Brooding Iran hardliners say they must still be heard after Rouhani win

[webfact]

Brooding Iran hardliners say they must still be heard after Rouhani win

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin

REUTERS

 

A supporter of Iranian president Hassan Rouhani holds his poster as she celebrates his victory in the presidential election, in Tehran, Iran, May 20, 2017. TIMA via REUTERS

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Iranian hardliners indignant at President Hassan Rouhani's re-election vowed on Sunday to press their conservative agenda, with some saying his caustic campaign trail attacks on their candidate would bring a backlash.

 

Rouhani won decisively with 57 percent of the vote on Friday, with promises of more engagement with the outside world, more economic opportunities for Iran’s youth, as well as social justice, individual freedoms and political tolerance.

 

The president, known for decades as a conciliatory figure, remade himself on the campaign trail as a reformist political street fighter, accusing hardliners of brutality and corruption in language that frequently strained at the boundaries of what is permitted in Iran. At one point, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called rhetoric in a TV debate "unworthy".

 

In his victory speech, Rouhani continued to sound his defiant note, saying the nation had chosen "the path of interaction with the world, away from violence and extremism."

 

Some conservatives were further angered when Rouhani's supporters danced and sang in the streets in some cities on Saturday evening to celebrate his victory. Men and women participated together, testing the strict rules meant to enforce sexual segregation in public in Iran.

 

The victory for the reform camp went beyond the presidency: in Tehran, Rouhani allies won all 21 seats on the city council, defeating conservatives who had controlled it for 14 years.

 

Rouhani's defeated rival, hardline judge Ebrahim Raisi, a protege of Khamenei, said in his first comments after the election that the almost 16 million voters who supported him must not be ignored.

 

"Enjoying such support, I will continue my fight against corruption and inequality and my efforts to solidify the values of the Islamic Revolution," Raisi, who received 38 percent of the vote, said in statement.

 

A pro-Raisi coalition of conservative parties and clerical bodies told its supporters on Sunday the election was "not the end, but just a beginning".

 

"We failed in our first step to form a government. But 16 million votes shows a real demand for change," the Front of Islamic Revolution Forces said in a statement.

 

"GOD'S WRATH"

 

An Iranian journalist who had spoken to Raisi supporters after the election told Reuters they were furious at the way the president had spoken about their candidate and themselves.

 

"We do not seek a fight, it is Rouhani who has taken a confrontational approach,” the journalist quoted one of the Raisi supporters as having told him.

 

"Rouhani called Raisi supporters extremist and violent. How can a president insult 16 million people of his country? His sarcastic comments against the Supreme Leader and the security forces show he wants to pick a fight.”

 

On the internet, other conservatives complained about the post-election celebrations. A Raisi supporter identified as Mostafa Allali said on Twitter: "It was obscene to see boys and girls were dancing in the streets. My wife said let's go home before God's wrath falls on us."

 

Hardline media rumbled with discontent about the outcome. The daily Kayhan, whose head is named by Khamenei, said that Raisi would have at least doubled his votes if he had been given the coverage Rouhani enjoys as president.

 

The Ammar website, which reflects the views of the Basij hardline volunteer militia, wrote: "Hassan Rouhani can for a month destroy the judiciary, the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij and ... and no one can tell him anything?"

 

Yet most hardline politicians have been more reserved, at least in public, choosing to follow Khamenei's lead in saying that the election's high turnout was a victory for the Islamic ruling system, without focusing on the outcome.

 

    Reformist university professor Sadeq Zibakalam said hardliners were still refusing to accept the election's verdict: that an overwhelming majority of Iranians want the system to become more open.

 

    "Unfortunately, instead of accepting the message issued by the results, they are hiding behind congratulations to society and the system over the high turnout," Zibakalam wrote in the daily Ghanoon.

 

(Editing by William Maclean and Peter Graff)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-05-22

[AhFarangJa]

As Nat King Cole sang......"There will Be Trouble Ahead".......

[tonray]

No need for brooding as the Supreme leader has final say on everything so nothing will change as the protesters found out last time around. 

[darksidedog]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

"Rouhani called Raisi supporters extremist and violent. How can a president insult 16 million people of his country? His sarcastic comments against the Supreme Leader and the security forces show he wants to pick a fight.”

Only someone with violent and extremist views could make such a comment. Many of Raisis supporters are exactly as described. That is the truth.

But the violent side wants to use the allegation as justification for violence?And if he weren't extremist, he would be able to step back and look at his flawed logic.

But therein lies the problem, extremists, by their very definition, will never accept the will and views of the majority.

[ilostmypassword]

Well, Trump has given the hardliners a huge boost with his speech in Saudi Arabia where he blames Iran as being the primary agent of Islamist terrorism around the world.  He is such an ignoramus.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, Trump has given the hardliners a huge boost with his speech in Saudi Arabia where he blames Iran as being the primary agent of Islamist terrorism around the world.  He is such an ignoramus.

Not that I expect much by way of proportion from certain posters on certain topics, but the Trump administration gave the so-called moderates a huge boost by not going through with re-imposing sanctions, and not reneging on the nuclear deal. Of course, some may see it as inconsequential compared to his speech.   

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Morch

[ilostmypassword]

40 minutes ago, Morch said:

Not that I expect much by way of proportion from certain posters on certain topics, but the Trump administration gave the so-called moderates a huge boost by not going through with re-imposing sanctions, and not reneging on the nuclear deal. Of course, some may see it as inconsequential compared to his speech.   

 

What do you mean by reimposing sanctions?  Iran has been certified as complying with the agreement. Under the accord the US has no power to unilaterally reimpose the multilateral sanctions the were lifted. In fact, if the US did announce that it would no longer honor the accord, Iran would be free of its obligation not to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.  That said, the U.S. did unilaterally impose, as is its right, new sanctions on Iran when it made its announcement that it would continue to abide by the accord.  You call the addition of more sanctions support for Rouhani?

Trump administration keeps Iran deal alive, but with new sanctions

http://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-administration-iran-deal-alive-sanctions/story?id=47466388

Edited May 22, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

What do you mean by reimposing sanctions?  Iran has been certified as complying with the agreement. Under the accord the US has no power to unilaterally reimpose the multilateral sanctions the were lifted. In fact, if the US did announce that it would no longer honor the accord, Iran would be free of its obligation not to pursue the development of nuclear weapons.  That said, the U.S. did unilaterally impose, as is its right, new sanctions on Iran when it made its announcement that it would continue to abide by the accord.  You call the addition of more sanctions support for Rouhani?

Trump administration keeps Iran deal alive, but with new sanctions

http://abcnews.go.com/International/trump-administration-iran-deal-alive-sanctions/story?id=47466388

 

Trump and his team routinely said, prior to elections and even post, that they intended to review (or even worse) the agreement. None of that happened, for obvious reasons, some of which are cited above. That doesn't change the fact that they talked the talk, or that under Trump, the US acts in "unexpected" ways. The fact that these threats did not materialize, and that no actual tough action taken can be seen as the administration adjusting to a more realistic framework.

 

As for the link provided, guess it depends how one looks at it. Here's a different take on the same issue:

 

U.S. extends sanctions relief under Iran nuclear deal

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN18D1W6

 

The new sanctions detailed are directed at specific targets, nothing like the wide range sanctions related to the nuclear agreement - the ones which the current administration signed the relief extension from, just before the Iranian elections.

 

And on another note, most of Iran's regional shenanigans are more closely related to the so-called hardliners. As far as I'm aware, the ongoing involvement in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon is not necessarily very popular with all Iranians, especially as these relate to the existing economic strain.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump and his team routinely said, prior to elections and even post, that they intended to review (or even worse) the agreement. None of that happened, for obvious reasons, some of which are cited above. That doesn't change the fact that they talked the talk, or that under Trump, the US acts in "unexpected" ways. The fact that these threats did not materialize, and that no actual tough action taken can be seen as the administration adjusting to a more realistic framework.

 

As for the link provided, guess it depends how one looks at it. Here's a different take on the same issue:

 

U.S. extends sanctions relief under Iran nuclear deal

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN18D1W6

 

The new sanctions detailed are directed at specific targets, nothing like the wide range sanctions related to the nuclear agreement - the ones which the current administration signed the relief extension from, just before the Iranian elections.

 

And on another note, most of Iran's regional shenanigans are more closely related to the so-called hardliners. As far as I'm aware, the ongoing involvement in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon is not necessarily very popular with all Iranians, especially as these relate to the existing economic strain.

