So finally Ahmedinejad leaves office and is replaced by Hassan Rouhani. Already the new president has made concilatory gestures such as appointing a foreign minister who is respected in the US as a former negotiator. His inauguration speech was also a world away from inflammatory language associated with some predecessors.

Of course, it is early days and he may be the most 'reformist' of the election candidates, but the clerics have ensured that more consistently pro-reform figures cannot stand (Mousavi and Karroubi are still under house arrest without charge).

But could this be an opportunity for Iran and the rest of the world?

From his son's suicide note:

“I hate your government, your lies, your corruption, your religion, your double acts and your hypocrisy,” wrote the future president’s son in his suicide note, according to the Saudi-owned paper. “I am ashamed to live in such an environment where I’m forced to lie to my friends each day, telling them that my father isn’t part of all of this. Telling them my father loves this nation, whereas I believe this to be not true. It makes me sick seeing you, my father, kiss the hand of Khamenei.”

I hope you're right. I hope this is "an opportunity."

I seriously doubt it.

Will he: stop supporting Assad? Stop supporting Hezbollah?

Stop destabilizing Iraq?

Desist from further threats against Israel?

Stop the nuclear weapons program?

All of what Dr. Fate said, plus he's not the guy in charge anyway.

I guess we'll have to wait and see. He has not so far made threats against Israel (apparently a mistake on Friday led some to believe that he had said Israel was an open wound that should be removed, but this was not true).

He's no Khatami (who was hamstrung when President and now is a figurehead of the reform movement), but he appears to be more of a pragmatist than many conservatives. I would doubt that without a violent revolution Iran could change very quickly.

One thing it does show is that a significant number of Iranians want to see reform enough to vote for a relatively reformist candidate. We could do worse than to give them hope.

Iran ready to talk if US shows 'goodwill', says new president

I think the statements made are just as applicable the other way:

"What counts for us is the US's response in action, not their statements," he told reporters in Tehran in a room packed with domestic and foreign journalists. "We closely observe their actions and we will respond accordingly and similarly to any constructive and meaningful move."

and

In response to a question asked about the contrast between the White House's statement and Congress's tougher oil sanctions bill, Rouhani said it showed the inconsistency in the US's words and action.

"Unfortunately the warmongering pressure groups in the US are against constructive dialogue," he said

Could be expressed similarly by a US politician about Iran.

Stalling for time is something that we all know how to do in a standard Diplomacy game. Isn't that the most logical explanation here? They fund and arm the brutal Syrian regime as well as the terrorist Hezbollah. They torture their own people without remorse. They continue to march towards nuclear weaponry. I suppose calling Israel a sore instead of a cancer is progress of a sort (while crowds yell death to American, death to Israel in the background), but putting a moderate face on an evil regime solves nothing.

Iran has to stop their nuclear development or the U.S. and/or Israel have to take out the nukes. Do we want another North Korea combined with an extreme Islamist outlook? Emotionally I hate war -- I really do -- but when I look at the situation clinically I don't see a real opportunity. Sure we can have talks, but let's not fool ourselves that this regime can change.

Ray Jay wrote:Stalling for time is something that we all know how to do in a standard Diplomacy game. Isn't that the most logical explanation here?

It is not an unreasonable explanation. Hence my comments above that the same sorts of things that Rouhani says about the USA (that it is actions not words, that there is a significant belligerent faction) can be applied to Iran.

They fund and arm the brutal Syrian regime as well as the terrorist Hezbollah. They torture their own people without remorse. They continue to march towards nuclear weaponry.

Well, we know that Russia funds the brutal Syrian regime. We know that Saudi Arabia funds jihadists, as do others. On nuclear weapons, well, it's not so clear. Not one test yet.

I suppose calling Israel a sore instead of a cancer is progress of a sort (while crowds yell death to American, death to Israel in the background), but putting a moderate face on an evil regime solves nothing.

Are you referring to an actual thing that Rouhani said? If so, can you source it - because as far as I was aware something like that was ascribed to him on Friday, but it was an error.

Iran's Rouhani misquoted in remarks on Israel

Calling Israel a wound/sore is one thing. Calling the Israeli occupation a wound/sore is something else. You may think that the continued occupation of Palestinian territories is fine, that it's justifiable, etc, but it is not anti-Semitic to note that a people who are occupied see it as a big problem, or that it has wider effects.

For the record, I would say that the Israel/Palestine issue is[/ib] a massive and running sore through the Middle East. And a wound needs to be healed - while we recognise that it will leave a scar most likely. The longer that wound stays open, the worse that scar will be (and the more likely that it will re-open later on).

