• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Iran elects reformer?

ANTPogo said:
This is a pretty thorough explanation. In short, Ahmadinejad is a hardline conservative, but also an ambitious and independent-minded one. He basically wanted to do things his own way, instead of being Khamenei's catspaw, and there was a bit of a struggle over whose supporters got to be placed in important government positions. There were also rumors that there was more of a theological rift as well, since Khameni is an old-school Veliyatist Usuli Twelver Shia Muslim closely adhering the Islam of his mentor Khomeini, while Ahmadinejad is purportedly a member of a suppressed anti-Veliyatist vaguely-heretical apocalyptic/messianic offshoot sect of Twelver Shia Islam called the Hojjatieh.

Anyway, Foreign Affairs has a piece up about why Khamenei let Rohani win.
Click to expand...

Motshakkram.
 
Minoosh said:
Sounds whacked but I wouldn't automatically judge it by Western standards. It sounds like an excuse to harass the Ahmadinejad camp. There were arrests within his cohort; I don't know what became of them.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what it was. It was part of the power struggle between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.
 
I´ve spoken to an Iranian dissident today - a Iranian exile dissident, I should say, a veteran of Teheran´s Evin prison.

He seemed just as surprised as everyone else to see Rohani win, but while he said that now there was some hope, he advised caution until we could see what cabinet Rohani picked - i.e. which camp, hardliner or reformist, the ministers fell into. He said it was possible that this might be a trap, designed to make the domestic opposition become overconfident, make them stick their heads out, only for the hardliners to then chop off said heads, figuratively or literally.
 
Foreign affairs
It is therefore possible to imagine that Khamenei’s unexpected munificence, including his last-minute appeal for every Iranian -- even those who don’t support the Islamic Republic -- to vote, was planned.
Click to expand...

It seemed that way to me.

Thanks for the link.
 
Given that the Iranian elections are a dog and pony show for foreign consumption and the president is a powerless figurehead I doubt this "moderate" is going to reform anything.
 
Virus said:
Given that the Iranian elections are a dog and pony show for foreign consumption and the president is a powerless figurehead I doubt this "moderate" is going to reform anything.
Click to expand...

Not by his lonesome, but IMO the fact of his win indicates things are happening behind the scenes. He has public opinion behind him and it - potentially - matters.

The elections are for domestic consumption as well.
 
Even with reforms, what are the chances the Israel-first warmongers in the West cease their push for conflict with Iran?
 
Tony said:
Even with reforms, what are the chances the Israel-first warmongers in the West cease their push for conflict with Iran?
Click to expand...

Well with Ahmadinejad gone at least he won't double-dog-dare Israel to attack so that Iran can retaliate.

I think the Iraq experience was humbling for the U.S. "Liberating" a country doesn't sound so appealing anymore, IMO.

dudalb said:
Well, if Iran stops threatenng to destroy Israel..........
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, and I truly don't know what it's worth:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century-fabricated-by-the-us-media-to-justify-an-all-out-war-on-iran/21188

It claims the "wiped off the map" phrase is a misquote of a misquote. Having been in media for a long time, I totally believe that can happen.

From Global Research
Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase ”rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods” (regime occupying Jerusalem).
Click to expand...

He also didn't use the Farsi equivalent of the word "map."

Maybe someone here can help me out. I don't know why Iran gives a damn about Israel. IMO it's just an excuse to keep a guerrilla army up and running, legitimized by the sympathy Iranians have for fellow Shia.

At some point what I remember as a territorial conflict morphed into a conflict over God's will, ensuring it would never be resolved. And one of the things that stumps me is that Iran has as much of a conflict (or more) with Sunni Islam/Arabs as it does with Judaism/Israel/Zionism. Being anti-Israel gives Hamas and Hezbollah common cause - they don't want to destroy it, they need it. Now these groups are at odds over Syria. It's a mess.

I would really like Iran to stop the warlike rhetoric re: Israel, because all it does is give the West anti-Iran ammunition. I don't think I'll miss Mahmoud.
 
dudalb said:
Well, if Iran stops threatenng to destroy Israel..........
Click to expand...

My fault for not being explicit, but that is part of what I meant.

Minoosh said:
I think the Iraq experience was humbling for the U.S. "Liberating" a country doesn't sound so appealing anymore, IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I don't think the American people would be very willing to "liberate" Iran. But I also don't think the American people are all that relevant to the decision. All it will take is for the warmongers to drone on and on about the Great Iranian Threat while demonizing dissenters and a large segment of the public (mostly the drooling idiots that are the conservatives) will fall in line. I hope I am wrong.
 
What "reformer" means looks to be vague.

As noted, wait and see. No need to rush to judgment.
 
Tony said:
But I also don't think the American people are all that relevant to the decision. All it will take is for the warmongers to drone on and on about the Great Iranian Threat while demonizing dissenters and a large segment of the public (mostly the drooling idiots that are the conservatives) will fall in line. I hope I am wrong.
Click to expand...

It hasn't happened yet and IMO the moment has passed. Also IMO caricatures aren't doing us any good. I'm sure I could be written off being in the "join hands and sing 'Kumbaya' camp" when it comes to arguing against military intervention in Iran. I'd like to think my objections are more practical than that and I could elucidate them but it probably boils down to emotions with me as well. On the half-rational side I'd say, unless we're prepared to occupy the entire Middle East forever we need to pick our battles damn carefully.
 
angrysoba said:
However, the dog that didn't bark was the fact that we heard almost nothing about him in his second term.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think. For whatever reason the IRI muzzled Mahmoud. That fact was, to me, more revealing than anything he had to say.

