingly free, and results make differences.

It is depressing that the USA elects to treat Iran as the biggest, even only "enemy" in the middle east, while pussyfooting the brutal dictatorships of Saudi Arabia etc.

The U.S. is doing more than pussyfooting around Saudi Arabia - some think they are trying to consolidate Sunni power, re-enter Iraq, get some oil and surround Iran. Russia would not be crazy about this idea.

The Iranian civil society traditionally, and still, is diverse and pluralistic. This is somewhat reflected in different centers of power - the conservative clerics, the revolution leader, the revolutionary guards, parliament, Guardian Council, and ultimately the Assembly of Experts.

I was surprised to find that Rouhani is also on the Assembly of Experts.

The latter will get to elect a new Leader of the Revolution in the not-so-far future, as Ayatollah Khamenei is 77 years old and said to be in less than excellent health. It is not beyond imagination to assume that the Assembly will have an eye on the mood of the population as expressed in elections when selecting the nexr supreme leader. So it's good that this election has results consistent with the previous elections - such stability of popular opinion is encouraging.

Head scarves in Iran are slipping back, judging by Al Jazeera's coverage of voting.
That orange outfit in 2:48 is weirder than usual for anyone past puberty (voting age is 15).

I love the randomness of this video. It's one of many apparently shot from smart phones. I have no idea what Rouhani can do but apparently voters believe this election is not rigged, while many in 2009 felt Ahmadinejad was illegitimately elected to his second term.

 

[Minoosh]

If I recall correctly, the senior faqih under serious consideration are as old as or older than Khamene'i. The other viable candidate is Khomeini's grandson. If they end up with a rapid succession of very old rahbas, that could have very bad implications for the stability of the republic.

IMO the biggest threat in case of instability is the military. What about Khatami for Supreme Leader? He'd have credibility. He's 74 and I have no idea if he'd be considered, but he's made no major political errors, as far as I can tell.

Sometimes I think even Iranians are baffled by their own flow chart. One major development, potentially, is that former President Rafsanjani died in January. Though a founder of the Islamic Republic, he favored openness. The New York Times did a story in January:

Death of Iran’s Rafsanjani Removes Influential Voice Against Hard-Liners

Some pundits on various YouTube venues think that when Trump used the word "Islamists," Iran would be a big target because it has "Islamic" it its name. But I think Trump would get along swell with these guys.


Donald Trump's Worst Deal
Subhead: The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

 

[Minoosh]

Apparently Rouhani is expected to free Mir Hossein Moussavi, who per Wikipedia is still under house arrest despite an announcement he would be freed after Rouhani's 2013 victory.

Just what it means to be on house arrest, I don't know. I think it's a warning to keep your head down and stay out of public life; not like prison but not free either. Moussavi is the man who was supposedly cheated out of the presidency in 2009. During the protests that followed his nephew was shot to death by "security forces" (Per an interview on BBC, the nephew had received death threats). No action was taken against Mousavi at the time, as far as I can tell; but a protest outside the hospital was broken up by teargas and the nephew's body dumped in an undisclosed location. (all per Wikipedia).

ETA: Now wondering if voluntary exiles will ever return. What happens on the streets of north Tehran is not a reliable bellwether of things to come.

 

[McHrozni]

There are of course serious limits to who can run for office in Iran. But within those limits, elections are suprisingly free, and results make differences.

Only in some fields though. Internally Iran has reformed to a meaningful degree in the past 20 years, it no longer closely resembles the more recent state-wannabe of ISIS.
External policy of Iran is as rabidly bad as it was 30 years ago.

McHrozni

 

[Oystein]

Only in some fields though. Internally Iran has reformed to a meaningful degree in the past 20 years, it no longer closely resembles the more recent state-wannabe of ISIS.
External policy of Iran is as rabidly bad as it was 30 years ago.

McHrozni

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the latter, but the same can of course be said about every country and every outside power meddling in the M.E.

Iran is given influence beyond its potential (which is essentially limited to areas with large Shiite population percentages) by unrelenting, principled and violent opposition from Sunni dictators, Israel and the USA: Some Sunni extremist groups gladly accept Iranian backing and direction.

If the USA were serious about giving Democracy a chance to germinate and grow in the M.E., they would bend over backwards to seek good relations with Iran.

 

[McHrozni]

If the USA were serious about giving Democracy a chance to germinate and grow in the M.E., they would bend over backwards to seek good relations with Iran.

Maybe, but the reason why Iran has bad relations with USA is internal. Iranian political system is not built on very stable foundations, it started off as a religious nut-job state, which lasted a while, but is now wearing off. Their raison d'etre has gone the way of the Dodo, their other potential boogeyman (Saddam) assumed room temperature a decade ago and the Mules in power are out of options. They must either reform the country or ensure they are in a constant state of conflict near war, so they can explain to their population why they must be patriotic and not seek out ways to reform, or else their entire society might collapse, or something. They obviously picked the latter option because it keeps them in power.

Israel is their primary choice. It's not really out of ideology any more (though I'm sure it started off as such), but it's too small and too far to present a credible threat. USA is the next natural choice, especially since it cares about Israel. In the past few years KSA stepped up too, due to conflicts in Iraq and Yemen.

But the bottom line is, the main, perhaps even sole reason why relations between the West and Iran are so poor are because Iranian regime needs a boogeyman to keep the people in check. The only way USA can stop being that for Iran is if it becomes a second or third rate world power and Iran gets a bigger enemy at the same time and that enemy does not seek out to ally with USA.

Needless to say good relations with Iran aren't worth the first step and the second and third steps are out of US power for the most part. Not to mention this isn't any guarantee for peace, security or democracy in the Middle East.

