Clockwise: Churchill, Ahmadinejad, Rouhani, Atlee
In 1945, the British people passed over the hardline policies of Churchill and the conservatives in favor of Atlee, who promised a moderate government focused on enjoying the peace achieved at heavy cost during World War II.
In 2013, the Iranian people have passed over the hardline policies of Ahmadinejad and the conservatives in favor of a moderate government that promises to achieve a peace, after a resistance that's come at a heavy price.
Granted the analogy fails when comparing respective economic policies: Ahamadinejad's economic policies are closer to Atlee's. However the analogy serves to put the Iranian election in perspective.
Additional thoughts on the election:
-Given the roughly 13% lower voter turnout than 2009, it appears a slice of the electorate previously voting conservative stayed at home.
-Also, it appears a slice of the electorate previously voting conservative in 2009 provided a "swing vote" to the more moderate Rouhani.
-Ahmadinejad not endorsing a candidate appears to have adversely affected the conservative candidates, in a way similar to Gore not accepting Clinton's public assistance during the U.S. 2000 election.
-The conservative candidates appear to have run on a platform heavily ditzing on Ahmadinejad which, in addition to the above observation, served to provide a "prefect storm" upon the conservatives and provided Rouhani with a first round victory.
-Contrary to this writer's previous expectation that the "Shark" Rasfanjani was "finished" in Iranian politics, Rouhani's victory provides him with continued relevancy.
23 comments:
Better to stick to posting pictures of tunnels and shopping centers, that writing this kind of nonsense. There is no historical comparison even if you publish 10 pictures of these people next to each other. But as die hard supporters of IRI show on this blog over and over again, there is no limit to their "por Royi" whatever events taking place.
Hilarious and shameful at the same time.
A GREAT VICTORY FOR IRANIAN DEMOCRACY. What a great election, peaceful and over 70% turnout. Now Iran can indeed continue on the path to progress and build closer ties with great neighbors like Russia, China & India. This is the Asian century and Iran is perfectly poised to take advantage of the power-shift East.
President Rouhani to increase support for Syrian allies
Iran will send 4,000 troops to aid Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria
World Exclusive: US urges Britain and France to join in supplying arms to Syrian rebels as MPs fear that UK will be drawn into growing Sunni-Shia conflict
The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years. Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html
Why is he allows to write here?
How come the anti-IRI commentators are the most hostile ones here? If you do not agree with the views of the author then you are perfectly free to state so... but why resort to personal attacks? Is this how you want to achieve freedom and democracy in Iran, by attacking anyone with diverging political views?
Mr.Pyruz is expressing his opinions in the most respectful of manners and this is something many of us Iranian could learn from, regardless of political views.
If the main purpose of a comment is launching personal attacks on the author or other commentators, it will not be published. If such comment is published by mistake, as was the case here with comments by Anon 8:36 AM, it would be removed.
Mark has got it back to front regarding the regime in Iran.It should be compared to NAZI Germany under Adolf Hitler.But give credit to Adolf,at least he was a nationalist,not like these anti Iranian swines.
Good ! There will be less of them on the streets of Iran.
respectfully on the surface, but far too often, dishonestly.
Anonymous June 16, 2013 at 2:09 PM
One wonders what sort of a horror show of a state professional malcontents like you would create when you go around praising hitler for his nationalism,yeah pity about the facism but then he had that in common with your beloved shah,thank god people like you are not deciding the future of iran
Well said
Anon 11:57.... I'm sure your beloved Islamist fascist regime has taken a few tips from the Nazi murderers.The Shah was a positive democrat compared to the slimy creeps that are raping todays Iran.
Get used to it the barbarous and corrupt regime you support is one of the worst types that has been in Iran and whether you like it or not one day people like me will decide the future of Iran.
@6:50 AM What "DEMOCRACY" when the velahyat is the unelected dictator?
You wouldn't know the meaning of it even if landed on your head.
Anonymous June 17, 2013 at 2:34 PM
It must really piss you off the the majority supports the system of government and took part in the elections,as for your "democratic" shah how was he any different than the arab despots,I dont recall any elections taking place during his dictatorship
Anon 11:26 AM...The only "Arab style despot" is Shiekh Khamenei the unelected Islamic dictator and chief charlatan of Iran.The so called "elections" is nothing but a illusion and charade because end of the day it is the chief shyster in control that decides,not his errand boy the "president".For many reasons "the majority" have no choice but take part in this charade because of the stamp they will receive on their ID.
So no it doesn't "piss me off" because I know the score pal.
Like most malcontents you sound like a very angry person,I love how you rationalies the widespread participation by ordinary iranians in the election by saying that the voters were either tricked or forced into voting as tho` they had no choice when the exact opposite is true,you dont seem to give the people of iran much credit sadly.You seem to hark back to some mythical "golden age" under the shah or if only iran had a "western style" two party system like in the us,everything would be great belief.Irans government is far from perfect but its light years ahead of its neighbors and the shah and most iranians would agree with this
I guess you prefer the "golden age of imam" where tens of thousands of people were murdered? The people of Iran want secularism and parliamentary democracy, not some unanswerable Shiekh Omati Bedouin Despotic Shyster that is selling Iran to the Chinese and Russians.Your discontented attitude and hypocracy towards Western style multi party system (while living in the West) shows you have schizophrenic tendencies.You don't speak for most Iranians. So keep your Sisyphean rolling!
