{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Sapphire
10/4/2013 5:52:32 AM
2
Rafsanjani is deeply opposed to nuclear weapons and the Rafsanjani and Khatami presidencies were both times of thawing relations between Iran and the west compared with the nadir they reached under Ahmadinejad or how they were in the 80's when Khamenei was president.
While it's true that by our standards he's hardly a liberal, he's also not a hard liner. Simply being willing to negotiate with the west is a big improvement.
Of course, he will also oppose Khamenei's efforts at setting up a monarchy, which can only be good, and with any luck he'll actually achieve improved relations with the west.
Most interpretations of the Quran view using nuclear weapans as haram, though tit-for-tat development a la Pakistan and India does have precedent.
English
-
Edited by Mags: 10/4/2013 10:46:41 PM[quote]Rafsanjani is deeply opposed to nuclear weapons.[/quote][url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2.htm]I wouldn't be so sure[/url]. It's also widely understood that Rafsanjani accelerated their nuclear program during his presidency. According to [i]Guardians of the Revolution[/i] by Ray Takeyh, Rafsanjani never truly wanted the best of relations with the West. Him making ties with European countries during his presidency is directly linked to him trying to resist the pressure we were putting on him. On page 116 of the book, it says: [quote]"At the outset, the purpose of Rafsanjani's diplomacy was not so much to reconcile with the United States but to resist its pressures and attempts to isolate Iran. By cultivating ties with the European bloc, the new Russian Federation, and the Persian Gulf emirates, Iran tried to obstruct America's attempts to marginalize its influence." [/quote]. It later goes on to talk about how Rafsanjani would "entertain the possibility of reconsidering ties with the United States". [quote]While it's true that by our standards he's hardly a liberal, he's also not a hard liner.[/quote]Like I said, time will tell whether or not his "willingness to negotiate" is genuine or not. That's not the point of this thread though. The point is trying to persuade people to keep a level of skepticism when dealing with Rouhani, rather than embracing him with open arms. [quote]Of course, he will also oppose Khamenei's efforts at setting up a monarchy, which can only be good, and with any luck he'll actually achieve improved relations with the west.[/quote]What needs to be kept in mind here is that Khamenei has all the real power. Rouhani can only get so far on his leash, if you will. [quote]Most interpretations of the Quran view using nuclear weapans as haram[/quote]Talking about the fatwa Iran allegedly made?
-
I agree that scepticism is [i]always[/i] the default position when negotiating with anyone in the Middle East. Given the increasingly alienated position of Iran and the open hand Obama is willing to offer (plus the eternal reports that Khamenei has cancer), at some point there will be a changing of the guard. Of the leading clerics you're basically left with Rafsanjani. Rouhani is going to have to walk on eggshells to get things done. Improved relations with the west is a start. Once you have trade moving it becomes far more difficult to contemplate a war.
