Ahmadinejad's party losing in local elections

[southsider2k5]

So the stories about these guys being more popular in the middle east than in Iran seem to be holding true.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/18/D8M3D82G0.html

 

Opponents of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took an early lead in key races in Iran's local elections, according to partial results announced Monday, with moderate conservatives winning control of councils across the country.

If the final results hold _ especially in the bellwether capital, Tehran _ it will be an embarrassment to Ahmadinejad, whose anti- Israeli rhetoric and unyielding position on Iran's nuclear program have provoked condemnation in the West and moves toward sanctions at the U.N. Security Council.

 

The incomplete results announced by the Interior Ministry suggested that the winners were mostly moderate conservatives opposed to the hardline president, rather than reformists.

 

However, reformists, who want to bring a measure of liberalism to Iranian society and improve the country's relationship with the West, were quick to proclaim victory.

 

"Early results show that Mr. Ahmadinejad's list has suffered a decisive defeat nationwide," the Islamic Iran Participation Front, the largest reformist party, said in a statement. "It is a big 'no' to the government's authoritarian and inefficient methods."

 

The pro-reformist newspaper Etemad-e-Melli said in an editorial: "The most important message of Friday's vote was that the people have chosen moderation and rejected extremism."

 

A freelance Iranian journalist of reformist sympathies, Iraj Jamshidi, described the vote as "a blow to Ahmadinejad," who was elected in June 2005.

 

"After a year, Iranians have seen the consequences of the extremist policies employed by Ahmadinejad. Now, they have said a big 'no' to him," said Jamshidi.

 

In the key race for Tehran, candidates supporting Mayor Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, a moderate conservative opposed to the president, had taken the lead.

 

The Interior Ministry said only about 500,000 votes had been counted so far in Tehran, about 20 percent of the expected turnout. Final results, however, were released from all municipal districts outside the capital.

 

In the southern historical city of Shiraz, as well as in the provincial capitals of Rasht, northern Iran, and Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, not one pro-Ahmadinejad candidate won a seat on the city council.

 

The partial results indicated, separately, that reformers might be making a partial comeback, after having been suppressed in the parliamentary elections of 2004 when many of their best candidates were barred from running.

 

In the elections for the Assembly of Experts, a conservative body of 86 senior clerics that monitors Iran's supreme leader and chooses his successor, opponents of the president also appeared to have done well.

 

Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who lost to Ahmadinejad in the 2005 presidential election runoff, drew the most votes of any Tehran candidate to win a seat on the Assembly of Experts.

 

By contrast, an ally of the president, Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, won an assembly seat with a low vote total. Yazdi is regarded as Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor.

 

Hasan Rowhani, who was Iran's top nuclear negotiator under former President Mohammad Khatami, was also elected to the assembly. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly accused Rowhani of being too soft in negotiations with the Europeans.

 

Turnout overall was more than 60 percent _ substantially higher than that of the 2002 local elections when turnout was about 50 percent, and marginally above that of the presidential elections last year when turnout was 59 percent.

 

Government officials have so far given no comment on the partial results. They were quick, however, to praise the turnout, saying it would send a strong message to the West that Iran is a democracy.

 

A political analyst, Mostafa Mirzaeian, said Iran's political lineup was changing in favor of more moderate voices _ although he stressed those winning were still within the ruling Islamic establishment.

 

"Results also show that a new coalition has developed between reformers and moderate conservatives, at the expense of hard-line extremists who support Ahmadinejad," he said.

 

More than 233,000 candidates ran for more than 113,000 council seats in cities, towns and villages across the vast nation on Friday. Local councils elect city mayors and approve community budgets and planning projects.

 

All municipal council candidates, including some 5,000 women, were vetted by parliamentary committees dominated by hard-liners. The committees disqualified about 10,000 nominees, according to reports in Iranian newspapers.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

This is a direct symptom of Ameninawhosits constant blustering and trash talk. I believe the Iranian people are afraid that if this guy keeps talking about wiping out Isreal and keeps developing nukes that eventually the US and others are going to bring the hammer down and they dont want to take the fall.

[kapkomet]

This is a direct symptom of Ameninawhosits constant blustering and trash talk. I believe the Iranian people are afraid that if this guy keeps talking about wiping out Isreal and keeps developing nukes that eventually the US and others are going to bring the hammer down and they dont want to take the fall.

We won't if we leave Iraq, because then, we're chicken craps.

[bmags]

the iranian people are really a fascinating bunch

[kapkomet]

the iranian people are really a fascinating bunch

That's one description for them.

