I suppose the NYTimes is in error too?
Perhaps You and Ibn can recommend some books so those dumb editors at the NYTimes and BBC can know as much about Iran as you two do?
Sigh.
All you’re doing is displaying that most western media have a long history of misreporting about Iran and misunderstanding Iran. Why this surprises you, I don’t know.
Many in the West regularly referred to Ahmadinejad as the leader of Iran but he wasn’t the leader. He was merely the President of Iran and he had no real power in Iran when it came to either the Iranian military or Iranian foreign policy.
Sadly enough far too many people were fooled by the claims put forth by Bush and various neocons that we “can’t allow Iran to get nuclear weapons when it’s led by someone who denies the Holocaust” and similar such bullshit.
Sadly enough, despite your moniker you seem to have also been fooled by W.
The President of Iran is not the leader of Iran and shouldn’t be classified as even one of the leaders since he has no say when it comes to military or foreign policy.
In those areas the Iranian President is largely a figurehead/spokesperson for the real leaders of Iran of whom Ayatollah Khamanei is, quite literally, “The Supreme Leader”.
Probably the best comparison might be to Shimon Peres the President of Israel, but certainly not the person anyone would classify as the “leader” of Israel. That honor belongs to Benjamin/Binyamin Netanyahu.
Now, you’ve made a very common error made by many westerners including George W Bush.
There’s no shame in admitting that like W you were fooled by the title “President” and thought Iran’s President would be the leader, but as with Israel, that’s not the case with Rouhani or with Ahmadinejad.
Were he truly the leader of Iran, Iranians would refer to him as Imam or Rahbar. They don’t because he isn’t.
Sorry. I am not at all fooled by that long winded spectacle of denial that Rouhani is the highest elected leader of Iran just as Putin is the highest elected keader of Russia. You should have given up before you went the Boehner route. Really? A US Congressman holds office by election in one if 535 Districts in the US. And you want credibility on Iran after that to dismiss the BBC and NYTimes as wrong? Come on.
What is the literal translation of Khamenei’s title?
Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Iranian military?
The answer to those questions will tell you who is the leader of Iran and who makes military decisions. Any military aid to Iraq will be up to Khamenei. Rouhani may have some level of influence, like an adviser, but he is not The Decider.
Well, at least they finally managed to get the chemical weapons out of Syria. That’s something, no danger ISIS or anyone else will get their hands on them.
Which of those two issues has something to do with the subject of this thread?
You were the one who brought it up by foolishly suggesting that Rouhani was the Iranian equivalent of Putin and then refused to admit you were wrong when corrected.
The removal of chemical weapons relates to the question of whether the Syrian Civil War can end well; at least now it won’t end with anyone being gassed. (Of course, all sides still have plenty of bullets.)
I did not bring up that Rouhini was the equivalent of Putin. That is your error. Putin and Rouhini are in fact both elected national leaders. You did not correct anything. You screwed up by bringing a non-nationally-elected John Boehner as a Rouhini comparison. I can’t be corrected by one who makes that kind if error. If you can refute my original point, lets hear it.
Your point was refuted several posts ago.
At this point all your doing is making yourself look foolish by trying to pretend that when you claimed
You weren’t trying to insinuate that Putin, Rouhani, and Obama were all the leaders of their respective countries. Of course as all Iranians and people knowledgeable about the Middle East know, Rouhani is not the leader of Iran, he’s only about the fourth or fifth highest ranking official, if that.
My suggestion that juxtaposing Rouhani and Putin was like juxtaposing Putin and Boehner(who’s a lower ranked official than Obama) was making the point that you were comparing the leader of a country to a much lower ranked official in another country.
As I have since admitted, this was probably a bad analogy since Boehner has considerably more power in the US than Rouhani has in Iran.
You made a terrible analogy and should just admit it and move on rather than continuing to dig yourself into a deeper hole.
Why do I get email notifications that I am subscribed to this thread? Makes no sense, I did not subscribe to this or any thread, though I did comment a few days ago.
You still cannot accept that Putin and Rouhani are nationally elected leaders. And your entire objection to my point is a petty complaint about a meaningless point because you did not make the connection that both leaders are elected. All your knowledge and you miss the simple fact of the natter.
Does anyone have an argument with the points made?
And no, the point never was about Rouhini being the top leader of Iran. Rouhini has more dealings with the public and outside world and and he represents the Iranian people because he was elected by them.
Obama talked to Rouhani.
Putin talks to Rouhani.
Why not the three get together and work out a plan on ending the conventional warfare in Syria?
Putin, Rouhani discuss Syria, Iranian nuke deal in phone talk …
voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_01_09/Putin-Rouhani-discuss…
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had a telephone conversation on …
Because talking is one thing, but there’s still too much bad blood between the U.S. and Iran to allow for actual cooperation on any joint project, and certainly not on any military project. Remember, there are still some American RWs who want the U.S. to invade or bomb Iran just to put an end to their nuclear program (and, to avenge the 1979 hostage crisis – which from an Iranian POV was itself too-long-delayed revenge for that 1953 coup that restored the Shah to absolute power, and had the CIA’s and MI5’s fingerprints all over it).
All we need to do is translate Kumbaya into Russian and Farsi, and world peace will ensue. This is all so easy, I don’t know why anyone else hasn’t thought of it!!
Nothing evaporates bad blood like a common threat however.
Well, ISIS is not yet a direct threat to anyone outside Iraq and Syria. They’d have to grow a lot more powerful before that would apply.
I hear their Balsa-wood Drones of Death can strike the UK in 15 minutes. 
Bumping this because the time may be approaching when we have to face it. The Syrian Civil War has been deadlocked for almost four years now. That might be about to change – and that is all we can clearly foresee at this point. Obama wants a AUMF against ISIS. Eliminating ISIS will eliminate a threat to Assad, but it might change the course of the war in other ways, not all of which would preserve Assad in power.
The war almost certainly will go on until Assad falls; at this point, it is hard to imagine any other settlement that would persuade all the rebel factions to lay down their arms. The war might go on after Assad falls if no faction or alliance of factions is clearly in charge. Either way, it is likely that the fall of Assad will lead to Iraq-style grassroots-mob-violence ethnic cleansing, Shi’ites driven out of Sunni neighborhoods and vice-versa. Is there any way to prevent that?
If only it were just those 2 groups. Syria is much more of a patch-work of ethnic-religious lines than Iraq is. And we could easily see things spill over into Lebanon. Ugh!
Nothing short of a large scale occupation, if you ask me. And I don’t see that happening.