Iranian president sworn in.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani takes oath of office

Iran's new president has just been sworn in, he has seen as something of a moderate and is aiming to free political prisoners and get economic sanctions lifted. So this could mean that we might see some form of progress on the Iranian nuclear program. As well as this he appears open to improved relations with Britain. I imagine time will tell if he is actually legitimate about these aims, we could just end up with a continuation of the same diplomatic deadlock.

The BBC has done a profile of him.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

Umar1

10

Original post by Aj12

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani takes oath of office

Iran's new president has just been sworn in, he has seen as something of a moderate and is aiming to free political prisoners and get economic sanctions lifted. So this could mean that we might see some form of progress on the Iranian nuclear program. As well as this he appears open to improved relations with Britain. I imagine time will tell if he is actually legitimate about these aims, we could just end up with a continuation of the same diplomatic deadlock.

The BBC has done a profile of him.

Neocons and Israel will put immense pressure on US and EU to ward off negotiations. They want a confrontation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 2

Blue Meltwater

3

I'm not optimistic that this will allow for an opening in Western relations with Iran, though that would be nice. I think this would be far more significant if the Iranian President was actually a position with substantial powers, but perhaps his influence will still be felt.

Reply 3

Rhadamanthus

17

Original post by Umar1

Neocons and Israel will put immense pressure on US and EU to ward off negotiations. They want a confrontation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Boring. Not everything is a big Jew conspiracy (I'm aware that 'Jew' and 'neocon' mean pretty much the same thing to people like yourself).

Reply 4

Ry_p94

12

You misunderstand the Iranian constitution. The President has little real power - Iran's government is completely subordinate to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader", who is the main driving force for Iran's nuclear ambitions. So I doubt there will be rapprochement with the West just because there's a new face for the same regime.

Reply 5

Aj12

OP

18

Original post by Umar1

Neocons and Israel will put immense pressure on US and EU to ward off negotiations. They want a confrontation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't really see why people think Israel want war. They can't manage it and don't have the military abilities to launch an attack on Iran. If they did Iran would use it's proxies to attack Israel in an Asymmetric war which could do huge damage to the country. Bar a complete occupation of Iran military strikes won't work on removing it's nuclear program. I don't really see why anyone would want war.

Reply 6

Studentus-anonymous

12

See it's vaguely reassuring to have a so called moderate take the presidency but I keep thinking this:

As long as Iran's political system keeps the ultimate sanction of power within the hands of the Ayatollah and mullahs, the democratic organs of the state are just going to be political theatrics and play.

Reply 7

username129099

15

He has no real power, he's a puppet figure to give the illusion of a democracy. He'll toe the line Khomeini want. He's also blatantly pro nuclear armament, he complaining about sanctions already and talks of negotiation. Its pretty easy to negotiate, stop building a bomb and the sanctions will stop, any negotiation required beyond that clearly requires them not to have to give up their nuclear program.

Reply 8

castlemadeofsand

1

You should be ashamed of yourself for this.

Im not sure the reason for the backlash here. One user made a comment on the heavy influence Israel possesses on the international stage and how it will use that influence for its own aggressive agenda. You may or may not agree with this that is not in question. However this Rhad guy immediately launched into some diatribe suggesting that any negative comment on Israel's policy is somehow hinting at anti-Semitism as it is suggesting the sort of Jewish conspiracies prevalent at the beginning of the 20th century.

He should therefore be ashamed of himself as he is, instead of addressing his point of grievance directly (such as arguing against the ideas that Israel holds significant influence or pursues aggressive agendas) instead tried to paint him as some sort of loon using words he never said.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 9

Tigers

so nations who have nuclear weapons are accusing Iran of building nuclear weapons

Reply 10

username129099

15

Original post by Tigers

so nations who have nuclear weapons are accusing Iran of building nuclear weapons

Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They bound themselves to treaty saying they can't build weapons. The US doesn't really have much ground to stand on seeing as they often flout it too, but that doesn't mean Iran is in the right. Even Israel can hold the high ground they are not signatories.

Reply 11

Tigers

Original post by doggyfizzel

Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They bound themselves to treaty saying they can't build weapons. The US doesn't really have much ground to stand on seeing as they often flout it too, but that doesn't mean Iran is in the right. Even Israel can hold the high ground they are not signatories.

so if Iran dismisses the treaty it will be in the right

Reply 12

username129099

15

Original post by Tigers

so if Iran dismisses the treaty it will be in the right

Not really following your logic. You sign a treaty, you then have to comply. Its pretty simple, Iran gave up its right to nuclear development when it signed the treaty. The treaty have indefinite length you can't dismiss it or opt out, once you are in you are in.

Reply 13

Yawn11

20

Original post by Umar1

Neocons and Israel will put immense pressure on US and EU to ward off negotiations. They want a confrontation.

Posted from TSR Mobile

This.

Original post by Aj12

I don't really see why people think Israel want war. They can't manage it and don't have the military abilities to launch an attack on Iran. If they did Iran would use it's proxies to attack Israel in an Asymmetric war which could do huge damage to the country. Bar a complete occupation of Iran military strikes won't work on removing it's nuclear program. I don't really see why anyone would want war.

