Perhaps this will be a weekly feature: nations that aren't as ready for primetime as we might believe. Here's (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-circle31dec31,0,1974441.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center) a good article about Iran's political power structure, and how those at the top don't have a free pass when trying to institute their policies.For years, Western analysts have struggled to understand the inner workings of Iran's leadership. To many, it is a government tightly controlled by the Shiite Muslim clergy. But the power of the clerics has steadily eroded. Increasingly, power is distributed among combative elites within a delicate system of checks and balances defined by religious as well as civil law, personal relations and the rhythm of bureaucracy.
The article spends several paragraphs detailing how Supreme Leader Khameini has attempted to privatize many state-owned businesses, only to be ignored and even blocked by other parties of influence.

I read that article yesterday, it was excellent.

For years, Western analysts have struggled to understand the inner workings of Iran's leadership.

Well, they say any sufficently advanced form of science is indistinguishable from magic.
Perhaps the came can be said for a Government like Iran?

Well this is more concerning then.

It has been stated often on this board that it doesn't matter what Ahmanutjob says, because the supreme leader and his cadre are really the ones in control.

Apparently not.

More importantly, there's been much hyperventilating and gnashing of teeth -- here and among people of actual influence -- regarding Ahmanutjob's statements regarding this or that. It's been a major part of the narrative of the "bomb Iran now" crowd.

Turns out they're even more wrong than I had imagined.

The Supreme leader of Iran does not have the final say as i have pointed out before, He is governed by a council which can also choose to relieve him and appoint a new supreme leader.

They have their own version of checks and balances, which is not spoken of much of the time. The President has influence but not as much as the Supreme Leader, who has influence but not as much as the council. Now the interesting information even i lack, is how the council is elected. If they are appointed by the other council members once one retires, or if they are voted on by the people as well, which i doubt.

I found this on BBC, not sure if it is 100% accurate, but pretty informative.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/flowchart_imap.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_struggle_for_change/who_holds_power/armed_forces.stm

A lot of what the article discusses pertains not to the formal system of governance but the parleying of influence by various factions in order to protect their interests and patronage by ignoring/bypassing legally authoritative decrees.

More importantly, there's been much hyperventilating and gnashing of teeth -- here and among people of actual influence -- regarding Ahmanutjob's statements regarding this or that. It's been a major part of the narrative of the "bomb Iran now" crowd.

Turns out they're even more wrong than I had imagined.If Iran were to be less recluse, we'd be more able to gauge whether Ahmanutjob's influence and statements are worth being worried about or not. Currently, Iran can only be judged by their actions (or lack thereof) and the statements of the only power person visible.

I choose not to ignore the nutjob persuing nukes, in light of knowing even less about the country's stability and power structure.

And no one I know wants to bomb Iran now.

If Iran were to be less recluse, we'd be more able to gauge whether Ahmanutjob's influence and statements are worth being worried about or not. Currently, Iran can only be judged by their actions (or lack thereof) and the statements of the only power person visible.

I choose not to ignore the nutjob persuing nukes, in light of knowing even less about the country's stability and power structure.

And no one I know wants to bomb Iran now.

There are people living in Iran right now that could easily describe to you how their government works, and also tell you of any frustrations they may have with it.

Its just a point and a click away, if you care to find out.

www.irandefence.net

There are people living in Iran right now that could easily describe to you how their government works, and also tell you of any frustrations they may have with it.


Before or after the Basij haul them off?

Before or after the Basij haul them off?

Oh my friend, they are Basij as well. There are even members of the Iranian military who post on that forum, who will tell you exactly how they feel. They have issues with their government as does any people anywhere in the world, and they will share it.

They will also tell you how it works better then some analyst who is not living under its system.

Is that the same site that said Israelis bash little kid's heads on rocks?

Is that the same site that said Israelis bash little kid's heads on rocks?

It is a forum... as with every forum you can have someone posting that is a retard. If you would judge an entire forum by one post of one member on one thread, then i do not recommend any forums for you.

And no one I know wants to bomb Iran now.Norman Podheretz, perhaps someone you're familiar with, has been a supporter of that route (And no one I know wants to bomb Iran now.), and is a foreign policy advisor to Giuliani. Because Iran = Hitler, ya see, just like every bad guy is Hitler.
So that leaves us with only one terrible choice, which is either to bomb those facilities and retard their program or even cut it off altogether or allow them to go nuclear. And I agree with what Senator McCain has said in the past: The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb.
...
NORMAN PODHORETZ: Well, I'll tell you why. First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early '30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough.
...
The fact of the matter is that, with a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad and the "mullahcracy" ruling Iran generally, there's no assurance that self-preservation or the protection, preservation of the nation, will deter them.
...
NORMAN PODHORETZ: Yes, let me respond to that. You know, similar arguments were made about Hitler in the early '30s, and it appalls me that this kind of attitude can still prevail after what we should have learned from the words of despots.

Now the interesting information even i lack, is how the council is elected.

By Allah... Duh!

Norman Podheretz, perhaps someone you're familiar with, has been a supporter of that route (http://And%20no%20one%20I%20know%20wants%20to%20bomb%20Ir an%20now.), and is a foreign policy advisor to Giuliani. Because Iran = Hitler, ya see, just like every bad guy is Hitler.


Ergo, Giuliani is Hitler? :rolleyes:

I think the perceived instability coupled with AdI'manutjob's getting more power means even more reason to worry about Iran.

Fix your link Thormir?

Odd. Link should be here (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec07/iran_10-29.html).
I think the perceived instability coupled with AdI'manutjob's getting more power means even more reason to worry about Iran.I don't think Iran is particular unstable, just a political jumble with the people on top not able to exert their full authority (the article suggests this, at least). I've seen nothing to indicate that Ahmadinejob is getting more power, though he's certainly used the standoff with the West in an attempt to build nationalistic support. Economic problems and dissatisfaction from other factions are reining him in somewhat.

The only thing worse than bombing Iran is to allow Iran to get the bomb. I can agree with that, but as far as Norman Podhoretz wanting to bomb them right now? Not good. We still have time for tough talk and other diplomatic tools.

As your link quoted McCain:

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), Arizona: We cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, but I do believe that to start talking about specifics, a bombardment or something like that, I think would be a terrible mistake.

But the Iranians would know, when I'm president, they're facing somebody who's not going to let them have it. But I'm not going to make a lot of empty threats that I can't carry out.Regarding Podhoretz's role as advisor to Guiliani... not good either. Personnel choices reflect policy and looks like Guiliani continues to make bad choices in that department.

I'm glad that McCain has -- at least in that quote -- set aside the insidious influence of the Beach Boys on his foreign policy.