Iran elects reformer?

[geni]

Iranian President-Elect Linked to 1994 Terror Attack on Buenos Aires Jewish Center

I'm sorry this thread is about Iranian politics. Your bleeding heart liberal sensibilities simply aren't relevant here.

Is disagreeing with Khomeini's book about an Islamic government really make one a moderate in Iran?

It means that you are more likely to be someone the west can deal with. Perhaps you fail to understand the geopolitical situation.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I'm sorry this thread is about Iranian politics. Your bleeding heart liberal sensibilities simply aren't relevant here.

It means that you are more likely to be someone the west can deal with. Perhaps you fail to understand the geopolitical situation.

Then in your infinite wisdom, point out where this isn't related to Iranian politics.

Ah, so the west hasn't dealt with religious fanatics/conservatives before.

Double facepalm much?

 

[Virus]

It means that you are more likely to be someone the west can deal with. Perhaps you fail to understand the geopolitical situation.

He boasts about duping Western suckers during negotiations;

More than once Rouhani admits that Iran’s strategy was to buy time and thereby to create a new reality on the ground. More than once he reiterates the view that Iran was willing to make concessions—such as the temporary suspension of enrichment activities—only if it would not delay their overall goal of achieving a full fuel cycle and of advancing the other relevant technologies (such as building more sophisticated centrifuges).”

The idea the he's a moderate is just as delusional as believing the region's problems would go away if the Palestinians were given a corrupt Arab dictatorship.

 

[A'isha]

He boasts about duping Western suckers during negotiations;



The idea the he's a moderate is just as delusional as believing the region's problems would go away if the Palestinians were given a corrupt Arab dictatorship.

Rouhani is certainly no reformist, as I said above, but the article you link to doesn't exactly say what you seem to think it says. Here's the rest of that paragraph:

He makes it clear that even Russia and China, Iran’s two most stalwart allies, advised the Iranians to accept the Additional Protocol, which allows for more rigorous oversight of a country’s nuclear program by the IAEA (something more than 130 countries have already done), and to continue the suspension of uranium until all problems with the international community are solved. And more than once Rouhani bitterly if often obliquely refers to “domestic factions” in Iran that torpedoed negotiations because “neither of the two main fdactions was willing to see the resolution of the country’s main problems by the other faction and in their own absence.”

He's a lot more moderate than Ahmadinejad and Khamenei's favored candidates (not that that's a particularly high bar to leap across), and got booted from his position as nuclear negotiator due to clashes over the negotiations with Ahmadinejad.

 

[geni]

Then in your infinite wisdom, point out where this isn't related to Iranian politics.

Its more that the only people who really care about a few 10s of deaths in south America (outside of south america anyway) are the sandal wearing hippies who will find so many other problems with Iran that is a bit hard to have much in the way of a debate.

Ah, so the west hasn't dealt with religious fanatics/conservatives before.

Of course it has. Iran–Contra for example. It was Ahmadinejad's particular brand of radicalism that was the problem.

 

[Minoosh]

He boasts about duping Western suckers during negotiations;

He does nothing of the sort. But thanks for the link.

ETA: A negotiator admits that buying time was a strategy? ANTPogo above is being much more charitable than I about your reading of this.

The idea the he's a moderate is just as delusional as believing the region's problems would go away if the Palestinians were given a corrupt Arab dictatorship.

This just sounds racist. Any Arab government would be a corrupt dictatorship - is that your contention?

And you're creating a straw man. Who says the region's problems would go away if the Palestinians were "given" a corrupt regime?

IMO a Palestinian state might undermine the credibility and/or influence of non-state players.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This just sounds racist. Any Arab government would be a corrupt dictatorship - is that your contention?

Just to keep the ball in play here ... can you give an example of one that isn't?

 

[Minoosh]

Just to keep the ball in play here ... can you give an example of one that isn't?

Not really. There were regimes that I thought were relatively better than others, including Tunisia, but it wasn't a democracy.

