It is a strange time we live in when Canadian leader has become more right-wing than USA and UK!!
Strange indeed. Usually Canadian politicians were known to hold the middle. Their actions usually were defendable but now it is not. There is no justification for Israel policy, Iran policy and some of the economical and environment policies these days. For the first time Tories lost in Alberta and it shows that Canadians are realizing what is happening but this nation moves very slowly and is fearful of any aggressive response even to their politicians. I think their action towards Iran is some part our fault. After Zahra Kazemi case they had a lot of momentum against Iran. If government at the time and Mortazavi in particular were honest about it they could have defused the situation and blame it on individuals than the regime itself and not fuel the anti Iranian movement which is triumphing now.
As much as I despise the regime mentality whatever is the best for Iranians I support all the time. Time will change the rest gradually, meanwhile Iranian people should prosper and have the best.Times are such that nothing remains unknown for long and educated population usually choose the best on average in long term. Till they achieve the best they should have the best and be educated the best.
Same happened to Tories, unlike even 5 years ago what they do and did didn't remain behind closed doors and people debated it everywhere, resulting in their first defeat in 40 years in Alberta and hopefully next in the federal elections.
And in his short term , He left many countries in flames .
Syria , iraq , libya ,yemen and etc and after that He start bombing them from above .He financed many terrorist groups in the name of freedom
Then sanctioned Iran for having peaceful nuclear program
Now after all of his adventure in middle east , see who is fighting alone with these scums of the earth (isis)?
Obama or our so called OCD leaders?
Without him in office you would have more flames. It was him that stopped the Hawks in washington to do more damage and he highlighted it in his speech for the armed forces on new Obama doctrine.
His methodology for sanctions which was brilliantly put in place was a double edged knife. He knew the Mullahs in the regime are pragmatic and self preserving bunch. When in danger they choose the path to survival. His think thanks and analysis of Iran response to 598 and previous responses was a proof for it. meanwhile, if one wants to contain Hawks peacefully all tools for rejecting a peaceful solutions should be blocked. By calculated sanctions he now can say all had been done for containment and now this is the best ... this way winning the ultimate prize of the deal of the century. USA under his partial command didn't intend to leave sanctions for ever but to engage Iran and this had been said since 2007 and election campaign. I believe he believed in what he said and he proved it. It wa smocked at the time and now proven worthy.
His work on middle east and Arab spring was questionable but considering the forces on the ground it is understandable. May be he could have had different stance in Egypt but it was more convoluted than that. (Turkey, Egypt, Qatar and the brotherhood) and (SA, UAE and the Hawks) all were equations were meddling on one side would have ruined his doctrine and he was not prepared for the consequences. He had bigger fish to fry than ME at the time. In Washington policies you need to choose. He chose to resolve Health care, Iran and Cuba he gave Ukraine to Hawks to be happy and let Putin handle them. He played see-saw with ME and tried to preserve the balance he needed for the Iran deal. A contained Ordoghan and Salman was his best achievement. He needed the balance so he stopped further intervention in Syria. Without a balance in ME a deal was not possible and after him no one and nothing except war could have opened the knot. So we should be happy on how he resolved the danger over Iran. He did it because he believed on humanity and he is a scholarly politician. He is something like Ron Paul in democratic establishment.
Our leaders by the way are different. Some uneducated but see the world pragmatically like Rafsanjani but tangled in their string of corrupt relationships. Some have stuck in their revolutionary days and have OCD like Khamenei and see Iran and the world form their black and white glasses and some are educated with what world needs now like Rouhani type. Meanwhile the moderate forces are outdated and behind in ideology and doctrine to lead. For the prosperity of the nation we need to support the Rouhani type and you see now once in a while when he speaks his views are vetoed by the OCD type. This battle of views is what is needed for the populations to think and welcomed. Rouhani as a pragmatic one who knows the leader will keep it at minimal so he can push his agenda but the battle has only one way and that is to escalate and show better clarification between the OCD's and normalities in Iran.
