The presidential election in Iran has been won by hardline conservative Ebrahim Rasi, who is Iran's top judicial chief and this is the lowest turnout Iran has seen with any presidential election. He will take power in August from moderate Hassan Rouhani and this comes at a critical time as Iran tries to reinstate the nuclear deal with the United States. Will be interesting to see how this turns out and Trump ruined the chance of Iran reestablishing ties with the United States.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.aljaze ... dent-raisi

Raisi is a human rights criminal and greatly feared within Iran. He claims he refuses to meet with Biden even if the tenets of JCPOA is reinstated. If that’s the case he should expect cold shoulder treatment in kind. Iranians aren’t getting happier about their economic fortunes anytime soon.

Aaron747 wrote:

Raisi is a human rights criminal and greatly feared within Iran. He claims he refuses to meet with Biden even if the tenets of JCPOA is reinstated. If that’s the case he should expect cold shoulder treatment in kind. Iranians aren’t getting happier about their economic fortunes anytime soon.

Hope the Assembly of Experts removes him from power.

I'm not sure anything but a hard liner can even run?

Not really surprising is it? When the moderate ends up with harsher sanctions put on the country (thanks to a hardliner on the other side of the planet) despite doing what the international community required of them, of course voters will lose confidence in being reasonable and support a hardliner.

zkojq wrote:

Not really surprising is it? When the moderate ends up with harsher sanctions put on the country (thanks to a hardliner on the other side of the planet) despite doing what the international community required of them, of course voters will lose confidence in being reasonable and support a hardliner.

Not really obvious what public sentiment is since turnout was way down. Lowest in four decades.

Aaron747 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Not really surprising is it? When the moderate ends up with harsher sanctions put on the country (thanks to a hardliner on the other side of the planet) despite doing what the international community required of them, of course voters will lose confidence in being reasonable and support a hardliner.

Not really obvious what public sentiment is since turnout was way down. Lowest in four decades.

A lot of this has to do with Trump and how he influenced things. Would not have ended the nuclear deal if Hillary Clinton was president.

MaverickM11 wrote:

I'm not sure anything but a hard liner can even run?

Aaron747 wrote:

Not really obvious what public sentiment is since turnout was way down. Lowest in four decades.

It doesn't matter. At all. Both the candidates as well as the eventual "winner" of the "election" are basically handpicked by the Ayatollah, political oppostition is practically inexistant.
The actual polling is just show, those people that do show up to "vote" and also wave Iran flags in the streets in support of the governmen do so because they have to, either because they are employed in government owned enterprises or they work for the government themselves. Not doing so would result in nasty consequences for them.
This islamofascist regime is not one the rest of the world should play nice with, the sanctions are absolutely right. If anything they should be tightened, Iranians who are not on the government payroll say so themselves. And while at it, the same sanctions should be applied to Saudi Arabia and Russia - and then some.

Zeppi wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

I'm not sure anything but a hard liner can even run?

Aaron747 wrote:

Not really obvious what public sentiment is since turnout was way down. Lowest in four decades.

It doesn't matter. At all. Both the candidates as well as the eventual "winner" of the "election" are basically handpicked by the Ayatollah, political oppostition is practically inexistant.
The actual polling is just show, those people that do show up to "vote" and also wave Iran flags in the streets in support of the governmen do so because they have to, either because they are employed in government owned enterprises or they work for the government themselves. Not doing so would result in nasty consequences for them.
This islamofascist regime is not one the rest of the world should play nice with, the sanctions are absolutely right. If anything they should be tightened, Iranians who are not on the government payroll say so themselves. And while at it, the same sanctions should be applied to Saudi Arabia and Russia - and then some.

Perfect way to turn a bad situation into a nasty one.
Last time something similar happened with Trump and his idiotic breaking of deals has already set any Iran deal back decades and clearly shown that the U.S. cannot be trusted. Not just to Iran, but others as well.

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm sure in appeasement fashion, the US will go back to licking Iran's boots.

slider wrote:

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm sure in appeasement fashion, the US will go back to licking Iran's boots.

Hopefully we bravely exchange beautiful love letters with the despot instead

slider wrote:

What could possibly go wrong?

I'm sure in appeasement fashion, the US will go back to licking Iran's boots.

