# If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not President of Iran, would America's policy be the same? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2007, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484 "2007-10-29T19:16:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/41 "2007-11-05T04:20:23Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] So which is it, **Magiver**? Is the president a powerless puppet of Khameini and the theocrats or is he the responsible party for all the evil of Iran? [/QUOTE] The President is the voice of The Supreme Leader and is empowered in the same manner that Himmler was. He is powerless to engage in any activity not approved by those who hold the real power. Nothing you’ve posted suggests there was ever a point in time where Iran’s religious control of the country did not crush opposition to it’s theology. [From your own source](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami%27s_reforms) it should be clear that Khatami was attempting to increase his own power. \*\*In September 2002 Khatami presented the so-called twin bills to Parliament. The twin bills addresses two issues: the first would curb the powers of the Council of Guardians, while the second would enhance presidential powers. The bills were rejected by Guardian council and Khatami withdrew them from the parliament eventually. \*\* His power is exactly what the Supreme leader wished it to be. What should be obvious is the correlation between internal Iranian dissent over economic and social issues and the political vitriol over Israel. It’s a page right out of Hitler’s playbook. Iran’s leadership is looking for a diversion from its own failures. [From a 2004 analysis](http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a47n41d01.htm): **Stubborn, double-digit, unemployment is currently the Islamic Republic’s most acute single economic concern. Providing gainful, even if not equally productive, jobs for millions of job seekers now tops the list of the theocratic oligarchy’s unrelenting headaches. The challenge is formidable not only because of unemployment’s debilitating impact on the economy, but also due to its dire political, social, and even cultural consequences for the regime’s stability and staying power. While shortages of job opportunities have been a structural phenomenon in Iran for some time, the acceleration in the growth of labor force since the late 1990s has now reached a critical mass – defying all attempted solutions.** Iran is still in double digit unemployment today and their fuel prices have climbed because of a shortage of refineries. The current purge includes every facet of Iranian life and is a consolidation of power. It started from day one and it had nothing to do with Bush. It will continue long after he leaves office. As stated before, it was Reagan who characterized Iran as a terrorist state. This is nothing new and the world is largely in step with that realization. Isolation of Iran will escalate as long as they continue on a quest for nuclear weapons. Western Europe is united in this front and now [Bahrain](http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380720002&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) is acknowledging the seriousness of it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2007, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/42 "2007-11-05T05:10:06Z")
So in your view of the world, (in opposition to the CIA and every other serious analyst of Iran’s politics), there was no reform movement and no parties were disestablished and Ahmadinejad was the natural successor to Khatami? The statement to which you objected was not that the theocrats were losing power, but simply that U.S. sabre-rattling had a direct influence on allowing Ahmadinejad to be elected. All your condemnation of the theocrats, (and no one here has defended any of their actions), is a sideshow that simply ignores the actual events that led up to the election of a specific individual to the presidency. Harping on the puppet nature of the Iranian presidency does nothing to change the events that led to the selection of a single individual. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/43 "2007-11-06T01:53:58Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] So in your view of the world, (in opposition to the CIA and every other serious analyst of Iran’s politics), there was no reform movement and no parties were disestablished and Ahmadinejad was the natural successor to Khatami? The statement to which you objected was not that the theocrats were losing power, but simply that U.S. sabre-rattling had a direct influence on allowing Ahmadinejad to be elected. All your condemnation of the theocrats, (and no one here has defended any of their actions), is a sideshow that simply ignores the actual events that led up to the election of a specific individual to the presidency. Harping on the puppet nature of the Iranian presidency does nothing to change the events that led to the selection of a single individual. [/QUOTE] What serious analysis of Iran’s politics? You’ve provided nothing that shows the President has any power that is not subject to the approval of the Supreme Leader. On top of that the election process is based on candidates that are filtered out by the Council of Guardians. As I pointed out earlier, Khatami’s parliamentary bills of reform were handed back to him. It went nowhere because there is no political process that cannot be overruled by the religious councils or the Supreme Leader. To suggest this process is open to reform is a mental exercise in denial. The people of Iran elect the person they are allowed to elect. In turn that person performs the duties of the office as is allowed by the theocratic powers. Nothing the current President has said about Iran is different than past political references to Iran as a terrorist state. In fact, 3/4 of the current Senators (including Hillary) [voted to say just that](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r110:./temp/~r110HRQKza) 2 months ago: **(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224;** ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/44 "2007-11-06T02:16:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The people of Iran elect the person they are allowed to elect. The people of Iran elect **one of** the people they are allowed to elect. Which one they pick does say something about the Iranian voters’ attitudes and choices, not just about what the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council want. To say that there is **no** difference in attitude, activities, or supporters between a Khatami and an Ahmedinejad is as simplistic as saying there’s no difference between Bush and Gore. Sure, even a reformist Iranian President and Parliament are ultimately under the authority of the mullahs. That’s not in dispute. What’s being defended here against your denials is just the statement that Bush’s hard-line policy against Iran played a role in the “backlash” election of a particularly anti-reformist, anti-Western government. That statement is borne out by views expressed by the Iranian people themselves in response to the “Axis of Evil” speech. As [this article](Iran politics reformist Bush axis) notes, > [@](#): > > Feb 7, 2002 > > A few days before the 23rd anniversary of the Islamic revolution, the streets of Tehran are decorated with candy-colored lights. Despite the decorations, there had been no aura of revolutionary zeal in the city. But that was before President Bush’s State of the Union speech, in which he shocked political observers, diplomats and ordinary Iranians by singling out Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as part of an “axis of evil.” Now, anti-American sloganeering has returned. […] > > Bush’s speech dismayed Iranians of all political stripes. Reformers and conservatives have been locked in a bitter power struggle, but they suspended their infighting to make common cause against a speech widely regarded here as bullying, ignorant and counterproductive. […] > > During his five years in office, Khatami has made a concerted effort to tone down hostile rhetoric toward the U.S. as part of a more pragmatic foreign policy, but he condemned Bush’s demonizing of Iran as “meddling, warmongering, insulting and a repetition of old propaganda.” It was perhaps the strongest language Khatami has yet used against the U.S., and belied his dismay at the abrupt change in the U.S. position towards Iran, which most observers believe has been softening in the past four years. […] > > At least for now, Washington’s aggressive new stance toward Iran appears to have played into the hands of the conservative clergy, which is facing the greatest challenge to its rule in recent years from the reformist parliament. Even those reformist groups that are the most amenable to eventual reestablishment of ties with the U.S. were forced to condemn Bush’s speech. The leading reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF), which won a majority in the parliament two years ago, simultaneously condemned the U.S. president’s statement and criticized the hard-liners, charging that their policies have played into the hands of anti-Iran elements in the U.S. and Israel, whose aggressive lobbying against Iran is widely believed here to have been the decisive factor in Bush’s hawkish speech. > > “Bush’s statement will only help obstruct the course of democracy in Iran,” says Saiid Leylaz, a reformist journalist close to the IIPF. […] > > The reformists had suffered significant setbacks in recent months. More newspapers were closed and a member of parliament who had challenged the legitimacy of the hard-line judiciary was jailed. Last week, they were showing signs of regaining some of their lost ground, when Bush’s saber-rattling speech distracted them from the business at hand by forcing them to wave the flag with their rivals. > > One of the reasons for the shock felt by many Iranians at Bush’s speech was the widespread perception here that relations between the U.S. and Iran were improving. Iran had a sympathetic reaction to the Sept. 11 attacks: President Khatami sent a message of condolence to the people of America, which was a first by an Iranian president. It took a neutral stance in the U.S.-led war against al-Qaida. And as Afghanistan’s western neighbor and a close ally of the anti-Taliban forces, it played an important role in forming the interim administration of Hamid Karzai at the Bonn conference. All these were seen as hopeful signs auguring a rapprochement between the old foes. > > The fact that none of these gestures prevented Bush from naming Iran as an “evil” enemy may have disappointed reformers, but hard-liners may actually be heartened, said Hermidas Bavand, a lecturer in international relations. “There are certain political wings in Iran who are glad about a return to crisis and slogans,” he said. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2007, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484/45 "2007-11-06T03:25:52Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] What serious analysis of Iran’s politics? You’ve provided nothing that shows the President has any power that is not subject to the approval of the Supreme Leader. On top of that the election process is based on candidates that are filtered out by the Council of Guardians. [/QUOTE] And the theocrats deliberately disestablished all the reform and even moderate parties when Bush got stupid. You really are missing the point of your own hijack, so I will stop carrying it further afield after I repeat the point one last time: The theocrats control who is allowed to run for office and what the _majlis_ (parliament) is allowed to do. Under Rasfanjani, there were glacially slow movements toward more secular or moderate political parties, movements that lept to a crawl under Khatami (regardless whether or not you would portray him as a reformer). Following Bush’s sabre rattling, the theocrats disestablished all the moderate and progressive political parties so that Ahmadinejad was the only nationally known candidate who had a chance to win the election–which is exactly the point **Frank** made–regardless how much of a puppet the holder of the office of president might be. So, regardless how little power the president wields, the specific point of **Frank** ’s comment, that it was our stupidity that triggered the election results that brought Ahmadinejad to office, was accurate. The rest is just a lot of pointless smoke and vitriol. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-was-not-president-of-iran-would-americas-policy-be-the-same/424484.md?page=2)