Iran’s ‘moderate’ new president

What happened

The people of Iran elected a relatively moderate president last week, raising fresh hopes that a diplomatic solution might be found to its nuclear standoff with the West. Hassan Rouhani, 64, was the most moderate of the six candidates permitted to run by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and won on a centrist platform of renewed engagement abroad and greater cultural freedoms for young people and women in Iran. Iranians took to the streets in celebration at Rouhani’s landslide victory, in stark contrast to the riots following the disputed presidential election of 2009. But while Rouhani called his election “a victory for wisdom, moderation, and maturity...over extremism,” skeptics noted that he has long-standing, close ties to Iran’s religious establishment, and served as the country’s chief nuclear negotiator from 2003 to 2005.

U.S. officials nonetheless expressed hope that Rouhani’s victory might prompt Iran to reopen talks on its nuclear program, which the West believes is aimed at the development of nuclear weapons. In a post-election victory speech, Rouhani insisted that Iran’s uranium enrichment program was peaceful and would not be halted, but he did offer greater transparency if the U.S. dropped its sanctions, which have cut oil revenue in Iran by half and sent inflation soaring over 30 percent. “We have to enhance mutual trust between Iran and other countries,” Rouhani said.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

Compared with his predecessor, the belligerent anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Rouhani may sound like a moderate, said The Wall Street Journal.But he is hardly “Thomas Jefferson in a robe.” Rather, Rouhani is a reliable proxy for Iran’s “Shiite fascist state” and its authoritarian ruling clerics, who are backed by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. If Rouhani does agree to talks, it will be mainly to “ease Western sanctions and buy more nuclear time.”

Don’t be so sure of that, said The Baltimore Sun.Rouhani’s commanding victory in a massive, 70 percent turnout of voters shows that “the majority of ordinary Iranians are far less interested in pursuing nuclear weapons than in rescuing their economy.” It’s possible that the ayatollahs will respond by using Rouhani’s victory “as a face-saving way” to avoid a military confrontation with Israel and the U.S. For the Iranian people, this election was a very big deal, said the Chicago Tribune. Iranians “are clearly chafing at the theocratic repressiveness of their government,” and “weary with international pariah status.”

What the columnists said

Rouhani’s victory is a “source of hope for the world at large,” said Hooman Majd in The New York Times. Unlike Ahmadinejad, the avowed centrist is “genuinely popular,” and has Khamenei’s ear. Iranian policy won’t change overnight, but Rouhani’s moderating influence “will be felt.” If Rouhani can improve freedoms within Iran, said Shashank Joshi in Bloomberg.com, he will gain the power to shape popular opinion. The ayatollahs may then have no choice but to let him work out “an eventual compromise” on nuclear talks.

The supreme leader doesn’t care about popular opinion, said Jonathan S. Tobin in CommentaryMagazine.com. This election served merely as a means for the Iranian people “to blow off steam about the government.” By letting a so-called “moderate” become president, Khamenei has eased domestic discontent with his hard-line regime, and duped “useful idiots in the West” into wasting another year or two on doomed efforts at diplomacy, while Iran races toward “its nuclear goal.”

We in the West can’t be sure what Rouhani’s election will mean, said Michael Singh in The Washington Post. Yes, it could be “a wily trick” by the ayatollah. But it’s also possible the mullahs will see how angry Iranians are about the severe damage sanctions have done to the country’s economy, and will conclude that “change is now necessary.” So Obama must tread carefully, and “focus on Iranian actions, not Iranian personalities.” That means keeping sanctions in place until Iran agrees to give international inspectors unrestricted access to its nuclear facilities. Relaxing the pressure in response to Rouhani’s more conciliatory rhetoric would only tell Khamenei that “relief can be had on the cheap, without a true strategic shift.”