Interesting.

[Doktor Howl]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/05/19875825-new-iran-leader-offers-glimmer-of-hope-to-moderates-and-the-west?lite

Anyone know anything about this Hassan Rowhani guy?

I mean, before the media floods the WWIII meme?

[Cain]

He's got a lot of moderate inclinations.  Want's a civil rights charter, aligned with the Green Movement and wants improved relations with the West.

However, as always in Iran, it's more complex than that.  He was also a key figure in the Iran-Contra affair on the other side, he's one of Khomeini's Old Guard and was a longstanding member of the Supreme Defence Council - thoughout the Iran-Iraq War and into the 1990s, national security advisor to two Iranian Presidents, chief negotiator on the Iranian nuclear program with the UK-France-Germany and supports Al-Assad to the hilt.

[Doktor Howl]

However, as always in Iran, it's more complex than that.  He was also a key figure in the Iran-Contra affair on the other side, he's one of Khomeini's Old Guard and was a longstanding member of the Supreme Defence Council - thoughout the Iran-Iraq War and into the 1990s, national security advisor to two Iranian Presidents, chief negotiator on the Iranian nuclear program with the UK-France-Germany and supports Al-Assad to the hilt.

I'm thinking, then, more of the same but with an early bid for commerce and reduced sanctions, followed by a hissy fit and back to the same old-same old.

Based on the article, I'm also thinking his women's rights schtick is just rhetoric.  They'll still be hanging girls from cranes this time next year, same as always.

So this is roughly the equivalent of Iran's Dick Cheney.

[Doktor Howl]

Or maybe Donald Rumsfeld.

[Cain]

He will likely be constrained by the Majlis when it comes to home policy anyway - it's heavily stacked with Khamenei stooges and loyalists.

Oh, he's a moderate by the Iranian definition of the term - there is no doubt there.  It's just that...well, the Neocons have a weird view of foreign policy and security, which is everyone must adopt what is in America's best interests.  Rowhani's security background, which indeed is probably like that of a Rumsfeld, or maybe a Robert Gates, means he is acutely aware of Iran's strategic needs.  Sending, for example, John Bolton to try and negotiate with him would most certainly end in tears, and the Straits of Hormuz being blockaded.

The problem is the press and the politicians simply cannot tell the difference between "moderate", "pro-Western" and "completely pliant".  Rowhani is the first, but it doesn't follow that he will be the second or the third, and acting under such assumptions will do more harm than good.

[Doktor Howl]

He will likely be constrained by the Majlis when it comes to home policy anyway - it's heavily stacked with Khamenei stooges and loyalists.

Oh, he's a moderate by the Iranian definition of the term - there is no doubt there.  It's just that...well, the Neocons have a weird view of foreign policy and security, which is everyone must adopt what is in America's best interests.  Rowhani's security background, which indeed is probably like that of a Rumsfeld, or maybe a Robert Gates, means he is acutely aware of Iran's strategic needs.  Sending, for example, John Bolton to try and negotiate with him would most certainly end in tears, and the Straits of Hormuz being blockaded.

Which means we'll do that, or something remarkably similar...Because we also have a president that is constantly misunderstood by the media (deliberately, of course).

The problem is the press and the politicians simply cannot tell the difference between "moderate", "pro-Western" and "completely pliant".  Rowhani is the first, but it doesn't follow that he will be the second or the third, and acting under such assumptions will do more harm than good.

This is an excellent point.  We have this bizarre attitude that "ally" means "vassal", and "moderate" means "play doh".

[Cain]

Yeah.  He could probably be "worked with", assuming certain Iranian interests were protected, but we've shown since 2000 that we're not interested in actual negotiation - only as a diplomatic prelude to either total capitulation by the other side, or war.

And we cannot forget, hostility to Iran has a lot more to do with a non-vassal state controlling those oil and gas pipelines than it does nuclear weapons, or women's rights, or anything else.

[Cain]

Well, I'm glad to see Congress are being sensible about the new Iranian President and his stated desire for better relations:

Just last week, the House passed H.R. 850, an AIPAC-sponsored resolution tightening sanctions for the umpteenth time. The bill was called the "Nuclear Iran Prevention Act," but as Paul Pillar blogged on National Interest's website, a more honest title would be the "Nuclear Iran Promotion Act." The vote was 400-20 (with 378 co-sponsors!), and I'm sorry to say that my own representative, Joe Kennedy III, wasn't exactly a "profile in courage" on this issue. Of course, he had plenty of company.

And now 76 supine Senators are sending Obama one of those stern AIPAC-drafted letters warning him to keep up the pressure. Negotiating with Iran is OK, they concede, provided that any discussions are backed up by the constant threat of military force. Never mind that the United States has been threatening force and conducting various forms of covert action against Iran for years, and Iran hasn't said "uncle" yet. Never mind that Congress has repeatedly called for regime change in Tehran (now there's a confidence-building measure!), and Iran has responded by building more centrifuges. Never mind that Iran has said all along that it won't be bullied into concessions. Never mind the obvious fact that threats of military force are a pretty silly way to convince a much weaker country that it doesn't need some sort of deterrent. And please ignore the fact that America's key allies in Europe and even conservative publications like the Economist are urging the Obama administration to seize this and give Rouhani a serious chance. So is Bloomberg News.