nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Iranian election

Jonny7

The most moderate candidate Rouhani currently miles ahead of everyone else, he could even just take it in the first round

Marks a change from 2009 so far

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Nodin

Settled fairly quickly.

Moderate cleric Hassan Rouhani is the president elect, the Interior ministry
announced.

The ministry said on Saturday that he won Iran's presidential election with
more than 18 million of the votes

His closest rival, Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf,
garnered six million votes.

It was a high turnout and 72 percent of people who were eligible to vote did
so.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361515523982232.html

Hard to tell if it will make any difference though, given the nature of the state.

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

Settled fairly quickly.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/06/201361515523982232.html

Hard to tell if it will make any difference though, given the nature of the state.

It can only help though.

WakeUp

Rouhani was the most moderate candidate alright though I dont think myself the West is going to have an easier time of it on the subject of Irans nuclear program which I would imagine is top of the list for most when viewing the result of this election. Rouhani was their leading nuclear negotiator for a number of years there probably isnt another politician in Iran who knows more about their nuclear program and what it entails than he does. Time will tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Nuclear_Diplomacy

AlmightyCushion

WakeUp wrote: »

Rouhani was the most moderate candidate alright though I dont think myself the West is going to have an easier time of it on the subject of Irans nuclear program which I would imagine is top of the list for most when viewing the result of this election. Rouhani was their leading nuclear negotiator for a number of years there probably isnt another politician in Iran who knows more about their nuclear program and what it entails than he does. Time will tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Nuclear_Diplomacy

According to RTE the ayatola calls all the shots on the important stuff like their nuclear program. If so, it doesn't really matter who the president is. Still it's should be some improvement at least.

WakeUp

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

According to RTE the ayatola calls all the shots on the important stuff like their nuclear program. If so, it doesn't really matter who the president is. Still it's should be some improvement at least.

True, ultimately all foreign policy decisions diplomatic and nuclear are Khameneis to make. As was the case with Ahmadinejad though, Iranian presidents set the tone for the country and I think that always matters. I dont expect Irans confrontational stance or negotiating position on their nuclear program to change at all I would expect more of the same. Rowhani isnt going to be a "moderate" influence or be one to suggest/advise a change in strategy that would soften their stance in any way I would think.

wasper

WakeUp wrote: »

Rouhani was the most moderate candidate alright though I dont think myself the West is going to have an easier time of it on the subject of Irans nuclear program which I would imagine is top of the list for most when viewing the result of this election. Rouhani was their leading nuclear negotiator for a number of years there probably isnt another politician in Iran who knows more about their nuclear program and what it entails than he does. Time will tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_and_Nuclear_Diplomacy

Whatever type the regime in Iran, it will not budge on the nuclear issue. It's a matter of national pride.

Seaneh

They won't budge on the nuclear issue because as far as they are concerned they are not breaking any treaties and have no desire to build a nuclear weapon, with the Ayatollah going as far as calling nuclear weapons un-islamic and against the teachings of islam.

Jonny7

Yup, that's what Pakistan claimed too. Russians and Chinese aren't so convinced. Actually few are.

No one trusts the old guard on the issue, not even the Iranians themselves. We'll see how it goes with Rouhani, perhaps he can break the deadlock.

Iwasfrozen

Seaneh wrote: »

They won't budge on the nuclear issue because as far as they are concerned they are not breaking any treaties and have no desire to build a nuclear weapon, with the Ayatollah going as far as calling nuclear weapons un-islamic and against the teachings of islam.

Do you trust him? I don't. If domestic power plants are all they want why don't they ask the Americans or Russians to build them some?

wes

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yup, that's what Pakistan claimed too.

They did? You have a link for that?

Pakistan has nuclear weapons due to India having them. The situation with Pakistan is not comparable to Iran at all. The Pakistani military is obsessed with India, and see them as an existential threat to there country. Completely different ball game altogether imho.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you trust him? I don't. If domestic power plants are all they want why don't they ask the Americans or Russians to build them some?

