Willravel

I'm sure many of you are on the edge of your seats following the Iranian presidential elections. Hard line ant-West/anti-Israel conservative (sort of) President Ahmadinejad is neck and neck with reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, who you may remember was Prime Minister back in the 80s before the position disappeared. Mousavi has the support of progressives, labor, and many moderates that feel Ahmadinejad has done a terrible job or is a puppet.

Mousavi's platform seems to be a lot more progressive, with regards to civil liberties (speech and press, primarily), and gender equality. He's also said that he's interested in reducing tensions with other nations, and helping Iran become a part of the international community again. Also, he's not a holocaust denier, so that's good.

Let's say that Mousavi wins. How would Iran change? Do you think he can keep his promises about a more free society and better relations with foreign governments?

Personally, I think he's the best change Iran's had for stability for some time. If he wins, anti-Islamists around the world will lose a lot of their ammunition. Israel will probably always hate Iran, but conservatives in the US, UK, and Europe will have to admit that Iran isn't the same supposed imminent threat that they've been talking about for 8 years. I also think that stability in Iran will help the horrible situation in Iraq by proxy.

Between the recent election in Lebanon and this potential victory for Mousavi, things in the Middle East might finally be starting to head in the right direction.

ASU2003

The hard-liners would probably take over talk radio, make people think that gays would get full rights and would be frolicking in the streets, complaining about how much they were spending on nuclear power, and trying to sell as much of the natural resources in their country as they can. There would probably be some assassinations of people they don't like, maybe even in places of worship. And if someone sets up a holocaust museum, it will be a big target for the extremists.

Oh wait, that is what happened in the US.

I bet you would see a large group that will be unhappy with a more modern/western Iran. They would retaliate in random ways because they won't have power anymore. I bet Obama would have a meeting with the new administration within the first year. And I would hope Israel would back off a little and wait to see if any refinement activities went away.

Derwood

My understanding is that the presidency there is a completely empty position in terms of power, and that the clerics/religious leaders are running the show. How would that change with a new president?

Willravel

Mousavi is running on a platform that's much different than I'd imagine the clerics are interested in supporting. He's not pro-west per se, but he's certainly open to forming positive/constructive relationships with the US, UK, and Europe which stands in stark contrast to what Ahmadinejad has done, which I'm assuming was at the behest of the clerics. Because he's so much different than the president I think we all agree was a puppet, it seems safe to assume that (if he's being truthful in his campaign promises), he's not another Ahmadinejad.

roachboy

the information about this election keeps moving around--a few days ago ahmadijenad was said to be heading toward a crushing defeat, so much so that the ultra-right clerics were trying to get him to stand down from the elections--then there was a television debate--then pissiness following on that---meanwhile, there are two different types of campaigns between the two main candidates, not alot unlike the mc-cain/obama thing.

personally, i don't know enough about mousavi (sadly at the moment, i don't read farsi)...and the english coverage seems spotty: so here's a couple links to stuff in french.
from le monde on the election (a slightly expanded perspective on tomorrow's doings):
Les réformistes iraniens espèrent chasser Ahmadinejad - Le Monde.fr

from le monde diplomatique, a web-article about the election itself (better context if you chase the linked articles):
Présidentielle iranienne : Ahmadinejad contre les « pragmatiques »

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

Will, given the Iranian constitution and the fact that the clerics have to approve all candidates prior to nomination, I find it impossible to believe that there's not at the very least a bloc of clerics that support him.

I also think that you're overstating his stance on gender issues. He by no means is pushing for equal rights, which is pretty much a Western construct. At best, he's looking for parity between two very different classes of citizens with different responsibilities and interests.

But Derwood's right - the office is mostly an empty shell that has little power. The Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader (Khamenei) holds the majority of the power in Iran.

