Iran - a complete change?

Jonny7

Looks like Iran is in for a big change..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/iran-president-hassan-rouhani-progressive-views

He talks about accepting social media, relaxing Islamic dress code, dropping censorship, reducing propaganda - basically the complete reverse of the last 8 to 10 years

I still expect hard-ball over the nuclear issue, but a new leader usually means new opportunities in that respect

Things looking up for Iran

wes

I certainly hope that he succeeds, but at the end of the day, the President can be over ruled by the Supreme Leader. Even Ahmadinejad, couldn't get some populist reforms put through, and he came from the same conservative section of the Iran political leadership as the Ayatollah, so it will be interest to see how much the new guy achieved.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

wes wrote: »

I certainly hope that he succeeds, but at the end of the day, the President can be over ruled by the Supreme Leader.

Absolutley caorrect in that, an therin lies the problem, the democratic will of the people is fundementally undermined by the fact that most of the real political power resides with the Supreme Leader.

RichardAnd

Jonny7 wrote: »

Things looking up for Iran

Yeah, they can be just like western nations, that's awesome!

Jonny7

RichardAnd wrote: »

Yeah, they can be just like western nations, that's awesome!

Which would be a hell of an improvement over the current system.

wes

Interesting article in the Guardian, detailing some of the political going on's in Iran, before and during the recent election:

Iran: how Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's candidate lost the election


A lot of interesting stuff there, that I was unaware, and I think it goes some way to explain the background to the recent election in Iran.

BuilderPlumber

I think that Iran's people voted wisely and Hassan Rohani is the man who can bring his country together and steer it in the correct direction. Summing up Ahmadinejad's presidency as a 10 x 10 mark test, here is how he did (with predecessor Khatami in brackets):

Reform of social freedoms: 7/10 (7/10)

In favour of relaxing the Hijab and opposing other regime hardliners crackdown on repressing women, Ahmadinejad met with a stubborn opposition at all times. Still, he spoke out against it, made gestures like kissing a female ex teacher's hand, pressing for female match going rights and appointing the first women to his cabinet. He achieve some but like Khatami and Rafsanjani before him, he failed to achieve true reform here.

Avoidance of war: 10/10 (10/10)

Ahmadinejad was his own man and seemed to speak exactly what was on his mind. Still, he managed to bring Iran through 8 years without a war.

Avoidance of sanctions/other hardships: 3/10 (6/10)

He had a poor understanding here and his performance was overall too confrontational. But then again, you had Bush and co as well as the mass media antagonising him from the start.

Economic issues: 5/10 (7/10)

Again, he had a poor understanding here and his confrontational remarks cost his country's economy dear. But he genuinely tried to give money to the poor but his superiors did not want this.

Control of government: 2/10 (5/10)

Ahmadinejad was unable to bring the many diverse elements of Iran's politics together in a united way. Something he inherited from the era immediately prior to him taking over.

Self Control: 0/10 (10/10)

Said a lot of remarks better left said at night in a bar room by a drunk no one is listening to (or by Vincent Browne!!). On the international stage, these remarks showed a poor sense of self control, a novice president with little experience and a poor grasp of dialog. Remarks about the holocaust, Israel and hidden Imams were poorly timed, poorly stated and poorly planned, giving the impression of one who one night was stating this in a pub (or tea house or whatever the rich (who DO drink!!) of Iran do for social lives) to one who suddenly found himself as president of Iran (to his own surprise) and it showed BIGTIME!

Relationships with other countries: 0/10 (7/10)

Again, this was an area where Ahmadinejad proved poor at. His lack of control over what he said caused unneeded poor relationships with other nations.

Relationships with other members of the Iranian regime: 0/10 (6/10)

Ditto. He created a lot of non necessary internal enemies.

Relationship with the Iranian people: 7/10 (7/10)

He did try to engage with his people and had a loyal support base but he was unable to bring about the reform he promised.

Perception of how Iran was perceived under his rule: 0/10 (8/10)

Iran went from being an emerging normalised country to being a pariah due to a lot of issues during Ahmadinejad's era. Not all of it was his fault but his poorly drunk-like poorly thought out statements really played into the hands of the likes of George W Bush and the conservative Western media.

