The power structure in Iran is mostly against the will of the people. Khamenei controls most of the levers of power in Iran. The people are fully against the hardliners led by Khamenei and have shown it any opportunity they have gotten, mainly voting for anyone who to some degrees goes against the hardliners. Khamenei is even more upset at Rouhani because he went somewhat overboard by his criticism of his reactionary opponent and the revolutionary guards. Rouhani is probably under huge pressure to give in to the demands of the hardline elements in Iran led by Khamenei.
Under circumstances President Rouhani is doing great by giving in some to the opponents since his core supporters are not going to raise big fights for their demands, besides the issues like social justice or freedom of jailed past leaders are not bread and butter issues. I't is economy, stupid'
Social change takes times.
Social change takes times.
4
This is politics as usual in Iran. The writer makes it read like a crisis. It is not.
3
Possibly, Rouhani has surveyed the external and internal environments and decided not to fight the power. Cutting his current losses, he may instead be preparing to get good with the Ayathollah, retain his seats & goodwill on the various theocracic councils (the message to his brother could not have hurt).
I wonder if, haven rose in politics in alliance with the reformists, he could still be viable enough within the theocratic establishment that in future he could still possibly become a sort of Iran's "Pope Francis" after Khameni? Or at least that he could be a force towards empowering such a person. That is where it would be possible to make real changes in Iran. At this time, things are simply too stacked with the sort of people on the world stage (US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc), and their hardline dopplegangers in Iran. The political space for reformism just isn't there, unless it comes from within the theocracy elite, where they divorce whatever problems they are having with these foreign countries from what they need to do internally for the good of their own country.
I wonder if, haven rose in politics in alliance with the reformists, he could still be viable enough within the theocratic establishment that in future he could still possibly become a sort of Iran's "Pope Francis" after Khameni? Or at least that he could be a force towards empowering such a person. That is where it would be possible to make real changes in Iran. At this time, things are simply too stacked with the sort of people on the world stage (US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc), and their hardline dopplegangers in Iran. The political space for reformism just isn't there, unless it comes from within the theocracy elite, where they divorce whatever problems they are having with these foreign countries from what they need to do internally for the good of their own country.
2
Iran is a theocratic dictatorship with a pseudo-democratic facade. Rouhani's heart may be against the hardliners and for normalizing relations with the West, but he is too much vested in the system not to rock the boat much. Trump's wrong-headed policy toward Iran, and his threats to shred the nuclear deal has emboldened the fanatic faction in Iran. To save his shaky presidency, Trump may start another war in the Middle East.
1
Clerics are in power due to American government's meddling in Iran, going back to 1953. It was for oil back then and it is for oil now. Iranian people are not exactly happy with their present government, but what we have here isn't anything to be proud of either. Clerics or not, Iran is the most stable and powerful country in the Middle East, and they're not going to play subordinate to the west. Saudi Arabia is the most corrupt country yet our government is one of their closest allies. To attack Iran militarily would be a big mistake. By doing so, the rich in this country gets richer, and Iran isn't just another country in the Middle East to be brought down easily, so west better clean up its own mess and keep it's hands off of Iran.
2
"Reform-minded" means different things in different places and in reactionary Iran, he might perhaps be described as "reform-minded". But that is the point. The promises of reform were part of his election strategy to defeat the fragmented conservative field. But to fulfill the promises? Many believe his intentions were not real and he has no intention of fulfilling promises.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iraninsight/rouhani-plays-reformist...
This is what Amnesty International had to say about Mr. Rouhani's first term:
"The authorities heavily suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and religious belief, arresting and imprisoning peaceful critics and others after grossly unfair trials before Revolutionary Courts. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained common and widespread, and were committed with impunity. Floggings, amputations and other cruel punishments continued to be applied. Members of religious and ethnic minorities faced discrimination and persecution. Women and girls faced pervasive violence and discrimination"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/15/iran-elections-hardlin...