A Mousavi presidency would be swapping out an old, tiny loudspeaker for a newer brand, but with a little less crazy. Please remember that the Iranian President is NOT the Commander-In-Chief of the Iranian armed forces and, assuming that they get nuclear weapons, would have no power to bomb Israel.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

I'm not saying he's going to be totally outside the influence of the clerics if elected, I don't think Iran is ready for that kind of change yet, simply that he doesn't seem to be acting in the manner that the clerics that support Ahmadinejad want. I'm sure all of the clerics are not of one mind on all political or governmental issues. If he's under the influence of more progressive clerics, then I feel Iran is moving in the right direction if he's elected.

roachboy

but the clerics are not all of one mind, so the defeat of ahmadijenad would be a shift in power relations within the ruling clerical sector (can't remember the institutional framework)...so this is hardly just a rotation of the oligarchy. i think it would matter quite alot were iran to rid itself of ahmadijenad, just as it mattered that the united states rid itself of george w bush (eventually, when there was no alternative)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

And I'm saying that you don't understand how Iranian politics work. The President is a bright shiny thing used to distract from the seat of real power, which is the clerics as embodied by the Supreme Ruler. Mousavi, by the nature of their political system, is already beholden to the clerics for whatever minor changes he can propose.

This is the opposite of modern England: it doesn't matter who the King or Queen is. The real power lies with the Prime Minister's office. In Iran, it doesn't matter who the president is. The real power lies with the Supreme Leader's office. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good on the subject:

Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any debate over this election is really about who is going to be the mouthpiece for their anti-Americanism, which is a cornerstone of their Revolution. The message will stay the same since it, by necessity has to, but there will only be a variation in its tenor. If you think that Khatami was less anti-American, I invite you to look at his actual record. The main differences between them are almost solely internal policies, such as freedom of expression and tolerance of non-Jewish minorities. In terms of foreign policy, there has been little change in the message, just difference in the fevror Ahmadinejad brings with him.

And the message is set by the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians. They are the de facto rulers of the country.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Jazz, was that a response to me or roachboy?

roachboy

but it's been obvious for some time that khameni and at least some of the guardian council has been looking for a more low-keyed approach, more extensive back-channel communication--the anti-american posture is obviously a function of the us relation with the shah (whose way of holding power explains alot about why the revolution was as it was, in the end) and is presented routinely as a something of a bone tossed to the masses, while behind the scenes there's been considerable contact and sometimes co-operation between the us and iran. until of course the evil double of george w bush was elected.

at the same time, it's been more than a little convenient for the neo-cons to act as though there was no gap which separates what is said internally from what is done in various backchannels, but that has little to do with the realities (which are simply kinda complicated in this case)

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

Sorry, that was meant for you, Will.

---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

RB, there is some truth to your point, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the basic pillars of Iranian politics is anti-Americanism. It is a polarity that allows the clerics to stay in power and one of the reasons that true detente won't happen. It is in their best interest to keep a public level of animosity going even if both countries are working in concert for a mutual interest behind the scenes.

Were there to be a surprise treaty between the US and Iran announced this afternoon, the very first thing that I would mention is the Molotov/Rippentrop Treaty. Two polar opposits buying time for an unavoidable conflict. I'm not saying that a US/Iranian war is inevitable (it's not in Iran's interest to allow a shooting war to start) but that is in the Iranian interest to use the US as a scapegoat for any problems.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

I guess it doesn't matter, I think we're saying the same thing (only he's saying it with a cool beard).

Like roachboy said, I don't think there's any reason to assume the shadowy clerics are always of one mind. I know virtually no power lies with the president of Iran, but I think the fact that Mousavi's platform looks a lot different than Ahmadinejad's speaks of the real people in power shifting. You can't simply discount that out of hand.

The_Jazz

Well, here's the thing - the clerics aren't rigging the election. They're approving the candidates beforehand (which is why you'd never get a pro-Western republican [small "r" on purpose] on the slate of candidates. They are not dictating who the people are voting for. The elections, such as they are with the pre-selected candidates, are free and fair in and of themselves. I don't see this so much as a shift in the clerical ranks or a power struggle or really even a change in the status quo as I do the clerics allowing a referedum on internal policy. The "America = Satan" chant is a requirement to apply for the job, and the "swings" to the right and left have little to do with the political realities of their foreign policy.

