What's new

Featured Ebrahim Raisi becomes Iran's 8th President

But people dont like the current reformist president enough..Reformists are like US presidents- the only place they have results is in their theories, they dont have results present in reality/truth.
The current president is not a reformist and never was a reformist to begin with . as a matter of fact if you look at his history before he start the moderate nonsense he was a principalist. And is. Still members of the majority of the principal group and organizations.

Wonder why people dont get tired of calling him moderate while he is not.
Khatami was a reformist yes, but he also ruled during a different "era", so contextually, Khatami is irrelevant to Rouhani's performance and national perception...times have changed and Iran has changed ALOT since Khatami was president.
As i say khatami was the only reformist president we had the rest were principalist or ex-principalist moderate.
romanticism aside, you know exactly what I am talking about. sectarianism is a curse for the ummah and the shia sunni rivalry between Iran and ksA is also well known. so it's a perfectly legitimate & appropriate question to inquire if the new president is one of those shia hardliners who thinks a good sunni is a dead sunni or if he has a pan Islamic ideology where he considers all muslims as of one faith regardless of sect or fiqh & is willing to reach across the isle to build long lasting bonds.
The problem between iran and ksa is the problem of 7 beggar can sleep on a mat and two king can't sleep in a country . it has very little to being shia or sunni. If both country were shia or both sunni they would have found something else.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations to Iran. Its amazing how they have so many different leaders to pick from. Whilst some countries are stuck with the same old leaders for decades.
and some countries are stuck with a two party dictatorship where the dictator regimes take turns stealing, raping & pillaging their own public that voted them in...
 
I don't get it...explain?
he is in Lebanon near Israeli border inspecting Hezbollah weapons and taking to there commanders something no other Iranian presidents has done, he has no children in west like other Iranian presidents he was against the Rohani action when Rohani said we will wait Trump out, he wanted to go for 60% enriched uranium 2 years ago, he will go after the corrupt as he is a judge
Can someone explain why the Turnout was low compared to previous elections? And if it affects the future of Country and Islamic regime? @TheImmortal @skyshadow @anyone
people are unhappy with economy, a lot of them think economy can't be fixed, and that Iran didn't let any powerful reformist candidate to be in race so Raisi was the only heavy wight in the race and people didn't liked that.
 
Last edited:
There was no reformist candidate to begin with.

Of course there were reformist candidates in the election. Even two of them, Abdolnasser Hemmati and Mohsen Mehralizadeh. Actually it was moderates which were missing from this presidential race, not reformists.

Hemmati is a member of the Executives of Construction Party of Iran or Hezb-e Kārgozārān-e Sāzandegi-ye Irān, a reformist political party (considerd as the right wing of reformism) and member to the reformist umbrella organization Council for Coordinating the Reforms Front (Shorā-ye Hamāhangi-ye Jebhe-ye Eslāhāt) presided over by Mohammad Khatami.

The reformist affiliation of the ECPI party is confirmed explicitly by both English and Farsi versions of Wikipedia:



As for Mehralizadeh, not only was he Vice-President to Khatami during the latter's second term, but he's of course a reformist politician as well, and a member to the reformist Way of the People Party (Hezb-e Rāh-e Mellat).

Again, both English and Farsi versions of Wikipedia confirm Mehralizadeh's reformist orientation:



And here's an article from the BBC highlighting the reformist nature of Mehralizadeh's political party, the WPP:

https://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-features-47401491

- - - - - - - - - -

The current president is not a reformist and never was a reformist to begin with

He is part of what is called the moderate faction in Iran. Moderates and reformists have been in a political coalition ever since 2009 the "Green movement" fitna (which was backed by moderate foreman Hashemi Rafsanjani), and even more so since the 2003 and 2007 presidential elections, where reformists directly supported Rohani's candidacy instead of fielding a candidate of their own. Also, reformists participated in both administrations of Rohani. Rohani's Vice-President Jahangiri is reformist, and so are several of his ministers and vice-ministers.

Politically speaking, and especially as far as foreign policy is concerned, the positions of the reformist and moderate factions have experienced a strong rapprochement over the past two decades, and both factions adhere to liberal ideology.

as a matter of fact if you look at his history before he start the moderate nonsense he was a principalist. And is. Still members of the majority of the principal group and organizations.