Iran has to stop their nuclear development or the U.S. and/or Israel have to take out the nukes.

Do they have to stop civilian nuclear development as well? Do they have nukes to 'take out', or just enrichment plants?

Do we want another North Korea combined with an extreme Islamist outlook? Emotionally I hate war -- I really do -- but when I look at the situation clinically I don't see a real opportunity.

Emotionally? Intellectually, I think we can all see the problem with war. For a start, it's all very well saying we have to have one, but what is it for, what will it achieve, and what happens if (as is not completely out of the bounds of possibility) it's not a simple case of 'go in, sort out, come out'? Emotions are not the issue at all - a clinical look at this has to ask detailed questions about what a war means - and especially what it means if we (the USA, the West, or Israel) are seen to initiate it.

Sure we can have talks, but let's not fool ourselves that this regime can change.

Oh, it can change. Anything and everything [b]can change. The question is will it change, and if so how and how quickly.

And that is the point - if we refuse to even engage, how can we say we did all we could to help them to change or to avoid conflict? And if we go in with a cynical attitude that there's no point, won't that affect the outcome too?

Danivon:

Are you referring to an actual thing that Rouhani said? If so, can you source it - because as far as I was aware something like that was ascribed to him on Friday, but it was an error.

Iran's Rouhani misquoted in remarks on Israel

Calling Israel a wound/sore is one thing. Calling the Israeli occupation a wound/sore is something else. You may think that the continued occupation of Palestinian territories is fine, that it's justifiable, etc, but it is not anti-Semitic to note that a people who are occupied see it as a big problem, or that it has wider effects.

I think we are splitting hairs. Without speaking Farsi it's going to be hard to figure out exactly what he said. Note that the mistranslation was from the Iran Student News Organization. I have no idea where they are in the hierarchy. Also note that when he talks about the Israeli occupation, he may well be talking about the entire state of Israel. Also note that there were "Death to Israel" signs in the background. In any case, as we split hairs, my point is that he is no more in charge than Peres is in charge of Israel.

Dan:

Do they have nukes to 'take out', or just enrichment plants?

Enrichment plants.

Dan:

I think we can all see the problem with war.

I used the wrong word first, but "war" is not what I'm eventually calling for. I'm talking about taking out their capacity to have nuclear weapons. My own view is that the fallout from the airstrikes will not be as bad as the fallout from allowing Iran to have a nuclear capacity. But in the end we will only know what one of those alternatives looks like.

Dan:

And that is the point - if we refuse to even engage, how can we say we did all we could to help them to change or to avoid conflict? And if we go in with a cynical attitude that there's no point, won't that affect the outcome too?

Sure, we should talk. I can't really change my cynical attitude. I've seen over 30 years of the Iranian regime and it is a nightmare.

It is am important hair to split, though, since calling Israel a sore is clearly moving into anti-semitism but calling the occupation a sore is not. It is too often conflated as a means of shutting down those who are critical of the Israeli government's actions.

In this case it's not clear 100% that he meant what you infer he may have done. Whatever the status of a student press agency, PressTV broadcast the actual footage and I'd defer to those who have seen it for a translation.

As for the banners etc, I haven't seen the signs you mention myself. In the pictures I've seen he appears to be at a press conference with Iranian flags in the background. There was a rally in Teheran on the same day, at which outgoing President Ahmedinejad spoke, and that was indeed (as other are on the day - named for Jerusalem - in support of Islamic claims to Jerusalem and some or all of Palestine) where the anti-US and anti-Israel banners were seen.

Again, you can call it splitting hairs, but one should be sceptical (if not cynical) about how reports use juxtaposition, as it may imply something happened at the same time and place when it did not.

And call it what you want, but sending military craft into Iran to attack sites is an act of war. You may not want to call it one (and Congress may demur on declaring one), but that it what it is, and violent repercussions fron such an act would also come under 'war'.

Cynicism is the easy position I guess. We can all fall into it, as it requires less effort. But scepticism is more appropriate, I think. Like you, I don't see Rouhani being elected as change enough, and nor do I see his words so far as meaning anything more than just words. But there is the possibility, and we can explore that while at the same time (and perhaps more subtly) preparing for contingencies.

In other words, "speak softly and carry a big stick".