Maybe I will miss the twerp. I was very struck, even moved, by a photograph of him hugging Hugo Chavez's mother. Such a human and IMO universal response to the grief they shared.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ahmadinejad-image-hug-chavez-mother-photoshop-133036230.html

Ahmadinejad drew flak for that in Iran because it had become politically permissible to criticize him. Some news outlets doctored the photo to rehabilitate Mahmoud's image; others criticized him for unseemly, un-Islamic behavior. It almost made me like him. Not quite. But, in my limited experience such spontaneous displays are typically Iranian, and truer to the culture than all the sword-rattling belligerence the IRI is so eager to profess.
 
Minoosh said:
For what it's worth, and I truly don't know what it's worth:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century-fabricated-by-the-us-media-to-justify-an-all-out-war-on-iran/21188

It claims the "wiped off the map" phrase is a misquote of a misquote. Having been in media for a long time, I totally believe that can happen.

He also didn't use the Farsi equivalent of the word "map."
Click to expand...

I would be really, really hesitant about relying on anything posted at globalresearch.ca. They're a pretty anti-Semitic conspiraloon site, running articles about things like how Turkey's Islamist prime minister is a secret Zionist working to advance the goal of Israel's regional hegemony, along with a massive slew of 9/11 Truther articles.

Here's a New York Times article about Ahmedinejad's quote and its translation that's a lot more balanced and trustworthy.

Maybe someone here can help me out. I don't know why Iran gives a damn about Israel. IMO it's just an excuse to keep a guerrilla army up and running, legitimized by the sympathy Iranians have for fellow Shia.

At some point what I remember as a territorial conflict morphed into a conflict over God's will, ensuring it would never be resolved. And one of the things that stumps me is that Iran has as much of a conflict (or more) with Sunni Islam/Arabs as it does with Judaism/Israel/Zionism. Being anti-Israel gives Hamas and Hezbollah common cause - they don't want to destroy it, they need it. Now these groups are at odds over Syria. It's a mess.

I would really like Iran to stop the warlike rhetoric re: Israel, because all it does is give the West anti-Iran ammunition. I don't think I'll miss Mahmoud.
Click to expand...

Here's what I think, at least.

Iran has had a streak of virulent anti-Semitism born out of nationalist sentiment since at least the 19th Century - Aryanism was a thing that appealed to certain Persian Iranians long before the Nazis grabbed hold of it. This seems to have combined with the sense of ethnoreligious supremacy many Shia Persians feel towards Sunni Arabs, resulting in Iran's intense antagonism towards Israel being partly fueled by old-school Aryanism, and partly fueled by the desire to get out in front of the Sunni Arab leadership when it comes to claiming legitimacy and leadership in the Islamic world by being more against Israel and pro-Palestinian than even the Sunni Arab countries that border Israel.
 
ANTPogo said:
This seems to have combined with the sense of ethnoreligious supremacy many Shia Persians feel towards Sunni Arabs, resulting in Iran's intense antagonism towards Israel being partly fueled by old-school Aryanism, and partly fueled by the desire to get out in front of the Sunni Arab leadership when it comes to claiming legitimacy and leadership in the Islamic world by being more against Israel and pro-Palestinian than even the Sunni Arab countries that border Israel.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the NYT Times link and others. The linguistic issues are the same spelled out on the dodgy Global Research site.

I never thought Ahmadinejad was serious about Holocaust denial - he is not, IMO, stupid. (He also said if it happened, the Jews should have been given Germany.) Threats of genocide are never funny, but to put it in perspective, Israel actually has the firepower to wipe Iran off the map. Iran has no such capability as far as I know. Ahmadinejad appealed to a group somewhat like America's evangelical Christians - embracing an apocalyptic view of the Middle East that will bring on the second coming of a Messiah figure.

It is my fervent hope that cooler heads will prevail.
 
Is it possible that the reformists and mullahs both are afraid of the Revolutionary Guard and affiliated militias?

That came up in my reading of the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei conflict link provided by ANTPogo.

Rohani made a somewhat veiled remark (in Isfahan) about reducing harassment from "plainclothes people" (basij, muscle that combats protests and enforces dress codes).

And the bazaari - provincial retail interests? Could they tip the balance in wanting increased openness, hence more tourism?

Pardon my obsession with deciphering signs from Iran. Except for the presumed all-powerful Supreme Leader post, the influences of behind-the-scenes power are fairly opaque. If things line up a certain way, the time indeed could be ripe for serious, systemic reform. But I felt that way during Khatami's presidency as well.
 
Daily Mail cow on BBC last night said Iran should be "neutralised" She is a particularly nasty piece of work. Many here would love her.
 
ANTPogo said:
Anyway, Foreign Affairs has a piece up about why Khamenei let Rohani win.
Click to expand...
The election of Rouhani, a centrist cleric who has been close to Iran’s apex of power since the 1979 revolution, is an improbably auspicious end to the Ahmadinejad era. Rouhani is a blunt pragmatist with plenty of experience maneuvering within Iran’s theocratic system.
Click to expand...
Reformer does not leap to my mind when I read that description.
Minoosh said:
Is it possible that the reformists and mullahs both are afraid of the Revolutionary Guard and affiliated militias?
Click to expand...
One vote of "yes" from here.
 
Iranian President-Elect Linked to 1994 Terror Attack on Buenos Aires Jewish Center

Only seen the one article where Rouhani was linked to the terror attack in Argentina, but several regarding suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations in the last couple decades.

Has his presentation in various media outlets as a 'moderate' run its course yet? Is disagreeing with Khomeini's book about an Islamic government really make one a moderate in Iran?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom