Similarities between Bush and Ahmadinejad

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yes it is outdated in that respect but it still gives good detail an what role each aspect of them does and how it works.
It differs in regard to Wikipedia about the GC as it says half are selected from parliament and The sypreme leader can actually be removed in theory by the Assembly of Experts, and if that is the case, then he isnt a dictator,(not that you called him one) they even call it a theocracy democracy.
I am guessing the struggle between hardliners and more reformist characters which has been ongoing in Iran, and Iran does have its terrorists to, the Mujahedeen e-Khalq which has used bombings and thelike against the government who are also on America's terrorist list.(but are now allegedly funding) Maybe this is the struggle they are reffering to, I dont know for sure though.
edit. Thats why I asked you for a link as I find it hard to get exact and precise information on it,I find a lot of it differs, but i have found the bbc one to be the best so far.

The link is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

This kind of government reminds me of many constitutional monarchies in Europe in the past. There were all sorts of legislative assemblies, courts, and elections, and those bodies appeared to be doing something, but in fact, all of the important powers were vested in the king. The appearance of democracy satisfied enough of the people such that the king usually had unopposed power. Truly Machiavellian! The only difference with Iran is that the Supreme Leader isn't hereditary. Keep in mind that elections in Iran don't matter, because all candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council, even elections to the Assembly of Experts.

So this "struggle" is somewhat of a crock, because the reformists don't have any power, and never did. They were totally fooled by this roundabout system, and continue to be fooled. In the sense that they were fooled, the Iranian system of government has worked well for the ruling clerics.

 

[boarder]

The link is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran

This kind of government reminds me of many constitutional monarchies in Europe in the past. There were all sorts of legislative assemblies, courts, and elections, and those bodies appeared to be doing something, but in fact, all of the important powers were vested in the king. The appearance of democracy satisfied enough of the people such that the king usually had unopposed power. Truly Machiavellian! The only difference with Iran is that the Supreme Leader isn't hereditary. Keep in mind that elections in Iran don't matter, because all candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council, even elections to the Assembly of Experts..

Interestingly put, I like the comparison to olden day europe.

So this "struggle" is somewhat of a crock, because the reformists don't have any power, and never did. They were totally fooled by this roundabout system, and continue to be fooled. In the sense that they were fooled, the Iranian system of government has worked well for the ruling clerics.

I would agree to a point, I still call it a Therocracy democracy though,with about 80-90% leading towards the therocracy.