Winning Iran’s Election Is Just The Beginning Of Rouhani’s Political Struggles

Iranians just overwhelmingly voted to keep President Hassan Rouhani in power after a fiercely competitive and divisive election campaign. But while the president?s re-election was hailed by moderates as a rejection of isolation and populism, it is only the beginning of a much larger battle for the centrist leader ? one that will require Rouhani to make good on past promises while finding a way to compromise with those whom he now needs on his side.

Iran?s presidential election took place at a time when the country is witnessing its most sensitive political period since its 1979 revolution. There is unprecedented regional turmoil and a newly elected American president who, on his first overseas trip, openly advocated for overt confrontation with the Islamic republic. It is amidst such a backdrop that Rouhani?s resounding victory promises to be especially significant for the country as it defines its future ? and as the global community decides how to react to that future.

Rouhani beat out the other remaining candidates, some from the moderate camp and some from the principlist, or conservative, camp. His main rival, Ebrahim Raisi, took the second largest voting percentage at 38.5 percent. In Raisi was the potential for a more conservative Iran. This potential has, for now, been quelled.

Rouhani faces a nation disillusioned in part by his promises of economic stability from the nuclear deal.

The Iranian electorate has spoken in its decision between two stark alternatives: strengthening civil society and engaging with the world, or turning inward with economic populism and combative foreign policy. In decisively voting for Rouhani, Iranians have endorsed diplomacy and moderation. And they have done so in direct contrast to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called for increasing tensions with Iran and championed isolationist foreign policy.

The real test now is what comes next. The near-record voter turnout of over 40 million people, coupled with Rouhani?s strong electoral performance, is a move in the right direction. But the president also faces a divided nation disillusioned in part by the promises of increased domestic civil rights and economic stability from the nuclear deal that Rouhani ran on ? and that have yet to be fully realized. If Rouhani wants to be successful in his second term as president, he?s going to need to follow through on those promises, win over the loyalty of moderate principlists ? including those who tended to favor Raisi ? and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and convince them and foreign powers why the world must engage positively with Iran. But his past looms as he looks ahead. 

How Rouhani Became Vulnerable

As president, Rouhani has political sway, but it is Ayatollah Khamenei who makes the top decisions and the moderate principlists, conservatives who are open to working with Rouhani but don?t necessarily support him, who serve as an influential power center in the country. Both have strongly criticized broader negotiations with the United States after the nuclear deal. Thus much of Rouhani?s ability to mandate reform this time around will be determined in part by how much credibility he?s able to regain within these domestic circles and by his willingness to appease key leaders.

During the nuclear negotiations, Rouhani had Ayatollah Khamenei?s blessing and a mostly united nation behind him. He reinforced this support by successfully bringing the country back from the brink of economic collapse, implementing policies that took Iran from a recession to an estimated 7 percent annual economic growth, reduced the inflation rate from 40 percent to single digits, rebounded oil exports to pre-sanctions levels and attracted roughly $12 billion in foreign investment.

But over the course of his first term, Rouhani gradually faced a more polarized public. And support from the supreme leader subsided as well as the eventual nuclear deal failed to produce expected dividends. This endorsement must be regained if Rouhani?s policy preferences are to sustainably implemented.

Khamenei’s endorsement must be regained if Rouhani?s policy preferences are to be implemented.

In fact, Rouhani?s failure to produce on the nuclear deal proved to be a dark cloud over his other achievements ? the biggest challenge to his re-election bid was the state of the country?s economy nearly two years after those negotiations. Iranians are disappointed with the slow results of the landmark agreement made with the U.S. and other world powers. Rouhani?s signature foreign policy achievement ? the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA ? for many Iranians seems to have been oversold, largely due to the short span between the deal?s implementation and this election and U.S.-induced obstacles to proper sanctions relief.

Opponents of Rouhani capitalized on the president?s difficulty in delivering the fruits of the nuclear deal. They largely mocked his foreign policy strategy of diplomatic engagement with global powers, including direct high-level talks with the United States, labeling it as weak and lambasting him for catering to Western powers. Raisi, the judge who became Rouhani?s biggest rival in the election, accused Rouhani of pursuing ?begging diplomacy.? And leading up to the vote, senior Iranian cleric Kazem Seddiqi was known to have accused the politically moderate camp of ?being cowardly? when working with foreign, particularly Western, leaders.