Wonder why people dont get tired of calling him moderate while he is not.

What they used to be is one matter, what they are now is another. The views of a politician can evolve and even operate a 180 degree change.

As a matter of fact, the current reformist faction did not exist during the first decade of the Islamic Republic either. Practically all its founding members (individuals such as Hajjarian, Tajzadeh, Mousavi, Khatami, Nabavi, Ebtekar, Mohajerani, Khalkhali, Makhmalbaf, Ganji and so on and so forth) originate from what was known as the radical left faction of the Islamic Revolution.

Now, in practically every single aspect, the orientation of contemporary reformists contrasts with the positions they used to hold when they were members of the Islamic radical left back in the day:

- Foreign policy. The Islamic left used to be the most staunchly anti-imperialist faction of all. Students who took over the US spy den or "embassy" in Tehran were led by Islamic left activists and current reformists, like for example Ma'sumeh Ebtekar. Today however, reformist discourse is advocating "normalization" of the Islamic Republic's posture within the US-dominated international system, in other words reduction of tensions with the west ("tanesh zodāyi") and abandonment of Iran's Resistance policies against the US and Isra"el". The contrast between their foreign political views then and now couldn't be any starker.

- Social-cultural policy. Whereas reformists nowadays favor cultural and societal liberalism, with activists such as Tajzadeh openly stating that they oppose mandatory hejab for women in public, in the early days of the Islamic Revolution, some of those who would later adhere to reformism, were going as far as pressing thumbtacks into the foreheads of women sporting lighter types of hejab.

- Domestic politics, so-called "human rights", etc. Khalkhali, considered as the prototypical "hanging judge" by the anti-IR opposition, was yet another member of the radical Islamic left turned reformist. Current reformists used to adopt the toughest stance against the anti-IR opposition in the first decade of the Revolution whereas today, their discourse aligns on foreign-based media and strikes an apologist tone towards oppositionists.

- Economic policy. Reformists such as the former minister of Industries Behzad Nabavi went from a properly socialist and completely state-interventionist approach to liberal, free market-oriented ones.

In short, those known as the reformists today, transitioned from a totally anti-liberal, economically socialist, vehemently anti-imperialist perspective at the beginning of the Revolution when they were forming the Islamic radical left, to a thoroughly liberal, economically capitalist and western-apologetic one.

So I don't see what's wrong with designating Rohani and his team as moderates. Firstly, this is the actual name of the political faction they belong to. And secondly, much like contemporary reformists, those who constitute the moderate camp also experienced a major shift in their political outlook over the years and are no longer the conservatives nor the revolutionaries they may have been.

As i say khatami was the only reformist president we had the rest were principalist or ex-principalist moderate.

And Khatami was member to the ex-radical Islamic left. One could refer to him as the prototypical ex-radical reformist.

While the major conservative and economically liberal party (Hezb-e Mo'talefeh-ye Eslāmi / Islamic Coalition Party) was active, in addition to other conservative groupings such as the Combatant Clergy Association (Jāme'e-ye Rohāniat-e Mobārez), the principlist current as such was born only in the mid- to late 2000's as a result of a reorganization of the conservative and revolutionary camps.

Also, reformists participated in both Rohani administrations. In fact, many of those whom Mir Hossein Mousavi intended to nominate, were actually integrated by Rohani into his cabinet.

On the ideological level, both reformist and moderate factions are furthermore united by their liberal political persuasions.

The problem between iran and ksa is the problem of 7 beggar can sleep on a mat and two king can't sleep in a country . it has very little to being shia or sunni. If both country were shia or both sunni they would have found something else.

Exactly, the antagonism between Iran and Saudi Arabia has absolutely nothing to do with any sectarian considerations (at least from the Iranian perspective). It is purely (geo-)political in nature.

But I wouldn't say it is a mere case of two regional powers unable to find a power-sharing compromise either.

Some other factors do play a role, such as the fact that Saudi Arabia is a key US ally and unlike other allies of Washington (such as Turkey for instance), Riyadh has been attributed a central albeit subordinate role in the general architecture of American hegemony, namely by helping institute the petrodollar system, one of the major pillars of the US regime's global domination, given how it enables the monopoly of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Also compared to other US allies, the Saudi regime has historically been far more active in fulfilling a proxy role in the framework of Washington's regional interventions, through its financing of US-backed factions on the ground, of clerics and madrassa networks favorable to Riyadh and to NATO's geopolitical designs, etc.

