originally posted in:Sapphire
I would like to start out by saying a lot of claims in this will be from the above article; if they are not, I will link to the correct article.
We should all know by now that the media (especially here in America) has been overwhelmingly optimistic about Rouhani ushering in a post-Ahmadinejad Iran. With President Obama making the first contact with an Iranian president since 1979, a lot of the media is touting this as a success ([url=http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3B977544-1AB5-4F0A-8278-62A251965768]source[/url]). But is this seemingly overzealous optimism justified? I wouldn't hold your breath.
This started, of course, during the Iranian elections a few months back. Rouhani, who was running on a "reformist" platform, started to gain momentum and us in the West became interested to think of a moderate actually winning. But is Rouhani really a "reformist"? To answer this, let's first look at the requirements to run for president of Iran. Skipping over the axiomatic requirements of being Iranian, moral requirements and being a man, one requirement really sticks out. For one to run for president, one must also be a believer of the madhab of Iran and the overall fundamentals of the Islamic Republic--i.e Wilayat al-Faqih ([url=http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/ir00000_.html]source[/url]). Furthermore, one must also be approved by the Guardian Council.
The Guardian Council is, of course, handpicked by the Supreme Leader. It would make sense for one to assume that the members of the Guardian Council hold a lot of the beliefs that the Ayatollah does, and therefore also picks candidates who share the same beliefs to run for president. So does Rouhani?
To quote another article from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD): [url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/why-you-shouldnt-get-too-excited-about-rouhani/]Here[/url]
[quote]Rouhani is a supreme loyalist, and a true believer, who lived in Paris in exile with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and followed him to Iran. He was a political commissar in the regular military, where he purged some of Iran's finest officers, and a member of the Supreme Defense Council responsible for the continuation of the Iran-Iraq War, at a great cost in Iranian lives, even after all Iranian territories were liberated. He rose to become both Secretary of Iran's powerful Supreme National Council in 1989, and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, under former Iranian presidents Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his successor Mohammad Khatami.[/quote]
Rouhani's mentor? Rafsnajani. This is the guy who approved the Beirut bombing in 1983. The guy who furthered the Iran-Iraq War. The guy who started to seriously allocate funds to their nuclear program in the 90's. He did all this with Rouhani right under his wing. His background certainly does not look to be like that of a reformer.
So how does this all tie in to recent "breakthroughs" with Iran? Rouhani, with the Supreme Leaders permission, could be trying to work out a short-term deal with the West over their nuclear program. [url=http://www.defenddemocracy.org/stuff/uploads/documents/Iran_Report_Final_2.pdf]Looking at this PDF from the FDD[/url], we see that the current rate of sanctions on Iran have severely hurt their economy. However, Iran has various "off-record" accounts to withdrawal money from. But, because of the sanctions, these too are being depleted.
[url=http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/13/british_intelligence_warns_iran_will_have_nuclear_weapons_by_2014_as_us_tightens_sa]Iran, at their current level of production[/url], will more than likely have a nuclear weapon by mid to late 2014. This is assuming that their accounts are not depleted, which is where the current "breakthroughs" come in. The willingness of Rouhani to negotiate may be nothing more than a bid to buy time. With a short-term deal, they could ease sanctions while at the same time maintain the levels of their clandestine nuclear weapon production. The PDF also points out that Iran is moving towards what's called an "undetectable breakout". In other words, they are moving closer to being able to produce nuclear weapons quick enough that the IAEA or even intelligence agencies cannot detect them in time.
Lest we even mention Rouhani's plan for Syria.
It certainly does not look like Rouhani is a "reformer" on the international scale. While only time will tell what the true motives are behind the recent "breakthroughs", it would be wise to maintain a level of skepticism.
What are your thoughts on this? Your thoughts on the recent "breakthroughs"? Your thoughts on this situation in general? Current US-Iran relations?
-
125 executions under Rouhani so far. Not sure why anyone expected that to change.
-
Edited by Parakitteh: 10/16/2013 9:23:01 AMThe risk of Iran acquiring weapons is probably due to being left out in the cold and to their own devices. If the west agreed to construct Osirak-style reactors in Iran, we could seriously reduce the risk of weapons-grade proliferation. Against the opinion of western intelligence agencies and all of Israel, independent assessment of the destroyed Osirak facility in Iraq by nuclear scientists and engineers seemed to agree that the Osirak facility could not have produced material sufficient to produce nuclear weapons. Combined with many Generation III+ reactor designs, many of which have measures against proliferating - especially the proposed GenIV designs like the LFTR. Besides, I've always been confused as to the veracity with which Iranian nuclear weapons programmes are hailed as doomsday. Yeah, it's going to be a shitstorm for regional stability if only as a penile extension of the Islamic Republic, but it's not as though they're going to launch a Terminator 3-style nuclear strike.
-
Wait, so if Iran has a 'Supreme Leader' what's the president for? (sorry I don't know much about Iranian politics, other then a bit about the exiled Imperial Family)
-
Rafsanjani is deeply opposed to nuclear weapons and the Rafsanjani and Khatami presidencies were both times of thawing relations between Iran and the west compared with the nadir they reached under Ahmadinejad or how they were in the 80's when Khamenei was president. While it's true that by our standards he's hardly a liberal, he's also not a hard liner. Simply being willing to negotiate with the west is a big improvement. Of course, he will also oppose Khamenei's efforts at setting up a monarchy, which can only be good, and with any luck he'll actually achieve improved relations with the west. Most interpretations of the Quran view using nuclear weapans as haram, though tit-for-tat development a la Pakistan and India does have precedent.