Iranian president sworn in.

Scroll to see replies

Saying the right but a puppet figure. Not expecting anything to change.

I'm with AJ12 on what possible action US will take. I just can't see them ever attacking Iran and will just continue with their sanctions.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 21

Tigers

Original post by Aj12

As others have said Israel is irrelevant here. Iran has signed the NPT Israel has not. Iran has to honor it's treaties obligations.

Israel and the USA don't honor their treaties when it's good for them

Reply 22

Aj12

Original post by Tigers

Israel and the USA don't honor their treaties when it's good for them

So? People in this country murder rape and steal from other people. It does not give me the right to break the law just because others have done it. You sign up to a treaty you follow it's obligations, Iran has done this, it must follow the treaty regardless of what other nations do, as I said Israel has not signed the treaty, what it does is irrelevant.

Reply 23

Tigers

Original post by Aj12

if they are not persecuted then you would have the same right to steal.I don't see why attention is only on nations who are against Israel and the USA but when they break treaties they have signed there is no intervention.Double standards

Reply 24

username129099

Original post by 419

I'm with AJ12 on what possible action US will take. I just can't see them ever attacking Iran and will just continue with their sanctions.

Why even bother then? The nuclear program is clearly progressing, you aren't going to enforce sanctions on a nuclear armed country producing oil, so the sanctions will end. What purpose do the sanctions have now exactly?

Israel stated again Iran will not be allowed to cross their red line, which was then stated to be a few weeks away. So we will see something, even if it is just Israeli desperation to try to gain US involvement in the near future.

Reply 25

username358506

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.

Rouhani is nothing more than Khameini's puppet; the entire thing's a front to democracy.

As far as the nuclear question is concerned, however, Iran wants meaningful and substantive talks, whilst Israel wants a transparent, nuclear-free Iran. I wonder who will come out on top: an isolated, theocratic asylum for lunatics or the guys who payroll America's elite. It sure is a tough one.

:rolleyes:

Reply 26

Mollylondon

Original post by doggyfizzel

Sanctions have the biggest effect on people surely inflation of 39% doesn't sound right,does it ? A civil war like Syria is very likely which is what I think US is planning for.

Reply 27

username358506

Original post by Mollylondon

A civil war like Syria is very likely which is what I think US is planning for.

How did you measure the likelihood of a civil war in Iran and come to the conclusion that it is 'very likely'?

Reply 28

username129099

Original post by Mollylondon

Sanctions have the biggest effect on people surely inflation of 39% doesn't sound right,does it ? A civil war like Syria is very likely which is what I think US is planning for.

I doubt it, if anything sanctions are going to lead to people being more supportive of the regime, a siege mentality. Internal problems and disagreements fade in the face of a common enemy, that enemy is probably the one inflicting huge sanctions on the country, the number of fighers and such that came from Iran to Iraq and now Syria suggest there is a fair degree of anti western sentiment in the population. Sanctions do hurt the people though, an authoritarian regime can control the remaining resources to continue pursuing its goals regardless.

Reply 29

Rakas21

Original post by Studentus-anonymous

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.

This.

The next six years i expect will see a number of bones thrown to the west and perhaps a few temporary suspensions however nothing will really change and in 6 years time we will be in a vaguely similar position to now (perhaps some lighter sanctions) before Iran eventually gets a move on with its nuclear programme.

I see nothing to disuade me that the coming decades will see a much more serious Sunni-Shia war break out in the Middle East. Israel is not the only country that wants Iran free of nuclear weapons.

Reply 30

Rakas21

Original post by Tigers

Israel and the USA don't honor their treaties when it's good for them

Few countries do.

Reply 31

ImNew

Original post by doggyfizzel

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.

It reminds of another country what was it called again? Oh the UK.

Reply 32

ImNew

Original post by Aj12

As others have said Israel is irrelevant here. Iran has signed the NPT Israel has not. Iran has to honor it's treaties obligations.

Are you actually making the argument that we should invade a country because they signed a treaty? That is so ridiculously absurd.

Reply 33

Aj12

Original post by ImNew

Are you actually making the argument that we should invade a country because they signed a treaty? That is so ridiculously absurd.

Don't believe I said that at all. I am making the argument Iran cannot pursue nuclear weapons because it has signed the treaty nothing more

Reply 34

ImNew

Original post by Aj12

Don't believe I said that at all. I am making the argument Iran cannot pursue nuclear weapons because it has signed the treaty nothing more

The Islamic Republic of Iran never signed it.

Reply 35

Aj12

Original post by ImNew

The Islamic Republic of Iran never signed it.

Yet the Iranian government clearly recognizes the treaty. They regularly claim to be working within it's framework

Reply 36

ImNew

Original post by Aj12

Yet the Iranian government clearly recognizes the treaty. They regularly claim to be working within it's framework

Okay and they probably are but still i'm just pointing out that treaties are just pieces of paper. As of yet there is no hard evidence of foul play from the Iranians, so the economic sanctions on them seem rather nonsensical and presumptuous.

Reply 37

User995789

Puppets have no power, the ones that hold the strings do. This guy doesn't hold the strings.

Reply 38

Falcatas

The problem this "moderate" is that he has significantly more chance of securing nuclear materials, once they have them, they will start asking for more and exerting more power.

Iran with a nuclear bomb would be the worst thing for the Middle East. Israel most likely has nuclear devices but they really don't want to use them, as it is just a deterrent against most of their neighbours who want to eradicate all the Jews living there from the face of the planet.

Reply 39

Aj12

Original post by ImNew

Iran has been in pursuit of nuclear and biological weapons since the USSR fell apart, they were well known throughout the 90's for trying to buy Soviet technology and convince soviet scientists to come and work for them. More recently they have sophisticated nuclear facilities that are well protected and hardened against attack and have been caught doing research into nuclear weapon triggers. They have also refused access to certain nuclear facilities. To say there is no evidence is pushing it a bit. They are clearly acting in a very suspicious manner and have a history of wanting WMD's. I think it is very likely they are aiming to get to the stage where they could quickly if needed build a bomb.