Will Iran’s new president defuse the confrontation with the United States over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program? Rowhani has the credentials to bring a new spirit to the talks writes Michael Adler in Breaking Defense.
With just about everyone expecting the need for a runoff, it came as a significant surprise when moderate presidential candidate Hassan Rouhani captured more than 50 percent of the vote. A late surge of enthusiasm and some key endorsements gave Rouhani the victory and seems to have given new life to Iran’s reform movement. Haleh Esfandiari, the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program Director, provides context.
By choosing the candidate least identified with the recent policies of the ruling system, a majority sent a strong message to the Supreme Leader and the regime, writes Haleh Esfandiari, in the New York Time's "Room for Debate" section.
The field of candidates may be limited, but the outside world can still learn a lot from Iran's 2013 presidential poll, writes Robin Wright in a ForeignPolicy.com op-ed.
"The commentariat is looking for ways to press the administration to act. Their arguments are largely correct: Syria is indeed a moral, humanitarian, and strategic disaster. But their prescription for action is long on generalities and short on specifics," writes Aaron David Miller in a Foreign Policy op-ed.
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has called on all Iranians to vote in Friday's elections. Last minute changes to the field of candidates and new endorsements for moderate candidate, Hassan Rouhani, have created “buzz” according to a journalist in Tehran. Will this late excitement have an impact on voter turnout, and more importantly, on the actual outcome? To gain insight into the field of candidates and the forces influencing the election, we spoke with the Wilson Center’s Middle East Program Director, Haleh Esfandiari.
Wilson Center Senior Scholar Marina Ottaway discussed the legitimacy of the outcome of Egypt's recent elections and the validity of the country's new constitution in a June 6, 2013 National Interest article.
"Governing is about choosing. When America acts, it has to ask itself two questions, not just, can it accomplish it? If we wanted to unseat the Assads, we could do it. The question is not just that, it's what will it cost? It's the second question that always needs to accompany the first," said Aaron David Miller.
Jane Harman and Zbigniew Brzezinski debate a U.S. intervention in Syria on Morning Joe. "I hope we have a strategy to work this out diplomatically with the Russians on the other side and the leader is moved out even if he stays in country and another transitional government takes his place,” said Jane Harman.
"In Syria, there are no good options, American credibility is at stake, and the pressures to act are considerable in the face of great uncertainties," writes Aaron David Miller in Salon.com.
Sanctions Relief: Iran’s Economic and Monetary Policy Options: Could Iran’s Policies of the 60s and 70s be a Guide or a Lesson?
December 13, 2013 // 12:00pm — 2:00pm