Why should they? They have every right under the NPT to pursue Nuclear power. If Iran aren't allowed to pursue a peaceful Nuclear program, then then the NPT is worthless, and if the NPT is worthless, then why should anyone stay signed up to it, if there not allowed to pursue a peaceful program.

Now if they aren't pursuing a peaceful program, then that is a completely different story, but to suggest that wanting to pursue there own program is some how proof of wrong doing is no proof of any wrong doing at all. IMHO, your argument here is a poor one.

As for the elections Ahmadinejad was hugely polarizing figure, and the man came off like a really badly a lot of the time, which was of course his own fault. I would like to point out that the Iranian Presidencies importance was certainly exaggerated during his tenure, and if the new guy is a lot more reasonable and everything I have read about him so far would suggest as much, and they I suspect the Iranian presidency importance will no longer be so exaggerated.

Cody Pomeray

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

According to RTE the ayatola calls all the shots on the important stuff like their nuclear program.

Anyone interested in the real distribution of political power should read "Who Rules Iran" by Wilfried Buchta. I had a hard time even getting it in a college library here, but I presume it is available on kindle or equivalent by now.

Buchta presents the vision of an all-important Supreme Leader as simplistic and perhaps designed to convey a symbol of unity abroad.

Personally I suspect this interpretation of a weak Executive and parliament has been perpetuated by those who have been sensitive to demonization of Iran under Ahmadinejad, and sought to downplay Ahmadinejad's influence over foreign policy and the nuclear programme in contrast with an apparently milder Ayatollah.

In fact, there has always been a substantial power vested in the legislature and the Executive.

Although I think much of the image of Ahmadinejad was a bad mixture of media hype and his own self-promotion. Hopefully the new Presidency will provide Iran with a stable platform from which to re-launch its image abroad, and facilitate a more grown-up discussion on its nuclear program.

Karl Stein

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

facilitate a more grown-up discussion on its nuclear program.

That won't be allowed to happen in my estimation. If there was a grown-up discussion to be had then Israeli nukes would be on the agenda and they're simply not up for discussion*.

*Despite the majority of Israelis being supportive of a nuclear free region even if it meant giving up their own nukes.

biko

Hopefully this will be better for the people of Iran but at the end of the day the Supreme Leader calls the shots.

Rightwing

I haven't heard anyone say the elections are 'rigged' now. Yet, if the other chap won, they'd have been sure to have been 'rigged'.

Raises an interesting question.

biko

Perhaps but since there are no protests it seems the masses agree with the result this time.

Cody Pomeray

Rightwing wrote: »

I haven't heard anyone say the elections are 'rigged' now. Yet, if the other chap won, they'd have been sure to have been 'rigged'.

Raises an interesting question.

What's the interesting question it raises? The only question I can perceive is "does poltical bias exist?" Obviously the answer to that is yes, that's not a very interesting or illuminating idea.

Although a pro-democracy, pro-moderation bias exists, the mere possibility of an election being rigged always requires evidence over vacant conjecture, no matter who is proposing it.

syklops

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

According to RTE the ayatola calls all the shots on the important stuff like their nuclear program. If so, it doesn't really matter who the president is. Still it's should be some improvement at least.

Then RTE are wrong(again). Ahmadinejad was the one pushing for nuclear proliferation, which pissed off the west and the east.

Its a bitter irony, that Iran elects a moderate at the same time that Turkey descends into chaos.

Rightwing

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What's the interesting question it raises? The only question I can perceive is "does poltical bias exist?" Obviously the answer to that is yes, that's not a very interesting or illuminating idea.

Although a pro-democracy, pro-moderation bias exists, the mere possibility of an election being rigged always requires evidence over vacant conjecture, no matter who is proposing it.

If the results go the way the West wants, elections are ok.