However, as I wrote, everything is relative. Compared to "hard-liners" Mr. Rouhani is indeed "liberal". The conservatives also complain that Mr. Rouhani's tilting to the west did not bring immediate economic benefits. What all boils down to is politics and perceptions.
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iraninsight/rouhani-plays-reformist...
This is what Amnesty International had to say about Mr. Rouhani's first term:
"The authorities heavily suppressed the rights to freedom of expression, association, peaceful assembly and religious belief, arresting and imprisoning peaceful critics and others after grossly unfair trials before Revolutionary Courts. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained common and widespread, and were committed with impunity. Floggings, amputations and other cruel punishments continued to be applied. Members of religious and ethnic minorities faced discrimination and persecution. Women and girls faced pervasive violence and discrimination"
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/15/iran-elections-hardlin...
However, as I wrote, everything is relative. Compared to "hard-liners" Mr. Rouhani is indeed "liberal". The conservatives also complain that Mr. Rouhani's tilting to the west did not bring immediate economic benefits. What all boils down to is politics and perceptions.
3
The article unfortunately repeats, to a certain degree, Americans' pattern of simplifying non-democracies' politics into black & white camps--"hardliners" and "reformers." Its slightly understandable as most democracies are used to having two major political blocs--one left, one right. But Iran's politics are more complicated than that. There are multiple centers of gravity, the Supreme Leader being by far the strongest one, but not a truly totalitarian institution. Likewise, the Presidency functions much more like a Prime Ministership in the embryonic stages of constitutional monarchism. He lacks the powers of war & peace, but is much closer to the pulse of the people.
All elements of the Iranian state want the country to grow economically, become stronger, and be respected. Very few within the state are truly interested in human rights, esp. women's rights. A "moderate" President or parliamentarian may talk the talk for the same reason any politician anywhere does. Yet none have any interest in providing true political or social freedoms to the Iranian people; no Western woman would want to live under "moderate" Iranian rule.
Social reform is largely the product of educated urbanites; "reform" to most Iranians means economic growth. Since growth satisfies Iranians of all stripes, not just an elite, it's naturally a more logical cause than women's rights. And for the hawks, it provides the added benefit of more cash for military modernization, conventional or otherwise.
All elements of the Iranian state want the country to grow economically, become stronger, and be respected. Very few within the state are truly interested in human rights, esp. women's rights. A "moderate" President or parliamentarian may talk the talk for the same reason any politician anywhere does. Yet none have any interest in providing true political or social freedoms to the Iranian people; no Western woman would want to live under "moderate" Iranian rule.
Social reform is largely the product of educated urbanites; "reform" to most Iranians means economic growth. Since growth satisfies Iranians of all stripes, not just an elite, it's naturally a more logical cause than women's rights. And for the hawks, it provides the added benefit of more cash for military modernization, conventional or otherwise.
3
Concerning but not surprising. I think we were tricked into signing that nuclear deal. The ayatollah has ultimate control over everything there, but at times seems to cede to more moderate elements in the government only to suddenly revert to his usual form again. One step forward, one step back. It's confusing not only to foreign powers but also to the people of Iran who must deal with these confusing signals. God knows what the future will bring.
The hardliners in Iran haven't come to terms with the electoral defeat of their candidate, Ebrahim Raisi in May, and have been seeking revenge by making life difficult for Hassan Rouhani. Maybe for this reason he wants the blessing of the Supreme Leader in filling his cabinet.
Since his re-election Rouhani has been daunted by the arrest of his brother, his most trusted adviser, who acted as as the president's "eyes and ears". The 10-year prison sentence for Xiyue Wang, a Princeton post-graduate history student who was in Iran doing research for a doctoral thesis, will further escalate tensions with Washington. Both cases have sent a powerful message to Rouhani, who had publicly defied the establishment, judiciary and the Revolutionary Guards, accusing them of sabotaging the nuclear deal and his plans for reforms.
No doubt Rohani begins his second term facing big challenges. It remains to be seen whether he can fulfil the expectations of an electorate hoping for reform and economic growth.