The most damaging boot-licking was Trump's tongue all over Putin's loafers. Putin's the one supplying all the nuke kit to Iran. Your orange lard ass let that go unfettered for four years.

Here's something that Trumpists could never compute - there was an inspection regime monitoring Iran's nuclear program under the original deal. Violations of it carried consequences that all signatories would've abided by. And I bet the first move to test a nuclear device would've been met with massive US airstrikes, fully justified and worst case silently supported by the EU. The problem with your fantasy Trump world is that if and when that day comes the entire world will be telling the US to go off itself when the raids begin. You guys never got that, even after the lesson of Iraq II. You thought a moronic Ponzi scheme loser like Trump had the mental wherewithal to engage with the world in some kind of magical strongman way that would make the world quake in its boots. Didn't happen did it. You vote for a complete novice dumb-ass, you get complete novice-dumbass results.

Sanctions should have been lifted when the moderate was elected. Reward voters for choosing a moderate and they will do so again. It's not like keeping the sanctions on has achieved anything.

Sanctions should be the consequences of actions taken by the country. The US and others aren't world dictators that get to choose countries' governments. And countries with nuclear weapons (mine included) have 0 business dictating who should and who shouldn't have nukes.

zkojq wrote:

Sanctions should have been lifted when the moderate was elected. Reward voters for choosing a moderate and they will do so again. It's not like keeping the sanctions on has achieved anything.

Of course - the elite religious machinery in Iran is still living and eating well. Nothing changes for them. That's what the last administration invited by hiring a foreign policy team that was both inexperienced and too ideological to understand an iota of pragmatism.

zkojq wrote:

when the moderate was elected.

What moderate was elected?

NIKV69 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

when the moderate was elected.

What moderate was elected?

Umm, Rouhani, duh. He was elected in 2013, and again in 2017. One of the first Iranian Presidents in years to even speak publicly about personal freedoms and women's rights. Crackdowns by religious police on public dress were drastically reduced from the start of his administration. He had to move to the right in 2017 to fend off a challenge from the ultraconservative idiot that was just elected.

You really going to claim Rouhani was not moderate after the shitshow of Ahmedinejad prior?

Iran is trying its best to turn into North Korea.

The best we can do is voice support for the Iranian people's freedom. As Iran acts badly in neighboring countries, we of course can help any unwelcome spreading of their influence, such as when Gen Soleimani went on his little trip.

LCDFlight wrote:

Iran is trying its best to turn into North Korea.

The best we can do is voice support for the Iranian people's freedom. As Iran acts badly in neighboring countries, we of course can help any unwelcome spreading of their influence, such as when Gen Soleimani went on his little trip.

Acting badly and influencing neighboring countries is relative. Their actions are mostly aimed at preventing KSA from becoming the regional hegemon. They are further incentivized to keep up this counterbalancing act by who KSA has for 'friends' in the west. The sooner we completely untangle from any reliance on petrodollars from the region, the better. Then they can deal with each other strictly on realpolitik terms. Also keep in mind Russia and the PRC have their own investment and military interests in the ME, and use them to play states off one another, for example the little row we had with Qatar. If they stay invested after our eventual energy independence exit, we can sit back and watch them endure several decades of mess management.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Hopefully we bravely exchange beautiful love letters with the despot instead

No need. He left office on Jan 20th.

Virtual737 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Hopefully we bravely exchange beautiful love letters with the despot instead

No need. He left office on Jan 20th.

The Biden administration has seized the main English-language global news (Iran PR) site owned by the Iranian Foreign Ministry.

https://www.presstv.com/

Aaron747 wrote:

Raisi is a human rights criminal and greatly feared within Iran. He claims he refuses to meet with Biden even if the tenets of JCPOA is reinstated. If that’s the case he should expect cold shoulder treatment in kind. Iranians aren’t getting happier about their economic fortunes anytime soon.

The region is a bit of a tinder box right now. In many ways it is worse that the economic situation preceding the Arab Spring and Migrants Crisis. The US withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan will cause a spiral of descent into civil war - throw the situation in Palestine into the mix, and you've got a far worse situation.

I saw something flash on my Alexa about Raisi asking Biden to rejoin JCPOA. I can not find any links to this. What would this do for tensions in the region?

seb146 wrote:

I saw something flash on my Alexa about Raisi asking Biden to rejoin JCPOA. I can not find any links to this. What would this do for tensions in the region?