But I think that's more a result of history than any genetic disposition. Israel was populated largely by Eastern Europeans who knew what to do to form a state - Arabs did not have that kind of cohesiveness.

Iran would have a better shot than the Arab nations, IMO. For one thing it has been a nation for a long time, and it actually has robust democratic structures. People can get out and vote. There were calls to boycott this election, but it didn't happen. Even though people knew the regime could muzzle any real reform, they wanted their say.

Rohani seems like a conciliatory presence, but you never know.

 

[Minoosh]

Just to keep the ball in play here ... can you give an example of one that isn't?

And ... you could say that about a lot of places - robust democracy is an intermittent phenomenon in our world.

 

[Puppycow]

Iran's president calls for 'constructive' dialogue, end to 'unhealthy' rivalries

Whatever else he may be, his rhetoric at the UN stands in sharp contrast to Ahmadinejad's.

(CNN) -- Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made his case Thursday to the American people and the world for "a constructive approach" to contentious issues including his nation's nuclear program, arguing that failing to engage "leads to everyone's loss."

"We must work together to end the unhealthy rivalries and interferences that fuel violence and drive us apart," Rouhani said in an op-ed published Thursday evening on the Washington Post's website.

Last year's UN speech by Ahmadinejad:
Ahmadinejad's Speech At UN Claims Iran Under Threat From 'Uncivilized Zionists'

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Wednesday his country was under constant threat of military action from "uncivilized Zionists" and called for a new world order not dominated by Western powers in the service of "the devil."

In his eighth address to the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering of world leaders, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad painted a gloomy picture of a world driven by greed rather than moral values.

"The current abysmal situation of the world and the bitter incidents of history are due mainly to the wrong management of the world and the self-proclaimed centers of power who have entrusted themselves to the devil," Ahmadinejad said, in what is expected to be his last address to the world body.

There was no reiteration of his comments to journalists in New York on Monday that Israel has no roots in the Middle East and would be "eliminated."

However, in a clear reference to Israel, he told the assembly: "Continued threat by the uncivilized Zionists to resort to military action against our great nation is a clear example of this bitter reality."

Does it matter though? At the end of the day, does the president of Iran have any real power, or is it the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard that decide foreign policy? Is it worth engaging with him if he is only a figurehead?

 

[dudalb]

In this case talking never hurts,but we have been down this road before. Iran makes noises about becoming more moderate;the hard line ayllatolahs get angry and the whole thing falls apart.
When it comes to Iran actually wanting to change it ways I;m From Missouri and you have to show me.
And Nukes is not the only question;there is Iran's support of groups like Hezbollah which it will have to drop before I buy it is serious about becoming more moderate.

 

[Childlike Empress]

After the Rouhani week and that telephone call, a new poll finds that only a fifth of Americans are opposed to direct negotiations and three quarters in favour of them. Join the WAVE!

 

[Toontown]

Yeeha. I am so very hopeful that a new day has dawned.

That said, sure. Let's see what the wool-pullers have to say this time. If nothing else, we can gauge how close they are to making that final run at The Bomb by how demurely they bat their eyelashes.

 

[a_unique_person]

In this case talking never hurts,but we have been down this road before. Iran makes noises about becoming more moderate;the hard line ayllatolahs get angry and the whole thing falls apart.
When it comes to Iran actually wanting to change it ways I;m From Missouri and you have to show me.
And Nukes is not the only question;there is Iran's support of groups like Hezbollah which it will have to drop before I buy it is serious about becoming more moderate.

you have to give him something he can sell to the populous. most of them hate the extremists who only stay in power with brute force and vote rigging. with a big enough wave of popular sentiment, the extremists will fall.

 

[Mycroft]

you have to give him something he can sell to the populous. most of them hate the extremists who only stay in power with brute force and vote rigging. with a big enough wave of popular sentiment, the extremists will fall.

I'm trying to parse this so the first part of your statement doesn't contradict the last, and it doesn't seem to work.