Since his re-election Rouhani has been daunted by the arrest of his brother, his most trusted adviser, who acted as as the president's "eyes and ears". The 10-year prison sentence for Xiyue Wang, a Princeton post-graduate history student who was in Iran doing research for a doctoral thesis, will further escalate tensions with Washington. Both cases have sent a powerful message to Rouhani, who had publicly defied the establishment, judiciary and the Revolutionary Guards, accusing them of sabotaging the nuclear deal and his plans for reforms.
No doubt Rohani begins his second term facing big challenges. It remains to be seen whether he can fulfil the expectations of an electorate hoping for reform and economic growth.
5
Name two countries whose presidents feel obligated to support the social policies of a right-wing "religious" minority. At least, Mr. Rouhani seems to be doing so with some degree of regret and resignation.
8
The wrongs that US has done to Iran, the coup and destruction of their democracy, the CIA protected dictatorship that followed, 8 years of war with Iraq with US's help, shooting down the passenger plane killing 300 civilians, 30 years of criminal sanctions that killed thousands of babies, and many, many other criminal terrorist acts US committed against Iran, it's mind boggling to see some Americans claiming to be the good guys or having the moral authority to lecture Iranians.
Sad that some think Iran is the problem when the reality is that it is the Saudis who have been the real source of funding for extremists, who have one of the most brutal and autocratic governments in the world.
If America end up in a war with Iran it won't be fundamentally because of Trump but because of the Washington political establishment's ideology of Americanism; the way they've insanely structured their economy so that endless war is the only way to boost their GDP and pay off debts; the power and hegemony of the 'deep state'; and the neocon coup which has been slowly taking place over the last 30 years or so, which first extended to the think tanks; then the Pentagon and the CIA; and now even the military.
New sanctions are only strengthening the hand of the hard-liners in Iran.
Just as it has been US intervention that helped create ISIL, so it has been US involvement in Iran that created the current Iranian regime.
Sad that some think Iran is the problem when the reality is that it is the Saudis who have been the real source of funding for extremists, who have one of the most brutal and autocratic governments in the world.
If America end up in a war with Iran it won't be fundamentally because of Trump but because of the Washington political establishment's ideology of Americanism; the way they've insanely structured their economy so that endless war is the only way to boost their GDP and pay off debts; the power and hegemony of the 'deep state'; and the neocon coup which has been slowly taking place over the last 30 years or so, which first extended to the think tanks; then the Pentagon and the CIA; and now even the military.
New sanctions are only strengthening the hand of the hard-liners in Iran.
Just as it has been US intervention that helped create ISIL, so it has been US involvement in Iran that created the current Iranian regime.
15
I fail to see how the patriarchy of the Iranian regime is the fault of the CIA, let alone America as a whole. But if you insist on rehashing the past, you need to step away from Alternet, Mother Jones or whatever ex-East German rag you like to peruse and read some actual serious history of US-Iran relations. If you did, you would know that:
* Iran gone through a lot of coups, the latest being--of course--the one launched by a coalition of Islamist fanatics and Communists (after which the Islamists then rubbed out the Communists). If you're referring to 1953 and Mossadegh, it was a British-led operation and Mossadegh, the Prime Minister, was no angel.
* Iran has never been a true democracy. Under the Pahlavi dynasty, it came close to being an embryonic constitutional monarchy, but the Shah, as the monarch and head of state, always had the final say. If you're German, you could say it roughly resembled the Kaisers' Germany.
* Sanctions against Iran were never criminal. The sanctions leading up to the nuclear deal, for example, were created by the US, UK, France, Germany, the rest of the EU and blessed by the UN. As for "thousands of babies" being killed, I think you're mixing up your leftist talking points. *UN* sanctions on IRAQ did hurt Iraq's health system.
*The downing of an Iranian airliner was accidental; the bombings of Marine peacekeepers in Beirut & the Israeli Embassy and a synagogue in Argentina certainly were not (and killed well over 300 total).
