See you next week!
-Amir
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
How Important is Iran's President?
Hey guys. Today there was quite a discussion regarding the role of Iran's President, his powers, and his relation to the Supreme Leader. It got a little heated when someone asked if it was appropriate for the media to focus so much on President Ahmadinejad since he has so few powers. I had to stop the conversation because it was taking too much class time, but as promised, you can debate the question right here. What do you guys think? You can also comment on McCain's view on the situation, which is posted below. Don't be afraid to mix it up with each other, just keep things civil.
See you next week!
-Amir
See you next week!
-Amir
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I think the two "opposing" sides to this argument both contain valid points. On one side, the Iranian President is said to be a "puppet," someone who doesn't have a lot of power or influence in the decisions that get made in Iran. This point is made pretty clear by just looking at the organizational structure of Iran's government. In the end, it is the Supreme Leader who really has the power and gets to have the last word.
But, a student in our class had mentioned a very interesting and important counter to this argument. Even though the Iranian President (specifically Ahmadinejad), may not technically have a lot of power in Iran, he has a lot of power in how Iran is portrayed and seen by the world. This perception that people have, I think, is very valuable. And by having someone portray Iran negatively or by saying things that may be politically incorrect, other people will be more likely to form unfavorable perceptions of the country, its politics, and even its people.
So even though Ahmadinejad may not have much influence in his own country, he has a lot of influence on what almost all other countries in the world think about Iran.
I think perhaps it might be better to compare Ahmadinejad to an ambassador that any country might send to another. He has no real sway over the course that his country chooses to take, and in that sense it would be useless to try to negotiate with him, as John McCain seems to insist is important. As Sam says, as the representative of his country he basically sets the light in which the rest of the world sees Iran. But again, it's important to remember to distinguish between reality and appearance.
If America is really worried about what's happening in Iran and whether they should be utilizing diplomacy or deterrence, I stand by the opinion that you go to the source of power if you want to shut the lights off. Ahmadinejad's role in the place of Iran's politics may change as the situation within Iran changes, rather than the reverse.
The first time I saw this portion of McCain's interview, I thought that he had been exposed by his lack of knowledge of Iran. After the discussion in class and now re-watching the video, I think I see things a little differently. While it is still probably true that McCain did not understand the make-up or power levels of the Iranian government, it still might be true that Ahmadinejad is the guy in charge as far as we are concerned. The current Supreme Leader's past unwillingness to interact with "Western" society makes the Iranian President an important piece of Iran-US interaction. And, as Sam said, the president's portrayal of the (apparent) views of Iran weigh heavily on how Iran is viewed in the world as well as the action taken by other countries toward Iran. Regardless of "actual" power, the Iran President, as it currently stands, is very important to the outsiders who may only have the president as a way of looking into the views of Iran.
I dont think that we can seriously believe that John McCain, being a possible future president of America can actually not fully understand the power structure of Iran, and that we have a better idea of it. What he also knows, however, is the level of popular ignorance amongs the average American voter, and this is what he is playing up to during the interview, and in his advertised policies.
In respect to Ahmadinejad's status as an "ambassadorial" figure for how the world sees Iran, I would agree with this sentiment, and he does hold some influence, due to this position, in the way that the world sees Iran. However, these are, again not his personal views as a supreme commander that he is broadcasting, but, again, those of the ruling clergy, and ultimately Ayattolha Khamenei. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad is a much better alternative to him as an Iranian voice to the world, as he is going to always be a lot more diplomatic (if that is the best word to describe him) as a politician, rather than a hard line member of the clergy.
first of all . senator Mccain should read a little bit more about Iran then he will understand that ahmadinejad really does not have that much power.
it is easy to understand the limitations of president's power in Iran governemt by looking at the khatami's presidency peroid. the only difference now is that ahmadinejdad is also a hardliner and therefor he and supreme leader are in the same direction. but his radical ideas is infact the reflection of the ideas of main power in iran. but the fact is the main power wants to keep itself behind the scene and uses the president position which is a more acceptable ( democratic!!) position to persuade its own radical ideas.
