the problem , since khatami no reformist was actually in power, on other hand good news is we will see what pricipalist will do ,you'll have parliament , judiciary System and I hope executive branch that'll be all three branch of Iranian government. wonder how you guys want to blame reformist that were not in power at least for 16 years for the problems.(love to here your excuse of problems inherited from previous government and blaming the problems on reformists)
and the JCOPA was cooking of ex-principal moderates not reformist , suggest go and read about the positions of Rouhani and his groups to see if they were reformist or something else
What's it with you and the repeated obfuscation attempts concerning the political affiliations of Iranian officials? Wonder what the purpose of this sort of diatribe is.
1) Yes, lots of so-called reformists have been in power under the Rohani administration, namely, in the position of vice president, but also and more importantly in various ministerial functions.
2) The distinction between reformists and moderates (formerly led by Hashemi Rafsanjani) is no longer fully operative, insofar as these two blocks have coalesced ever since the Ahmadinejad presidency. Which is why Mousavi's proposed reformist cabinet in 2009 was already incorporating a lot of so-called moderates, and why Rohani's cabinet promptly integrated numerous reformist figures. In fact, Mousavi's proposed 2009 cabinet and Rohani's initial administration were almost identical in their composition.
3) When it comes to their respective ideological outlooks as well as to their concrete political programs and goals, reformists and moderates have become virtuality a single entity ever since the Ahmadinejad era. The reformist vs moderate spat, which used to prevail under Khatami (a then lingering inheritance of former rivalries from the early years of the Revolution, when those who would later turn into reformists still believed in social justice and anti-imperialism), gave way to an alliance between these two formations. But while in the early Ahmadinejad period, one could still observe among deviationist liberal segments of the establishment, a measure of competition in the realm of theoretical wishful thinking about how to best transition away from the khomeinist principles of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, in particular the question whether the Zhou Enlai (no integration into global economy but regional geopolitical cooperation with the US) or the Deng Xiaoping (no geopolitical cooperation with the US but mutual economic integration) or the Gorbachev options would be best suited for such a sinister endeavour, today, both these currents, moderate and reformist alike, have fully aligned on a maximally defeatist Gorbachev-cum-Yeltsin approach (that is, aping so-called secular liberal "democracy" at home, while in the international realm submitting to the US regime as well as to the globalist faction of the international bankster-/masonic-/zionist-led global criminal oligarchy), the Chinese authoritarian integrationist model (close economic ties yet geostrategic rivalry with the US + healthy dose of illiberal governance domestically) having been buried for good.
Long story short, nowadays it would reek of foul word play to try and portray reformists and moderates as profoundly distinctive currents within domestic Iranian politics.
Indeed, both reformists and moderates are economically liberal (proponents of neo-classical, monetarist economics in the tradition of assorted deranged imposters populating the Friedman-Hayek intellectual axis, mirrored in Iran by the Kiaan Circle, the Niaavaraan school of economists and other such nests of brutal ultra-capitalism devoid of any regard for human dignity), both are secularist and ready to embrace (though not always openly) Noahide, judeo-centric fusion of world religions into a unified post-messianic faith, both are submissive to the US, to NATO and to the zionist regime (seeing how their leading intellectuals, and followers including on this website are calling for an end to Iran's staunch support of the Palestinian cause), both are submissive to the UN, World Bank and the whole array of bloodsucking multilateral globalist institutions, both are anti-patriotic, anti-national, and willing to ready Iran for dissolution into a zionist-/bankster-/mason-led world government, both have a problem with Iranian national identity, supportive as they are of infra-national ethnicization of Iranian society (whereas upwards of 50% of Iranians have at least two grand-parents hailings from different sub-national linguistic groups, these liberals are encouraging the impossible categorization of Iranian citizens into "ethnicities", clearly a most hazardous move backwards in terms of political development and nation-state building), both are demographically malthusianist except when it comes to linguistic and confessional minorities (in line with the globalist goal to undermine Iran's social uniformity and engineer communal divisions among Iranians), both are more preoccupied with the "sanctity" of the WWII Holocaust while displaying skepticism towards the historic veracity of the Rothschild-/Sassoon-controlled British Empire's genocide of 10 million Iranians during WWI, both intend to rehabilitate Baahaai, zionist and freemasonic secret-society dominance over Iran (which the Islamic Revolution totally uprooted and crushed to this very day), both are homosexualist, trans-genderist and attempt to instill sexual identity confusion, both appear allergic to the integrity of the Iranian family as the basic, traditional cell of social life, both seem open to the transhumanist anthropological leap projected by masonic lodges (along with its produce, i. e. the twin abominations of the promethean "super-human" and its slave-like "manimal"-chymera counterpart), both are subservient to the global usurious banking mafia, both are subservient to the global food industry mafia with its cancerigenic GMO, both are subservient to the criminal global pharmaceutical mafia which transformed public health into an enterprise primarily motivated by profit-maximization and not by patient well-being, both are subservient to the global pornocratic and sex-slaving mafia (a female reformist MP from the outgoing Majles advocated, in vain, the legalization of prostitution and the opening of bordellos in, I cite, "every neighborhood of Iran's cities"), both would certainly refrain from opposing globalist directives to undermine marriage while criminally encouraging early out-of-marriage sexualization of school children and then even of pre-mature children (which can be observed in the west right now as we speak), and so on and so forth.
