Ahmedinejad Rebuked at Polls

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


The council is elected, but the candidates are vetted by another council, which is itself appointed by the head cleric, who is chosen by this council. A nice circular, semi-closed system, resembling in some ways late medieval and early modern Republics. Except with Islamist clerics taking the role of the wealthy merchants.

Combined with press censorship, suppression of right to peaceably assemble, and arrests of dissidents, its hardly a democracy.

do you suppose their acceptance of his candidacy was part of some agenda other than approving of his qualifications?

[lord of the mark]

So the pragmatic fascists have beaten, for the time being, the radical fascist. Ahmadinajads populist rhetoric, didnt deliver results. Of course the problem that Rafsanjani and his supporters are totally corrupt remains. And the notion that Rafsanjani and his supporters are moderates wrt to foreign relations is an exaggeration, at best - they have in the past rejected outreach to the West, they have supported terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, they have orderered the murders of Iranian dissidents abroad, they instituted the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, and they undercut Khatamis attempts to reach out to the West. But they are at least smart enough not to isolate themselves by denying the holocaust, or by calling for Israels destruction in terms as open, and as oft repeated, as Ahmadinajad. A nuclear bomb in their hands would still be a bad thing, and theres no assurance once they had one, that Ahmadinajad might not still come to power. It is still very much the worlds while to keep them from getting nukes.

Its also interesting that Ahmadinajad was NOT able to blame the economic problems on the US boycott, but that the voters seem to have expected the govt to take what steps were necessary to create good relations.

This would seem to argue that the UNSC should stick to its guns, and insist on no nuclear enrichment, and maintain the threat of sanctions to achieve that. They should negotiate with Iran - but from a position of strength, not weakness.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Geronimo


do you suppose their acceptance of his candidacy was part of some agenda other than approving of his qualifications?

Im not sure who the "his" in the above refers to.

The vetting is done to exclude those calling for major changes in the structure of the regime, in particular those calling for an end to the role of the clerical councils in the state. It establishes the limits of acceptable political competition. Some here would argue those limits are relatively wide - many Iranian dissidents argue they are very narrow. Some of this gets to questions of how many votes more radically reformist groups would get if the elections (AND the political discourse) WERE free. Given that they are not free, its not possible to know the answer, and so people tend to answer from their ideological (and foreign policy) biases.

[Eli]

Meaningless distractions.

Bomb Iran. Now.

[PLATO]

If Rafsanjani is the "moderate" in Iran, thenthat says a lot.

While I agree that it is a step in the right direction, I would hardly signal this a vote for moderation in Iran. It is definately a step down the radical scale, but "moderate" is really not applicable to Rafsanjani unless you place him up against an Ahmedinejad.

Something to think about before we start the street dancing.

[Darius871]

Re: Ahmedinejad Rebuked at Polls

Originally posted by Ramo
The Presidential election is in a year and a half (Parliament reduced Ahmedinejad's term), but this might be more important.

I recall that their constitution provides for this, but OOC when did the Majlis truncate his term and what pretext was given?

[Ramo]

According to Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), the members of parliament in favour of the bill, more than 80 per cent, say that the simultaneous formation of the executive and legislative powers would enable a better cooperation between the two powers and strengthen parliament's supervision role.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?ArchiveNews=Yes&NewsCode=47750&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
This would seem to argue that the UNSC should stick to its guns, and insist on no nuclear enrichment, and maintain the threat of sanctions to achieve that. They should negotiate with Iran - but from a position of strength, not weakness.

What guns?

China and Russia won't ever agree to any meaningful sanctions on the regime, certainly none that affect the overall Iranian economy.

[Barnabas]

Rafsanjani is wanted by Argentine justice for 2 terrorists attacks, the bomb attack on the jewish embassy in Buenos Aires, and the bomb attack on the building of the local jewish community

If I recall correctly..

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What guns?

China and Russia won't ever agree to any meaningful sanctions on the regime, certainly none that affect the overall Iranian economy.

I know of many rightwingers who say the same thing you do. Im willing to give the Chinese and Russians a chance.

[PLATO]

It really isn't a right wing thing. Russia needs the market and China needs the oil.

When these things are in the mix and they have relatively good relations, then why would they be motivated to support a U.S. or even a Western position?

