The Story


Questions for Debate:

1.) How will this impact our foreign policy with Iran?

2.) Iranian foreign minister has said Uranium enrichment will not cease with Ahmadinejad's appointment. With anti-Western sentiments now in power, will Nuclear development become (if not all ready) the highest priority for the administration?

3.) Do the new president's anti-Western feelings speak for all the people of Iran?

1.) How will this impact our foreign policy with Iran?

Well we didn't like their former government either, so I fail to see how this will change things.

2.) Iranian foreign minister has said Uranium enrichment will not cease with Ahmadinejad's appointment. With anti-Western sentiments now in power, will Nuclear development become (if not all ready) the highest priority for the administration?

Their still claiming that their nuclear program is for power production only..

I know countrys often claim that sort of thing to get enriched uranium, and pardon my ignorance, but do we actually have any proof that their lieing?

3.) Do the new president's anti-Western feelings speak for all the people of Iran?

Well, he got a rather large margin of the vote, but from what I hear the election may have been rigged.

1.) How will this impact our foreign policy with Iran?

It shouldn't really change our foreign policy towards Iran. We still don't want the government to acquire nuclear weapons. We want democratic reform and we want for the government to stop its oppression. That's not going to change nor should it ever change.

2.) Iranian foreign minister has said Uranium enrichment will not cease with Ahmadinejad's appointment. With anti-Western sentiments now in power, will Nuclear development become (if not all ready) the highest priority for the administration?

In the ME, being a nuclear power is seen as having a balance to counter-weight the power and influence of the West. Unless we can give them economic incentives to halt their nuclear programs...there is little chance they will cease the activity...especially with the EU doing the negotiating. The administration has always been anti-Western, supressing ideas and filling the nation with anti - US propaganda.

3.) Do the new president's anti-Western feelings speak for all the people of Iran?

On the Streets of Tehran, 'We Like America'



The answer is absolutely not. The truth is that the Iranian people want democratic reform and friendly relations just like any reasonable citizen of a nation would want. If anything, Iran is the least anti-american nation in the Middle East. The hardliners and propaganda by the government may tell of a different story...but the people want things to get better, because they know it should be.



Uh yea, like 80 candidates weren't even allowed to run for the office because they didn't "qualify." The choice was between this hardline mayor of Tehran and the president already in power...like it mattered who was voted in or what the margin of victory was.

Why does it surprise you so much? Nader wasn't allowed to participate in the debates here in USA, in most states he wasn't even on the ballot... same applies to Libertarians and most other third-party candidates. So, the choice we had was between the president already in power... and someone else. What's the difference?
Iranians had a choice between moderate and a conservative - for better or worse, they chose conservative. We may cringe at their choice (I certainly do), but we have to live with it.
You can not rig the vote to create such margin of victory. Rigged elections produce small margins of victory, not landslides (look at Ukraine).



Why is it that hard to fanthom that some people don't want democratic reform? Obviously they don't otherwise they wouldn't elect a hard-liner over a moderate.

Nader wasn't allowed to participate in the debates...but he could still run for President. The difference is that we could vote in any person we want to office. Just because two parties dominate the system doesnt mean it is impossible for a third party to compete. Its just how our political culture acts. Furthermore, the options given offer a wide range of different political opinion. In Iran, you have a choice between a hard-liner and a hard-liner. Calling the President of Iran a moderate in our context is pretty ridiculous.

The difference with Ukraine is that there was the assumption of legitimacy. There is no such assumption with Iran.



Of course this is going under the illusion that the election was legitimate by democratic standards.

From CNN:



From PBS:



Khatami was quite a moderate by Iranian standards.

How can you run for President if you're not on the ballot in most states? Be realistic... the most the third party can do is to syphon votes from Dems or Repubs. And this is in the oldest democracy in the world. What do you want from Iran? At least they had a choice between more conservative and less conservative candidate... and they chose the former.

Candidates do not need the approval of an unelected body to run, rather they must demonstrate a minimum of popular support with a signed petition.

Please don't tell me you believe the political systems of Iran and the US are comparable.

In Iran most moderates and liberals were thrown out of the race because they where disliked by the fundamentalist "Guardian Council" an unelected body of theocrats.

Iran is ceratinly in need of democratic reforms and we should work with the Iranian people to help make them possible.

Of course I don't believe Iranian and American political systems are comparable. But also I don't believe rejecting election results outright just because we don't like the winner. After all, if Iranian voters wanted democracy so much they would have elected the lesser of two evils - the more pragmatic and reform-oriented Khatami than the old-guard Islamic revolutionary who never held a major office.
It is for Iranian people to decide whether they're in need of democratic reforms, and as far as I am concerned they spoke loud and clear.

Provided the election results were honest, which is far from certain...


Neither candidate promised democratic reforms so the Iranian people have said nothing on the issue.

Any candidate who would propose and end to the "Guardian Council" would simply be voted down...by the Guardian Council.

Any candidate who proposed removing the post of "supreme leader" and making an elected president or prime minister head of state would be given the same send off.

Iranian voters have no say on the matter.