Only two things may reduce this antagonism between Iran and Saudi Arabia in a significant manner: an cessation of anti-zionist and anti-imperialist Resistance by Islamic Iran and a normalization of Iran-US ties (something reformists and moderates in Iran are bent on achieving); or, an emancipation of Riyadh from American (and more recently, zionist) imperial overlordship.

- - - - - - - - - -

romanticism aside, you know exactly what I am talking about. sectarianism is a curse for the ummah and the shia sunni rivalry between Iran and ksA is also well known. so it's a perfectly legitimate & appropriate question to inquire if the new president is one of those shia hardliners who thinks a good sunni is a dead sunni or if he has a pan Islamic ideology where he considers all muslims as of one faith regardless of sect or fiqh & is willing to reach across the isle to build long lasting bonds.

This viewpoint is operating on an erroneous assumption: namely the notion that rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is (or has to be) sectarian in nature. At least from the Iranian perspective, this isn't the case at all.

As said, to Iran the issue with the Saudi regime is political, and political only. Please refer to my explanations just above.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing where you heard an Iranian official or high ranking activist direct verbal attacks against Sunni Muslims or express violent anti-Sunni thoughts of that kind. There is no political faction holding such views in Iran. On the contrary, all political groupings in the Islamic Republic have always stressed the need for unity between Shia and Sunni Muslim masses around common principles and goals.

But that does not mean every regime in a Muslim country must necessarily be embraced irregardless of its policies, and particularly if it collaborates with zionist or western imperial powers. However, opposition to a government or regime is not the same as opposition to a religious community. Let us not confuse the two please.

In the same manner as Islamic Iran has no issues with Jewish people per se, but at the same time refuses to recognize the Isra"el"i regime as a legitimate state, Tehran's reservations about the regime in Riyadh are nowhere motivated by any sort of hostility towards Sunni Muslim people either, but are grounded in purely geostrategical considerations.

In fact, a certain Shia religious current known as the Shirazi clan, which is backed by western regimes and which attempts to promote antagonism between Shia and Sunni Muslims, has been silenced on Iranian soil by the Islamic Republic. An extensive campaign was launched by Iranian state media to denounce these elements (they're officially being labeled as British turbans), Supreme Leader Khamenei issued a fatwa prohibiting the cursing of figures revered by Sunni Muslims, the offices of satellite TV broadcasters pertaining to the Shirazi current were raided, several of their members were trialed, found guilty and jailed etc. Which is why they oppose the Islamic Republic of Iran just as much as they reject Sunni Islam (you should listen to the rabid way in which preachers belonging to this current, like the Kuwaiti Yasser al-Habib or the Afghan Allahyari, insult Supreme Leader Khamenei or Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah for their refusal to attack Sunni Islam).
 
Last edited:
As i say khatami was the only reformist president we had the rest were principalist or ex-principalist moderate.

What I find hilarious, as this shows how mentally retarded anti-Iran trolls are, is that usa propaganda called the one reformist - "Axis of Evil". bush was trying to paint Iran under khatami as some scary country out to nuke Washington. Lying into another war for this agenda:

 
It is a very simple equation. The Islamic Dictatorship of Iran should suffer:

(1) Till they agree to Introduce real democracy, where people have the final say in choosing their leaders.

(2) Till they agree to introduce real Secularism, which guarantees "Equal" and all "Basic Human Rights" to all the citizens.

And one of the basic human right is to choose or leave the religion. But Shia Dictatorship of Khamenei declares death in name of apostasy.

And one of the basic human right is to criticize all the philosophies and religions, along with Islam.

The double standards of Islamic Dictatorship is this that they want permission for Muslims to "preach" Islam in all non-Islamic countries, but don't allow the non-Muslims to preach their religion in Islamic countries.

Till these double standards exist, there should be no peace with them.
 
(1) Till they agree to Introduce real democracy, where people have the final say in choosing their leaders.

The Islamic Republic is far more democratic than any secular liberal pseudo-"democracy".

(2) Till they agree to introduce real Secularism, which guarantees "Equal" and all "Basic Human Rights" to all the citizens.

Secular regimes have historically been among the biggest violators of any sorts of rights.

