Iran supreme leader said to be in critical condition

[Mosby]

Source: Times of Israel

Arabic media outlets reported Wednesday that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was hospitalized in critical condition, days after a different report indicated doctors had given the ayatollah only two years to live.

The Israel Hayom daily on Thursday reported that the supreme leader was rushed to the hospital and has undergone surgery, citing “Arab media reports.”

He is said to be in serious condition. The reports could not be immediately confirmed.

French paper Le Figaro cited Western intelligence over the weekend that the 76-year-old was suffering from stage four prostate cancer that spread to other parts of his body, with doctors assessing he has, at most, two years to live.




Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-supreme-leader-said-to-be-in-critical-condition/

[obnoxiousdrunk]

1. Who is next in line ?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

2. Democracy, one would hope.

But to expect it would classify one as fundamentally insane.

[happyslug]

22. The Iranians do have a way to ELECT the Supreme Leader.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 12:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Now the "Supreme Leader" (The actual term used is "Leader" in the Iranian Constitution) is appointed by the "Council of Experts" of up to 100 Iranian Ayatollahs (Who can be FEMALE, through all of the members of the Council of Experts are male). The council can REMOVE as well as elected any Supreme Leader by majority vote. The council of Experts are elected by the people of Iran in elections, held every eight years. If an elected member dies, an election is held to replace that member.

Given that to be a member one MUST have extensive Religious training, the average age of a member of the Council of Experts is over 60, so by elections are common to fill empty slots.

http://www.leader.ir/langs/en/

To be elected Supreme Leader one must be at least an Ayatollah, most are men, but women have been and are also Ayatollah. Here is one woman who is presently an Iranian Ayatollah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohreh_Sefati

Furthermore all elected positions are open only to candidates approved by the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council has the authority to reject any candidate for any position if they believe the Candidate is unqualified for the position. This is the main restriction on who can get elected to what in Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council

Once approved by the Guardian Council, the candidates do have a good bit of Freedom to state they positions, but if they do something the Guardian Council disapproves of, the Guardian Council can strike it down (This is believed to be what Khomeini liked about the US Supreme Court, the US Supreme Court does NOT make the laws, but has the power to strike a law down ant law that violates the Constitution).

Is it a Western Style Democracy? No, but the people do have a say. The votes of the people do count. An Ayatollah can run for office and say he would vote to remover the present "Supreme Leader" and unless he (or she) is ruled ineligible for some reason stated by law, that Ayatollah can run and win.

The biggest problem is contrary to western reports, Khamani is popular in Iran, very popular in Rural Iran, where the Government has done a massive building of roads, schools and other internal improvements since the revolution of 1989. Many of the older people in Rural Iran remember how BAD it was under the Shah and have told their children, thus the massive support. In the Urban Areas the support is less but Khamani tends to have Majority support even in Urban Areas.

My point is the election system Iran has, is liked by the people if Iran. It permits them to vote for candidates, even candidates that oppose the present government. It has restrictions on who can run, thus reducing the effect of wealth on elections but such restrictions exist in all elections (i.e. in many US states ex-felons can not vote, you have to be 18 and the recent movement to require photo IDs).

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

23. Not exactly what I meant by democracy. But thanks for the info!

[StevieM]

24. The Guardian Council has disqualified a large number of candidates over the years.

In the first parliamentary elections under President Mohammed Khatami the reformists won big. In the next round of elections many of the reformists were disqualified. Khatami himself was pressured not to run again in 2009 and 2013 (presidents can serve more than two terms if they are non-consecutive).

Khatami won with 71% of the vote in 1997 and I believe 79% in 2001, even though a lot of liberals boycotted the polls that year. And Mousavi clearly won in 2009 IMO. The point is that every time Iranians are given a choice they choose the candidate whose beliefs diverge the greatest from that of the regime. Even in 2005 when Amadinejad won, he beat Rafsanjani in the run-off, a man who is hated by the people, his ties to reformers not withstanding.

It is hard to say how popular Khameini is. There really isn't any polling on it that I know of. His religious credentials are very unimpressive. He is not a real Grand Ayatollah.

[e-cigdub]

35. as somone who was born

in iran and has many family members there. i cannot begin to describe the amount of BS that is in this post/wiki.. It literally looks like it was written by the ministry of propaganda in iran. I would literally go sentence by sentence and destroy every single thing that was posted above if i wasn't hyper ventilating.

THERE IS NOTHING democratic about the iranian process. ALL the candidates have to pass the "revolutionary ideals" of the islamic republican to even be considered. I can go into a long explanation how rigged and biased and criminal the voting process is but the simplest way i can break it down is.

No minority,gay,bahai,arab,sunni,christian,jew, can begin to hope to run.

Imagine if the right wing in this country held elections and they controlled this country militarily. Then put up

Sean hannity, rush limbaugh, bill oreilly and joe scarborough as candidates.. Everything else is banned from running..

Then Jail joe Scarborough for not being Conservative enough and have a run off between hannity and limbaugh to be the leader of the country.. So the two people you can vote for are hannity and Limbaugh and this is " the people do have a say" say in what? in choosing between to extreme radicals right wing to lead the country? i cant believe the words " the people have there say" can even be uttered when it comes to the theocracy in Iran.

This is link to all the arrests of all the people who tried to run in a "free iran election" yeah people have there SAY alright.. sarcasmmmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Green_Movement
Arrests[edit]
See also: Law enforcement in Iran and Human rights in Iran
On the weekend of 13 and 14 June, in a series of raids across Tehran, the government arrested over 170 people, according to police officials.[32] Among them were prominent reformist politicians, including Mojahedin of the Islamic Revolution Organization (MIRO) founder Behzad Nabavi, Islamic Iran Participation Front (IIPF) leader Mohsen Mirdamadi, and former president Mohammad Khatami's brother Mohammad-Reza Khatami, who was later released.[33][34][35] Also arrested were Mostafa Tajzadeh and Mohsen Aminzadeh, whom the IRNA said were involved in orchestrating protests on 13 June.[35] Anonymous sources said that the police stormed the headquarters of the IIPF and arrested a number of people.[13][36] Iranian journalist Mashallah Shamsolvaezin claimed that presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi was put under house arrest, although officials denied this.[37] An estimated 200 people were detained after clashes with students at Tehran university, although many were later released.[38]

Acting Police Chief Ahmad-Reza Radan stated via the state press service on the 14th that "in the interrogation of related rebels, we intend to find the link between the plotters and foreign media".[39] A judiciary spokesman said they had not been arrested but that they were summoned, "warned not to increase tension," and later released.[40] Intelligence minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejehei linked some arrests to terrorism supported from outside Iran, stating that "more than 20 explosive consignments were discovered".[41] Others, he said, were "counter-revolutionary groups" who had "penetrated election headquarters" of the election candidates.[41]

On 16 June, Reuters reported that former vice-president Mohammad-Ali Abtahi and former presidential advisor Saeed Hajjarian had been arrested.[42] Human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani, who had been demanding a recount of all votes, was also arrested on the Tuesday according to Shirin Ebadi, who said that security officials had posed as clients.[43] Over 100 students were arrested after security forces fired tear gas at protesters at Shiraz University on the same day.[38] Reporters Without Borders reported that 5 of 11 arrested journalists were still detention as of 16 June, and that a further 10 journalists were unaccounted for and may have been arrested.[38]

On 17 June, former foreign minister and secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran, Ebrahim Yazdi, was arrested while undergoing tests at Pars hospital in Tehran.[38][44] He was held overnight in Evin Prison before being released and returning to hospital, where according to Human Rights Watch he remained under guard.[45][46] In Tabriz, other Freedom Movement activists and eight members of the IIPF were arrested, with reports of at least 100 civic figures' arrests.[38] The total number of arrests across Iran since the election was reported as 500.[38]

Aaron Rhodes, a spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, stated that "Iranian intelligence and security forces are using the public protests to engage in what appears to be a major purge of reform-oriented individuals whose situations in detention could be life-threatening".[38] In Isfahan Province, prosecutor-general Mohammadreza Habibi warned that dissidents could face execution under Islamic law.[47]

[happyslug]

37. I never said Iran was a Western Style Democracy.

I pointed out the Guardian Council, which act as mechanism to control the other branches of Government. The Ruling elite are in complete control, but the people do have a say other then in the form of a riot (Riots are the traditional method of protests by people out of power against people in power when the later is NOT listening to the former).