I think it is sad that Senator McCain does not know his foreign policy as well he beleives, and that this guy is running for president of the US. He blatantly confuses who controls the power in Iran (the Ayatollah) with Ahmadinejad, though the Ayatollah is the one who controls the foreign policy and the domestic laws that govern Iran. The Ayatollah is the one who has the greatest power in Iran's political affairs, while Ahmadinejad serves as more of a spokesman of his ideals.
Ahmadinejad is not per se a "puppet", but rather a spokesman who follows directions and speaks on behalf of his superiors (for they love the limelight much less than he does). Yet this is where his power is apparent; not politically with respect with policy, but politically with respect to public perception and opinion. When he goes off and rants about Israel or his nuclear program, he is restating the goals of his superiors, but the rest of the world focuses on his way of the getting the policies across. They think he is running the show and are scared by his rhetoric, instead of just looking past him and trying to determine what his superiors ultimately have to gain or lose.
I think that a country's view to the outside world is crucial in the standing of broader world politics. Because of this, I believe that whomever a country sends to represent itself directly represents how that country is going to run itself. The fact that Iran's Ahmadinejad is not "the supreme ruler" says something in itself about Iran politics. If any country sends a representative, whether or not that person holds power, that representative speaks for the entire country. It is difficult to go to the source if the source does not make itself readily available. They have sent Ahmadenijad however, to represent themselves and America has to take his opinion as representative of the country. Yes, sending the actual leader is more effective but if that is not the case then America has to take Ahmadinejad as the opinion of Iran leadership. Yes, Ahmadenijad tends to go on rants about Isreal and has a very drastic point of view but I hope that general politics are not so volatile that Iran would “accidently” send a representative who obviously can disturb American leadership. Rather I believe that they know who they sent to represent them and were willing to accept the image he was going to build for Iran. This says much about Iran and what their motives could be. People who send a representative to speak of their entire country have something unusual going on, but America should take what it can get until otherwise.
I think that Senator McCain is accurate when he says that President Ahmadenejad is the person to talk to. Although most think that the president is the puppet in Iran who directly reflects what the Supreme Leader wants that is not completely true, as was mentioned in class.
Basically I think that Ahmadenjad is a very important figure in that he has a lot of influence over other countries' views of Iran. He IS the representative of the country of Iran, and that is a very important position. Although he is not the ultimate decision maker, I beleive he has a big role as a leader and may be able to sway the decisions of the Supreme Leader.
I think that the media pinpoints little mistakes and blows them up way out of proportion. If the United States wanted to deal with Iran, our President isn't just going to casually go there by himself and talk to Ahmadenjad. He has a lot of people behind him that guide him. The president of the United States has a lot of power but he doesn't just do things on his own. If he has a misconception about who the leader is or who he needs to talk to, the people behind him will correct that and we, the United States, will talk to the right people and get the job done. It's as simple as that.
As others have mentioned, the clip of McCain discussing the political structure of Iran has conflicting arguments. On the one hand, President Ahmadinejad is the voice of Iran to the international community, since he represents the country in meetings and discussions around the world, and oftentimes appears to dictate Iranian policies, both domestic and foreign. I am sure that many people associate Ahmadinejad as being the ultimate authority in Iran (as I did before taking this class), and I think this is a logical assumption based on the amount of press he receives, and the lack of press Khamenei receives.
Yet, the truth of the matter is that the supreme leader of Iran (really the Supreme Leader) is in fact Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad. As a presidential candidate for the United States, Senator McCain should be aware of this, especially considering the importance Iran poses to United States foreign policy. And rather than admitting to this, McCain instead comes across as pompous and rude when he simply laughs off the fact that he is incorrect in his assumption.
So, while I think Senator McCain's response to the question in this clip is inexcusable, I think it is easy to mistake Ahmadinejad as the absolute leader of Iran, unless one has at least some historical knowledge of Iran. This is because Ahmadinejad is the political figure everyone talks about- his bold statements attract lots of attention, so people associate him with outspoken dictators such as Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein.
When the idea of who has control of Iran comes to mind, many people think Ahmadinejad has sole power. People think he has complete control of the country and are not aware that he actually doesn't have a ot of power. In fact, the unecelected officials in Iran have more power than the elected officials. Ahmadinejad is representing the country of Iran and is basically the face of the country. However, he has little say in governement decisions such as that dealing with nuclear enrichment.
I feel that people need to be more aware of how the government of iran works and get it through their head that there are others in the governmeent that are more influential and powerful than Ahmadinejad. For instance, Ayatollah Khamenei makes more decisions and uses Ahmadinejad to spread his decisions. if mcCain were to get involved with the country of iran, he should who he should really talk to. Knowing that Ahmadinejad has little say in nuclear enrichment, Mccain should complete those that have all the say. As a result many Americans have been left misunderstood on how the iranian government works out. Through insight of the iranian government, other government officials from other countries will learn upon who to commnicate with and not blame it all on Ahmadinejad.
I see validity to both sides of this argument. On one hand Ahmadinejad is effectively an ambassador to his country, so he and his nation will be held accountable for his words. On the other hand, if a military conflict were to occur with Iran, the supreme leader, not Ahmadinejad would have the military powers.
These two points suggest the following to me:
1) I think Ahmadinejad should choose his words more carefully, though he has been misinterpreted in the past. Whether or not it's true, people do view him as a man of great power in Iran. Anyone in such a spot light needs to act carefully.
2) Americans, especially John McCain, should realize that he doesn't control the military. It's very popular to label Ahmadinejad a mad man and scare people by saying he has his hand on the button. The fact is, he doesn't control Iran's military. Whether or not he is a mad man is left open to interpretation, but McCain should not spread the idea that he is the man in charge of Iran.
I found this question to be very interesting as it was debated in class. Ahmadinejad is a theatrical populist that plays to his base at home. I'd argue that the US should worry more about Hugo Chavez's rhetoric. Ahmadinejad knows that foreign affairs is largely out of his purview. He basically needs to ensure re-election. How does he do that?
Key up the rhetoric against the US to remain in favor with the Supreme Leader and appeal to the angry masses in the countryside. I believe that the bigger story is the fact that U.S. politicians and the Media never make clear to the average American the distinction between the Iranian President and the Supreme Leader.
While I do understand the argument that Ahmadinejad represents the public face of the regime/Iranian people on the world stage, let us not forget who represents us (Bush). 2 countries wiped off the map... and John McCain wanting to continue the same policy... I'd say that both sides aren't exactly electing their best and brightest right now.
I definitely see the validity in both sides to this argument. It is certainly crucial that people, especially in America, understand that Ahmadinejad lacks the power to make decisions concerning foreign affairs. However, it doesn't mean that his actions and words aren't portraying Iran in a certain light, especially when it is the only voice being heard in mass media today.
As far as McCain and other politicians go, I think that all of them know exactly how little power he actually has. But in order to get the American people behind them, they need to portray Ahmadinejad as the leader, the one to talk (or not talk) to.
All in all, while I think it's incredibly important to understand that his actions/words are a portrayal of Iran that could lead to issues, it's more important that more people learn of his actual realistic power within Iran.
It is obvious that Ahmadinejad doesn’t have the final say in what goes on behind the scenes in Iran. Unfortunately, it seems that many people (even politicians) don’t know even close to enough about the political structure of Iran and therefore assume that Ahmadinejad, who is typically the only representative they see, has some power.
Here are my questions: Why don’t the people with power in Iran ever speak internationally? Where are they when Ahmadinejad makes powerful statements that don’t necessarily match their viewpoints? In my mind, a failure to produce other Iranian representatives with other viewpoints leaves the rest of the world with no other option but to assume that Ahmadinejad’s comments are representative of his government.
If all of the power rests with the supreme leader and he disagreed with Ahmadinejad’s comments, then why doesn’t he exercise his power to remove Ahmadinejad from the government? After Ahmadinejad makes one of his infamous comments, it’s not enough for people to sit back and simply say that it’s okay because he doesn’t have any “real” power. If or when his comments lead to military action against his country, which is a real possibility, will people still question his power?
