18 thoughts on “Iran Will Elect a New Hardline President, We Have Only Ourselves to Blame – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. @Richard

    You’ve neglected to mention that Iran’s Guardian Council, which reflects the preferences of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, narrowed the field to seven candidates from hundreds who had registered and disqualified prominent figures associated with centrist or reform-minded political factions.

    That said, I’m not going to self-flagellate over this.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-presidential-election-candidates/2021/05/25/aef604b2-b8c6-11eb-bc4a-62849cf6cca9_story.html

      1. Three of seven candidates, including one ‘moderate’ pull out of Iran presidential race, which then leaves four hopefuls in the race, of whom the ultraconservative judiciary chief Raisi, 60, is seen as the clear favorite after other prominent politicians were barred from running.
        https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/three-of-seven-candidates-pull-out-of-iran-presidential-race/

        That leaves one, handpicked ‘moderate’ against three ultra conservatives, one of whom, Raisi, is the favorite of Supreme Leader Khameinei.

        No wonder most Iranian voters stayed at home.

        1. @ Amnon: You said there were no moderate candidates. There were 2. One withdrew because he wanted to give the other moderate a better chance. Of the four remaining candidates, one was moderate.

          If you want to rail against Iran, you might want to first consider the absolute political dysfunction of your own electoral system, in which you have four elections in two years, none of which offered a stable government. And you know have a laughingstock of a government which was only cobbled together out of desperation to get rid of Bibi. It will last less than a year, I predict.

          Or shall we explore all the other anti-democratic aspects of Israeli politics and society, since you’re playing the same shell game regarding Iran??

  2. Richard said:

    When it didn’t, due to the Obama administration’s refusal to relieve some of the most onerous sanctions, Rouhani bore the blame.

    No. That’s not what your link said.
    Your link said that the Obama Administration Iran legacy is ‘noble and complicated’ but that the Obama Administration, according to Iranian officials, “..has not given international banks enough of a green light to be confident in doing business with Iran.”

    How’s it (lame duck)Obama’s fault if international banks considered doing business with Iran too great a risk at that time?
    International banks may well steer clear of financing Iran even if the Biden Administration forges another deal with Iran.

    1. @ Amnon: You poor shlep. Thinking you can pull a Gotcha. Think again:

      U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and his counterparts in Europe “will be clarifying for companies what transactions with Iran are in fact allowed” under the nuclear agreement so businesses do not risk running afoul of remaining U.S. restrictions on transactions with Iran, he said.

      Guess what happened? Did US and European companies begin clamoring to do business with Iran? No they didn’t. Why? Because the US didn’t devise any financing mechanism that would have permitted these companies to feel comfortable their investments would be secure.

      And this:

      …many restrictions remain in place in the United States…

      Obama stressed…some of the disappointment Iran is experiencing with sanctions relief…

      “It is going to take time over the next several months for companies and their legal departments to feel confident…there may not be risks of liability if they do business with Iran.”

      Guess what, due to Obama’s ineffectiveness businesses never did make those investments. And the reason is almost entirely due to the US refusal to create the financial mechanisms which would encourage this. Here’s another report outlining Rouhani’s anger at Congressional sanctions which Obama signed into law AFTER JCPOA was approved.

      And further, the US had frozen $10-billion in Iranian assets. It only released less than $2-billion. How do you think the Iranians felt about that? Happy with Obama? I think not.

      Dear Readers: Note well that Amnon is yet another in a long line of tag-team hasbara wrestlers assigned by Hasbara Central to stalk the site. A few break the rules, get banned, then they tag up to the next shlep. Poor Amnon is “it” for the time being till he tags the next guy.

      1. [comment deleted : you have been moderated. When I tell you you are done in a thread you are, whether you like or or not. Only future comments which respect the comment rules will be posted. Now tag the next hasbara wrestler as you fade into oblivion where you belong.]

        1. Where did you tell me that I was done with the thread?

          *you didn’t*

          ‘When all you have is hammer, everything looks like a nail’

          1. @ Amnon: You are right. I have many commenters here. You’re not the only one. I warned another commenter, BDK not to comment further in the thread. I confused him with you.

            You are not moderated. But respect the comment rules in future.

          2. Oh, great. Now I can re-post what you’d deleted.

            Hear Obama, in his own words.

            Despite the lifting of most global economic sanctions on Iran in January, many restrictions remain in place in the United States because of Iran’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism, its repeated testing of ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, and violations of human rights.

            Obama did not provide details at his press conference, but he stressed that some of the disappointment Iran is experiencing with sanctions relief thus far is due to Tehran’s own misbehavior, not the remaining U.S. sanctions.