[sox4lifeinPA]

the iranian people are really a fascinating bunch

 

 

And no different than Americans... it's actually quite relieving that people are getting tired of hard line politicians. People want change and they want leaders who are willing to work things out rather than egg on war and fighting.

[bmags]

well every bit of information i've read has shown how different the views of the iranian people are from that of the people who've been ruling them. They've consistently tried to elect in more moderate candidates. I've always had this feeling that if it was iran we went after instead of iraq, the rebuilding could have actually had a shot.

[NorthSideSox72]

well every bit of information i've read has shown how different the views of the iranian people are from that of the people who've been ruling them. They've consistently tried to elect in more moderate candidates. I've always had this feeling that if it was iran we went after instead of iraq, the rebuilding could have actually had a shot.

I'd say that because of that moderation occurring in Iran's populace, and the increasing access to information, the problem may start to solve itself over time. There is at least a chance (how much of one I do not know) that the state will moderate from within.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'd say that because of that moderation occurring in Iran's populace, and the increasing access to information, the problem may start to solve itself over time. There is at least a chance (how much of one I do not know) that the state will moderate from within.

 

without guns and bombs you say?

 

foolishness.

[jackie hayes]

well every bit of information i've read has shown how different the views of the iranian people are from that of the people who've been ruling them. They've consistently tried to elect in more moderate candidates. I've always had this feeling that if it was iran we went after instead of iraq, the rebuilding could have actually had a shot.

Khatami WAS more moderate. Ahmadinejad does not reflect Iran at all. He just came along at a propitious time for an anti-US demagogue.

[NorthSideSox72]

Khatami WAS more moderate. Ahmadinejad does not reflect Iran at all. He just came along at a propitious time for an anti-US demagogue.

Very true. Timing is everything. But the current dichotomy of leadership against the grain of the more moderate general populus won't last. As someone said earlier, akin to our own country in that way.

[Rex Kickass]

Khatami's party lost power because of frustration over the speed of which the government was moderating, and also the corruption involved in Khatami's party.

 

Iran's people are poor. They aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them are voting for people that they think will make survival easier.

 

I think the lack of moderation in China creates a good example that can be applied to Iran. A population will accept a constrictive social policy in exchange for the hope of food in their belly and a roof over their head.

[NorthSideSox72]

Khatami's party lost power because of frustration over the speed of which the government was moderating, and also the corruption involved in Khatami's party.

 

Iran's people are poor. They aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them are voting for people that they think will make survival easier.

 

I think the lack of moderation in China creates a good example that can be applied to Iran. A population will accept a constrictive social policy in exchange for the hope of food in their belly and a roof over their head.

Very true. But as more Iranians have more access to global information (which is happening whether their government likes it or not), the more global view they will have. They will see more readily the connection between their government's behavior on the world stage and consequences at home. That will change their viewpoint, to at least some extent.

[Rex Kickass]

If that was true, we would have a different president today, IMO.

[jackie hayes]

Khatami's party lost power because of frustration over the speed of which the government was moderating, and also the corruption involved in Khatami's party.

 

Iran's people are poor. They aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them are voting for people that they think will make survival easier.

 

I think the lack of moderation in China creates a good example that can be applied to Iran. A population will accept a constrictive social policy in exchange for the hope of food in their belly and a roof over their head.

Many people confound poverty and international politics. It is very easy for a politician to scapegoat countries that are anyway disliked (US and Israel, for example) for a country's problems -- as a certain president is known to do. So to say people "aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect" is wrong.

 

On top of that, I think it's flat wrong to suggest that no poor country can be thinking about international events. Maybe, maybe in a country as poor as Zimbabwe. But Iran is not as desperately poor as that. Turkey is not much wealthier than Iran; was the opposition to the Pope just an effort to keep food on the table? At the time of Ahmadinejad's election, it was pretty clear that the US had made a major blunder in entering Iraq and was tragically bungling the reconstruction. To say that voters in Iran were considering their stomachs and not the mess next door strikes me as rather simplistic, and I've never seen any evidence suggesting that. Nor did you present any.

[southsider2k5]

Khatami's party lost power because of frustration over the speed of which the government was moderating, and also the corruption involved in Khatami's party.

 

Iran's people are poor. They aren't often thinking about the international risks or benefits of who they elect. I guarantee you that the vast majority of them are voting for people that they think will make survival easier.