On a sidenote, virtually nothing separates the political-ideological posture of Iranian reformists and moderates from the positions of the exiled anti-IRI opposition. As Maryam Rajavi highlighted during the 2009 riots: that which Mousavi wants for Iran, is exactly what the MKO aims for. However, internal reformists/moderates and exiled opposition are seen quarrelling about who should become the administrator of the future one-world "district" formerly known as Iran, and thus, who should benefit from the minute crumbs their genocidal bankster/zionist/masonic masters would throw at them after extraction from the Iranian people's blood.
Also to be clear, the founder of the Islamic Republic, Imam Khomeini denounced liberalism and its proponents within the system in no uncertain terms. This could be witnessed not just by his wise stance towards the transitional, liberal Melli-Mazhabi administration of Mehdi Baazargan, but also in his later days during the Mehdi Hashemi affair. The Imam's political testament is clear in this respect as well. There is therefore no shred of doubt that a highly principled leader such as Imam Khomeini, had he been amongst us today, would have likewise denounced contemporary reformist and moderate liberals. Which is not to suggest he would have ordered their suppression to the very last traitorous agitator. But simply that he would have prevented them from imposing their nefarious goals of a collective national and religious suicide upon the Iranian people. A splendid principle which Iran's current leader Ali Khamenei is nicely keeping alive.
4) I can and will be pedantic on semantics too. You make an erroneous statement when referring to the Rohani gang as "ex-principal moderates": that's simply wrong, as the principalist current's formal appearance merely dates back to 2004-2005, initially in support of Ahmadinejad's bid for presidency. Prior to that, there was no political grouping going by that term. During the first period of the Islamic Revolution, the so-called moderates - along with their technocratic civil service auxiliaries, had established an alliance with the baazaari-backed block - socially conservative but economically liberal (although focusing on small businesses and traditional trading networks). That block had little to do with contemporary principlists though, if alone for the fact that contemporary principlists have taken over the mantle of social economic politics from the ex-Islamic left, in contrast to their early conservative predecessors. Ex-Islamic left which present-day reformists hail from. These reformists departed from and turned almost all their early day convictions upside down: from social, state-centered economic policies (incarnated by former Minister of Industries and Mines Behzaad Navabi) to monetarist ultra-capitalism, from unconditional application of sharia law to (quasi-)secularism, from staunch anti-imperialism and anti-zionism to submissiveness to the zio-American global order. Early positions which today are carried by the principlists, albeit building upon a different set of cultural-political roots.
I shall not delve into how present day reformists back in the days did seemingly everything they could to discredit these noble positions through their ill-conceived political praxis. Some argue they intentionally did so because their leading heads, many of which began their careers in the security apparatus, are suspected of having always been "nofoozis" handled by overthrown fugitive zionist stooge Parviz Saabeti's SAVAK-Mossad stay-behind network covertly trying to subvert the IRI from within.
5) Lesson from the above: Iran's political landscape experienced one or several thorough reorganizations and ideological as well as party-political redistributions, triggered in part by ayatollah Montazeri's stubborn disloyalty to Imam Khomeini. Hence, it makes no sense in the context of such debates to invoke Rohani's past political alignments repeatedly. Alliances changed and so-called present-day reformists are actually the ones who operated a blatant and puzzling ideological u-turn in the late eighties. Xi Jinping's father had been deported for opposition to the Chinese Communist Party, US far-right neocons used to be trotskyist leftists before... and so what? This sort of interjection proves nothing about the aforementioned individuals' current political stances.