* Iran gone through a lot of coups, the latest being--of course--the one launched by a coalition of Islamist fanatics and Communists (after which the Islamists then rubbed out the Communists). If you're referring to 1953 and Mossadegh, it was a British-led operation and Mossadegh, the Prime Minister, was no angel.
* Iran has never been a true democracy. Under the Pahlavi dynasty, it came close to being an embryonic constitutional monarchy, but the Shah, as the monarch and head of state, always had the final say. If you're German, you could say it roughly resembled the Kaisers' Germany.
* Sanctions against Iran were never criminal. The sanctions leading up to the nuclear deal, for example, were created by the US, UK, France, Germany, the rest of the EU and blessed by the UN. As for "thousands of babies" being killed, I think you're mixing up your leftist talking points. *UN* sanctions on IRAQ did hurt Iraq's health system.
*The downing of an Iranian airliner was accidental; the bombings of Marine peacekeepers in Beirut & the Israeli Embassy and a synagogue in Argentina certainly were not (and killed well over 300 total).
1
You lecture others but you are very wrong on your assessment of Iran-US politics and events. The US/UK coup in Iran was a great crime against Iranian people who culminated in the 1979 revolution. I know the US/UK couldn't live with a democratic government in Iran because they would not allow a total plunder f the Iranian wealth but the coup was one of the most short sighted foreign policies of the US. A democratic Iran would have been a model for the rest of the region but I assume the US/UK would have liked to work with a puppet regime like the one in Saudi Arabia. Any how, Iran and the US have a lot in common and better relations would be mutually beneficial to them and the region.
5
Ruhani is under pressure from two sides:
1-People who want more freedom
2-Conservtives who blame Ruhani for signing the nuclear deal with the US.
In addition, more freedom is quite dangerous for regime's survival. The Sharia law in Iran is not as popular as the Islamic regime claims. The US needs to support people against the Islamic regime. More sanctions would only help the mullahs in Iran.
1-People who want more freedom
2-Conservtives who blame Ruhani for signing the nuclear deal with the US.
In addition, more freedom is quite dangerous for regime's survival. The Sharia law in Iran is not as popular as the Islamic regime claims. The US needs to support people against the Islamic regime. More sanctions would only help the mullahs in Iran.
2
Thomas Erdbrink's report about Iran reveals the truth of the old cliché, "The East is East, the West is West, and the twain shall never meet." However, we must not succumb fatalistically to the notion that no useful dialogue is possible between Iran and the United States. Iran, though a Shiite country, is one of the oldest civilizations of the world that has produced great poetry, art, mystics, and philosophers. Even today, some of the most original film directors of the world are Iranians. Ask any Iranian student at an American University, she or he will tell you how hungry young Iranians are for stronger
educational and cultural ties with the west. I suggest that, instead of dumping more sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration give Iran a categorical assurance that the nuclear deal that former Secretary of State John Kerry, guided by President Obama, signed with his Iranian counterpart is not going to be scrapped and that he would encourage American businesses to invest heavily in Iran. He should also send delegations of academic, especially of women, to Iran to tell Iranians that no one in the west is out to destroy Islam and that not too long ago the west was also as tradition-bound as Iran. They should emphasize that what liberates us all from superstitions and unexamined ideas is knowledge. There's no way anybody can prove that women are less intelligent than men or that Islam is superior as a religion to any other. The light of knowledge will set us all free.
educational and cultural ties with the west. I suggest that, instead of dumping more sanctions on Iran, the Trump administration give Iran a categorical assurance that the nuclear deal that former Secretary of State John Kerry, guided by President Obama, signed with his Iranian counterpart is not going to be scrapped and that he would encourage American businesses to invest heavily in Iran. He should also send delegations of academic, especially of women, to Iran to tell Iranians that no one in the west is out to destroy Islam and that not too long ago the west was also as tradition-bound as Iran. They should emphasize that what liberates us all from superstitions and unexamined ideas is knowledge. There's no way anybody can prove that women are less intelligent than men or that Islam is superior as a religion to any other. The light of knowledge will set us all free.