Now, you do point out several arrests of people who had been elected to various positions within Iran and other Political leaders. Such arrests could be the ruling elite wants to end reform, or an internal fight between parts of the ruling elite against each other (Hitler came to power is such a situation in Germany between 1930 and 1934, all of the elections between those two dates are considered to be fair and showed the Democratic leanings of the German People, Hitler did not assume full dictatorial power till the enabling Act of 1934, and that election is considered fair, the 1938 and 1942 enabling acts to continue Hitler's rule another four years are NOT).

People confuse "Democracy" with both "Liberty" and "Freedom" but Democracy is ONLY rule by the majority of the people and that can be the people giving dictatorial power to someone like Hitler. Was Hitler a lover of "Liberty" or "Freedom" NO, but he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED (Yes, the Nazis never did exceed 34% of the vote but could ally with enough other parties to control 50% of the Diet of Germany and thus to pass the Enabling Act, that upon a vote of the people of Germany made Hitler a Dictator).

My point in regard to Iran was to show that Iran has SOME democratic devices that permit the people of Iran a Voice in their Government. In many ways Iran is much like Germany 1930-1934, Democratic but with a strong tendency to dictatorship. The people of Germany wanted peace and prosperity and were willing to give up Freedom for both. Iran since 1979 has wanted peace, prosperity and have been willing to give up freedom for both. That tendency puts Liberty at risk, but if the people want to preserve or destroy liberty, they can do so under the rules governing Iranian elections. You will NOT see radical reforms out of Iran, but if the people of Iran wanted change, they can force change by voting for the candidate that most advocate change.

Politicians know who vote and why. They will cater to those voters. A politician who is looking at electrical defeat will try to turn people who oppose all the candidates to pick him or her as the least objectionable. When such a politician win an election, he or she may be more conservative then the people who voted for him or her, but he or she knows he or she needed those votes to win and will do that he or she can to retain those votes. George Wallace ran as the most Segregatist Politician of his time period. In his last election for Governor he catered to the African America voters and while losing the White Vote in Alabama, won election with overwhelming African American votes (As one African American said, "George still believes in Separate but Equal, but he always tried to the Equal while he was doing the Separate, his opponents only wanted to do the Separate".

Iran, in many way, is like the South when African American first obtain the vote. The system was still geared against them, but with the vote they could force politicians to considered they wants and needs. In a true Dictatorship that is NOT possible. In something like the Republic of Iran minorities can be heard, they may be repressed, but at the same time they will be heard. That is the best we can expect from Democratic institutions. Western "Democracy" is not only Democratic Institutions but a general acceptance on limits of Government as to individual rights. That later concept is missing from Iran, but I did not address them for I was addressing the concept of Democracy as oppose to rule by an unelected elite. Iran's ruling elite is elected. Such elections do NOT meet the western rule as to freedom from Government Coercion but they are still democratic elections. The say of the people is restricted, but the people still have a say.

This is like comparing the American South of the 1920s with the American South of today. Both were "Democratic", African American could in theory register to vote and vote, but the whites in the South had engineered various ways make African American votes worthless (the all white Primary was the most effective, the real election was the primary, which only whites could vote in, in the Primary candidates were selected, the Candidates would win the general elections no matter what his program was for no on would run against him or her (or if they ran, they were guarantee to lose for the Whites would vote for the Democratic Candidate every time).

Today, even in states where the gerrymandering makes African American votes almost useless, the fact that they CAN VOTE, forces many Candidate to tone down racist rhetoric, for even marginalized, the African American vote can tip an election. Happened last year, the loser in the GOP primary campaign for African Americans to vote for him in a run off with his tea party oppornet. Why? He needed and thus made efforts to get their votes. He won the election and he admits the African Americans voted him in. He is still a right wing loon, but he is to the left of his tea party oppornet.