McHrozni

 

[Minoosh]

Maybe, but the reason why Iran has bad relations with USA is internal. Iranian political system is not built on very stable foundations, it started off as a religious nut-job state, which lasted a while, but is now wearing off. Their raison d'etre has gone the way of the Dodo, their other potential boogeyman (Saddam) assumed room temperature a decade ago and the Mules in power are out of options. They must either reform the country or ensure they are in a constant state of conflict near war, so they can explain to their population why they must be patriotic and not seek out ways to reform, or else their entire society might collapse, or something. They obviously picked the latter option because it keeps them in power.

Israel is their primary choice. It's not really out of ideology any more (though I'm sure it started off as such), but it's too small and too far to present a credible threat. USA is the next natural choice, especially since it cares about Israel. In the past few years KSA stepped up too, due to conflicts in Iraq and Yemen.

Why wouldn't the U.S. be the first choice? It's been invoked a lot. Right now, though, Iran seems preoccupied with helping Assad and also fighting ISIS, I believe.

The people aren't necessarily lined up in support of the mullahs. It's a young, socially media-savvy population that wants more openness. Iran has been allied in a limited way with the U.S. for years. I'm not sure Iran goes out of its way to publish that fact domestically, but this is far from a closed society. There are or at least were satellite dishes everywhere and people are in contact with Iranians living abroad. I don't think Rouhani is saying anything that has not been cleared by the Guardian Council. So maybe there is an actual chance of widespread reform. However I've thought that since I visited in 2003, and I was wrong.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Iran and the Syrian army and the Kurds are Isis hunters, unlike Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and Turkey and America, who are not much help.

 

[Minoosh]

Iran and the Syrian army and the Kurds are Isis hunters, unlike Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and Turkey and America, who are not much help.

What I don't want to see is some big Shia-Sunni smack-down; at least no more than it already is.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What I don't want to see is some big Shia-Sunni smack-down; at least no more than it already is.

My impression has been that Sunni nations are more hostile toward Shia than conversely.

 

[TraneWreck]

Please, fellow Americans, don't do something *********** stupid that throws power back to the extreme conservatives in Iran.

Let them develop. That country wants to rejoin the world community. They have bad religious leaders holding them back, and nothing will do more to empower the radical elements than the USA launching bombs.

 

[Oystein]

Maybe, but the reason why Iran has bad relations with USA is internal. Iranian political system is not built on very stable foundations, it started off as a religious nut-job state,

Surely you jest!?
Iranian history did not start in 1979.
There were reasons why there was a revolution. Perhaps you remember.

a religious nut-job state, which lasted a while, but is now wearing off. Their raison d'etre has gone the way of the Dodo, their other potential boogeyman (Saddam) assumed room temperature a decade ago and the Mules in power are out of options. They must either reform the country or ensure they are in a constant state of conflict near war, so they can explain to their population why they must be patriotic and not seek out ways to reform, or else their entire society might collapse, or something. They obviously picked the latter option because it keeps them in power.

I don't disagree that to some power wielders inside Iran, an outside enemy is something to be cherished, and that those power wielders are neither our nor the Iranian people's friends.

Isn't this then the best possible reason to assume and keep a friendly, peaceful stance towards them and thus deny these dark forces the boogeyman they crave?
Instead, America faithfully delivers these forces the excuses they need.

In the past few years KSA stepped up too, due to conflicts in Iraq and Yemen.

Yes. Exactly.
The west ought to help Iran face the KSA threat, and not shower the Wahhabites with hundreds of billions worth of weapons.

 

[Minoosh]

We assume the power in Iran is with the mullahs but I'm not actually sure that's true. Where does power come from? And who has the guns?

 

[McHrozni]

Surely you jest!?
Iranian history did not start in 1979.
There were reasons why there was a revolution. Perhaps you remember.

Sure I do. But to say Iranian-US relations must be perpetually poisoned because USA assisted UK in a coup against a president who unconstitutionally usurped legislative power back in 1953 is just dishonest.

I don't disagree that to some power wielders inside Iran, an outside enemy is something to be cherished, and that those power wielders are neither our nor the Iranian people's friends.

Isn't this then the best possible reason to assume and keep a friendly, peaceful stance towards them and thus deny these dark forces the boogeyman they crave?
Instead, America faithfully delivers these forces the excuses they need.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other is that bending over backwards to show them their stance is ludicrous would also empower them in other ways. Do you want a nuclear-armed Iran?
Do you want that Iran to ship nuclear weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas? How about Al-Qaeda? Where do you draw the line?

Yes. Exactly.
The west ought to help Iran face the KSA threat, and not shower the Wahhabites with hundreds of billions worth of weapons.

The said Wahhabites pay for those weapons, they don't get them for free. Not that Saudi Arabia is a threat to Iran, it's too internally unstable, not to mention it has a population 1/3 that of Iran.

McHrozni

 

[TubbaBlubba]

We assume the power in Iran is with the mullahs but I'm not actually sure that's true. Where does power come from? And who has the guns?

I'm pretty sure the Revolutionary Guard alone is the source of the Supreme Leader's power.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm pretty sure the Revolutionary Guard alone is the source of the Supreme Leader's power.

Yes, but is the opposite true? Is the Supreme Leader alone the source of the Revolutionary Guard's power?

There are other factions as well. Not always obvious from the outside looking in. Hell, not always obvious from the inside, either.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes, but is the opposite true? Is the Supreme Leader alone the source of the Revolutionary Guard's power?

There are other factions as well. Not always obvious from the outside looking in. Hell, not always obvious from the inside, either.

No, I doubt it. I think the notion of keeping Iran independent from both East and West is the most important factor in legitimacy. If a military dictatorship could do that convincingly, they could rule.