Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will pay a one-day visit to Turkey on Monday. Ahmadinejad will participate in the UN Conference on the Least Developed Countries taking place in Istanbul.
Ahmadinejad’s departure from Tehran comes amid conflict between the supreme leader and the president on a host of domestic political issues including Ahmadinejad’s refusal to reinstate his intelligence minister as ordered by Khamenei. There are also increasing pressures on Ahmadinejad to cut ties with his political confident and advisor Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie who still serves as Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff despite direct interventions by Khamenei to have him removed from the post. Mashaie is seen by Khamenei and the clerical establishment as the main force behind the firing of the intelligence minister and Ahmadinejad’s increasingly antagonistic relations with them.
12 comments:
love this definitions "major victory" for Khamenei.
it is a major one because you made an issue out of it and now its a major issue to imply your stories as one.
was not much of an issue to start with, but over nontheless. like other issues across the world
Anon 9:46 AM,
I beg to disagree. The issue is very major: it goes to the heart of the governance in the Islamic Republic. Namely, it is the issue of Velayat Faghih, the absolute leadership of Khamenei.
This is why it is so vital: Four former and sitting presidents of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini’s prime minister during the 8-year war with Iraq, scores of ministers, MPs, and other top officials of the regime, and of course many important personalities outside the government, have had serious problems with the structure of governance: it gives absolute powers to an individual practically for life, and this is not acceptable, or even workable.
Examples abound, from the shah to the current democratic movements in the Middle East, in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Bahrain. The era of absolute and lifetime leaders is coming to an end, and Iran is not, and should not be an exception.
Until Iran maintains this form of governance, everyone should expect to have periodic political crises, you can not maintain a system where a sitting president, the head of the executive branch, needs to obey the orders of a supreme leader who is theoretically accountable only to a group of 80 senior clerics, who collectively want to maintain the privileges of the clerical establishment, including the absolute rule over the country by one of heir own.
As Majid Human wrote, the Ayatollah begs to differ...
The so called absolute whatever is replacable avery 6 months (twice a year)you know it ! real Iranian specialists know it ! and by implying a dictatorship in Iran you are not helping the CIA specialists to analyze the situation correctly !
thus giving wrong assumptions and the likes of Clinton and etc will bark at instead of talk to Iran.
Your work is important Nader, that is why you should not fear to write and scream at your enviroment when they are so bloody wrong on Iran.
"Iran is not a dictatorship and suggesting otherwise is propaganda against Iran. "
Please do stop sloganiering ( yes sloganiering) I really mean well Nader.
Beg to differ again! The supreme leader can veto any of the president’s decisions, but he can only be removed from office by a body of senior ayatollahs, and not the parliament. Doesn’t this system looks and acts as a totalitarian system?
I am old enough to remember that the communist party chief in USSR could theoretically be removed by the central committee at any time (not even every six months, but at any time the central committee wished), and at least in one occasion the central committee did exercise that option (Khruschchev), and the members of the central committee themselves were elected by local committees, yet we don’t call Soviet Union a democracy, but regarding it as a totalitarian system.
Not that the Islamic Republic and the USSR have same political structures. But because the Assembly of Experts, that body of senior ayatollahs, can theoretically remove the supreme leader (although they have never exercised that option), it does not make the Islamic Republic a democracy. If this is the argument for the democratic nature of the Islamic Republic, you seriously need to think twice about it. Here I am not arguing that the system is a classical third world dictatorship, such as the shah’s, but more in line with ideologically driven totalitarian systems we had witnessed in the 20th century.
Key in resolving perpetual tensions within the power structure of the country, is to reform/eliminate the concept of the supreme leader (velayat-e faghih), someone who can veto the elected president’s decision but can not be removed or supervised by democratic institutions such as Majlis
obama can also veto any decision made by congress..does that make him a dictator?
Presidents are elected for maximum o two 4-year terms and can be impeached by Congress. There are no limits to the supreme leader's terms and indeed they are expected to rule for life, and members of the Assembly of Experts are elected among senior ayatollahs. If USSR was not an old example for you, study the current system in China.
The assemply of experts in Iran is also a parlaiment they are elected every 8 years and consists of 80 something dudes.
you see this part you did not mention and implied knowingly as if we are talkin about self appointed untouchable clergies.
I know what u mean and u know what i mean. But the silly fat CIA so called Iran department specialist that delivers the BS to whoever, waits and copy pastes what he gets from you.
So have the curtacy and do it right
Propagating that the Assembly of Expert is more of the nature of democratically elected parliaments in this century and not like so-called “parliaments” of the National People’s Congress of China variety is siding with ideology at the expense of facts.
The assembly of Experts is hardly democratic. Yes they're voted in, but can you vote for anyone that wants to run?
Or can you just vote for Clerics?
The members of the assembly must be Shia Mujtaheds (“scholars”). The government prepares a list of the candidates, all senior clerics (male Shia clerics). People vote to “elect” 86 members, from a list that normally contains 86 names, every eight years. The assembly is required to meet twice a year and is charged with electing and removing the supreme leader. But in its 28-year history, the assembly has never dismissed a supreme leader (Khomeini ruled for life and Khamenei is expected to rule for life), and it has never been known to challenge or otherwise supervise or oversee any of the supreme leader’s decisions. The Islamic Republic is using the “elected” nature of the supreme leader to claim a democratic rule.
Thank you Nader,
you just pointed out what the real problem is between you and the yours on the one side and the others....
You would buy anything which is secular like in the west.
They would buy anything which is the opposite.
Your reason .. ??
Their reason is a century of abuse and abuse and abuse... by their (west) secularism and they don't trut them anymore... and yet you are an advocate of theirs.
we all live in the west and enjoy its personal freedoms.. but we don't consider ourselves to know better than the majority of Iranians in Iran....who actually prefer to live under a religous doctrin which is not as fanatical as you and the yours propagate them to be .. otherwise Iranians would have changed it.
Israel is the start and end of all the problems in the ME and other conflicts in the world.
Post a Comment