Just after posting, I saw this: Iranian political prisoners' pleas to Barack Obama

The argument (being put by, among others, members of the current government who have in the past fallen foul of the regime) is that the sanctions merely strengthen the position of the extremists, allowing economic problems to be blamed on the West instead of internal factors and helping foster a position of victimhood.

It reminds me of the same argument I saw in Cuba - that opposition is stymied by the uniting effect of US sanctions, and those were blamed for the 90s economic slump (when the reality was that post-Soviet sugar import subsidies and assistance were cut).

Sometimes sanctions can work, and they tend to do best for an oppressed population who ask for sanctions or when targeted at specific parts of a regime.

Now, this letter may just be part of a devious charm offensive. It may, however, be part of an honest one. Assuming that the Iranian political class are implacably evil and intent on Islamic domination, or that it is homogeneous or incapable of reform is also playing into the hands of those in Iran who oppose reform there and want confrontation.

danivon wrote:Assuming that the Iranian political class are implacably evil and intent on Islamic domination, or that it is homogeneous or incapable of reform is also playing into the hands of those in Iran who oppose reform there and want confrontation.

I think this is flawed for two reasons: 1) the ruling class is fairly homogeneous and has shown no genuine capacity to reform. Further, they are confronting the West everywhere they can; 2) change in that country will only happen the way it did 30+ years ago: from the bottom up.

Dan:

Cynicism is the easy position I guess. We can all fall into it, as it requires less effort. But scepticism is more appropriate, I think. Like you, I don't see Rouhani being elected as change enough, and nor do I see his words so far as meaning anything more than just words. But there is the possibility, and we can explore that while at the same time (and perhaps more subtly) preparing for contingencies.

Okay, can we compromise on deeply skeptical.

The gentle version of what Rouhani said: "After all, in our region there has been a wound on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Qods (Jerusalem)"
This is an interesting translation-- it doesn't make a lot of sense. If it said the Muslim world had suffered a wound as a result of the occupation, then the meaning would be clear. But here the causal link is taken out. The wound was caused by the Muslim world being under the shadow of occupation? There seems to be some mixed metaphors there. Also, isn't it odd to say that the occupation has been for years (odd because it has been close to 50; years implies a much shorter period of time) This is a very odd sentence, which makes one wonder about the accuracy of the translation

freeman3 wrote:The gentle version of what Rouhani said: "After all, in our region there has been a wound on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Qods (Jerusalem)"
This is an interesting translation-- it doesn't make a lot of sense. If it said the Muslim world had suffered a wound as a result of the occupation, then the meaning would be clear. But here the causal link is taken out. The wound was caused by the Muslim world being under the shadow of occupation? There seems to be some mixed metaphors there. Also, isn't it odd to say that the occupation has been for years (odd because it has been close to 50; years implies a much shorter period of time) This is a very odd sentence, which makes one wonder about the accuracy of the translation

The ambiguity on the # of years is most likely intentional. When westerners think about he Israeli occupation, they think about the West Bank / East Jerusalem or 46 years. When the Iranian leaders think about the occupation, it is since 1948 or 65 years. Note that he didn't say East Jerusalem.

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman3 wrote:The gentle version of what Rouhani said: "After all, in our region there has been a wound on the body of the Muslim world under the shadow of the occupation of the holy land of Palestine and the beloved al-Qods (Jerusalem)"
This is an interesting translation-- it doesn't make a lot of sense. If it said the Muslim world had suffered a wound as a result of the occupation, then the meaning would be clear. But here the causal link is taken out. The wound was caused by the Muslim world being under the shadow of occupation? There seems to be some mixed metaphors there. Also, isn't it odd to say that the occupation has been for years (odd because it has been close to 50; years implies a much shorter period of time) This is a very odd sentence, which makes one wonder about the accuracy of the translation

The ambiguity on the # of years is most likely intentional. When westerners think about he Israeli occupation, they think about the West Bank / East Jerusalem or 46 years. When the Iranian leaders think about the occupation, it is since 1948 or 65 years. Note that he didn't say East Jerusalem.

I think most Westerners underestimate the antipathy the Muslims in the region have for Israel. That has not changed. The Palestinians have been used to keep this sore festering.

Yes, "used."

Does anyone believe there is not enough money in the Arab world to make Palestine a decent third-world nation? But, that would take away the one issue that Jews and Arabs can never agree on: the return of the Palestinians to Israel--the land they abandoned.

If the Arabs solved the Palestinian poverty issue, there would be a pathway to peace. This is what Islam stops. Oh, there may be some liberal Muslims willing to co-exist and let Israel keep Jerusalem, but not many in that region.