If the results don't go their way, they are 'rigged'. And all of a sudden we have a 'terrorist nation' on our hands, or an 'axis of evil'.

So the question is, is the West little more than a propaganda shop, that only the limited and uninitiated buy into (admittedly that's the majority).

syklops

Rightwing wrote: »

If the results go the way the West wants, elections are ok.

If the results don't go their way, they are 'rigged'. And all of a sudden we have a 'terrorist nation' on our hands, or an 'axis of evil'.

So the question is, is the West little more than a propaganda shop, that only the limited and uninitiated buy into (admittedly that's the majority).

Says a poster called "Rightwing"

Cody Pomeray

Rightwing wrote: »

If the results go the way the West wants, elections are ok.

If the results don't go their way, they are 'rigged'.

You're just repeating yourself. It's commonly acknowledged that a bias exists, i.e. people are naturally drawn to non-belligerent peacemakers.

However, regardless of this bias, any actual allegation of rigging has to be proven, whether that allegation is made against belligerents or moderates. Do you want to establish something or what's your actual point?

Rightwing

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You're just repeating yourself. It's commonly acknowledged that a bias exists, i.e. people are naturally drawn to non-belligerent peacemakers.

However, regardless of this bias, any actual allegation of rigging has to be proven, whether that allegation is made against belligerents or moderates. Do you want to establish something or what's your actual point?

i didn't know there was a difference between a 'point' and an 'actual point'.

Maybe you can enlighten me.

Cody Pomeray

Of course I can enlighten you. Individual points are the various facets of a particular argument. The "actual point" is the gist, or the bottom line.

So?? What's your actual point?

trouttrout

Rightwing wrote: »

If the results go the way the West wants, elections are ok.

If the results don't go their way, they are 'rigged'. And all of a sudden we have a 'terrorist nation' on our hands, or an 'axis of evil'.

So the question is, is the West little more than a propaganda shop, that only the limited and uninitiated buy into (admittedly that's the majority).

You're raving . You're basically saying that any supposed rigged election is nothing more than the West picking and choosing what elections are rigged

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Perhaps but since there are no protests it seems the masses agree with the result this time.

...or that the more liberal urban vote are satisfied with the result.

WakeUp

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Anyone interested in the real distribution of political power should read "Who Rules Iran" by Wilfried Buchta. I had a hard time even getting it in a college library here, but I presume it is available on kindle or equivalent by now.

Buchta presents the vision of an all-important Supreme Leader as simplistic and perhaps designed to convey a symbol of unity abroad.

Personally I suspect this interpretation of a weak Executive and parliament has been perpetuated by those who have been sensitive to demonization of Iran under Ahmadinejad, and sought to downplay Ahmadinejad's influence over foreign policy and the nuclear programme in contrast with an apparently milder Ayatollah.

In fact, there has always been a substantial power vested in the legislature and the Executive.

Although I think much of the image of Ahmadinejad was a bad mixture of media hype and his own self-promotion. Hopefully the new Presidency will provide Iran with a stable platform from which to re-launch its image abroad, and facilitate a more grown-up discussion on its nuclear program.

That would be the hope. If he manages to carry through with the reforms at home he has said he would undertake part of their image may be re-launched abroad. Rowhanis first news conference he has pretty much ruled out halting uranium enrichment. Although he says Iran is prepared to be more "transparent" it remains to be seen what he means by that. Where as I dont think he will be as crass and blusterful as his predecessor was, he will be more tactful , their posture will remain as it is unless the West remove pre-conditions in any future negotiations.

"Threats and sanctions are not effective"

"The sanctions are unfair, the Iranian people are suffering, and our (nuclear) activities are legal. These sanctions are illegal and only benefit Israel"
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/irans-president-elect-rowhani-warns-against-foreign-intervention-in-syria.aspx?pageID=238&nid=48967&NewsCatID=352

BuilderPlumber

I wish the Iranian people and the new president all the best. Now, hopefully we can see normalising of relations between Iran and the West. But we also need a moderate policy coming from the West as well as from Iran.