Rouhani?s landslide victory represents a public rebuke to these criticisms, but the president will nonetheless have to continue striking a balance between pragmatic foreign policy and preservation of Iran?s rights and dignity. It is a nuance Rouhani didn?t shy away from in his victory speech, when he said that he wanted to engage with the world on the ?basis of mutual respect and [Iran?s] national interests? but would not settle for ?threats and humiliation.?

Rouhani must strike a balance between pragmatic foreign policy and preservation of Iran?s rights and dignity.

One of the key ways this balance will be tested is in the way he chooses to approach Iran?s regional rival Saudi Arabia. The president?s willingness to mend tension with the kingdom under certain circumstances is a controversial view that ensued much debate during the campaign and similarly earned him the scorn of his principlist rival. Raisi reportedly claimed, during a presidential debate, that Saudi Arabia acts only in line with American strategic preferences, and characterized the Saudi government as a ?cancerous tumor? in the region that seeks to sow division in the Islamic world. His comments stood out because they marked the first time in Iranian politics the ?cancerous tumor? label, usually reserved for Israel, had been applied to Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, Rouhani has denounced a 2016 attack on the Saudi embassy in Tehran and exercised inclusive and conciliatory rhetoric in domestic issues, especially in relation to Iranian minorities. And it seemed to work in his favor this election. For the first time, Iran?s Sunni minority coalesced around one candidate, with Iran?s Sunni spiritual leader Molavi Abdul Hamid endorsing Rouhani. This should be interpreted as a positive message by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states and inform their policies towards Iran.

A Challenging Path Forward: Trump And Saudi

What happens next remains to be seen, but if the Arab Islamic American Summit in Saudi Arabia with Donald Trump is any indication, Rouhani has many foreign policy challenges ahead. In fact, while Iranians went to the polls, those very Sunni Arab states who could have looked to Rouhani?s openness for diplomacy in a positive light, reacted with clenched fists. And so did Donald Trump.

Hours after Rouhani declared victory in Iran, Trump signed an over $100 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, further militarizing the region. The deal, according to U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, was designed to help Saudi Arabia counter ?malign Iranian influence.? In a similar vein, the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia have indicated that they are taking steps to form an unprecedented anti-Iranian so-called ?Arab NATO.? This anti-Iran collaboration was reinforced during the U.S. president?s stay in Saudi Arabia, where Trump declared in his keynote address that, ?all nations of conscience must work together to isolate? Iran.

Trump?s apparent eagerness to increase Iran-Saudi tensions, contrary to former U.S. President Barack Obama?s belief that the two countries should ?share? the region, will exacerbate regional instability and encourage Saudi Arabia to remain intransigent in response to Rouhani?s overtures. His call in Saudi Arabia for ?all nations of conscience? to ?isolate? Iran not only will surely fail and put the U.S. and Iran even deeper on the path to confrontation, but will also prove to be a lose-lose strategy for Washington, Tehran, Riyadh and the other regional nations.

Trump?s apparent eagerness to increase Iran-Saudi tensions will encourage Saudi to remain intransigent in response to Rouhani?s overtures.

Further, the U.S. president?s decision to fight the nuclear deal will only disenfranchise the very Iranian people both he and King Salman of Saudi Arabia claimed to have great respect for. A JCPOA- violating sanctions bill is circulating in the U.S. Senate with significant Democratic support. The Trump administration, despite its recent renewal of JCPOA sanctions waivers, is still fundamentally critical of the deal, raising serious doubts about its sustainability. In the midst of all of this, Iran?s neighborhood is ridden with conflict, with no end in sight to the wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

But there is hope. What stands out most about the Iranian election is its uniqueness in the region. Iran?s first experiment with democratic elections occurred over 100 years ago, but the energy and competitive atmosphere during this campaign was unparalleled. It bore far more resemblance to elections in the West than those of America?s regional allies, who are decades behind Iran in terms of democratic practice and mostly run along familial or tribal lines. People still chose the embattled Rouhani, even in spite of all the setbacks his domestic and foreign policies presented.

Now that he has an election mandate, perhaps Rouhani?s biggest fight beyond regaining support from the supreme leader and the public will be reacting to President Trump. Trump stands at a fork in the road as well. He can either accept the resounding call of the Iranian people for peaceful engagement, or he can return to the pre-Obama U.S. policy of unrelenting hostility towards Iran. If he chooses the former, he will find a receptive voice in Tehran. But if he chooses the latter, as his speech in Saudi seemed to indicate, the Iranian people and Rouhani will have to be united in resisting aggressive U.S. policies, as they did during Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein?s invasion of Iran during the 1980s.