Overall: 34% (73%)

deserves credit for trying to reform the social lives of Iranians and to give more money to the poor. But proved weak and indecisive at times. His poorly thought through comments let him (and Iran) down bigtime. Predecessor Khatami proved more of a pro and while his attempts at reform also did not get any true backing, he was more cautious with who he made enemies of, tried to steer clear of international controversy and obviously thought through what he was to say before he said it!

Hassan Rohani will be something along the lines of Khatami is what I would think but with more genuine support from the unelected factions because reform is now vital for Iran and everyone seems to be in agreement this time around! So, hopefully happier times.

thisNthat

Deleted

Son Of A Vidic

I would say that many western war hawks, are probably most upset by the recent turn of events in Iran.

BuilderPlumber

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I would say that many western war hawks, are probably most upset by the recent turn of events in Iran.

Yes, and Israeli ones too. I always believed Ahmadinejad's rhetoric was a little too contrived to be for real. It was like someone was paying him off to act like Saddam Hussein on behalf of ??? It was also suspicious that someone in his position would start talking like Saddam in 2005 just after Bush toppled Saddam.

Rouhani is the type of president who would have been more natural in 2005 as well but Ahmadinejad was obviously some sort of Western agent planted to weaken Iran from within. His sidekick Mashaei as the follow on talked like another ex Middle East leader: Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. So, the West it seems wanted to first use 'Saddam' to weaken the regime from within and then 'Pahlavi' to take it over and crushed everyone in it!

Jonny7

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

but Ahmadinejad was obviously some sort of Western agent planted to weaken Iran from within.

Now you've blown the lid on the whole thing, better lie low for awhile

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Looks like Iran is in for a big change..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/iran-president-hassan-rouhani-progressive-views

He talks about accepting social media, relaxing Islamic dress code, dropping censorship, reducing propaganda - basically the complete reverse of the last 8 to 10 years

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Iran's president-elect has sent messages to Syria's Bashar Assad and Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group, reaffirming support for the two allies for the first time since his election.

Hassan Rohani was quoted by the official IRNA news agency on Tuesday as saying close Iranian-Syrian ties will be able to confront "enemies in the region, especially the Zionist regime,"

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.536095

Jonny7 wrote: »

I still expect hard-ball over the nuclear issue, but a new leader usually means new opportunities in that respect

That depends whether or not the West accepts "Iran's inalienable right to acquire nuclear energy"

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/17/314255/iran-nuclear-activities-irreversible/

Amirani

cyberhog wrote: »

The more things change, the more they stay the same.



http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.536095

In fairness, both Assad and Hezbollah have been elected in countries that are fairly significant Iranian trading partners and allies in the region. It would we politically silly for the new Iranian regime to shun them.

BuilderPlumber

NiallSparky wrote: »

In fairness, both Assad and Hezbollah have been elected in countries that are fairly significant Iranian trading partners and allies in the region. It would we politically silly for the new Iranian regime to shun them.

And regarding Assad, I don't see any viable alternative to him emerging that is better than him.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

That depends whether or not the West accepts "Iran's inalienable right to acquire nuclear energy"

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/17/314255/iran-nuclear-activities-irreversible/

That is state media you are quoting.

The "West" has accepted Iran's right to peaceful nuclear tech, repeatedly. The ex-administration wasn't so transparent - hence the problems.

Rouhani has pledged to be "more transparent" over its nuclear program.

Jonny7

NiallSparky wrote: »

In fairness, both Assad and Hezbollah have been elected in countries that are fairly significant Iranian trading partners and allies in the region. It would we politically silly for the new Iranian regime to shun them.

Bashar Assad was never elected in anything resembling a free or fair election. He inherited power from his father.

Amirani

Jonny7 wrote: »

Bashar Assad was never elected in anything resembling a free or fair election. He inherited power from his father.

Essentially, yeah. That doesn't really change anything though does it? It does no good to the people of Iran for their President to act differently because of it.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

That is state media you are quoting.

I know.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The "West" has accepted Iran's right to peaceful nuclear tech, repeatedly.

Apparently Iran would be happier if they had something in writing.

“Many times the US president or secretary of state have said they recognise Iran’s right to nuclear energy. So, if [they] accept this, write it down and then we use it as a basis to push forward the talks . . . What they say during the talks is different from what they say outside the talks. This is a problem.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f95e70d8-0250-11e2-8cf8-00144feabdc0.html

Rouhani has pledged to be "more transparent" over its nuclear program.

Rouhani' willingness to be more transparent is on condition that the West recognise Iran's rights.

