And again, Khamanei is himself a hardliner, so if the hardliners are opposed, he will be as well. If he favors the deal, they’ll fall in line right behind him.
Ah, the “no true Iranian” fallacy.
What point are you trying to make, adaher?
There are two power bases in the country: the elected government, which is less hardline and officially negotiates with other countries, and the real power, which is the ayatollah and the military. The hardliners call the actual shots. There is no outcome in which the elected government defeats the hardliners. Either the hardliners will approve of the deal, or there will be no deal.
There are hardliners other than the ayatollahs, and hardliners who disagree with other hardliners. In Iran, the most conservative and least moderate voices right now appear to be opposing the deal, while the more moderate and less conservative voices support the deal. Those in the US who are opposing the deal are “making common cause” (if not on purpose) with the ‘most hardline’ people in Iran. And as I’ve said before, Iran will be the ones who look bad if they reject the deal. I’m not worried about how Iran looks – I’m worried about how we look. And we will look very bad with most of the world (and the vast majority of our allies) if we reject the deal. So whatever Iran ends up doing, we should sign and put forward the deal, since the outcomes with the US accepting the deal are much better for the US than the outcomes with the US rejecting the deal (in my opinion, at least).
You think ISIS will prevent you from going to the store when you’re 80? Ummmmmm…OK.
<backs away slowly>
Khamenei is not omnipotent. If he opposes a deal overwhelmingly supported by a majority of Iranians, he will do so at his own peril. So he will probably come out in support of it. (My guess is that he allowed Rouhani to try because he was betting Rouhani would fail. That bet did not play out.) That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of other “hardliners” whose purposes are served by railing against the deal as an intolerable capitulation to the west.
No, that’s why I used the word “mirror.” Both Iran hawks in the US and hardliners in Iran say the other side can’t be trusted and that their side gave up way too much. Hardliners in both countries prefer continued confrontation to the current deal.
The Atlantic has some good reporting on the debate within Iran.
OK.
I see several signs that the Ayatollah approves of the deal - apart from the fact that the deal happened in the first place.
For starters, Iran’s Press Supervisory Board has already begun cracking down on “hardline” media outlines critical of the deal, “suspend[ing] a hard-line publication and warn[ing] two other like-minded outlets.” These include the ultra-conservative Kayhan, mentioned in the Atlantic-quote I provided in post #79.
From here:
On Saturday, “Iran’s top soldier” - its chief of staff, Major-Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, who is close to the Ayatollah and was appointed by the Ayatollah in the first place - came out in support of the deal. In doing so, he is essentially warning the commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, and other high-ranking critics of the deal, to back the fuck down and take a chill pill. Everyone from Bloomberg to Juan Cole has interpreted this as a sign that the Ayatollah supports the deal.
The real danger to the deal is from the American side, and even that won’t make much a difference to, well, the rest of us, who are eager to resume trade with Iran.
Okay, so Republicans are in league with the hardliners who want to reject the deal because they would never want to make a deal with the Great Satan, and Obama is in league with the hardliners who want more money for Hezbollah and see a deal as the best way to defeat the Great Satan.
Yes, apart from all the stuff you made up which is most of what you said.
Are you incapable of considering that Iranian politicians might actually be competent politicians who, behind all the rabble-rousing rhetoric, are capable of agreeing a deal that presents the best outcomes for their country? “More money for Hezbollah” and “the best way to defeat the Great Satan”? How about “removal of sanctions, thus eliminating a major suppressant on the economy” and “the best option for regional stabilization”?
No, no one is “in league” with anyone. Where do you get this crap? Do you know what “in league” means?
Which specific Iranian hardliner supports the deal in the belief that its implementation will mean “more money for Hezbollah”?
Which specific Iranian hardliner supports the deal because they see it as “the best way to defeat the Great Satan”?
In both cases, please name names, list rank, and present actual quotes.
For example: When coming out in favour of the deal, Firouzabadi listed no less than sixteen advantages to the deal. Was “more money for Hezbollah” one of those sixteen advantages? Was “this is the best way to defeat the Great Satan”?
Thanks in advance.
Amy Klobuchar is now in the “yes” column. The deal-supporters now need 5 of the remaining 13 (almost all Democrats) undecided/unknown. I think they’ll get most of them. Maybe even enough to prevent cloture vote.