It looks like Trump and Rouhani both have a long road ahead of them.

Ambassador Seyed Hossein Mousavian is a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at Princeton University and a former chief of Iran?s National Security Council?s Foreign Relations Committee.

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related on WorldPost: articlesList=5921ca0ce4b03b485cb24817,5919f756e4b05dd15f0a3895,58dd9822e4b0e6ac7093be2c

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

The Most Outrageous And Amazing Fashion At The 2017 Billboard Music Awards

Much like the Grammys, the Billboard Music Awards are a place for celebrities to wear pretty much whatever they want on the red carpet. 

At the 2017 BBMAs on Sunday night, Halsey took that message to heart ? showing up in a bra, a skirt fashioned out of what looked like a trench coat, and heels that laced up all the way to her thighs. Singer Dencia wore what some likened to a Rubik?s Cube, while Celine Dion wowed in a white dress with built-in angel wings.

Take a look at all of the amazing and outrageous looks below: 

The HuffPost Lifestyle newsletter will make you happier and healthier, one email at a time. Sign up here.

 

type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related… articlesList=59224e35e4b094cdba54f10e,59224253e4b03b485cb26205,5922837ee4b034684b0d5794

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

While You Weren’t Looking, Trump Basically Killed Dodd-Frank

WASHINGTON ? As the nation?s capital has been consumed by the frothing chaos of President Donald Trump?s administration ? botched Muslim bans, sudden personnel changes and the chief executive?s erratic behavior ? a steady current of traditional right-wing orthodoxy is sweeping through the federal government. Whatever happens with Russia or the FBI, this tide is washing away former President Barack Obama?s second-greatest legislative achievement: Wall Street reform. And it?s all happening while you?re paying attention to something else.

Trump campaigned on conflicting promises about big banks. One minute, he was going to stick it to the corrupt financial insiders who had wrecked the middle class. The next, he?d vow to liberate our benevolent princes of capital from crushing regulations Obama had cruelly imposed.

Some of Trump?s populist rhetoric followed him into office. But the actual governing has been pure deregulation. Last week, a council of top regulators quietly met to discuss the future of the Volcker Rule ? the most important structural change Obama established for the financial system. A few days later, a freshly installed Trump official went further, threatening to defang the rule ?unilaterally? by ?reinterpreting? its entire purpose.

The rule is basically dead, Keefe Bruyette & Woods analyst Brian Gardner wrote in a note to clients Monday: ?Examiners can start giving banks the benefit of the doubt regarding compliance with Volcker almost immediately.?

The Volcker Rule was conceived as an update to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which banned traditional banks from engaging in risky, high-stakes securities ventures, which became the domain of investment banks, hedge funds and other firms that didn?t rely on federal support. Until its repeal in the 1990s, Glass-Steagall put an end to many conflicts of interest that had plagued banking during the Roaring Twenties, and prevented government subsidies from flowing into speculative securities schemes, which made it harder for big crazy asset bubbles to accumulate.

Glass-Steagall was as powerful as a sledgehammer, but only slightly more precise. The Volcker Rule tried to draw a finer distinction. Instead of banning banks from the securities business outright, it only barred proprietary trading. Banks were no longer allowed to make reckless bets for their own accounts, but other types of trading to help clients meet legitimate market needs would be permitted. Done right, the Volcker Rule would have been a technocratic improvement on Glass-Steagall, providing all the benefits of its New Deal predecessor without its costs.

It reflected the broader approach Obama and congressional Democrats took with Wall Street reform, treating the financial crisis as a mechanical malfunction best corrected by expert regulators who could write specific rules for nuanced situations. The economic system, they believed, could not be properly repaired with blunt instruments or lines in the sand.

Twenty-first-century banking is indeed a nasty thicket of money and numbers. But the financial crisis was more than a technocratic breakdown. It was an abuse of power. And the 2010 Dodd-Frank law didn?t really try to reshape the political dynamic between Wall Street and Washington. A handful of financial titans retained control over multitrillion-dollar institutions tasked with socially essential functions. They were not prosecuted for fraud, they continued to lobby both Congress and federal agencies with ferocity, and their firms continued to provide lucrative jobs for political operatives from both parties. Against this mountain, Obama set the willpower of individual regulators.