Rouhani, speaking at his first press conference following his win in Iran’s June 14th presidential polls...signaled that Iran may be willing to offer greater transparency of its nuclear program to assure the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it wasn’t diverting material for a nuclear weapon, in exchange for having its “rights” recognized.

http://backchannel.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/06/5576/us-urged-to-mull-bigger-nuclear-offer-to-iran/

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

Apparently Iran would be happier if they had something in writing.

Or it's just another bull**** stalling tactic from Khamenei who, let's not forget, runs the show. Most Iranians don't trust him either but it's not like they have a choice in the matter.

At least this time he didn't tamper with elections, allowing a moderate to get in which opens up a few doors, but the ball it still in Iran's court - they have to convince the major powers, including their allies Russia, that their intentions are purely peaceful.

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Or it's just another bull**** stalling tactic from Khamenei who, let's not forget, runs the show. Most Iranians don't trust him either but it's not like they have a choice in the matter.

At least this time he didn't tamper with elections, allowing a moderate to get in which opens up a few doors, but the ball it still in Iran's court - they have to convince the major powers, including their allies Russia, that their intentions are purely peaceful.

Khamenei's principal tactic is survival and has warded off threats from various internal and external enemies for decades. In the 1997-2004 period, reformists proved to be the greatest threat so thus the rise of Abadgaran and Ahmadinejad in 2004 and 2005. When Ahmadinejad proved himself to be a threat to Khamenei in 2011, Khamenei withdrew support for him too and began to recognise that there was a huge threat from a nationalist non-cleric movement that was routed both within elements of the Revolutionary Guards and in non-cleric politicians like Ahmadinejad, Mashaei, etc.

Khamenei is also well aware that a rigged candidate forced onto his people would hasten the end of his regime. So, a moderate stance would both buy him time, allow him to remain in power, do a deal with the West and placate the people (he can then pin all the blame on Ahmadinejad and save face as Iran's wise and moderate supreme leader: much like how Hirohito got out of WW2 unscathed).

Rouhani is exactly the man who Khamenei needs: he is a moderate who can placate the people, deal with the West maturely, mend Iran's internal divisions (he enjoys a good relationship with Khamenei as well as the reformists and Rafsanjani/Khatami) and also he is a cleric (who can enhance the image of clerics thus diluting the power of upshot ex-military men in politics). Everyone assumed that maybe the hardline Jalili or the more moderate Qalibaf would get elected but in both these, Khamenei would have faced rigging another election, alienating 51% of his people and ending up with another Ahmadinejad type openly defying him in 4 or 5 years time!

Whatever else he is, Khamenei is very clever. God works in strange ways, and so does Khamenei (god's representative on earth)!

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Or it's just another bull**** stalling tactic from Khamenei

You can't blame Iran for stalling if the West won't put it in writing.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

You can't blame Iran for stalling if the West won't put it in writing.

The ball is in Iran's park - and it's not the "West", it's the world they need to convince.

SuperInfinity

Jonny7 wrote: »

The ball is in Iran's park - and it's not the "West", it's the world they need to convince.

How the hell is the ball in their park? Ahmadinejad never made any aggressive military stances against the US or threatened anything against Israel ever, meanwhile the US were doing it constantly against Iran, threatening to invade every few months for a while. The only reason the US don't like Ahmadinejad is because of his economic stances that were against US interests and if you don't see that my friend you are a fool.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

The ball is in Iran's park - and it's not the "West", it's the world they need to convince.

Iran is prepared to do more to convince the West that is why Rouhani is offering the West greater transparency of the nuclear program but first he wants Obama to recognise Irans rights. If the West ignores Rouhani's request you cannot then just say the ball is back in Iran's court. If the West genuinely want talks to move forward then they have to recognise Irans "rights". It's as simple as that.

Jonny7

Anyway once we can manage to step past the usual excuses and scapegoats we see that Rouhani is kick-starting talks with all five UN members + Germany in early August. The rial is rebounding, the hardliners are not interfering yet, in fact they are being oddly accommodating, amazingly there's an actual potential for optimism.

old_aussie

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I would say that many western war hawks, are probably most upset by the recent turn of events in Iran.

Not so much now that saudi Arabis has stepped up to the plate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/10173776/Saudi-Arabia-throws-down-a-gauntlet-by-targeting-missiles-at-Iran-and-Israel.html

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Anyway once we can manage to step past the usual excuses and scapegoats we see that Rouhani is kick-starting talks with all five UN members + Germany in early August.