 

I think the lack of moderation in China creates a good example that can be applied to Iran. A population will accept a constrictive social policy in exchange for the hope of food in their belly and a roof over their head.

 

The two reasons I have seen listed over and over again, even before the election, for why Ammy suffered at the polls was that he has never fixed the umemployment/poverty problems, and a lot of the populace of Iran resents him for potentially isolating Iran from the west, or worse.

 

The biggest victory was for "moderate conservatives," supporters of Iran's cleric-led power structure who are angry at Ahmadinejad, saying he has needlessly provoked the West with harsh rhetoric and has failed to fix the country's faltering economy.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

 

The big problem in Iran, is that at $65 a barrel, the country itself isn't poor, but the people are. If you think the divide here in wealth is stark, its nothing compared to a place like this where obscene oil wealth gives way to hoardes of abject poverty.

 

In reality, the seeds of revolution are there, they are just kept well stamped down by the clerics who don't allow any dissent, dispite Ahmadinejad's claims that Iran preserves freedom of speech. A big part of me wonders if the real intent in Iraq was to spread revolution all over the middle east by destabilizing the most powerful governments, and stoking the long cooking embers of secartian hate to a nice boil... because we aren't that far away from all out civil war from Saudi Arabia clear to Eygpt right now.

[kapkomet]

A big part of me wonders if the real intent in Iraq was to spread revolution all over the middle east by destabilizing the most powerful governments, and stoking the long cooking embers of secartian hate to a nice boil... because we aren't that far away from all out civil war from Saudi Arabia clear to Eygpt right now.

 

DING! The goal was to destablize, but not let it get out of control. Unfortunately, that's a large gamble. Only time will tell... but no matter what, it leads to "end times" scenarios (and I'm not trying to turn this into a religious "Christian" conversation, but it will lead to acolyptic (sp.) wars - that's more my point).

[HuskyCaucasian]

We must wipe out Iran and promote democracy in the middle east.... oh, wait a second....

[sox4lifeinPA]

DING! The goal was to destablize, but not let it get out of control. Unfortunately, that's a large gamble. Only time will tell... but no matter what, it leads to "end times" scenarios (and I'm not trying to turn this into a religious "Christian" conversation, but it will lead to acolyptic (sp.) wars - that's more my point).

 

whatever wacko

[southsider2k5]

The latest update from Iran has a movement attempting to force Ahmadinejad to testify in front of the Parliment to answer questions regarding the nuclear program...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6267105.stm

 

Growing pressure on Ahmadinejad

By Frances Harrison

BBC News, Teheran

 

Criticism of Mr Ahmadinejad has been coming form unusual sources

There are signs of growing opposition in Iran to the policies of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A group of reformist and moderate members of parliament have now started collecting signatures to summon him to answer questions about his policies.

 

Editorials in normally uncritical hardline newspapers have been criticising him for being too aggressive towards the west.

 

But such criticisms are unlikely to cost Mr Ahmadinejad his job.

 

UN sanctions

 

After the UN passed a resolution sanctioning Iran's nuclear programme, more criticism has been voiced inside the country of Mr Ahmadinejad.

 

It is thought about 50 MPs have signed a document calling for the president to come to parliament and answer questions, but to take effect at least 75 signatures are needed.

 

If this challenge succeeds, it would be unprecedented, but even Mr Ahmadinejad's opponents recognise it is unlikely they could ever impeach him given the support he enjoys from the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

 

Surprisingly some hard-line newspapers have started criticising the president in recent days, asking why he has spent so much of Iran's foreign exchange and complaining about the confrontational language he uses on the nuclear issue.

 

There has also been criticism of the conference the president organised last month questioning the World War II holocaust which lost Iran much sympathy internationally.

 

Separately, 150 MPs have signed a letter urging the president to base his next budget on realistic assumptions - for example, about future oil prices which are key to Iran's economic forecasts.

[southsider2k5]

A senior cleric from the other side of the aisle has ripped Ahmadinejad over nuclear issues and the economy.

 

On a footnote, American media sucks for middle eastern reporting outside of how many people died today in Iraq, and fighting in Israel.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6286771.stm

 

Iranian cleric attacks president

 

The grand ayatollah said Iran's tone could provoke enemies

Iran's senior dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, has attacked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over nuclear issues and the economy.

The bold remarks came in a written statement by the 85-year-old, who was once in line to succeed Ruhollah Khomeini as supreme leader.

 

He spent years under house arrest after falling out with Ayatollah Khomeini.