It didn?t work. Consider the Volcker Rule, which ran into trouble almost immediately. ?One of the world?s largest banking firms? enlisted the Podesta Group ? a lobbying powerhouse founded by Democratic power brokers John and Tony Podesta ? to water down the rule in Congress. The Podesta Group still boasts about the effort on its website, under ?Wins.?

?The client?s desired language on the ?Volcker Rule? was passed into law,? reads the page, titled ?Challenging Wall Street Reform To Defend Jobs.? The lobbying barrage continued at the regulatory agencies, whose final version of the rule stretched to 300 pages of loopholes, exemptions and special considerations. Bank lobbyists succeeded in delaying the implementation of key elements of Volcker for years. Now the beast is being put out of its misery by Trump appointees with close ties to the financial industry, demonstrating that Wall Street?s political clout remains as strong as ever. Volcker?s destroyers will include former bank lawyer Keith Noreika, along with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs alum, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton, who served as Goldman?s bailout attorney.

A similar fate will soon follow for the derivatives regulations and other rules written during the Obama years. Even capital requirements, the simplest and last line of defense against bad bank behavior, are under assault following the resignation of Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo. We will never know if Obama?s tweaks and adjustments would have prevented or ameliorated another financial crisis. Today, big banks are bigger than they were before the crash, and are returning to pre-crash levels of oversight. The potential for financial turmoil under an erratic president is just as strong as the potential for foreign policy dislocation.

The one element of Dodd-Frank that will likely survive the Trump presidency is also the only aspect that seriously restructured the power relationship between government and finance. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is important not because it involves a host of complicated new rules ? stealing from customers was illegal before, during and after the crisis ? but because it changes the way these protections are enforced. Prior to Obama, consumer banking products were regulated by five different agencies that competed with each other for ?assessment? fees paid by the banks they regulated. This gave banks political power over their regulators ? an agency that was too tough on consumer protection risked losing its banks, and the funding they brought, to another regulator.

Obama scrapped this regime in favor of a single consumer finance overseer, the CFPB, and charged lifelong consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren with setting up the agency and hiring critical personnel. This established a new power center in Washington capable of challenging not only big banks, but also broken bureaucracy. When Obama?s Education Department turned a blind eye to student loan abuses, the CFPB took action. It has returned over $11 billion in ill-gotten bank gains to customers since its inception.

So the next meltdown probably won?t be caused by consumer fraud. Other than that, we?re pretty screwed.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Top Oversight Dem: ‘I Want Every Note’ White House Has On Trump’s Meeting With Russians

WASHINGTON ? Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said Sunday he wants every single note the White House has on President Donald Trump?s meeting with Russian officials in the Oval Office earlier this month.

In the past week, multiple damning reports have emerged regarding what was discussed during Trump?s May 10 meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, which was closed to U.S. press. Lawmakers expressed frustration that they only learned of notes documenting what was said in the meeting from media reports, and struggled to catch up to one scandal before another surfaced.

?I want every note that they have,? Cummings, ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, said on ABC?s ?This Week.? ?There have been so many lies, so many contradictions. And I think documents will help us to ferret out exactly what?s the truth and what?s a lie.?

Cummings added that he hopes Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) will ?issue subpoenas so that we can get every document.? The clock is ticking for Chaffetz, who has announced he will resign at the end of June.

Chaffetz appeared alongside Cummings on Sunday, saying he doesn?t even know if there are documents on the president?s meeting, or if the memos that fired FBI Director James Comey reportedly kept on his conversations with Trump do indeed exist.

?I don?t know where they reside. I don?t know if there are documents,? Chaffetz said. ?But we?re certainly pursuing them. And if they?re there, I hope we find them and get them sooner rather than later.?

Chaffetz added that he expects to speak with Comey on Monday. The former FBI director has agreed to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee sometime after lawmakers? weeklong break for Memorial Day. 

After his interview with ?This Week,? Cummings released a draft subpoena that he urged Chaffetz to sign and send to the White House.

?The White House is obstructing our investigation on the Oversight Committee, covering up for General Flynn, and refusing to produce a single document that Chairman Chaffetz and I asked for in a bipartisan letter two months ago,? Cummings said in a statement. ?I have prepared a subpoena that the chairman could sign today. If he does not want to do that, we ask that he allow the committee members to vote on it.?

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.