Election in Iran

[zephiran]

Alright, so the presidential election in Iran is coming up, and although current president Ahmadinejad candidates for reelection, he faces some serious competition from his reformist opponents Mousavi and Karroubi. Ex-president Khatami initially candidated, but has since withdrawn in favor of his friend and aforementioned reformist Mousavi. Another potential candidate, ex-president Rafsanjani will not be able to participate in the election, due to his age he is banned from candidating by iranian law.

Personally I rooted for Khatami, but since he has withdrawn, I´m starting to think that Mousavi might be the most sensible option out of the three current candidates. Ahmadinejad seems more and more incapable as president, with the hostile foreign policy (his sentiment towards the US and Israel) and ineffective economic policy being his major flaws. I don´t know enough about the other reformist, Karroubi, and his policies to draw any conclusions of whether he is a solid candidate or not, all I know is that he has openly and harshly criticised the last presidential election.

So, what do you guys think of the election?

Will it be decisive? Staged? Boycotted? Unfair? Yummy? Etc?

[slowerthenb4]

At 4/16/09 09:36 AM, zephiran wrote:

Will it be decisive? Staged? Boycotted? Unfair? Yummy? Etc?

i think we are all very ready for a iran lovie sandwich. they can be the moderates of the middleeast but the true architects of the country still need to find their niche in the world economy for their to be a measurable warming to the "west." Any step in the direction of (progress?), no matter how dilute, is a positive thing.

time to go eat breakfast...

[adrshepard]

At 4/16/09 09:36 AM, zephiran wrote: Personally I rooted for Khatami, but since he has withdrawn, I´m starting to think that Mousavi might be the most sensible option out of the three current candidates.

Well, if you're a Westerner, it makes no sense to want anyone but Mousavi to win, since he seems the least likely to force our hand and provoke an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. If Ahmedinijhad is re-elected, it'd be hard to see that as anything other than an affirmation of his anti-US policies, at which point I think we could safely say that diplomacy has failed and military action is justified.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

This sounds like the optimal time to invade Iran and take their oil. They do have oil, right?

[Dante-Son-Of-Sparda]

At 4/16/09 04:42 PM, MetalSlimeHunt wrote: This sounds like the optimal time to invade Iran and take their oil. They do have oil, right?

I do believe they do

[DariusR]

These elections don't mean jack shit. My family is Iranian and we can say for sure that none of the candidates will make anything better. Even if they did, the supreme leader (the person who's REALLY in charge) will strike em down.

[LynchedJohNNY]

At 4/16/09 06:21 PM, DariusR wrote: These elections don't mean jack shit. My family is Iranian and we can say for sure that none of the candidates will make anything better. Even if they did, the supreme leader (the person who's REALLY in charge) will strike em down.

I'm not liking the sound of this. Who is the supreme leader?

[zephiran]

At 4/16/09 07:15 PM, LynchedJohNNY wrote:

Who is the supreme leader?

His name is Ali Khameini. He is not to be confused with his predecessor Khomeini, and although many of Khameinis policies resembles those of Khomeinis, he is somewhat less radical. He was even one of the first clerics in Iran to show open support for stem cell research, but that is just a footnote. The thing is, although the supreme leader rarely openly intervenes in the political stage of Iran nowadays, he still has more power than any other major political figure in Iran - "outranking" both the prime minister and the president. Every political decision made must be approved by the supreme leader, a concept developed by the late Khomeini.

[mikailus]

It's not an "Islamic republic" as long as there's an Ayatollah. Shiah or Sunni, there should be no monarchy period.

[RedGlare]

At 4/17/09 06:02 AM, mikailus wrote: It's not an "Islamic republic" as long as there's an Ayatollah. Shiah or Sunni, there should be no monarchy period.

Yeah the the choosing of the new Grand Ayatollah isn't hereditary. So it isn't a monarchy. Plus the role of the Supreme leader was chosen in a plebiscite along with the adoption of the Islamic Republic after the fall of the Shah.