13
Americans have short memories--especially when they have an ideological ax to grind. The U.S. has repeatedly tried the "engagement" route w/ Iran based on the premises upon which you rest your argument and it has never worked. Iran's nuclear program may be frozen, but the Iranian people remain as repressed today as they were when Ayatollah Khomeini took power.
looks like the republic of "death to america" is reverting to its natural state. no sympathy or love for iran (or trump)
This is a theocratic dictatorship with the illusion of democratic institutions overlaid. So, it's no surprise that Rouhani will be governed instead of doing the governing. It is the undercurrents in this society, that are strengthening all the time, that need to inform our policies toward Iran. The clerical autocrats will be overthrown. Youth will be served, especially given the demographics there. It'll happen sooner than later if we (meaning Trump) don't blow it.
4
Reread the article. It looks as though Rouhani's brother was bailed out of jail after facing corruption charges. That's the reason Rouhani agreed to support the hardline policies of the real leader of Iran--Ayatollah Khamenei. I get the feeling that Rouhani was being blackmailed by the inflexible clergy that rules Iran with an iron fist.. I hate to disappoint the rest of the pro-Iran crowd but sadly Rouhani is not the second coming of Mossadegh
2
Women in Iran will not be equal to men as long as the Ayatullah's are in charge. The Iraninan constitution does not even allow a woman to run for presidency.
Women are oppressed in Iran. They can't even attend a succer match as spectators. The Iranian nobel peace prize winner, Shireen Ebadi, is forced into exile. A woman is not allowed to become a judge in Iran.
Ayatullahs and the idea of equality of men and women just don't go hand in hand.
Women are oppressed in Iran. They can't even attend a succer match as spectators. The Iranian nobel peace prize winner, Shireen Ebadi, is forced into exile. A woman is not allowed to become a judge in Iran.
Ayatullahs and the idea of equality of men and women just don't go hand in hand.
9
But they can vote, be an MP, drive their own cars and taxis for passengers, own businesses, initiate divorce, inherit, be Vice Presidents, be a CEO as exemplified by a recent selection of a woman CEOf of Iran Air, climb Mt Everest, be a Mayor, participate in numerous sports and make up sone 60% of university graduates. Impressive progress compared to the US's best ally in the region where women can't even drive a car and are not allowed to travel independently without a male chaperone. At least make an informed comment based on evidence rather than an ignorant one based on your prejudices.
It is not the president who runs the country it is the Supreme Leader Ayatollah that runs it and we the US created that mess over there in the 1950s when we overthrew Mossadegh for the big oil companies in the West. That is when the Shah rose to power which he was for big oil and he was very oppressive then that is when the Iranians figured it out and overthrew the Shah and that is when the Ayatollah came to power and he was a hard line and anti-West which I can't blame him one bit for it.
7
Americans continue to confuse the Presidency of Iran with the Presidency of the USA. The office is much closer in duties to say, the Presidency of Italy, or some other parliamentary nation.
Also, we do not comprehend the difference in the candidate-vetting process. The council of clerics has to rule on a prospective candidates' suitability. A rough analogy would be if the Southern Baptist convention, or the American Bishops of the Catholic church were required to pass on the suitability of EVERY candidate for Congress. There is a reason why the Ayatohla is called 'The Supreme Leader'.... because he is the one who is Actually In Charge. The parliament and the President are simply western-style window dressing on what is - in fact as well as in law - a theocratic dictatorship.
If the Pope stilled ruled the Italian peninsula, but allowed a parliament and an elected president - that would be close to what the Iranian people have to deal with.
Sadly, this whole mess is one more example of our CIA digging us a hole for us to fall into later down the road. In Afghanistan, we armed and supported the mujdahin, who transformed into the Taliban and Al Qaida. In Iran, we overthrew the republic of Iran back in 1953 to re-install the Shah, so that we and the British could retain more favorable (MUCH more favorable) rights for the Iranian oil fields. The abuses of the Shah led to the Islamic Revolution.