 

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump and his team routinely said, prior to elections and even post, that they intended to review (or even worse) the agreement. None of that happened, for obvious reasons, some of which are cited above. That doesn't change the fact that they talked the talk, or that under Trump, the US acts in "unexpected" ways. The fact that these threats did not materialize, and that no actual tough action taken can be seen as the administration adjusting to a more realistic framework.

 

As for the link provided, guess it depends how one looks at it. Here's a different take on the same issue:

 

U.S. extends sanctions relief under Iran nuclear deal

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-idUSKCN18D1W6

 

The new sanctions detailed are directed at specific targets, nothing like the wide range sanctions related to the nuclear agreement - the ones which the current administration signed the relief extension from, just before the Iranian elections.

 

And on another note, most of Iran's regional shenanigans are more closely related to the so-called hardliners. As far as I'm aware, the ongoing involvement in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon is not necessarily very popular with all Iranians, especially as these relate to the existing economic strain.

 

 

 

Except that the headline is wrong. Trump doesn't have it in his power to undo the multilateral sanctions.  If he were to declare that the US no longer abided by them, that would relieve Iran of the obligation to no longer pursue development of nuclear weapons.  And it's extremely dubious that Western Europe  or China or Russia would endorse resuming the sanctions regime. In fact Europe is not at all happy with Trump's latest show of belligerence towards Iran.

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Except that the headline is wrong. Trump doesn't have it in his power to undo the multilateral sanctions.  If he were to declare that the US no longer abided by them, that would relieve Iran of the obligation to no longer pursue development of nuclear weapons.  And it's extremely dubious that Western Europe  or China or Russia would endorse resuming the sanctions regime. In fact Europe is not at all happy with Trump's latest show of belligerence towards Iran.

 

 

The headline isn't "wrong" - it simply relates to the US sanctions. No one claimed Trump have the "power to undo the multilateral sanctions". And there was no suggestion that a unilateral US action as described would bring about anything positive. As an aside, even if you do not care to admit it, Trump does have the power not to extend the sanctions relief, which will pertain to the US alone. Similarly, he does have  the power (with Republican party support) to impose new US sanctions. Again, not an argument that this is desirable course of action.

 

The actual point made was that going against his often declared policy and view with regard to the nuclear deal and Iran - he went along with the same course charted by Obama. That wasn't a boost to Iran's hardliners, and if anything, quite the opposite.

[Jingthing]

I wonder if trump's Saudi speech (Iran -- Bad!) a week before Iran's election whether the results would have been different.

 Can it really be just a coincidence that the speech was scheduled AFTER their election? 

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The headline isn't "wrong" - it simply relates to the US sanctions. No one claimed Trump have the "power to undo the multilateral sanctions". And there was no suggestion that a unilateral US action as described would bring about anything positive. As an aside, even if you do not care to admit it, Trump does have the power not to extend the sanctions relief, which will pertain to the US alone. Similarly, he does have  the power (with Republican party support) to impose new US sanctions. Again, not an argument that this is desirable course of action.

 

The actual point made was that going against his often declared policy and view with regard to the nuclear deal and Iran - he went along with the same course charted by Obama. That wasn't a boost to Iran's hardliners, and if anything, quite the opposite.

Really? Then why this sentence in the article?

"The United States continues to waive sanctions as required to continue implementing U.S. sanctions-lifting commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," the State Department said in a statement, referring to the deal by its formal name.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Then why this sentence in the article?

"The United States continues to waive sanctions as required to continue implementing U.S. sanctions-lifting commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action," the State Department said in a statement, referring to the deal by its formal name.

 

Because it refers to the US part in the agreement, and relates to the US part in the sanctions. If you insist that the US cannot go back on the agreement (regardless of consequences), we'll have to disagree.

 

And again - "The actual point made was that going against his often declared policy and view with regard to the nuclear deal and Iran - he went along with the same course charted by Obama. That wasn't a boost to Iran's hardliners, and if anything, quite the opposite."

 

 

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I wonder if trump's Saudi speech (Iran -- Bad!) a week before Iran's election whether the results would have been different.

 Can it really be just a coincidence that the speech was scheduled AFTER their election? 

Doubtful that the state department wasn't aware of it, or that more than one version of the speech was prepared. Rather standard.