Not much so long as Iran and Saudi continue their pissing contest over control of the Gulf. From Iran's perspective, they have a 2,000+ year cultural legacy and imprint on the region, and KSA by comparison are a bunch of goat herders who happened upon oil in the 20th century and now control access to Medina and Mecca. Iran's leaders will always be PO'd about upstart Saudi arrogance and influence. But from the perspective of nuclear stability only it would help to reduce Saudi incentive to ramp up their nuclear programs.

I think there a quite a few things going on in terms of tension in the region currently:

1) Israel vs Palestine is going to keep going for quite a while as a strong conflict, sweeping up instability in surrounding Levant countries like Iraq and Syria. You've also got a economic catastrophe happening in Lebanon and Turkey (the latter of which is having a delayed Islamification by a hardliner).

2) The above will also feed into tensions with Iran. And while Israel doesn't inherently get along Saudi Arabia, the latter does not get along with Iran either. Iran may try to get involved into tensions in the Persian Gulf or the Levant in order to defend its position with Russia becoming involved too.

3) Afghanistan will most likely spiral into a civil war. This will of course bring South Asia into the mix. Until recently there were stronger hopes for the economic situation in Pakistan and Bangladesh, both less penetrated by international arrivals and less urbanized, but not it is likely that the economic effects will be severe. If something severe were to happen on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, it would easily bring the latter onto the mainstream Middle Eastern spotlight. Bangladesh will most likely be a primarily economic issue that could feed into a migrants crisis - but the conflict with neighboring Burma also exists as a fairly strong civil war.

I'm not so up to date on the situation in North Africa, but they have been quite badly hit by COVID due to the immigration connections with Southern Europe.

The killing of Sollemani doesn't do anything to reduce Iran's influence in the region because Iran still controls the Badr Brigades.

There was a good documentary on this a few days ago by Vice.

seb146 wrote:

I saw something flash on my Alexa about Raisi asking Biden to rejoin JCPOA.

Well if he did ask for that then the chances of it happening are now surely smaller because if Biden does he'll be attacked for "taking orders from Iran" and doesn't want to look weak. I can just hear the cackles of Glee from Glen Beck and Tucker Carlson at the prospect of being able to squeeze a few segments out of deciding that Joe is an Iranian stooge.

With this and the troops moving out... all I can feel is sorry for the regular folks in the region. Hell incoming.

PixelPilot wrote:

With this and the troops moving out... all I can feel is sorry for the regular folks in the region. Hell incoming.

He’ll already existed, you think the region had been peace and flowers for 20 years?

The year most bombs were dropped on Afghanistan last decade was 2019. It has come out that there were war crimes, illegal killings of non combatants, committed by Coalition forces quite regularly. Hell already existed in Afghanistan courtesy of Western forces. Hell has existing in Yemen for 6 years, again, because of Western support for Saudi Arabia.

US troops weren’t “keeping the peace”, they were contributing to the violence. They should have never been there in the first place.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

when the moderate was elected.

What moderate was elected?

Umm, Rouhani, duh. He was elected in 2013, and again in 2017. One of the first Iranian Presidents in years to even speak publicly about personal freedoms and women's rights. Crackdowns by religious police on public dress were drastically reduced from the start of his administration. He had to move to the right in 2017 to fend off a challenge from the ultraconservative idiot that was just elected.

You really going to claim Rouhani was not moderate after the shitshow of Ahmedinejad prior?

Some moderate, Iran still wants to blow Israel back to kingdom come. The word moderate and Iran don't go together.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

What moderate was elected?

Umm, Rouhani, duh. He was elected in 2013, and again in 2017. One of the first Iranian Presidents in years to even speak publicly about personal freedoms and women's rights. Crackdowns by religious police on public dress were drastically reduced from the start of his administration. He had to move to the right in 2017 to fend off a challenge from the ultraconservative idiot that was just elected.

You really going to claim Rouhani was not moderate after the shitshow of Ahmedinejad prior?

Some moderate, Iran still wants to blow Israel back to kingdom come. The word moderate and Iran don't go together.

That take is completely ignorant of political reality in Iran and you're applying definitions from the comfort of US freedom. If you were an Iranian suffering through this regime since '79, you'd call Rouhani a moderate. Israel is irrelevant to the domestic concerns of Iranians.