You would much rather iran went back to the good old days of the shah and putting the interests of the west and israel ahead of the people and nation of iran,and last time I looked iranians had quite a bit more choice in the numbers of candidates than the british or americans had in their last elections,not to mention a much higher voter turn out,not too bad for a system that according to you the people despise.The only one whos discontented here is you,tell you what why dont you go and live in one of the arab despotys and see how great that is,its probably the closest you`ll get to living under a shah.The iranian people seem pretty happy with their system of democracy and why not its light years ahead of their neighbors or the shah and you have more choice than you would in britain or american elections
What are you,some poor comedian? Iran's interests under this bedouin cultish theocracy has given away Iran's rights to the Russian and Chinese.Fifty per cent of the Caspian sea was under Iran's rights.Now it's thirteen per cent.Just because the soviet union fell why should Iran pay the price.The Chinese are receiving discounted oil at ($25 a barrel,$70 below market price) and in return Iran receives their rejected junk.China still owes Iran over $30 Billion.The Iranian currency is not worth the paper it's written on and the economy is spiraling into the abyss.There is no democracy in Iran while you have an un-elected valih-e-faqih calling the shots.Last time I looked,Iran's interests is given away to first Hezbollah in Lebanon,to Assad in Syria and a number of other terrorists,China,Russia and the most oppressive state on the planet North Korea.Get with the act,Iran doesn't want a shiekh omati bedouin style despotic theocracy anymore.
and more of them face-down on Syrian streets.
Yes you`re right things were so much better under the shah when iran was just another western backed puppet despoty who towed the western line and supported the western backed status quo in the region.unfortunately for you the iranian people dont share your views.As far as the caspian is concerned iran has yet to give up anything as no agreements have been made,blame this situation on the soviets and the break up of the ussr and the inability of the successor states to agree a deal.Iran isnt giving away its interests its supporting them in lebanon and syria you must be stupid if you cant tell the difference.The dprk was one of the few allies iran had during saddams war of aggression and your good friend the shah did business with apartheid south africa which I`m sure you wouldnt have had a problem with,as for irans financial problems the blame for them falls squarely on western sanctions,but I`m sure you view that as all irans fault
Of course they were! But you've been brainwashed into believing your self inflicted diatribes.Remember,it was the Shah back in 1973 who decided not to renew the oil contracts in 1979 with the cartel.The cartel saw this as a threat against western interests. Therefore they decided to help the negative forces within the country to overthrow a modernizing government.Who better than a British puppet by the name of Khomeini and his minority fringe movement to do the dirty laundry for the cartel.But the Iranian people would have not bought that. So some stupid misguided intellectuals convinced the middle classes that everything would remain the same as before minius the Shah.Oh how wrong they were!
As far as one is concerned,Islamic dictatorships involvements in Lebanon and Syria is costing Iranian people greatly.To think otherwise is condemning logic as well as the Iranian people to pauperism.As a matter of fact the reasons the Shah cooperated with white south Africa was because of their nuclear programme.Don't forget Israel's cooperation with Iran at the time as regards the ballistic missile programme of both countries.Semnan was chosen as the future missile testing site for both countries.But the US objected to the Israel cooperation in such sensitive projects.Problem with people like you is that you refuse to accept the truth that all these military/civilian projects regarding missiles,helicopters,plans,ships,metro,nuclear power plants,the foudations were laid before the 1979 revenge by the oil cartel.
So back to the Shah's policy of cooperation.By your logic China should be a "another western puppet" because of all the Western businesses and companies that do business there.By your logic Japan is a "another western puppet" because they are the top industrial country.How about Russia they must be "another western puppet" when they sell their oil and do business with the world.The list can go on and on.But people like you say "the Shah was a western puppet" because western companies were in Iran and doing business.He was right to support "the western backed status quo" because it suited Iran's interest to do so.You are one naive person if you think otherwise.Look where Iran is compared to India,China and other south east Asian countries.The Persian gulf countries and Turkey all have benefited from Iran's neglect by the very regime you support.So who's fault is this then,Iran or the West? The answer is either,except the Islamic regime in Tehran itself.Why? Because of the regimes founding fathers with their confrontational policies like breaking into US/UK embassy and taking hostages,killing opponents of regime and so on.So the financial problems fall into the lap of the Islamic regimes self inflicted policies.
You said "unfortunately for you the Iranain people don't share your views"
I strongly disagree with you.Maybe some Hezbollahi or regime supporters and paid basiji won't agree with me but ordinary Iranians do.You don't speak on behalf of the ordinary Iranian people,only the types mentioned above.And I unlike you don't make such bold statements on behalf of the Iranian people.
Post a Comment