            “Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that might scare businesses off,” Obama said.

            “When they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous,” he said.

            “Iran has to understand that businesses want to go where they feel safe,” he said. “There is a geopolitical risk that is heightened when Iran ships missiles to Hizballah and threatens Israel.”

            Iran also “faces the challenge that companies have not been doing business there for a long time, and they have to get comfortable” with the idea of going back into Iran, he said.
            “It is going to take time over the next several months for companies and their legal departments to feel confident…there may not be risks of liability if they do business with Iran.”

            Earlier in the day, Obama cautioned that “it will take time for Iran to reintegrate into the global economy, but Iran is already beginning to see the benefit of [the nuclear] deal.”

            https://www.rferl.org/a/obama-says-will-address-some-iranian-concerns-us-sanctions-nuclear-deal/27649729.html

          3. @ Amnon: Again, your comment is irrelevant. The US maintained sancctions which were not based on Iran’s nuclear program, but on its “behavior,” including it’s testing of ballistic missiles and its intervention in Syria. But those are actions any sovereign state is entitled to engage in. Israel, the US routinely do the same thing, yet have no sanctions imposed on them. These sanctions have nothing to do with JCOPOA, which was specifically the subject of my post. Nor were the sanctions associated with JCPOA lifted. Business transactions IRan expected and was promised by Obama never happened. All this was, once again, the US’ and Obama’s fault. He failed. Despite his hollow claims that Iran was “seeing the benefit of lifting sanctions” it saw no benefit whatsoever except for a single act of unfreezing Iranian assets (and those only partially) in US banks.

            Again, no one has any right to impose sanctions on Iran for doing pecisely what the US and Israel do routinely: test ballistic missiles and intervene in affairs of neighboring countries. TO maintain two standards is hypocritical and unacceptable.

            You are done in this thread.

  3. A tough hardline leader requires tough negotiations because he will be tough. But Iran has a right to feel that any deal made by a US President is not durable. Given also their right to develop nuclear arms in defense of the threats from Israel (and us)- their way of looking at it I presume- their nuclear program needs time, and, because of aggression against it, secrecy. Do we believe that Iran has no design on making a nuclear weapon as they have said? Are we bringing them to that? But too, are we believable? Israel claims deterrence. Iran can’t?
    As far as internal affairs go- they are internal affairs, for their people to deal. When foreign affairs threaten them, like everywhere, they will support their government.
    I do believe that if allowed, there would be some rapprochement between Iran and the Arabs in this business minded interconnected world. And I believe Iran has great potential to be a good normal partner in world affairs.
    One major irritant, the Israel-Iran “thing”, needs major cooling (to end) and the US unconditional backing of Israel including calling the Iranians bad and terrorists, gets their backs up. The heavy hand also needs to be used on Israel as well as misguided Iran leaders. Ahmadinejad did his damage verbally and Netanyahu ran with it (on it).

  4. Richard as an expert on Iran and middle-east geopolitics, can you share any information about the Iranian nuclear program?
    We know it is not about WMD because Iran closed that program years ago because of the fatwa against WMDs, but what do Iranian develop in their nuclear program? Is it medical? Is is about energy?

    1. @ Dan: An “expert on Middle-East geopolicts?” Really? You flatter me. I’ve written about this subject and answered your question. Do a Google search and you will hopefully find what I’ve written. I think your questions put the issues a bit too black & white.

    2. Dan as an Israeli tell us for what reason Israel has produced for over 50 years weapon grade plutonium in its French built reactor specialised only in that “product line”. Not certainly for energy use and if it is for medical reasons the amounts of plutonium are “incredible”.

      Iran at least has a energy producing nuclear power station and so real need for nuclear material for power production and for medical use. All countries militaries in Israel’s neighbourhood must have plans how to neutralise Israel’s nuclear arsenal in different conditions. That includes the Arab countries, Turkey, Iran and Europe. Sadly the only way to neutralise the nuclear threat is to have an own or a bigger ally which has them. Saying that we do not admit having nuclear weapons is laughable if you have produced for a halve century plutonium.

      1. Simo – to make nuclear weapons. DAHHHHH!!!

        Richard – can you please provide a link. I do not find anything concrete on the subject you have written.

        Thank you.

  5. [comment deleted: read the comment rules, which you clearly haven’t. Do not compare Iran to Nazi Germany. Violate the rules again and you will be moderated]

  6. [comment deleted: WTF?? You think you can comment here advocating executing people? Where do you think you are? Not here buddy, that’s for sure.]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *