Iran Votes

Reformers win.

Hardliners lose.

Thank you, President Obama.

http://www.juancole.com/2016/02/tehran-is-liberated-territory-as-pragmatists-centrists-win-iranian-capital-expert-assembly.html

The Neocons just conveniently hope Americans are stupid. We caused a democratically elected government to be toppled in the fifties, we sat and watched a despot torture his citizens and steal their wealth with the shah, and many of us went to school with Iranian foreign exchange students during the seventies when they were our closest ally. The Iranian people are more westernized and secular than the dictatorship of theocracy would indicate and simple diplomacy has opened the path for real internal reform by simply removing our aggressive war stance on behalf of Israel. I firmly believe Israel will be safer with diplomacy.

Salinsky wrote:Reformers win.

Hardliners lose.

Thank you, President Obama.

http://www.juancole.com/2016/02/tehran-is-liberated-territory-as-pragmatists-centrists-win-iranian-capital-expert-assembly.html

Wonder how many Iranians would be pissed at your giving President Obama any thanks in this election?

Seems a bit pompous for another country to take credit? Isn't that just a ploy to set up someone as a foreign relations statesman? And shouldn't the thanks go to Sec of State Kerry rather than President Obama? I know, I know...chain of command and all that...

I think sensible, clear and forward thinking citizens of Iran made the difference.

Salinsky wrote:This result is a dividend of diplomacy, and a is a direct result of President Obama's decision to engage with the Iranians and craft an agreement.

Do you not remember Bibi Netanyahu and many congressional republicans demanding that not only should any agreement be scrapped, but that Iran should be preemptively attacked?

Those moves would have consolidated and strengthened the hardliners chokehold on Iran.

President Obama chose the path to peace, and he deserves our gratitude.

The path to peace is always the best.

The guy is just a figurehead... this doesn't signify anything for society in iran or it's international activities.

As all the Progressives here know and know well is that the President of Iran is a figurehead. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani does not run the country. The Clerics behind the scenes make the decisions.

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:As all the Progressives here know and know well is that the President of Iran is a figurehead. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani does not run the country. The Clerics behind the scenes make the decisions.

You are correct, but the Clerics are losing power -- not to leaders like Rafsanjani -- but to the people of Iran themselves.  Like other neocons, Markle you want to portray the Iranian people as stupid, barbaric automatons -- puppets of their clerics.  Wrong.  They are highly intelligent, generally well educated and quite forward in their thinking.

You keep posting to arouse fear and promote hatred among your audience -- in pursuit of your ultimate goal -- another new, costly, unwinnable, and senseless conflict.  Reality.

Rouhani is taking the only real path available, slowly and carefully - fortunately for him he has the backing of a progressive middle class, something the hardliners lack. Reform won't occur quickly but this is a step in the right direction. Even the clerics are realizing they must change or face an eventual revolution.

I remember during the arab spring obama encouraging the movement in countries like egypt... but ignored iran.

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/nytimes-obama-jump-started-arab-spring

Anyone who says that the United States did not have a lot of influence in these crises doesn’t know what they are talking about. Of course,the U.S. government didn’t control the outcome,its leverage was limited. But there’s a big difference between telling the Egyptian army to stay in control,dump Mubarak,and make a mild transition—and we,the United States,will back you—or telling them that Washington wanted the generals to stand aside,let Mubarak be overthrown,and have a thoroughgoing regime change,a fundamental transformation,to coin a phrase.

So the Obama Administration did not stand beside friendly regimes or help to manage a limited transition with more democracy and reforms. No,it actively pushed to bring down at least four governments—Bahrain,Egypt,Tunisia,and Yemen.

It did not push for the overthrow of two anti-American regimes—Iran and Syria—but on the contrary was still striving for good relations with those two dictatorships. Equally,it did not push for the fall of radical anti-American governments in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. No, it only pushed for the fall of “valuable allies.”

