Armed men have opened fire at the Iranian parliament

[Independent voter]

There is always wiggle room. Obviously every candidate is and will be Muslim - the question is how fanatical they are. For Iran's present religious establishment, Rouhani is not devoted enough and that alone is a serious commendation for the man in my book. Furthermore, his 57% vote share in a 4-way race is a convincing sign that most Iranians also think more wiggle room is in order. Wikipedia says "he encourages personal freedom and free access to information, has improved women's rights by appointing female foreign ministry spokespeople, and has been described as a centrist and reformist".

I lived through the end of Communism in Hungary. I recall when going from one candidate in an election to two was a novelty. Even though both had to be party-approved, a few independents slipped through. Regimes are often not as monolithic as they would like to be.

Or perhaps not as monolithic as their opponents would paint them. Iran has been an enemy of the US for decades. Much like Russia. This does not mean all Persians and Russians are demons, terrorists, spies, saboteurs, gangsters or whatever is the scare du jour. In fact, I believe most people just want to get on with their lives, whether in Iran, Russia, Britain or America. And if they can choose a leader who looks like he will tone the crazy down, the sane will do it.

Admittedly, I'm a bit uncertain about that last statment when relating to America, but you get the point.

You really think Iran is anything to close to a Democracy? If the civilian government ever defied the religious establishment the Revolutionary Guard would be on the civilian government in a heartbeat. The civilian government is allowed to do small things but any decision of magnitude like the recent treaty with the US is done by the religious community.

The religious community has also decided to support groups like Hezbollah and President Assad of Syria in the Sunni Shia struggle that's going on.

[HumbleDuck]

Yes he can dismiss cabinet officials, he has done so in the past. The Iranian constitution is worthless if it isn't enforced. The Ayatollah makes all the important decisions in the country. This is common knowledge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8168202.stm

The wording of this article is misleading, the supreme leader sent a letter to Ahmadinezhad asking ( not an order) for his dismissal Ahmadinezhad ( who was a hardliner and on the same side with the supreme leader at the time) then fired the guy.
Supreme leader has significant power in Iran's regime, but he can't dismiss cabinet members directly.

[LoLcano]

There are a lot of terrorist attacks he doesn't tweet about. There are tens of thousands of them every year.

He does for every newsworthy one and considering its not a usual thing to happen in Iran its newsworthy

[Deletedaccount1]

The article wording is misleading, the supreme leader sent a letter to Ahmadinezhad asking ( not an order) for his dismissal Ahmadinezhad ( who was a hardliner and on the same side with the supreme leader at the time) then fired the guy.
Supreme leader has significant power in Iran's regime, but he can't dismiss cabinet members directly.

How do you know it was a request or not an order? Are you just assuming that because Ahmadinejad was on his side most of the time? It even said there was a rift between the two of them in the article.

If he can order the president to make decisions of consequence like firing a cabinet official, then he might as well have that power himself.

- - - Updated - - -

He does for every newsworthy one and considering its not a usual thing to happen in Iran its newsworthy

To my knowledge he didn't do it for the attack in Kabul either which killed 150 people. Afghanistan is a US ally on top of it. The real reason is that people don't give a shit about terrorist attacks in the third world.

[HumbleDuck]

How do you know it was a request or not an order? Are you just assuming that because Ahmadinejad was on his side most of the time? It even said there was a rift between the two of them in the article.

If he can order the president to make decisions of consequence like firing a cabinet official, then he might as well have that power himself.

I know that because I know some farsi and I was in Iran at the time.
Someone being in the position of directly firing a cabinet member is very different than some one having the influence to make that happen at a specific time.
PS. That guy was allegedly colluding with foreign nations.

[Flarelaine]

You really think Iran is anything to close to a Democracy? If the civilian government ever defied the religious establishment the Revolutionary Guard would be on the civilian government in a heartbeat. The civilian government is allowed to do small things but any decision of magnitude like the recent treaty with the US is done by the religious community.

Iran is not really a democracy at this point. But there are leaders who want to loosen up and there is support for loosening. A victory for the reformist candidate is a step towards the end of theocracy. It will not fall tomorrow, not even next year.

Rouhani's victory also signals the limits of how much the Council of Guardians will intervene. The reformists also ran his old deputy in case he gets disqualified. The fallback guy dropped out just before the election, as Rouhani was allowed to run. We do not get to see what goes on behind the scenes, but it is a fact that they did not intervene. It could be a sign that they themselves were not sure of their support or they themselves could not agree. Either of those means the theocracy is not as rock solid as it used to be when Khomeini was running the show.

[Orlong]

no comments on your other points but Iraq INVADED Iran not the other way around

Yes, Iraq invaded Iran, but they only invaded because of the actions of Iran

- - - Updated - - -

Even if we take your naive and uneducated opinion on Ayatollah Khomeini as valid, in what world does that make it OK to kill innocent people in the process?

Btw, Iraq invaded Iran ...

I didnt say that its OK to kill innocent people, nor did I say anyone should be killed. All I said was the mausoleum should be destroyed which is something that can be done when nobody is in it

[HumbleDuck]

Yes, Iraq invaded Iran, but they only invaded because of the actions of Iran

Are you really defending Saddam Hussein now?

[Independent voter]

Iran is not really a democracy at this point. But there are leaders who want to loosen up and there is support for loosening. A victory for the reformist candidate is a step towards the end of theocracy. It will not fall tomorrow, not even next year.

Rouhani's victory also signals the limits of how much the Council of Guardians will intervene. The reformists also ran his old deputy in case he gets disqualified. The fallback guy dropped out just before the election, as Rouhani was allowed to run. We do not get to see what goes on behind the scenes, but it is a fact that they did not intervene. It could be a sign that they themselves were not sure of their support or they themselves could not agree. Either of those means the theocracy is not as rock solid as it used to be when Khomeini was running the show.

I'll give you that, there is hope for the future.

[satimy]

Safe bet that Isis is a Saudi funded summer project that got out of hand. If only we were allies with Iran instead of the wahhabis

[HumbleDuck]

Well, Donny finally stepped in with yet another ignorant statement.

[Gamevizier]

I'm more worried about the aftermath of this incident, will we see an emboldened IRGC using this attack to undermine the government and trying to clamp down on any effort to open Iran's political and social scene? Or will Iran's government manage to rally the people behind it's back and go ahead with it's reform plans?

Sad to see that this terror attack is being overlooked by many (even in social media), and even a large number of those who commented about the attack were not doing to so to show sympathy but to make fun or even express that Iranians somehow "had it coming".

[HumbleDuck]

I'm more worried about the aftermath of this incident, will we see an emboldened IRGC using this attack to undermine the government and trying to clamp down on any effort to open Iran's political and social scene? Or will Iran's government manage to rally the people behind it's back and go ahead with it's reform plans?

Sad to see that this terror attack is being overlooked by many (even in social media), and even a large number of those who commented about the attack were not doing to so to show sympathy but to make fun or even express that Iranians somehow "had it coming".

And this administration really doesn't help with that at all.
Not only the Senate didn't delay voting on the new sanctions, but also the statement released by trump was disgusting.
His head is so high up his fucking ass that not only he didn't condemn the terrorist attacks, but ceased the moment to imply that ISIS was created by Iran and Iran is responsible for these attacks...
I mean can you blame the IRGC when they point to Trump and say US just doesn't care about anything beside the oil? Can you blame the people when they turn away and say fuck US?
I mean seriously white House statement was nothing but a disgrace to humanity.

[Deleted]

This area is the warzone of the world.