I also agree that while Ahmadinejad doesn’t have power over Iran’s foreign policy, he does have a lot of power with regards to being the messenger to the world for the country of Iran. He in a sense is the face of Iran. While McCain can think that he is the leader of the country and that he can attack Israel if he wanted to, which is clearly false, it is important to look at Ahmadinejad’s powers. While he can’t launch a nuclear attack or a military attack on the state of Israel, as the voice of a country he has a lot of power with regards to something like that happening. While he isn’t in charge of the actual button he does have a direct relationship with the Supreme Leader as well as a relationship or influence with other nations sympathetic to his ideals, who either have those nuclear capabilities or are whiling to use their military powers. A great example of this can be seen with the effect of Iraq’s use of bullying and the world stage in order to scare other nations. Saddam Hussein lied to the world when he boasted of his weapons of mass destruction, in an effort to scare other nations and improve his power over the region. This can be contrasted to bluffing in a game of poker. His actions and lies through the media and world stage led to the invasion of his country and ultimately his death. In using Saddam as an example it should be apparent that while Ahmadinejad, does not have access to the “button” his words can be taken very seriously under those grounds as seen through history, whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq. Leaders have to be taken accountable for their words in this new modern world, because nations would rather be safe than sorry, and as President Bush has shown, a preemptive strike isn’t out of the question. So, while Ahmadinejad is not the supreme ruler he was elected as the voice of Iran and in that respect can effect the way people and world view their country. Again, in that respect he is very important, because he is directly responsible for how the world views Iran, just as how the world hates the United States because of President Bush and what he has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. While both of those leaders are not the people that live in the country they represent, they still have a direct effect on how other Nations and people’s view their country.
I agree with Senator McCain that whoever may be in direct charge of Iran's foreign policy and nuclear program, Ahmadinejad articulates that policy. He is a major representative of the Iranian government and was put in his position ultimately by the supreme leader. Thus, if the supreme leader controls this system this way, he makes sure that the guy in charge (Ahmadinejad) will represent the opinions he wants him too. So I do believe we can take Ahmadinejad's statements at face value as the opinion and policy of the Iranian government.
Its not like, hey! stop criticizing Ahmadinejad, cuz its really the supreme leader who is charge. The fact is 1) we can still criticize Ahmadinejad's erred views of history and politics, and 2) its not like we would hear anything better from the supreme leader anyway. They both deserve criticism for some of the same reasons, and some different ones.
Many people in the US don't get the policy of foreign countries and Iran is a good example of that. The worst thing is not that many people don’t know about Iran’s policy, but a bad thing for every countries reputation is when someone highly respected says things to the whole nation that’s he’s not even sure of. The candidature is now over and we all know that McCain didn’t win, but still a lot of people saw his comments about Iran. That can influence a lot of people in the US and make them think badly about Iran. The Iranian president is the highest elected official in the Republic of Iran, but he is still second after the Supreme Leader Khamenei. It’s true that Ahmadinejad might have the ″leaders face″ of Iran, but the actual power belongs to Khamenei. The Supreme Leader makes the real decisions. So it seems like the President of Iran doesn’t have any real power and is just there to represent Iran in foreign policy meetings.
I don't believe that McCain has much knowledge about Iran in particular. Otherwise, he would not answer this question so wrong. The American media has focused on Iran's president only because he is the one that travels around the world and makes comments about Iran's foreign policy. It is true that he doesn't have much power but it also important to realize that he is under close supervision by the Supreme Leader. Khamenei would never allow him to make such remarks if he does not approve it, therefore Ahmadinejad is certainly a representative that announces the official policy of Iran and must be taken seriously. We cannot dismiss everything he says because someone else has more power than he does.
I do not believe that Ahmadinejad has much power as President of Iran. The reporter was correct in pointing out to McCain that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei holds more power than Ahmadinejad in the areas we should be most concerned with. At the end of the day, actions, which Khamenei is charge of, outweigh appearances and words, which Ahmadinejad represents. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is in charge of foreign relations, as well as Iran's nuclear program, which concerns the US. Khamenei has made it evident that he chooses not to associate himself with the West, and therefore, we need Ahmadinejad for lines of communication. But, we must remember that Khamenei has more power.
Post a Comment