Rather unfortunately, it was the West who made Iranian politics hardline. Up until 2002, Iran and the West were becoming friends with a moderate government in Iran reaching out to America. Then, Bush comes out with his Axis of Evil speech and kills off any new thawing of animosities. From then on, the then president (Khatami) was less open to the West and the West had once again ignored a desired chance to improve relations initiated by Iran. Likewise, 13 years before president Rafsanjani tried the same and was rebuked by Bush's father. After 1991, Iran was forgotten about by both Bush 1 and Clinton (Iraq and Yugoslavia took over their priorities - Afghanistan later came into focus) but came into focus again after these were dealt with.

Ahmadinejad likewise in 2005-2007 tried to extend a moderate hand out to Bush 2 but was ignored. The media were so against Ahmadinejad it is hard to see what is true and what is exaggerated here.

Now, the West have another chance to improve relations (something that ALL recent Iranian presidents tried to do but failed). Khamenei is not against improved relations and yes he and the revolutionary guards seem to favour Rouhani.

It has been said before that Khamenei will restore relations with the West, withdraw support for anti-Israel organisations and even recognise a 2-state Palestine/Israel solution if the West treats Iran as a partner, an equal, withdraws support for Mujahedin e-Khalq rebels and recognises Iran's independence. This is what Iran wants and it would be a good deal for the West and Iran (and a boost to the world economy if this was solved). Khamenei (a man of Persian/Azeri heritage) has no genuine hatred for Israel or love for the Saddam-loving Sunni Arab Palestinians. They are NOT his people. In fact, he would probably despise Hamas and other pro-Saddam Sunni Arabs. The only reason Iran backs up Palestinian cause is to annoy the West - a protest against their treatment of Iran. Also, Iran is not a traditional enemy of Israel and they have no reason to hate each other so again there is no problem with them changing this attitude either: all they want is the West to recognise them. Their alliance with Syria and Hezbollah are more genuine though as they share a religious heritage (Shia). However, Iran holds the cards here for the West and Israel if needed: it can be a moderating influence on Hezbollah if the West treats it right and it can persuade Assad to set up some sort of settlement in Syria too.

Iran are entitled to nuclear technology and even weapons. Much more dangerous, volatile and aggressive countries already have them. Pakistan v India is a constant threat in the Middle East but neither used them. The fact that US and USSR had them probably avoided World War 3 which probably would have happened otherwise. So, what would a nuclear Iran do? It would not give nukes to freedom fighters in Palestine or elsewhere: they would not trust them at all. They would not use them to invade or threaten. Tellingly, the ambition of Iran here is self defence/deterrent. But not from the obvious: ironically, the answer comes from Saeed Jalili (the media stated most 'hardline' of the 2013 presidential candidates) who said Iran needed nuclear deterrent to dissuade a possible future extremist lead Pakistan from using them: Jalili believes that Iran would be nuked by an al Qaeda lead regime in Pakistan. And he is probably right as Sunni extremists are always burning down Shia mosques there and killing them. So, in this, we can see that Iran and the West have a common enemy in Sunni extremism from the likes of al Qaeda.

With improvement of relations, the Iranians will not be trying to ban Western cultural aspects. There won't be any paranoid misunderstandings and best of all companies in the West and Iran can trade with each other: a much needed market expansion in the current climate of recession that Iran, the US and most of Europe are trapped in that is 90% caused by fallout from meddling in the Middle East by Bush 2.

So, hopefully Rouhani's presidency will bring an end to the very poor relations between the West and Iran that have persisted since the Axis of Evil speech in 2002. Also, a peaceful changeover in Iran could influence moderation in other areas and usher in real change - something the violent so-called 'Arab Spring' (which includes the Syrian nightmare) has not achieved.