So Mousavi, if he's elected, isn't going to bring a new golden age of pro-American sentiment to power. The office isn't powerless, and I imagine that he could improve the lots of many Iranians, but his election or nonelection won't matter one iota to Americans.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

roachboy

well, i think it'd make it easier to sell a change in tack with respect to iran in the united states.
as for the implications of mousavi being elected for policy matters...it remains to be seen.
i'm a bit less cynical than you, but not much less.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

The_Jazz

I'll grant that point with no caveats, roachboy, save that the point has little to do with the OP, which is, after all, about them, not us.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

The problem is that you're assuming Mir Hossein Mousavi is anti-West when there's no real evidence to suggest this. If you make that assumption, sure, the whole election seems like a joke: either vote for the anti-western conservative or the anti-western slightly less conservative. But that's not the case, or I should say that's not his platform. Basically everything Mousavi has said about foreign policy is that he wants to end the policies of isolationism and antagonism.

I get that he was a radical back in the 80s, but he had to be. His nation was essentially nudged into a war with Iraq by the West. It's been 20 years, though. He's been out of politics and the entire chess board has changed. America has a moderate leader that isn't the same kind of threat to his country as Reagan, Bush1, or Bush2. Iran itself is going through serious changes as the younger, more progressive generation is starting to assert it's power. Isolationism and irresponsible governance is leading Iran down a dangerous road.

I don't buy that a person can't adapt to new situations, though. Iran required a hard-liner in 1988 and requires a moderate in 2009.

The_Jazz

Will, I don't think that you grasp the basic tenants of the Iranian Revolution, an event that's the basic foundation for their political system.

The clerics on the Council of Guardians (who are the clerics that keep getting mentioned) are not going to allow the nomination of a pro-Western candidate. It is in their best interest politically to make sure that happens since any detente erodes their hold on power.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that any Iranian president is a free piece on the board when that's just not the case. The office of the presidency is the SECOND most powerful in the country but it is beholden to the office of the Supreme Leader in the Iranian Constitution. At best Mousavi can dial down the rhetoric and criticism that flow from Tehran so that constructive process can be made. But it seems quite clear to me that while the generation of students that led the Revolution are still alive, and moves towards the West in general and the US specifically will be necessarily both small and easily reversible. The younger generation has some influence at the ballot box, but virtually none of the seats of power in the country are held by elected officials.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

We should avoid making statements like this. If I were to say to you, "Jazz, you don't seem to have even the most basic understanding of Iranian government", you'd roll your eyes at my unnecessary condescension. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.
No one said anything about Mousavi being "pro-Western", I'm simply suggesting that he's not a hard-line anti-Westerner like Ahmadinejad. That's a big deal to Iran and it's a big deal to us. If he's even somewhere closer to being neutral towards the West than Ahmadinejad, it gives everyone a better chance of coming out of this odd miniature cold war we have with Iran.
You're not reading what I'm posting. I never suggested that the president of Iran is a "free piece on the board", in fact I just said in post 13:
This is almost exactly my point. My hope in all of this is that, should Mousavi (much easier to type than Ahmadinejad) is elected it's possible that things might start to at least head in the right direction instead of the wrong one.

The_Jazz

Compare and contrast your very mobile point throughout the thread.

So basically, the election of Mousavi is the potential bridge to detente with Obama in office.

If Ahmaninejad was a puppet, Mousavi will be too because they will be beholden to the exact same group that approved their nominations. If Ahmaninejad was acting at the behest of the clerics (and I'm pretty sure that he was NOT), then what is going to influence Mousavi? How would his election possibly be any different?

"The clerics" is a misnomer. It's one cleric who really matter, Khamenei. He appoints the Council of Guardians. He is the real seat of power in Iran, especially if you've read their constitution. Any movement is going to come from his office, not the President's. Like I said, the President's office is a bright shiny thing that distracts from the real movements on the Iranian landscape.

Will, I apologize if I was condescending, but you do not seem to be reading my posts or refuting any of my points with any actual evidence. You also, at least from where I sit, seem ignorant of the basic machinations of Iranian politics. So let me spell it all out for you.

The Supreme Leader appoints the Council of Guardians. All 12 of them, who are all mullahs or clerics. At election time, the Council, among it's other duties, reviews each potential candidate for acceptability to religious (and political) doctrine and submits the names to the people for election. The Supreme Leader is the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces and appoints all judges. He approves all cabinet appointments. He shares responsibility for foreign policy.