Also, we do not comprehend the difference in the candidate-vetting process. The council of clerics has to rule on a prospective candidates' suitability. A rough analogy would be if the Southern Baptist convention, or the American Bishops of the Catholic church were required to pass on the suitability of EVERY candidate for Congress. There is a reason why the Ayatohla is called 'The Supreme Leader'.... because he is the one who is Actually In Charge. The parliament and the President are simply western-style window dressing on what is - in fact as well as in law - a theocratic dictatorship.
If the Pope stilled ruled the Italian peninsula, but allowed a parliament and an elected president - that would be close to what the Iranian people have to deal with.
Sadly, this whole mess is one more example of our CIA digging us a hole for us to fall into later down the road. In Afghanistan, we armed and supported the mujdahin, who transformed into the Taliban and Al Qaida. In Iran, we overthrew the republic of Iran back in 1953 to re-install the Shah, so that we and the British could retain more favorable (MUCH more favorable) rights for the Iranian oil fields. The abuses of the Shah led to the Islamic Revolution.
12
Iran was not a republic in 1953. It was a monarchy, as it had been for thousands of years. The office of Prime Minister and a (semi) democratically elected parliament were inventions of the 1920s under the last Shah's father. From then until 1979, the Shah's grip on power waxed and waned--it reached a low in the late 40s/early 50s and he was forced to accept Mossadegh as PM. Mossadegh was no angel and the Shah always--on paper, at least--had the authority to fire him. But Mossadegh's popularity waned, too, and the British led an operation to exploit the situation and force him out and re-assert the authority of the Shah. The CIA (still a nascent organization) played a supporting role.
It was not our finest hour, by a longshot, but we shouldn't rewrite history to pretend Mossadegh's brief tenure was some gloried, euphoric period of Jeffersonian democracy.
Mossadegh wasn't a Communist, a Socialist perhaps, but it would matter little to the Ayatollahs. They used the Left, esp. the Iranian Communist ("Tudeh") Party, to take power and then N,ight of the Long Knives style, rubbed them out. Mossadegh would be hanging from the gallows in today's Iran.
It was not our finest hour, by a longshot, but we shouldn't rewrite history to pretend Mossadegh's brief tenure was some gloried, euphoric period of Jeffersonian democracy.
Mossadegh wasn't a Communist, a Socialist perhaps, but it would matter little to the Ayatollahs. They used the Left, esp. the Iranian Communist ("Tudeh") Party, to take power and then N,ight of the Long Knives style, rubbed them out. Mossadegh would be hanging from the gallows in today's Iran.
1
Thank you offtheclock99. I'm relieved that there's someone else out there who doesn't buy into the St. Mossadegh talking points. After the coup Mossadegh was subsequently arrested, tried for trying to undermine the Shah's government and sentenced to three years solitary confinement. The only thing that saved him from the gallows was that he was over 70 years old. Mossadegh was just another political opportunist who overreached his authority. He made way too many enemies at home and abroad when he tried to kick the British out of Iran and seize their oil companies in the name of "nationalization". He had no intention of turning Iran into a democracy--the real power in Iran still belonged to the Shah.
I wish I could recommend this comment 100 times. Thanks again.
I wish I could recommend this comment 100 times. Thanks again.
You're very welcome. But just as Churchill said, after Dunkirk, victories are not won out of evacuations, we shouldn't settle for a Shah or Ayatollah government. As we both agree "St. Mossadegh" may not have been the answer. But it would be nice if the Iranian people--inheritors of one the oldest civilizations on Earth--could be allowed a true liberal democracy.
America has someone no smarter than a fifth-grader as president.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
2
Iranians, can you please overthrow these unelected, illegitimate, Twelver, religious fanatics in their little costumes and 6th century headgear?
6
let's not forget who, basically, overthrew the democratically, modern, government of Iran. The French,The British, and of course The Americans.
8
What would really expect from Iranians when Americans elect someone like Trump?