[Ramo]

So the pragmatic fascists have beaten, for the time being, the radical fascist. Ahmadinajads populist rhetoric, didnt deliver results. Of course the problem that Rafsanjani and his supporters are totally corrupt remains. And the notion that Rafsanjani and his supporters are moderates wrt to foreign relations is an exaggeration, at best - they have in the past rejected outreach to the West, they have supported terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas, they have orderered the murders of Iranian dissidents abroad, they instituted the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, and they undercut Khatamis attempts to reach out to the West. But they are at least smart enough not to isolate themselves by denying the holocaust, or by calling for Israels destruction in terms as open, and as oft repeated, as Ahmadinajad. A nuclear bomb in their hands would still be a bad thing, and theres no assurance once they had one, that Ahmadinajad might not still come to power. It is still very much the worlds while to keep them from getting nukes.

Its also interesting that Ahmadinajad was NOT able to blame the economic problems on the US boycott, but that the voters seem to have expected the govt to take what steps were necessary to create good relations.

This would seem to argue that the UNSC should stick to its guns, and insist on no nuclear enrichment, and maintain the threat of sanctions to achieve that. They should negotiate with Iran - but from a position of strength, not weakness.

Isn't that rather contradictory? Rafsanjani isn't a foreign policy moderate, but the elections are a clear repudiation of foreign policy extremism and evidence that we should negotiation from a position of strength. Huh? Was Khatami campaigning for the man because Rafsanjani opposed his diplomatic program?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


Isn't that rather contradictory? Rafsanjani isn't a foreign policy moderate, but the elections are a clear repudiation of foreign policy extremism and evidence that we should negotiation from a position of strength. Huh? Was Khatami campaigning for the man because Rafsanjani opposed his diplomatic program?

Rafsanjanis ultmate goals are not moderate, but hes pragmatic about pursuing them, and seems to want to avoid diplomatic isolation. Its seems, therefore that the Iranian electorate fears Irans diplomatic and economic isolation. Now its possible they simply dislike Ahmadinajads needless provocations, and like Rafsanjanis more pragmatic pursuit of similar goals, and that IF we used our strength to threaten further isolation unless they give up enrichment, they would rally around Rafsanjani. OR its possible that, seeing the possibility of isolation (which is not there yet, as the UNSC has yet to act) they would NOT support Rafsanjani if we were to hold out for enrichment.

Given the limited options in the Iranian balloting, and the general limits on political expression in Iran, its not at all clear what the balance of those positions is.


As for Khatamis motivations, I dont know. It could be he took the best of two bad choices. It could be hes looking for patronage and concessions on limited issues (not necessarily for pol) as Rafsanjani reaches out to "moderate reformers" in an attempt to weaken Ahmadinajad, knowing how difficult that will be if he relies on supporters of the clerical elite alone. It could be hes afraid for his personal safety if Ahmadinajad becomes stronger.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by PLATO
It really isn't a right wing thing. Russia needs the market and China needs the oil.

When these things are in the mix and they have relatively good relations, then why would they be motivated to support a U.S. or even a Western position?

The rightwingers state it because they despise the whole UN sanctions process, and would prefer war. The leftwingers say it, in part, because they despise the whole UN sanctions process, and would prefer either A. We make major concessions to Iran to get them give up enrichment or B. We learn to live with the Iranian bomb, since it will weaken the Eevil Joos and Eevil neocons.

motivations for Russia and China
1. A fear that Iran really is a wild card, and its gaining strength by having nukes really could damage their interests (this doesnt seem a strong enough fear to motivate them to a really hawkish position, but it does seem to be playing a role in Russias lowering its opposition to selected sanctions)
2. The desire to maintain relations with the West, a far more important market, and source of important trade items, and with influence over many other places where they get resources. Russia in 2003 had built a "continental alliance" of Russian-Germany-France. That alliance is now looking pretty strained, and it wont be helped by a Russian veto. China has NEVER cast a veto alone on the UNSC, and has rarely cast one alongside Russia alone. They want to maintain a low profile, and look like a responsible power, esp in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics. A veto would hardly strengthen the image they are trying to convey.

[Sandman]

A veto would hardly strengthen the image they are trying to convey.

It most certainly would.