Will, I think that you're trying to apply democratic ideals to a theocracy, and that's just not possible. The Iranian system works very differently than pretty much any other system in the world. I think you need to do your own research if you're going to understand what this election is going to mean in real terms.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

The election of Mousavi would represent the people choosing the more progressive of the several choices the clerics offered them. Don't you think that will speak in volumes to the international community? Don't you see? It's not Mousavi himself, but what he represents that I'm hopeful about. It's his platform that the people are supporting, and that platform is one of progressive reform.

To be honest, it's a lot like Obama. He's a centrist, but his election win represents a positive change in the voting public that is generally seen internationally as a move away from Bush policy and toward more reasonable policy. Even while Obama is supporting indefinite detention and is maintaining the debt problem, America is already in a better international position as far as our foreign policy is concerned.
It's not a behest kind of thing, it's more of a "pressure from above" thing. This election is different because it may not be won by someone running on a platform of being isolationist and strictly anti-West.
Khamenei and the Guardians aren't the only center of power. The Majlis carry power and influence as well. Anyway, if we're under the assumption that Mousavi is being allowed to run by the Supreme Leader an Guardians, they're willing to allow a more progressive face represent them.
I read the wiki on the Iranian government back in 2004 or 2005, and I've since looked at it now and again. None of this is the issue, though. The issue is whether or not a Mousavi win would represent a shift in policy in Iran from Ahmaninejad's hard-liner isolationism. I know the chances are small, but they are still present.
It's not that simple. The Iranian government isn't democratic by any stretch, but the people do freely vote and those votes can be seen. Moreover, the candidates that are allowed to run represent the interest of the real power seat in Iran. Unless you're suggesting that Mousavi's platform is completely false (I don't think you're suggesting that), you must admit that his calls to end the isolationist policies of Ahmaninejad could represent a real change in policy.

Something just occurred to me. A democratic theocracy can be neither, but Iran is going though social changes that could represent an eventual move away from theocracy (not now, but eve eventually). When that slow transition starts, you're going to see an Iran where both elements of theocracy and democracy are present. It's not directly linked with the thread topic, but thinking about theocratic democracies lead me to an interesting thought.

The_Jazz

I'll agree that the shift away from theocracy towards democracy is interesting and conflicting, but I also agree that this thread isn't the time or place for that conversation.

The Malji has little power and the little that it does wield is completely beholden to the Supreme Leader and the Guardians. Again, all candidates are vetted by the Guardians before the election. And even after election, they don't have much to do. Most legislation runs through the executive - which is where Ahmadinejad has screwed up the most, by the way - and they have some minor influence over various cabinets posts (mostly via no confidence votes). It is not exactly a hotbed of change, and they cannot act without approval from the upper levels of power. If you're implying that the Majli shares power with or has the same influence as the Supreme Leader, the Guaridans or the President for that matter, then I think that you need to go back and do more research on Iranian politics.

Would Mousavi signal a change? Absolutely. A change in the voice of anti-Americanism. A mildly more cooperative tone. The progressive reform that he represents is INTERNAL reform, not in foreign policy. Even if Mousavi wanted to (and I'm 100% sure that he wouldn't) he could never recognize Israel or normalize relations with the US. He does not have the ability to set foreign policy. He is, however, the voice of that foreign policy, and his election might mean a voice with a less threatening tone, which I'm sure the West would be overjoyed with hearing.

Again, any change that happens with this election is going to be internal. And I'm sure that the Iranians will vote with that in mind. Hopefully their self-interest coincides with ours, but don't count on it.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

Again, this is less about Mousavi and more about what the election of Mousavi might represent.
Can you cut that out? Thanks.
A "mildly more cooperative tone" internally could have repercussions in Iranian foreign policy. They're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Whoa, whoa, who said anything about recognizing Israel? You're exaggerating my position. All I've been saying is that this might be part of a larger pattern of stabilization in the Middle East.