They can with the support of the US.

Reply 14

Aj12

OP

18

Original post by Yawn11

This.

They can with the support of the US.

But that's not a given at all. The US is trying to extract itself from the Middle East, they don't want an Iraq times ten which is what Iran would be

Reply 15

username129099

15

The US is trying to refocus to the pacific, but I'm not sure about an extraction in the sense of foreign policy in the middle east ending. Iraq was 20 something days, took 200,000 troops and 140 casualties for a full ground invasion. Iran would not be a full ground invasion, more a bombing campaign with ground forces being used where required. Point being, Iraq only became Iraq as we know it today post invasion, if you aren't having an invasion which without regime change there is no reason you would be getting stuck in the same way the US did in Iraq. I think its a completely different proposition to Iraq as a whole and more comparable to the invasion phase of Iraq. You wouldn't encounter the same problem with Fallujah insurgencies trying to hold while engineers destroy a facility in the middle of no where, nor would you have to same problems extracting troop afterwards. The US's middle eastern commitment would be vastly increased in the long term in Iran gains a bomb, all the Sunni gulf states will want US protection.

From a British perspective, I hope the US stays out, no doubt Britain will provide a token force which is something unneeded. Quite frankly, I'm pro Trident, so a country like Iran announcing a bomb for their Iranian middle eastern cold war would do wonders back home to undermine the idea that nuclear weapons are no longer required, despite no posing much of a threat to the UK. Not to mention nuclear proliferation is pretty inevitable anyway wasting lives and money trying to prevent it seems a waste to me.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 16

Aj12

OP

18

Original post by doggyfizzel

The US is trying to refocus to the pacific, but I'm not sure about an extraction in the sense of foreign policy in the middle east ending. Iraq was 20 something days, took 200,000 troops and 140 casualties for a full ground invasion. Iran would not be a full ground invasion, more a bombing campaign with ground forces being used where required. Point being, Iraq only became Iraq as we know it today post invasion, if you aren't having an invasion which without regime change there is no reason you would be getting stuck in the same way the US did in Iraq I think its a completely different proposition to Iraq as a whole and more comparable to the invasion phase of Iraq. You wouldn't encounter the same problem with Fallujah insurgencies trying to hold while engineers destroy a facility in the middle of no where, nor would you have to same problems extracting troop afterwards. The US's middle eastern commitment would be vastly increased in the long term in Iran gains a bomb, all the Sunni gulf states will want US protection.

From a British perspective, I hope the US stays out, no doubt Britain will provide a token force which is something unneeded. Quite frankly, I'm pro Trident, so a country like Iran announcing a bomb for their Iranian middle eastern cold war would do wonders back home to undermine the idea that nuclear weapons are no longer required, despite no posing much of a threat to the UK. Not to mention nuclear proliferation is pretty inevitable anyway wasting lives and money trying to prevent it seems a waste to me.

I know US foreign policy won't end but I think the US wants to avoid big interventions in the Middle East like Iraq or Afghanistan. Also if the US does go into Iran without regime change what's to stop the Iranian government from continuing to pursue it's nuclear aims? Lets say the US invades tomorrow wipes out the nuclear sites and leaves again (somehow without consequence for itself or its allies in the region) surely the Iranian government if it survives in any form is going to start pursuing its nuclear program again? Maybe not straight away but say a decade down the line? Then you have the same old problem again with Iran intent on quickly gaining a bomb to stop any future security threat from the US or West. If force has to be used to remove the Iranian nuclear program then it's going to require complete regime change so they don't end up facing a repeat twenty years down the line.

Reply 17

username129099

15

Original post by Aj12

I know US foreign policy won't end but I think the US wants to avoid big interventions in the Middle East like Iraq or Afghanistan.

I think the word big needs a better definition. Big as in large scale or big as in long term. I think the US wants to avoid long term interventions, so avoiding an occupation, but I don't think the US is going to avoid, anymore than usual, big interventions. The exit strategy of just leaving, would be an option if regime change was not pursued.

Also if the US does go into Iran without regime change what's to stop the Iranian government from continuing to pursue it's nuclear aims? Lets say the US invades tomorrow wipes out the nuclear sites and leaves again (somehow without consequence for itself or its allies in the region) surely the Iranian government if it survives in any form is going to start pursuing its nuclear program again? Maybe not straight away but say a decade down the line? Then you have the same old problem again with Iran intent on quickly gaining a bomb to stop any future security threat from the US or West. If force has to be used to remove the Iranian nuclear program then it's going to require complete regime change so they don't end up facing a repeat twenty years down the line.

Ultimately nothing which is why I think even attempting to prevent non proliferation is a waste of time. With the framework of a developed satellite programme and a domestically provided civilian nuclear programme most nations could transitions to becoming a nuclear state within a few years, as is always stated with Japan for all intents and purposes its has nuclear capability. You either bring Iran onside which doesn't seem like happening or accept it.