 

He said nuclear energy was Iran's right, but questioned the way President Ahmadinejad had pursued it.

 

Using harsh and provocative language would provoke the enemy, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri said, calling instead for negotiations.

 

[We] don't think of our own people's problems and the price of basic commodities goes higher and higher every day

 

Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri

 

His comments came as a report by Iran's Isna news agency suggested that 38 inspectors working for the United Nations nuclear agency had been barred from entering Iran.

 

In a separate development, the European Union criticised Iran for not co-operating with the UN over demands that it curbs its nuclear programme.

 

Iran's Revolutionary Guards also announced several days of exercises in the centre of the country.

 

Two new types of Iranian-produced missile would be tested, one said to have a range of 75km (47 miles), the other 350km, state radio said.

 

Scathing attack

 

The grand ayatollah spoke out against Mr Ahmadinejad in remarks to reformists and opponents of the president in the religious city of Qom last Friday, the Associated Press news agency reported.

 

 

Mr Ahmadinejad's handling of natural resources was attacked

 

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri compared Iran's natural resources favourably to those of other countries.

 

"Some countries don't have oil and gas. Yet, they run their country and stand on their own," he said, according to a copy of his words seen by AP.

 

"We have so much oil and gas but make useless expenditures work for others and don't think of our own people's problems and the price of basic commodities goes higher and higher every day."

 

He complained that people kept on shouting slogans about nuclear rights, but he asked: "Don't we have other rights too?"

 

It was a pointed reference to concerns about diminishing freedom of speech in Iran under Mr Ahmadinejad, says the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran.

 

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri also launched a scathing attack on the president's handling of the economy.

 

He said some claimed inflation was only 13% in Iran, but everyone knew the cost of housing had risen more than 50%.

 

He asked why the government went on what he called useless trips and spent money on others abroad, seemingly a reference to President Ahmadinejad's recent tour of Latin America and Iranian aid to Palestinian groups like Hamas.

[southsider2k5]

Interesting update to yesterday's story... I guess the Supreme Leader's name is beginning to get tossed around as not being happy with what has transpired in Iran.

 

Criticism of Ahmadinejad mounts

By Frances Harrison

BBC News, Teheran

 

 

 

Mr Ahmadinejad's handling of the economy is being questioned

Pressure appears to be mounting on Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

His main political rival, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, implicitly criticised his slow move towards privatisation of the economy.

 

Hardliners in parliament also appear split with many of Mr Ahmadinejad's former supporter now critical of him.

 

It is becoming clear that the green light has been given from the very top for open debate of President Ahmadinejad's record in power.

 

Normally compliant newspaper editorials have suddenly started criticising his handling of the economy and his undiplomatic language.

 

Now the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, has voiced public criticism of President Ahmadinejad's tendency towards a highly centralised state-controlled economy.

 

Mr Rafsanjani, who is a capitalist, has invoked the supreme leader, suggesting the leader was pained by the very slow pace of privatisation under Mr Ahmadinejad's government.

 

There has also been criticism from the speaker of parliament, who, in a veiled reference to the president, complained about some figures in Iran having the wrong view of investment.

 

All this suggests that many in the top echelons of power are beginning to realise that Mr Ahmadinejad's confrontational foreign policy and populist rhetoric internally carry a heavy cost for Iran's future.

 

But at this point there is no suggestion of removing the president, merely restraining him.

 

I wonder if we could be seeing the door creek open to a compromise on Iran's nuclear program?

[Balta1701]

I wonder if we could be seeing the door creek open to a compromise on Iran's nuclear program?

Iran has been making overtures to talk to the U.S. about a permanent settlement since 2003 according to one of Colin Powell's former deputies. Those overtures have been rebuked each time they hit the Vice President's office.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Balta1701

[southsider2k5]

Iran has been making overtures to talk to the U.S. about a permanent settlement since 2003 according to one of Colin Powell's former deputies. Those overtures have been rebuked each time they hit the Vice President's office.

 

How many included them dismantling their program?

[Balta1701]

How many included them dismantling their program?

Link.

An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.

 

The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal.

 

``We thought it was a very propitious moment'' to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. ``But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.''

 

A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003.

 

``Far as I know, there's never been an offer from the Iranian Government on those kinds of concerns,'' said Tom Casey, the state department's deputy spokesman.

 

Wilkerson said that, in return for its cooperation, Tehran asked Washington to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group which has bases in Iraq.

 

Iran also offered to increase the transparency of its nuclear program, according to Wilkerson.