Nothing will come of the P5+1 talks until the West officially recognise Iran's NPT rights.

Iran's Foreign Policy: No Substantial Change With Rouhani


If Rouhani is hailed for his moderation and desire to soften relations with the West, he remains, nonetheless, deeply tied to the religious conservative establishment.

His victory is partly due to his clerical background, which appeals to many religious Iranians. During his campaign, the president-elect was very careful not to cross the red-lines of the conservative establishment, notably regarding the Iranian nuclear programme.

[Rouhani] has already formally announced he would not stop Iran's nuclear programme. He declared that “sanctions tools are backwardness tools” and called for the official recognition of “the Iranian nation's rights, including the nuclear right.” For some experts, if Rouhani has been allowed to run for presidency, it is precisely because he is intending to — and capable of — accelerating Iran's nuclear programme.

Ultimately, the election of Rouhani has raised many expectations. Some of them will probably not be met.

http://www.fairobserver.com/article/iran-foreign-policy-no-substantial-change-rouhani

No matter who becomes President, Khamenei will always have the last word. And as far as the nuclear issue goes Khamenei maintains that the West need to change their attitude in order for talks to move forward.

Khamenei: Nuclear Issue Solvable if US Ends ‘Stubbornness’

In his speech to members of the judiciary yesterday, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei addressed Iran’s elections, the need to help president-elect Hassan Rouhani and Iran’s nuclear file with the West.

In regard to negotiations with the West, Khamenei said, “Several countries have formed an opposition front to Iran and they lie to the international community. Through stubbornness they want to solve the nuclear issue. But if they put aside their stubbornness, solving the nuclear issue is simple and easy.”

Khamenei continued, “Many times, the nuclear issue had progressed to the point of being solved, but the Americans brought in a new excuse.”

Khamenei said, “The Islamic Republic has operated legally and transparently in regard to the nuclear issue. And we have a strong rationale for it. But the goal of the enemy is the continuation of pressure, to wear out the nation and regime change. Therefore, they will not let the issue be resolved.” He continued, “Of course, the enemy in private conversations and letters say that they don’t want regime change, but the way they act is contrary to what they say.”

“For them,” Khamenei said in reference to Iran’s enemies, “the nuclear case, human rights, democracy or anything else don’t matter to them. They want to stop the progress of the nation and are after a renewed domination of our dear Iran. But the Islamic Republic, with power and independence, with reliance on the people and trust in God, will stand and defend the interests of Iran.”

http://iranpulse.al-monitor.com/index.php/2013/06/2293/khamenei-nuclear-issue-solvable-if-us-ends-stubbornness/

So there you have it. Until the West change their attitude don't expect to see a breakthrough at the P5+1 talks.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

Nothing will come of the P5+1 talks until the West officially recognise Iran's NPT rights.

Change the record

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Change the record

I don't see what your problem is. Many people including close allies of the US use that term when speaking about the countries on the opposing side to Iran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commented on the upcoming talks, saying that "the Western powers must not reveal any weakness while dealing with Iran, and must not cave in on any aspect of its nuclear program.”

“The west is bowing down to Iran, and at the same time the chief of staff of Iranian military chief is revealing Iran’s true intentions, as he calls for the destruction of Israel,” said one official, on condition of anonymity.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-slams-western-powers-for-bowing-down-to-iran-on-nuclear-program-1.431783

So may I suggest you lighten up on the language and not be so cynical.

Jonny7

Semantics aside, Russia and China are partaking in Iran sanctions. Iran is very isolated on this issue.

Will be interesting to see how the talks go.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Semantics aside, Russia and China are partaking in Iran sanctions. Iran is very isolated on this issue.

@Jonny

I don't think you quite understand Russia's position on sanctions. Unlike the West Russia has never supported imposing sanctions that would create economic hardship for Iran, or lead to regime change. Russia was only on board with sanctions that might change Iran's behaviour not punish its people.

In fact, Russia now wants the West to ease sanctions.

Iran is ready to halt the most advanced stage of its nuclear programme, a sign of goodwill that should persuade the West to relax sanctions against the country, Russia’s Foreign Minister said yesterday.

Sergei Lavrov said that “for the first time in many years” there are encouraging signs of progress in the international stand-off over Iran’s developing nuclear strength.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3794381.ece