Thus democracy can be a factor even where it is restricted as long as it exists. That is the case with Iran, democracy is restricted but it sill exits and the people of Iran can thus use that power to direct the Government in the direction they want it to go. It is a slow process and looks like it is NOT working, but the American South is the classic case where it succeeded. Once the African Americans stared to vote, candidates had to address what the African American Community wanted. It is NOT perfect but the South has come a long way since the 1950s. That is in a "Democracy" with severe restrictions on a sizable minority (and many of those restrictions still exists in the South). The pace is almost glacial but change does occur.

[e-cigdub]

38. 500,000

there are over half a million bahais in iran who cannot vote.. its not that to poor to vote. its not that they dont have rides to the voting booth.. or that they dont have ids.. NO they are not allowed to vote due to there religion. You stop half a million people from voting and thats somehow a "imperfect" democracy?

Saddamn according to his party also had a voting system where saddamn got 99 percent of the vote. thats not a democercy. not when the candidates running are chosen by the ruling mullahs. agian.. if the ruling religious class in iran puts rush limbaugh and hannity as the two candidates you could choose from and thats all the choices you had. and you stop religous minorities from voting AT ALL.. and you arrest political opossition and jail there family. in what fantasy land is that ANY kind of democracy other then the word democracy..

Iran is a ruling theocracy where all finals decisions are made by 1 guy. who isnt elected. and the people that elect him are people put in place by the establishment.

[warrant46]

40. Sounds like the Vatican where Cardinals elect the Pope

God tells the Cardinals who to vote for

[Throd]

3. Another theocratic despot with an imaginary friend.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. If the teabaggers were in charge, we'd be there, too.

I can't tell you how much it grates on my teeth to here every president say, "God Bless Murrica."

I wonder when that bad habit started. Under St. Raygun?

[leftynyc]

5. Why does it annoy you so much?

The vast majority of Americans believe in a diety and it's just words. Why can't you just ignore it?

[Throd]

6. Because some of them want to write laws based on their fairy tales.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. bingo.

[leftynyc]

9. Then complain about that

Not about merely saying G-d bless America. It's just fucking words and makes you sound every bit as intolerant as the ones you're complaining about.

[Throd]

13. If anybody wants to say "God bless America" I have no problem with that.

When I'm on the outs because I won't say "God bless America" is where I have a problem.

I find "angry atheist guy" just as annoying as everyone else. I respect people's right to worship as they please. Just don't codify religious doctrine into our laws.

[leftynyc]

15. Do you think this President

has even come close to that?

[Throd]

16. No. I think you're confusing me with another poster.

[leftynyc]

17. No - I'm not

I was just wondering if I had missed something. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Throd]

18. Someone else referenced the President saying "God bless America".

Presidents have to say that, whether they believe it or not. It's just the way it is.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. actually, 22% no longer believe.

The number is almost double among the yute of this nation.

[leftynyc]

10. So what?

I'm not talking about those who want to use biblical interpretation for laws and that's not what the poster was complaining about. The poster was complaining about words being said. So fucking what?

[riderinthestorm]

19. Oh jeez, we're back to Rick Warren and its "just a little prayer!11!! Ignore it!!1!!

Getting scolded by the theists once again. Told to shut up.

No. Just no.

I agree Obama should stop saying it too.

[leftynyc]

28. Uh - no - we're not

back to anything. We're talking about the President who claims to believe in a diety saying something that the vast majority of Americans believe in. I'm not scolding you or anyone else or asking you to shut up so the hyperbole is not helping. I'm asking why it's so difficult for you to remember that as of this moment, atheists are not the majority and even if they were - it's just words. Why do so many of you feel this visceral hatred for words being said by a President who is not trying to shove religion down your throat? A President who has done more to acknowledge and include those with no faith than any before him. I feel the need to point out that the only ones asking anyone to shut up is you.

[riderinthestorm]

29. You're saying we should "ignore it"

to me that comes across as "shut up". If we're supposed to ignore it, it means we aren't supposed to express how we feel about it.

I haven't told anyone to shut up. I've said the president "should" stop saying it, not that he "must" stop saying it.

That phrase is part and parcel of the religiosity that has invaded the political arena. Of course you don't see it or feel it viscerally - you're a believer obviously. For those of us who don't believe, it becomes very apparent and begins to grind after the incessant repetition.