It's going to be difficult for the anti-Iranians in the West to demonize the Iranian people when they vote for the most moderate voice on the ticket. What are the Cheneys of the world going to say when Ahmadinejad is ousted and replaced by a more moderate president? Because the talking heads work on a superficial level of world news and politics, they've fostered the idea that Ahmadinejad was in charge of Iran. If a more moderate president is elected, they'll be in a pickle when it comes to demonizing Iran because they'll lose their main target. Don't underestimate the effect that might have.

The_Jazz

Will, I'll cut it out if you stop being willfully obstinant and actually do your research.

You're implying that the Majli has parity with the Supreme Leader, the Guardians and/or the President. The Majli is not the exact equivalent of our Congress. Please do your research on what the Majli is, how it operates and where power lies within Iran. The Majli has no parity and is completely subserviant to the SL and the Guardians. It is becoming difficult to have this conversation since I can only assume that you are being willfully ignorant, which is quite annoying to someone who does actually know facts and has at least a working knowledge of the flow of power within Iran.

Then you haven't been paying attention. They're not going to normalize relations with the US either. It is a basic pillar of the Revolution and something that can't just be undone at the drop of a hat. I'll agree that it might be the very first hint of a larger pattern, but that's all that it is, and it's not a very big hint nor one that can really be taken seriously at this point since there's no other supporting evidence of a greater movement.

This is more willful ignorance. You clearly are lacking any sort of knowledge about how the Iranians view the West and the US in particular. This has nothing at all to do with Iranian foreign policy. Whoever their president is, he will not be setting foreign policy. He may act on it, but he will not be setting it.

Now, if you want to talk about how the West will view a change in leadership, that's an entirely different conversation than the one you set out to have.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Willravel

I'm being "obstinant"? Just stop condescending. It's not difficult. Would you respond to something like this?
Would you be interested in responding to this? I'm not.

Willravel

Things are getting odd. It seems that there's widespread reporting that the election was stolen by Ahmadinejad. And the case that these reports are making happen to hold water. Why bother to steal an election for a position in which there isn't much power? Is it a prestige thing? Are Ahmadinejad and Mousavi unaware of how little power the position holds? Is it all an act to distract people from the fact that Iran is, basically, under totalitarian rule?

kutulu

Things are insane in Iran right now and the local news website in Arizona has a featured article about tubing down the Salt River.

Willravel

Tubing? That's interesting.

kutulu

It's serious business.

Willravel

Tubular.

kutulu

I'm truly amazed with Twitter right now. Until today I always thought of it as an outlet for narcissistic teenagers who think the whole world cares about their mundane lives but it has been an amazing part of keeping the flow of information going.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

I don't know if it is true but I read on fark that /b is setting up DDOS on the Iranian Govt's web infrastructure. This could be the first useful thing they did since creating the lolcat.

Willravel

I heard the same thing about the DDOS. This is going to be a significant step up from the previous attacks on the Scientology website. This could be considered international cyber terrorism.

The San Jose Mercury News, one of the more progressive papers, isn't giving this any coverage either.

Charlatan

The twitter coverage is fantastic.

The rest of the world media seems to be slumbering.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

snowy

The NYTimes and the Lede Blog have provided a lot of good coverage of what's going on.

And here are some great pictures I found thanks to a link on abaya's Facebook: Iran's Disputed Election - The Big Picture - Boston.com

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ASU2003

I went tubing down the Salt River when I was in Phoenix. I highly recommend it. Just remember to wear sunscreen on your back, worst sunburn of my life from forgetting that.

Oh yeah, there are massive protests in Iran that might be a little bit more important in the grand scheme of things... Why do I get a feeling that the same thing would have happened in our major cities if McCain had won last Nov? I do think that there was a little bit of corruption going on, but if the media over covers this, it will give us the impression that 90% of Iranians want to embrace a more moderate Iran (They probably wouldn't want to go as far as the Netherlands for instance). And I'm not sure that is factual.

Then again, I'm not sure what should be done. Diplomatically you can not recognize the election. I don't think the young people will be able to overthrow those in power unless they get the military and police to join them (and if it was a fake election they might). But violence probably won't help things get straighten out.

And I don't know what will be done with Iran's nuclear program, and that is a decision that is above my pay grade.