Khatami was a former president of Iran, a member of the old guard himself even if he was socially more liberal than his opponent.

Ahmadinejad spoke to the people's concerns over the economy, they realize political reforms are doomed so they voted for someone who would at least do something about the economy.

The mullahs can't vote against that can they?

Once again leder you manage to find a few quotes from citizens and assume the whole country feels the same way you do. It's true that their is has been a reformist and democratic movement in Iran for sometime now. However, I believe this election shows were Bush's condemnation and threats are getting him. By labeling Iran part of the axis of evil as well as our constant threats, and sending spy plane drones over the country has pushed some of the reformists to vote in favor of their national security.

If Iran wants anything, it's for us to treat them as equals, which we refuse to do. I'm sure many of them want democracy and better ties to the US but they don't want it to come about due through invasion which many see as imminent.

The best thing we can do is stop pushing on Iran for reform and let it happen on its own because we're going to push too many people away. I hate to say it but I think we brought this one upon ourselves.


1.) How will this impact our foreign policy with Iran?
Hopefully we'll just keep it at idle threats and we wont have any major policy changes. If we start to lay into them even more, we're going to end up crushing any chance for reform.

2.) Iranian foreign minister has said Uranium enrichment will not cease with Ahmadinejad's appointment. With anti-Western sentiments now in power, will Nuclear development become (if not all ready) the highest priority for the administration?
Probably. If they keep pursuing nukes and we don't do anything drastic, the reformers might gain a stronger voice and the collapse of the government will come about itself. If we play cowboy Ahmadinejad is going to say "I told you so" and our actions will have wiped out any hopes for reform.


3.) Do the new president's anti-Western feelings speak for all the people of Iran?

No, but if we continue with the pressure, it will soon.

Khatami wasn't running for reelection. The reformers who did run lost in the first round of the election. (One complained of a fixed election). The run off was between Rafsanjani, a former president who was part of the early revolutionary government, and Ahmadinejad, the conservative mayor of Tehran and a populist. Rafsanjani is one of the richest men in Iran while Ahmadinejad made much of his roots as a blacksmith's son. Corruption is wide spread in Iran and the new president used it as an issue. Why does everyone try to put elections in other countries in a U.S. context without considering the domestic influences?

The real question we should be discussing is whether the U.S. will continue with its policy of destabilizing Iran and possibly attacking it. See this article by Scott Ritter. You remember him, he was the former U.S. weapons inspector who was absolutely right about Iraq not having WMDs of significance and now can only get published in foreign news media. Ritter Article

I think this election showed the power of populism. I think it also showed the deep social divisions among Iranians. The rich and the poor. The newly elected Iranian president comes from a poor background while his opponent was widely known as the richest man in Iran. ..he was a capitalist..whereas the winner is a socialist. That is what persuaded the poor of Iran to cast their votes in favour of Ahmadinejad..he promised to defeat corruption and share the nation's wealth. He just intends to do this through a totalitarian system based on Islamic law.

I think saying this election was all a sham isn't entirely true. Yes sure it wasn't fair or open and anything close to democratic....but there were true opponents and there was a true power struggle between the two..the two were just of one regime.

I think for sometime now Iran's ruling government has been fractured..we see it ourselves with the anti-American protests on the streets, the mullahs monster posters plastered all over the city, the horrible smuggled images of executions and then Khatami touring the world in his sunglasses telling us stories about a moderate Iran who admires the World Trade Organization and the Davos forum and what they represent. Huh? I always felt like we were being lied to. How did each of these ideals exist in Iran's Khomeinist establishment? I personally felt they never did.

Looks like now the Iranian gov. has finally agreed that this little charade of reform wasn't working. I personally am glad with the results..now perhaps when America starts getting sick and tired of the Iranian run around our allies won't have any more of the of Iranian reform facades to point to.

2.) Iranian foreign minister has said Uranium enrichment will not cease with Ahmadinejad's appointment. With anti-Western sentiments now in power, will Nuclear development become (if not all ready) the highest priority for the administration?
Well from what I have read his stance is that yes they are pursuing a nuclear project and it is their right.
Which I suspect was always the Iranian gov stance. Now we are just getting it told to us honestly.

I listen to talk radio all day at work. I read various newspapers. I watch the news stations. USA & foreign. I peruse the 'net. Discussions go round & round. Iraq has not been self-ruling in eons. Saddam lasted so long 'cause he ruled with an iron fist & kept everyone at bay. Reality is the day the last of the day the current liberation army leaves Iraq it will go up in flames.

Iraq will have to endure its own civil war and whatever comes afterwards. There will be no way this occurance will NOT happen regardless of who who is or is not elected or who represents whichever faction.

This is the normal course of history as it has worked its way from the middle ages forward. Iraq will be not different.

Although this topic has been dead for a short while now...i think it is important to bring foward new information regarding the nation of Iran:

Rumsfeld Says Seized Explosives 'Clearly' From Iran



With Iran allegedly sending weapons to the Iraqi insurgents (or atleast allowing for it to happen) and the stream of insurgents coming in from Syria...the politics of the Middle East become even more rugged.