As far as Rohani goes, it's pretty clear, really: his positions owe strictly nothing to any principlist or revolutionary outlook, and everything to the liberalism and submissiveness he perfectly shares with his reformist allies. Simple as that.
6) No, the JCPOA is not the brainchild of the sole moderates, and even less so that of any "ex-principlists". Reformists were backing the project with full force from the outset, as much as moderates did. Reformists who, as we reminded above, are part and parcel of the Rohani cabinet. In addition to these, certain so-called pragmatic elements hailing from the principlist camp, I mean former parliament speaker Ali Larijani and his entourage, rallied behind Rohani on the JCPOA issue. But, these constitute a mere minority among principlists.
However, if anyone's looking for those who actually fathered the corpus of the JCPOA, look no further than the criminal oligarchic Rockefeller foundation. This contrived cabal, through the so-called International Crisis Group (ICG), a think tank it generously funds, had actually authored the full text of the JCPOA, text which was ready and had been publicized in due form a good year prior to the conclusion of the negotiations by the Rohani administration. In the end only token changes were applied to this raw, Rockefeller-sponsored version of the JCPOA. Makes you wonder what these liberal defeatists had been "negotiating" about all along those months?
If you wish to get a glimpse into what Rohani's team was plotting with respect to Iran's military might, and what he meant by "Barjaame do va seh" in his now infamous televised Nowrooz address to the nation, then go search for the same ICG's draft document for an agreement with Iran on its ballistic missile force, which, had the Rohani administration staid true to its habits, would probably have been adopted almost as is. You'll get the shock of your life. For that document, in addition to limiting Iran's BM range to some 300 km, further demanded from Iran to open up its entire missile production infrastructure to western or western-handled "international inspectors", in addition to revealing all classified specifications of its missile force to the same outside powers. This is hardly different from the disarmament program Muammar Ghadafi so naively acquiesced to, ultimately resulting not only in his savage assassination by NATO's local footsoldiers, but also in the utter destruction and dismantling of Libya. Rafsanjani's ludicrous "now is not the time for missile games" and his suggestion that Iran ought to imitate post-WWII Germany and Japan in disarming and "integrating" the US-regime led "world order" fall into the same category.
As for the so-called "regional JCPOA", what this means could be seen in the Khatami administration's reported proposal of a "grand bargain" transmitted through Swiss intermediaties to the criminal regime of Bush junior back in the early 00s: in essence, an end to any and all Iranian support for groups involved in resistance against the zionist apartheid settler state, in particular, the disarmament of Lebanon's Hezbollah. Later on, and shortly before his death, the moderate Rafsanjani echoed this reformist stance by publicly criticizing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and thereby calling into question Iran's efforts to preserve its supply lines to Lebanon, an obvious security guarantee and deterrence factor for Tehran in case of a full fledged zio-American aggression.
Each of these steps would have set the stage for Iran's "libyanization", "syrianization" etc.
This by the way highlights that the idea following which US "Democrats" tend to pursue more benign and less destructive goals vis a vis Iran, is but an uninformed delusion. As a matter of fact, in a declaration directed at their "Republican" rivals and signed by leading Democrats (including genocidal maniac zionist Madeleine Albright of "it was worth it to cause the death of 500,000 Iraqi babies" fame), they explicitly underscore their unity of purpose and goal with their "Republican" counterparts when it comes to Iran, adding that it's in the ways to reach said goal where they differ. In other terms, US "Democrats" and the liberal globalist Soros gang's sole point of contention with "Republicans", neocons, trumpists or likudniks is that the former do not believe open coercion will be successful in destroying Iran (because it could unite the population behind the IRI, because Iran may succeed in covertly building or declaring a nuclear arsenal, thus establishing definitive deterrence, because...), while the latter argue that the far more sneaky JCPOA path might fail (because revolutionary forces within Iran are too smart and resourceful and could end up cashing in a net gain from any economic opening while at the same time successfully containing the added potential for subversion and nefarious interference by the west in Iran's domestic affairs entailed in such an opening, because...).