There was no increase in support for dissidents in Iran despite,as we will see in a moment,internal administration predictions of unrest there,too. As for Syria,strong administration support for the dictatorship there continued for months until it was clear that the regime was in serious trouble. It seems reasonable to say that the paper did not predict the Syrian civil war.

Want more evidence about the internal administration document? Here's another article from the Times which explains:

"The White House had been debating the likelihood of a domino effect since youth-driven revolts had toppled President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia,even though the American intelligence community and Israel’s intelligence services had estimated that the risk to President Mubarak was low —less than 20 percent,some officials said.

"According to senior officials who participated in Mr. Obama’s policy debates,the president took a different view. He made the point early on,a senior official said,that `this was a trend' that could spread to other authoritarian governments in the region, including in Iran. By the end of the 18-day uprising,by a White House count,there were 38 meetings with the president about Egypt. Mr. Obama said that this was a chance to create an alternative to “the Al Qaeda narrative” of Western interference."

Notice that while this suggests the debate began after the unrest started,full credit is given to Obama personally,not to U.S. intelligence agencies,for grasping the truth. This is like the appropriation by the White House of all the credit for getting Usama bin Ladin,sort of a cult of personality thing.

We know for a fact that the State Department predicted significant problems arising in Tunisia (from the Wikileaks documents) and perhaps that is true for other countries as well. But if Obama wants to take personal credit for the new U.S. policy that means he also has to take personal blame for the damage it does.

Now I assume what I'm about to say isn't going to be too popular,but I'll also bet that history will prove it correct: The revolution in Egypt was not inevitable and Obama's position was a self-fulfilling prophecy. And judging from what happened at the time,Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agrees with me.

The idea of an "alternative to `the al-Qaida narrative"'of Western interference is straight Brennan. What Obama was really saying was: Ha! So al-Qaida claims we interfere to put reactionary pro-Western dictators in power just because they're siding with us?We'll show them that we can put popular Islamist dictators in power even though they are against us!

I'm writing this somewhat facetiously,but I mean it very seriously.

And here's more proof from the Washington Post in March 2011 which seems to report on the implementation of the White House paper's recommendations:

"The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal assessment,ordered by the White House last month,identified large ideological differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region."

That says it all,doesn't it?The implication is that the U.S. government knew that the Brotherhood would take power and thought this was a good thing.

It continued:

"`If our policy can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood,we won't be able to adapt to this change,'" the senior administration official said. "`We're also not going to allow ourselves to be driven by fear."'

Might that be then counterterrorism advisor and now CIA director John Brennan?I'd bet on it.

[ad] What did Obama and his advisors think would happen?Why,that out of gratitude for America stopping its (alleged) bullying and imperialistic ways and getting on the (alleged) side of history,the new regimes would be friendly?

The Muslim Brotherhood in particular would conclude that America was not its enemy. You know,one Brotherhood leader would supposedly say to another,all of these years we thought the United States was against us but now we see that they are really our friends. Remember Obama's Cairo speech?He really gets us!

More likely he'd be saying: We don't understand precisely what the Americans are up to but they are obviously weak,cowardly,and in decline! In fact,that's what they did say.

Remember that President Jimmy Carter's attempts to make friends with the new Islamist regime in Iran in 1979 fed a combination of Iranian suspicion and arrogance which led to the hostage crisis and Tehran daring to take on the United States single-handed. America, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at the time,can't do a damned thing against us.

Incidentally,everyone except the American public—which means people in the Middle East—knows that Obama cut the funding for real democratic groups. His Cairo speech was important not for the points so often discussed (Israel,for example) but because it heralded the age of political Islamism being dominant in the region. Indeed,Obama practically told those people that they should identify not as Arabs but as Muslims.

In broader terms,what does Obama’s behavior remind me of? President Jimmy Carter pushing Iran’s Shah for human rights and other reforms in 1977 and then standing aloof as the revolution unrolled—and went increasingly in the direction of radical Islamists—in 1978.

As noted above,that didn’t work out too well.