And one of the basic human right is to choose or leave the religion. But Shia Dictatorship of Khamenei declares death in name of apostasy.

And one of the basic human right is to criticize all the philosophies and religions, along with Islam.

A law that is hardly put into practice. Also, considering the economic and militay discrepancy between nations and political entities at the global level, all talk of equality by law is as good as meaningless.

Not to mention various limitations to free speech which exist in liberal so-called "democracies", including but not limited to certain dissident opinions about the history of WW2, which can land one in jail in numerous western countries.

The double standards of Islamic Dictatorship is this that they want permission for Muslims to "preach" Islam in all non-Islamic countries, but don't allow the non-Muslims to preach their religion in Islamic countries.

Till these double standards exist, there should be no peace with them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't care that much whether Islamic religion can be preached in the west or not. It's not as if there are many western converts to Shia Islam.

Double standards is actually what perfectly describes the policies of western regimes, which claim to "democracy" and "human rights" but then support dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, where no meaningful elections are held. Also, these western regimes conduct criminal foreign policies across the planet, along with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity left and right.
 
or deep roots sectarian sense?
which Iranian president has ever been this?
It is a very simple equation. The Islamic Dictatorship of Iran should suffer:

(1) Till they agree to Introduce real democracy, where people have the final say in choosing their leaders.

(2) Till they agree to introduce real Secularism, which guarantees "Equal" and all "Basic Human Rights" to all the citizens.

And one of the basic human right is to choose or leave the religion. But Shia Dictatorship of Khamenei declares death in name of apostasy.

And one of the basic human right is to criticize all the philosophies and religions, along with Islam.

The double standards of Islamic Dictatorship is this that they want permission for Muslims to "preach" Islam in all non-Islamic countries, but don't allow the non-Muslims to preach their religion in Islamic countries.

Till these double standards exist, there should be no peace with them.
I have bad news for you - the Shah is NEVER coming back. Neither You not US govt can succeed cuz u have failed for over 40 years already. lmao
 
The Islamic Republic is far more democratic than any secular liberal pseudo-"democracy".
Religious rant.

Secular regimes have historically been among the biggest violators of any sorts of rights.
Again a religious rant only.
Secular regimes are the biggest symbols of human rights today and that is why millions of Muslims want to leave their Islamic countries and want to migrate to the Western Secular countries.
While no one want to come to Islamic Iran due to its human rights violations.


A law that is hardly put into practice.
Off course this law is not put into practice while you kill people even before that.
Every one knows that Islamic Iran does not allow any Muslim to leave Islam, and if he does so, then he will be killed in one way or another.
There are literally millions of Iranians who had first to leave Iran and come to any secular country and then they renounced Islam.

So question is, why this injust law is there in the first place?

If your excuse is this that this law has not been used, why then not to abolish it completely by blaming it to anti humanity law?

Double standards?????


Also, considering the economic and militay discrepancy between nations and political entities at the global level, all talk of equality by law is as good as meaningless.

What that econoy and military has to do with this basic human right to leave the religion if one feels so?

There are many poor non-Muslim countries who all allow their citizens to leave the native religions and embrace Islam. Their economy and military is even worse than the Islamic countries, but still they provide their citizens with this basic human right.

Not to mention various limitations to free speech which exist in liberal so-called "democracies", including but not limited to certain dissident opinions about the history of WW2, which can land one in jail in numerous western countries.

Again what ha Holocaust to do with the basic human right of leaving religion?

There are few limitations regarding holocaust in order to provide "security" to the life of tiny Jewish communities in those lands. These limitations were put in order to stop the "hate speech" against the Jews, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the blasphemy or leaving jewish religion etc.

Comparing holocaust with killing in name of Apostasy is a joke.


The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't care that much whether Islamic religion can be preached in the west or not. It's not as if there are many western converts to Shia Islam.

Yes, grapes are sour now for you.

But your supreme leaderr will be the first one to condemn if Muslims will be banned to preach in the western secular countries, as he condemned the French cartoons of the prophet. Double Standards.

And we care less if you care for Muslims in the West or not. But we do care about the People in Iran. Thus they should have their basic human right to leave religion and to criticize religion.

Double standards is actually what perfectly describes the policies of western regimes, which claim to "democracy" and "human rights" but then support dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, where no meaningful elections are held. Also, these western regimes conduct criminal foreign policies across the planet, along with committing war crimes and crimes against humanity left and right.