3
I knew Rouhani would be nothing but a puppet doing Ayatollah Khamenai's bidding. This should forever bury the hopes of the pro-Iran crowd out the that the moderates were going to be in charge and turn Iran toward the West and away from being an inflexible theocracy. Women would be appointed to important positions! There would be a free press! Young people would have a say in their government. Well, now that's not going to happen now because Rouhani needs Ayatollah Khamenai's endorsement to form a new government. Ayatollah Khamenai is still firmly in control in Iran.
I told you so!!!!!
I told you so!!!!!
3
Trump's own cabinet (and quasi-harem of supermodel wives) may be inspiration for Iran to scrub any notion that allowing women to serve in cabinet positions would be a move in the right direction.
3
I don't think they needed any help from Trump. In fact, misogyny may bring us together. But seriously lets wish Trump the best in dealing with this situation. We have to get over the election and get behind him because events in the world need the attention of a US President who is not distracted by domestic politics. Can we please all grow up?
The most important thing that is undermining Rouhani and bolstering his opponent in Iran now, is Trump and NEW AMERICAN SANCTIONS against Iran. Trump's threats against Iran and his fear mongering are emboldening military institutions like Revolutionary Gaurd Corps and hardliners in Iran and if you clearly listened to today's Khamenei's speech, the thing that emboldened him against Rouhani was Trump whom he mentioned several times implicitly. And the other thing is that Rouhani is existentially a pragmatist so it's not a surprise that he chose a moderate cabinet over a more liberal one. In overall as a political student in Tehran University I must say that this article is far away from reality.
11
The Times's persistent naiveté when it comes to malign actors like the leaders of Iran, Cuba (our sunbathing baseball pals!), or North Korea (just be nice to them and they'll be nice to us!) is always striking. In Iran, the Times (and Obama/Kerry) have presumed widespread discontent among the populace with the orthodox and omnipotent Shia cleric elite. But any anti-hard-liner, pro-reform movements are limited to educated bourgeois in urban areas, mainly Tehran. The majority of Iranians (especially in rural regions) are comfortable with and even supportive of the hard-line leadership and their expansionist, nuclear ambitions. That Rouhani must defer to this reality and cater to conservative concerns is not a surprise.
3
Not so! Rpuhani was the most moderate Iranian politician that the so-called Council of Guardians permitted to run for election and then for reelection. Each time he scored landslide victories throughout the country (i.e., not only in Tehran). The fact that he has so little power is neither his fault nor that of his many (many!) supporters.
5
I can imagine Hillary Clinton besieged on all sides by GOP and a loud mouth Trump TV if she had won.
3
Trump is banging the war drum and coming close to or violating the Iran Agreement. The hardliners are strengthen by Trump's behavior. Just another disaster brewing from Trump incompetence
28
Maybe? But Blaming Trump for this is a leap into oblivion. Hardliners in a authoritarian theocracy don't need any reasons other than they're authoritarian.
4
Trump, and the usual and customary US duplicity in matters like these.
1
Before the February 11, 1979 Iranian Revolution, Iran was ruled by over 2,500 years of monarchical dictatorships. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last King or Shah of Iran, fled Iran in January 1979.
The last 4 Shahs, Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar, Ahmad Shah Qajar, Reza Shah and Mohammad Reza Shah died in exile. Ayatollah Khomayni was the 1st Iranian leader to drop dead in Iran in close to a century.
It was the British that discovered Oil in Iran in 1907. William Knox D'Arcy was the Englishmen that helped discover oil in Iran. The D'Arcy company changed hands several times and was owned by British Petroleum in 1951. In 1951, the Iranians nationalized the oil industry.
The Iranian Prime Minister who nationalized Iran's Oil was fired by the Shah. The Shah wanted to consolidate power. People refer to it as a coup but, a coup is not possible without internal Iranian support. And the Shah had many Iranian supporters. After 1953, the Shah created an intelligence service called SAVAK. The Savak was Iran's FBI and CIA combined. Unfortunately for the Shah, Savak tortured a lot of Iranians. Those Iranians helped overthrow the Shah in 1979. Khomayni replaced the Shah. the Turban replaced the crown. Khomayni dropped dead in 1989. Khamenei has been supreme leader ever since.