And trust me, I remember that atheists aren't the majority every day by the religionists in my work, community and politics.

[leftynyc]

30. I have never said you

couldn't or shouldn't express how you feel. I simply don't understand the visceral hatred involved. It's just words. That's my only question - why the hatred about words that are in no way - coming from this President - shoving religion down your throat. And what incessant repetition? This President? As far as I can see, militant atheism is just as obnoxious as militant religiosity.

[riderinthestorm]

31. You said we should "ignore it".

Sorry but in my book that means shut up about it. That's what you really mean.

And I haven't said one word about President Obama "shoving religion down my throat". You've taken it to that level. It's also axiomatic that if you're a believer you won't hear or see the incessant repetition because it doesn't grate on you in the same way.

Furthermore, you can take your slam at me with the militant atheism crap, and shove it. It's a separation of church and state issue for me. I firmly believe it's a slippery slope when it comes to injecting religion into politics - one which we see daily as the GOP tries its damnedest to take away my reproductive rights etc.

[leftynyc]

32. No - I asked why can't you ignore it

Spare me the separation of church and state crap - this has nothing to do with establishing a religion and the clause in no way stops anyone from practicing religion the way they see fit. How saying G-d bless America has anything to do with my reproductive rights is so far beyond comprehension, I'm surprised you tried it.

[riderinthestorm]

33. Ignoring it = shut up imo. Have I said that enough times now?

No, I won't spare you the "separation of church and state crap". It's the foundation of this particular pet peeve for me and I don't particularly care one bit if that's a problem for you.

Lastly, I made it clear that the religiosity in politics is a slippery slope as exemplified by the attacks on womens reproductive rights. It's indisputable and a cause of real alarm for me.

[840high]

20. Doesn't bother me one bit.

[Keefer]

26. *hear

[onenote]

36. References by Presidents to the divine are as old as the nation

The "God Bless America" or "God Bless these United States" formulation is generally attributed to Nixon. But references to God or to the divine have been a fixture in speeces from Washington through Roosevelt to the present day.


From Washington's first inaugural address:

Having thus imported to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.


That's basically a lot of words saying, in effect, "God Bless America."

[StevieM]

11. The front runner is a man named Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi

He has been slightly favored for quite awhile, even though he was born in Iraq and didn't come to Iran until the 1979 Revolution. In the end, the Revolutionary Guards will probably have a major influence in picking a new Supreme Leader. But the body that formally selects the Supreme Leader is called the Assembly of Experts.

Here are a few articles:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Speculation-over-successor-after-doctors-reportedly-say-Irans-Khamenei-has-two-years-left-to-live-393007

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-succession-supreme-leader

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/iran-khamenei-succession.html

[VWolf]

12. Can we call him the "Shah" for short? n/t

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

[olegramps]

14. Sometimes death solves some very difficult problems.

Last edited Fri Mar 6, 2015, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[NBachers]

27. And I hope I live long enough to see many of today's nemises move on to their great reward

But many of 'em are younger than me. I'm going to have to stay alive for a long time.

[Lurks Often]

21. Hmm, my sympathy meter didn't even twitch n/t

[Takashi Zara]

25. Israeli papers reporting second-hand Saudi tabloids?

:yawn:

[FLPanhandle]

34. I feel no sympathy for the death of any religious leader of any faith.

Waste of oxygen.

[Mosby]

39. Iran’s Khamenei appears in public to curb rumors of near death

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appeared in public today (March 8) after reports that he was hospitalized with late-stage cancer.

Photos of a healthy-looking Khamenei meeting with environmental officials in Tehran reportedly were posted online in order to “put an end to the Israeli-driven rumors” that the supreme leader was dying, according to Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency.

Unofficial reports emerged last week that Khamenei, 75, had stage 4 prostate cancer and two years to live. Khamenei reportedly has had the cancer for a decade, but doctors discovered during a surgery last September that the cancer had spread.

http://www.jewishaz.com/us_worldnews/mideast/iran-s-khamenei-appears-in-public-to-curb-rumors-of/article_d5eb04d4-c5d7-11e4-bac3-1fb999e20762.html