Yes, these may be the double standards of the Western governments.

But not of those western people who truly believe in the secularims and thus criticise the dictatorships of the Arab countries too.

There are human right groups who constantly publish reports about the human abuses in the Arab countreis too. Even western governments also condemn verbally these human right violations, but don't take practical actions against them, as they have also not done it against Islamic Republic of Iran on the bases of human rights abuses only.

Therefore, theser are we, The PEOPLE, who raise our voices for the Iranian people, and their right to have true democracy and true secularism.
 
Religious rant.

Not really. And there was nothing religious in that statement.

Again a religious rant only.

Nope, verifiable fact.

Secular regimes are the biggest symbols of human rights today

And historically among the biggest violators of such rights.

and that is why millions of Muslims want to leave their Islamic countries and want to migrate to the Western Secular countries.

Has nothing much to do with that. But with western propaganda and discrepancies in economic wealth and day to day security - not least due to the wars and destabilizations western regimes have been imposing upong the Muslim world as well as other developing nations.

While no one want to come to Islamic Iran due to its human rights violations.

Same as above.

Off course this law is not put into practice while you kill people even before that.
Every one knows that Islamic Iran does not allow any Muslim to leave Islam, and if he does so, then he will be killed in one way or another.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure to what extent you're familiar with the subject matter, but someone like Omid Dana for example, has claimed to be Zoroastrian for a long time, despite being born to Muslim parents. Yet, when he was arrested in 2009, only his activity as a lower tier leader of the so-called "Green movement" was mentioned against him in court. Not his religious beliefs.

There are literally millions of Iranians who had first to leave Iran and come to any secular country and then they renounced Islam.

So question is, why this injust law is there in the first place?

If your excuse is this that this law has not been used, why then not to abolish it completely by blaming it to anti humanity law?

Iran is an Islamic Republic as per popular will, expressed in a 1979 democratic referendum and therefore, its laws will be based off Islam.

What that econoy and military has to do with this basic human right to leave the religion if one feels so?

The fact that there will be a gross imbalance in each party's ability and means to bring across and promote their views.

Again what ha Holocaust to do with the basic human right of leaving religion?

It debunks the notion of unlimited freedom of speech in the west.

Also, there is a second connection: these laws and policies sacralize the history of WW2 and they also sacralize a certain occupation regime in West Asia, ie this has a quasi-religious dimension to it.

There are few limitations regarding holocaust in order to provide "security" to the life of tiny Jewish communities in those lands. These limitations were put in order to stop the "hate speech" against the Jews, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the blasphemy or leaving jewish religion etc.

Comparing holocaust with killing in name of Apostasy is a joke.

By that logic, western regimes should outlaw a whole lot of historically revisionist narratives that deny massacres and genocides other people fell victim to. But western regimes won't criminalize said narratives. So there's more to it than just a desire to prevent hate crimes against Jewish communities.

In truth, these legislative tools were put in place in order to legitimize and implement a political order, as well as a particular balance of power post-WW2.

Yes, grapes are sour now for you.

But your supreme leaderr will be the first one to condemn if Muslims will be banned to preach in the western secular countries, as he condemned the French cartoons of the prophet. Double Standards.

Those cartoons reflect the double standards of western regimes, because they are borderline hate speech. Nothing wrong with denouncing the double standards of western regimes.

And we care less if you care for Muslims in the West or not. But we do care about the People in Iran. Thus they should have their basic human right to leave religion and to criticize religion.

As said, the concept of "human rights" is a substitute-religion, and a hoax too. Its promoters at the state level are among its biggest violators.

But not of those western people who truly believe in the secularims and thus criticise the dictatorships of the Arab countries too.

There are human right groups who constantly publish reports about the human abuses in the Arab countreis too. Even western governments also condemn verbally these human right violations, but don't take practical actions against them, as they have also not done it against Islamic Republic of Iran on the bases of human rights abuses only.

Therefore, theser are we, The PEOPLE, who raise our voices for the Iranian people, and their right to have true democracy and true secularism.

Again, "true democracy" and "true secularism" as in western regimes, which commit numerous crimes all over the planet. Either that, or there's no practical example for such a "true secular democracy" anywhere in the world nor any time in history.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom