View Full Version : Iranian Elections
Vladimir
06-09-2009, 00:20
With all the fervor over European elections is anyone paying attention to Iran? BBCA is trying to sell their coverage of it by basically saying Ahminedejad's rival is the Persian Obama. A quick search revealed http://www.ndi.org/iran_election_bulletin which seems to have good coverage of the elections. Check out the voting Nazgoul.
So, is anyone following these elections?
Edit: I love when the lower classes say "O'bomber." Makes him sound like an Irish terrorist.
But no, I'm generally curious. Please don't take offense.
So, does is anyone following these elections?
Yes! Mir Hussain Moussavi for president!
Hooahguy
06-09-2009, 22:40
Yes! Mir Hussain Moussavi for president!
agreed!
i only learned about him through your facebook page, and seems like a worthy candidate.
Well, I think the way for Iran to "democratize" is a long one, but having a pro-reform president who is also interested in dialogue with the US will have a positive influence on Iran and can influence the entire regio in a positive way. The combination Obama - Mousavi could be very good. Hell, even Ahmadinejad sent his congratulations to Obama when he was elected.
There are some major points in Iran which need to be changed as soon as possible, in my opinion:
- The Freedom of Press and Information
- The rights and equality of women
Then there are some long-term problems:
- The rights and equality of homosexuals, which I don't see achievable within 50 years.
- The (temporary) abolishment of the death penalty, save for the worst crimes. I'd prefer abolishment altogether.
Kadagar_AV
06-09-2009, 23:57
ANY country that has the death sentence is = barbaric.
Don't get me wrong, some people do deserve death... it's just that it is so extremly hard to change a death sentence once passed.
Better a lifetime in prison, IMHO.
Louis VI the Fat
06-10-2009, 13:19
Check out the voting Nazgoul. That's terrible! But I can't help giggling like a baby over it. It's so apt. ~:laugh-smilie:
KukriKhan
06-10-2009, 14:54
Ahmadinejad plays the Godwin (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE5592OM20090610).
"No one has the right to insult the president, and they did it. And this is a crime. The person who insulted the president should be punished, and the punishment is jail," he told supporters outside Tehran's Sharif University.
"Such insults and accusations against the government are a return to Hitler's methods, to repeat lies and accusations ... until everyone believes those lies," Ahmadinejad said.
He has never given up his radical student hey-days, rhetorically. He still shouts and pouts like a first-year PoliSci student.
Vladimir
06-10-2009, 17:10
Mousavi says Ahmadinejad has isolated Iran with his vitriolic attacks on the United States, his combative line on Iran's nuclear policy and his questioning of the Holocaust.
Interesting. I thought this policy was supported by his grand robeness (as opposed to his hatness) as evidenced by
The relatively unknown Ahmadinejad surprised everyone with his victory four years ago, and he has enjoyed the support of Khamenei throughout his presidency. How much influence does the president of Iran have? Could the country transform from a state controlled by religion to a state who utilizes religious methods? Could the president of Iran go from the anti-bush to a more traditional realpolitik opponent?
Maybe that's wishful thinking on my part; Iran transforming to a more traditional adversary. After all, it's only been ~30 years. I'm so excited!
He advocates easing nuclear tensions, while rejecting demands that Tehran halt nuclear work which the West fears could be used to make bombs.
OK. I can understand this and would probably do so myself. This new guy needs to get elected. I don't mind so much if they have the ability as long as they lack the will. The current nutjob is ready and willing.
Another group said on Wednesday that Rafsanjani would be responsible if the tension escalated into violence.
The ILNA news agency said cars decked out in Mousavi's green campaign colors were attacked in central Tehran on Wednesday, but gave no details of the damage.
This sounds like modern Venezuela. Also very Godwin-esque.
I know Reuters has grown a few warts on its nose recently but the picture they paint makes me hopeful.
Hosakawa Tito
06-10-2009, 19:27
All politics is local. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/09/gerges.iran.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
Like most other people, Iranians will vote with their pocketbook.
Broken promises, hard economic times and the old "familiarity breeds contempt" syndrome that most politicians eventually have to deal with seems to be working against Ahmadinejad, not to mention his confrontational style.
CountArach
06-11-2009, 06:06
Good run down of the election here (http://newmatilda.com/2009/06/11/iran-goes-polls). I didn't realise Another-Dinner-Jacket was under pressure from his side of politics as well.
Prodigal
06-11-2009, 08:22
Watched a liveleak debate from Iranian tv yesterday, what was worrying was that it was unclear as to whether the candidate in the debate was more right wing than Ahmadinejad.
At one point he seemed to be saying that the British sailors should have been executed, & letting them go was a terrible policy mistake. I thought that Ahmadinejad was on the far right already.
rory_20_uk
06-12-2009, 20:30
Sounds like good old fashioned tub thumping after the event to gain votes from the masses.
~:smoking:
FactionHeir
06-13-2009, 05:16
According to news of the count at 72%, Ahmadinejad leads with 65.7% over Moussavi's 31.4%.
As is usual, the challenger claims the count has been manipulated.
In case you were wondering:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e2011570fd76c6970b-.png
rasoforos
06-13-2009, 05:27
I am not surprised.
Where the liberal Iranian administration failed (to initiate talks with the west), Ahmadinejad succeeded. He the 'child' of decisions made by western administrations.
rotorgun
06-13-2009, 07:10
In case you were wondering:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e2011570fd76c6970b-.png
Nice chart Lemur. The color arrangements put me in mind of something Byzantine during the late Roman Empire, with the Green and Blue Parties vying for political control....and then the Emperor (read Supreme Leader) steps in. Alas, another bloody ending. (sigh)
A shame, I really hoped Mousavi would win.
Not all votes are counted yet, but it's looking pretty grim.
DemonArchangel
06-13-2009, 15:25
The elections were certainly rigged.
CountArach
06-13-2009, 15:35
The elections were certainly rigged.
Sauce?
DemonArchangel
06-13-2009, 15:37
I simply do not believe the ruling clergy would allow a reformist to be elected, so they rigged the vote. Otherwise, they never would have expelled Mousavi's observers from the polling sites if they had nothing to be afraid of.
KukriKhan
06-13-2009, 15:40
Sauce?
Gravy. :)
There are rumblings in the Iranian expat community here, that their votes were not, and won't be, counted. This is anecdotal from my friend/neighbor, 20 years here from Tehran.
FactionHeir
06-13-2009, 15:49
I simply do not believe the ruling clergy would allow a reformist to be elected, so they rigged the vote. Otherwise, they never would have expelled Mousavi's observers from the polling sites if they had nothing to be afraid of.
So how did the reformist before Ahmedinejad get elected please?
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-13-2009, 16:22
What's the deal with the internet and text-messaging outages and the shenanigans with the reform campaign websites being taken down?
I wouldn't read too much into the rig- claim of the opposition, it seems a bit of a formality
Having said that, it seems the result was unexpected, partly in Ahmadinejad winning, but the extent and areas he won through. Opposition also claim the state was against them in terms of coverage and campaign marches, which has more credibility imo. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I simply do not believe the ruling clergy would allow a reformist to be elected, so they rigged the vote. Otherwise, they never would have expelled Mousavi's observers from the polling sites if they had nothing to be afraid of.
Khatami was relatively 'reformist,' and even Rafsanjani was not hardline conservative. The Council allowed 2 reformist candidates to stand, which they could have vetoed if they really wanted too. It's not as simple as 'he won, so it must be rigged.'
It is suspicious that opposition election moniters were not allowed to function. Was there any international monitering?
I wouldn't read too much into the rig- claim of the opposition, it seems a bit of a formality
Dunno about that. It sure as hell looks rigged.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e201157011fa76970c-.jpg
And here's a guy who predicted more or less exactly what happened (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav061109b.shtml):
CPV representatives point to several indicators of an Iranian neo-conservative plot to steal the election. For one, they note that over 59 million ballots have been printed, far more than the number of registered voters. They also have evidence that a substantial, though undetermined, number of soldiers has been ordered to hand over their national identity cards to officers. Most importantly, according to another CPV report, up to a third of voting booths in Iran will be protected by the Revolutionary Guards, and not the regular Law Enforcement Agency personnel.
To lend vote-rigging an air of religious legitimacy, a prominent hardline cleric has reportedly issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that would condone fraud in the name of supposedly defending the spirit of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. [...]
One factor that may be too large for the Supreme Leader and others to ignore is the fact that Mousavi’s campaign appears to have tapped into the energy of Iran’s under-30 demographic segment. Given that a majority of the country’s population is under 30, any decision that disregarded the hopes and opinions of this segment of the electorate, especially now that it has become politically awakened, would risk severely undermining the foundation on which the Islamic Republic stands. Those hoping to regenerate the spirit of the revolution could possibly cause its destruction.
How young people would respond to vote-rigging is unpredictable at this point. There is a very real possibility that Rafsanjani is right, and that a fixed election could trigger an eruption that could bury the Islamic Republic. Thus, key elements, from the Supreme Leader on down, may shy away from backing Ahmadinejad to the hilt.
-edit-
And the youths don't seem very happy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0MkATcn04M) with the result.
Dunno about that. It sure as hell looks rigged.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e201157011fa76970c-.jpg
And here's a guy who predicted more or less exactly what happened (http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav061109b.shtml):
CPV representatives point to several indicators of an Iranian neo-conservative plot to steal the election. For one, they note that over 59 million ballots have been printed, far more than the number of registered voters. They also have evidence that a substantial, though undetermined, number of soldiers has been ordered to hand over their national identity cards to officers. Most importantly, according to another CPV report, up to a third of voting booths in Iran will be protected by the Revolutionary Guards, and not the regular Law Enforcement Agency personnel.
To lend vote-rigging an air of religious legitimacy, a prominent hardline cleric has reportedly issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that would condone fraud in the name of supposedly defending the spirit of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. [...]
One factor that may be too large for the Supreme Leader and others to ignore is the fact that Mousavi’s campaign appears to have tapped into the energy of Iran’s under-30 demographic segment. Given that a majority of the country’s population is under 30, any decision that disregarded the hopes and opinions of this segment of the electorate, especially now that it has become politically awakened, would risk severely undermining the foundation on which the Islamic Republic stands. Those hoping to regenerate the spirit of the revolution could possibly cause its destruction.
How young people would respond to vote-rigging is unpredictable at this point. There is a very real possibility that Rafsanjani is right, and that a fixed election could trigger an eruption that could bury the Islamic Republic. Thus, key elements, from the Supreme Leader on down, may shy away from backing Ahmadinejad to the hilt.
-edit-
And the youths don't seem very happy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0MkATcn04M) with the result.
I believe it's time for another revolution when the government starts fixing votes, although it doesn't really matter who is president is when the Supreme Leader makes all the calls. This does make it easier for him to rule though.
Khatami was relatively 'reformist,' and even Rafsanjani was not hardline conservative. The Council allowed 2 reformist candidates to stand, which they could have vetoed if they really wanted too. It's not as simple as 'he won, so it must be rigged.'
Read between the lines. By allowing reformist candidates to stand, the people were given the illusion that they actually had a choice (this applies to presidency in general)
Haha - taking the fight back
https://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5254/img650x367.jpg
rotorgun
06-13-2009, 20:01
Haha - taking the fight back
https://img269.imageshack.us/img269/5254/img650x367.jpg
"Looks like this is the end!" It's time for Underdog to make his appearance, or maybe a Brad Pit type of maneuver as portrayed in Troy.
A valuable analysis (http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html):
But just as a first reaction, this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene. And here is how I would reconstruct the crime.
As the real numbers started coming into the Interior Ministry late on Friday, it became clear that Mousavi was winning. Mousavi's spokesman abroad, filmmaker Mohsen Makhbalbaf, alleges that the ministry even contacted Mousavi's camp and said it would begin preparing the population for this victory.
The ministry must have informed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who has had a feud with Mousavi for over 30 years, who found this outcome unsupportable. And, apparently, he and other top leaders had been so confident of an Ahmadinejad win that they had made no contingency plans for what to do if he looked as though he would lose.
They therefore sent blanket instructions to the Electoral Commission to falsify the vote counts.
This clumsy cover-up then produced the incredible result of an Ahmadinejad landlside in Tabriz and Isfahan and Tehran.
The reason for which Rezaie and Karoubi had to be assigned such implausibly low totals was to make sure Ahmadinejad got over 51% of the vote and thus avoid a run-off between him and Mousavi next Friday, which would have given the Mousavi camp a chance to attempt to rally the public and forestall further tampering with the election.
This scenario accounts for all known anomalies and is consistent with what we know of the major players.
KukriKhan
06-13-2009, 22:03
So it's the Guardian Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council) (12 guys; 6 clerics + 6 lawyers) who decide the validity of the election?
Any word on their take yet? I've heard that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pronounced Ahmadinejad the winner, but does his word count?
BBC-World reports noise in the streets still at 0130 in the morning.
Things are going rough; Mehdi Karroubi (the other reformist guy), Mousavi have been placed under house arrest and the brother and sister-in-law of former president Mohammed Khatami have been arrested.
Hosakawa Tito
06-13-2009, 23:54
So it's the Guardian Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council) (12 guys; 6 clerics + 6 lawyers) who decide the validity of the election?
Any word on their take yet? I've heard that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pronounced Ahmadinejad the winner, but does his word count?
BBC-World reports noise in the streets still at 0130 in the morning.
His word means any protestors will be fighting against the full might of the Iranian State.
This vote rigging, if true, sure was a clumsy affair. However, if done on the fly without time for much forethought certainly points to how out of touch the leadership is with their people. They'll bust some heads and that will be that.
CountArach
06-14-2009, 01:51
Things are going rough; Mehdi Karroubi (the other reformist guy), Mousavi have been placed under house arrest and the brother and sister-in-law of former president Mohammed Khatami have been arrested.
Wow, this spiralled down pretty damn quickly.
Further analysis (http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/123070238/irans-political-coup):
On the basis of what we know so far, here is the sequence of events starting on the afternoon of election day, Friday, June 12.
Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide
Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers
The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men
National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner
The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency
But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad
Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility
The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility (also see the comments of Juan Cole at the title link)
Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`i publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements
Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.
All of this had the appearance of a well orchestrated strike intended to take its opponents by surprise – the classic definition of a coup. Curiously, this was not a coup of an outside group against the ruling elite; it was a coup of the ruling elite against its own people.
Good video here. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/31345077#31345077)
CountArach
06-14-2009, 03:17
Dunno about that. It sure as hell looks rigged.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/6a00d83451c45669e201157011fa76970c-.jpg
While I don't now doubt that the votes were rigged, at least to a certain degree (The coup would hint at that), however Nate has disspelled that graph (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html) by showing the US had an almost exact correlation.
Marshal Murat
06-14-2009, 03:18
So is it a good thing that Iraq is rebuilding instead of trying to invade Iran?
On a personal note: My Iranian friend's parents are seriously pissed about the election and everything.
seireikhaan
06-14-2009, 03:41
How disappointing. I was really hoping that such an inflammatory figure as Achmadinijad would be allowed to be defeated if such was the will of the people. Clearly, the Supreme Leader had other plans. :no:
The simple fact that Mousavi got 33% of Iranian support is an achievement in itself. President Ahmed. has to be worried. This election cycle, it's 33%, next elections, he may not be so lucky.
Therefore, I find that the Pres has 2 options,
1. Liberalise Iran to keep the ever growing reformist populace happy, and face growing rejection by the powerful clerics, or
2. Keep up the anti-Western, authoritarian rhetoric, push more Iranians to the reformists, and face a possible Green Revolution.
Not surprisingly, a number of reformists have been imprisoned, exiled or killed. However, it is clear the reformists still believe highly in their ideals. I support them to the fullest extent, and hope that this potential "Green Revolution" sweeps Ahmed. out of power.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/followup-on-earlier-posts.html
Yes, the president of Iran's own election monitoring commission has declared the result invalid and called for a do-over. That is huge news: when a regime's own electoral monitors beak ranks, what chance does the regime have of persuading anyone in the world or Iran that it has democratic legitimacy? Second:
Stratfor is reporting that Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, head of the Expediency Council, has resigned. Though unconfirmed, the report is saying that Rafsanjani is resigning from his position as head of the Expediencey Council, NOT his position as the leader of the Assembly of Experts, which has oversight responsibility over the office of the Supreme Leader and would be responsible for naming Ayatollah Khamenei’s successor.
Looks like a 2nd Revolution of Iranian might be halted for the Great Reform.
Nate has disspelled that graph (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html) by showing the US had an almost exact correlation.
Well, I'm not going to argue with Nate Silver, a guy who has probably forgotten more about statistical math than I ever learned. So apologies for reproducing a misleading graph; my bad.
But the vote was rigged.
CountArach
06-14-2009, 06:38
But the vote was rigged.
Yeah I don't think there is too much doubt about that at this point. It will be interesting to see how the Iranian people themselves deal with this - it seems most reformists and the youth are willing to be quite vocally opposed to the whole 'coup' for the moment. I doubt these tensions will be dispelled quickly.
Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2009, 07:39
While I don't now doubt that the votes were rigged, at least to a certain degree (The coup would hint at that), however Nate has disspelled that graph (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html) by showing the US had an almost exact correlation.
Or not. He's comparing the graph of Iranian results to a graph of results from random US states - not the order the states and their tallies were reported.
I'm not sure exactly what Iran used to determine the votes they reported in successive waves. But it seems quite unlikely they would report them in the same manner Mr. Silver used. So he didn't really show the US had exact correlation, because he used random states.
Of course, this analysis (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/that-graph-again.html#more)uses poll closing times and does have an almost exact correlation.
But I don't know about Iranian regional politics; perhaps there are reasons that regional waves of votes would not be like the US. After all, the first wave of closing times for our election included New England and the Southeast states, which are rather varied. Perhaps in Iran the regions reporting votes at the same time would not be like a random sample. So in this, being like the US reveals it as fraud. Though that's speculation.
In more interesting news: Tweets from Iran. (http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8sbor/twitterers_posting_from_inside_iran/)
Andrew Sullivan has lots of info. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/)
CR
CountArach
06-14-2009, 08:01
Thanks for those links CR.
Lots of video and photos here:
http://iranelection.posterous.com/
EDIT: Police beating protestors:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40c_1244915876 - This :daisy: sickens me.
rasoforos
06-14-2009, 10:14
Ok now that we provided enough unfounded and circumstantial evidence to convince ourselves that the vote was rigged ( 'Evidence' apply to and that could easily be used to support that almost every election in western countries was rigged)...
...perhaps we should consider something more sinister. Have we been falling victims of our own demagoguing practices? Can you disprove that the western media, through planed action (improbable) or sheer wishful thinking (quite possible), have given us an overly wrong and misshapen idea or current Iranian politics?
I for once laugh at the irony that we are so critical of Iran while, its neighbouring countries (good friends of the west) are on par or much worse both on political and religious grounds.
If Iran was 'the good guys' and Saudi,UAE,Pakistan,Iraq,Jordan were the 'bad guys' then we would probably be talking about how they should follow Iran's example and set up democratic process (as rigged as it may be)
Iran had a reformist government and we killed it by isolating it. Now good old Mahmood is achieving results through brute force politics. I am not surprised he won the elections.
CountArach
06-14-2009, 10:20
Ok now that we provided enough unfounded and circumstantial evidence to convince ourselves that the vote was rigged ( 'Evidence' apply to and that could easily be used to support that almost every election in western countries was rigged)...
You mean the link (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/followup-on-earlier-posts.html) provided earlier about the head of Iran's electoral oversight commission declaring the result invalid isn't proof enough?
rasoforos
06-14-2009, 12:33
You mean the link (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/followup-on-earlier-posts.html) provided earlier about the head of Iran's electoral oversight commission declaring the result invalid isn't proof enough?
A small online search will show you how misleading this small blog entry is about Iran. Firstly the expediency council does not monitor the elections but councils the Supreme Leader.
Secondly you will find that Mr Rafsanjani (famous for other 'truthful' statements such as 'only 20.000 Jews died in WWII) has contested and lost the Presidency against Ahmadinejad and has been criticising him ever since.
So we basically have a politician with a long time feud against Ahmadinejad that claims the elections were rigged. Surprise Surprise...
Let me remind you that:
a) In the west we do not declare the elections void every time an opposing politician claims foul play...
b) This chap does not have juristiction to elect the result invalid. He just stated his oppinion, which the blogger later hacked to death to produce the above mentioned article.
c) Check what major news sites say about this and you will see of how low quality the link is...
Finally let me clarify that I do not have an opinion about whether the elections were rigged or not. I just dispute the current 'evidence'. Moreover I never saw where the confidence that he will lose came from. I find the fact that he won by a landslide quite normal.
In more interesting news: Tweets from Iran. (http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8sbor/twitterers_posting_from_inside_iran/)
Andrew Sullivan has lots of info. (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/)
Yeah, the MSM is really dropping the ball on this one. And Drudge has a headline up about Obama and bulldozers (remember when he drove the news?).
Check out HuffPo's coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html), they're surprisingly on the ball this time.
-edit-
LiveLeak (http://www.liveleak.com/) is doing itself proud as well. More video of what's going on in Iran than I've seen anywhere else.
Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2009, 19:05
Yeah, the MSM is really dropping the ball on this one. And Drudge has a headline up about Obama and bulldozers (remember when he drove the news?).
Check out HuffPo's coverage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html), they're surprisingly on the ball this time.
-edit-
LiveLeak (http://www.liveleak.com/) is doing itself proud as well. More video of what's going on in Iran than I've seen anywhere else.
Ya, Drudge is disappointing. Good on HuffPo and Sullivan.
It seems like a revolution may be going on. Let's hope they're successful.
CR
While I don't now doubt that the votes were rigged, at least to a certain degree (The coup would hint at that), however Nate has disspelled that graph (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/statistical-evidence-does-not-prove.html) by showing the US had an almost exact correlation.
Does that mean the U.S. election was rigged too?
Can I say yes, please?
There was always the fact that Al Gore won the 2000 election as well, but didn't get it.
Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2009, 20:26
Can I say yes, please?
Um - You mean you think Obama didn't win? :inquisitive:
Anyways, from Sullivan a fascinating video of a protesting crowd overturning a police motorcycle and then giving water to a weary young riot policeman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ
CR
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-14-2009, 20:26
There was always the fact that Al Gore won the 2001 election as well, but didn't get it.
:dizzy2:
He didn't win. Please lefties, get over it. We don't like Bush either, but he won fair and square.
:dizzy2:
He didn't win. Please lefties, get over it. We don't like Bush either, but he won fair and square.
Actually, the Florida issue was never resolved, Bush only won as Gore withdrew, not because he actually won the state.
Hooahguy
06-14-2009, 21:34
give it a rest.
i have a saying: stop being a :daisy: about the past and start being a :daisy: about the future.
I originally meant my original comment as a joke. Then just continued it to tease people who took it seriously. :clown:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-14-2009, 21:59
Actually, the Florida issue was never resolved, Bush only won as Gore withdrew, not because he actually won the state.
So if a candidate withdraws and concedes victory, what happens then? :idea2:
Marshal Murat
06-14-2009, 22:18
I finally understand the frustration that all those STAND activists felt after I read some HuffPost stuff (especially those who don't want US involvement because it was a "democratic" and "fair" election!)
Crazed Rabbit
06-14-2009, 23:10
A video from a BBC reporter, featuring Iranians chanting "We Want Freedom" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcHT8-ps64w)
More youtube videos: https://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ahriman46&view=videos
It seems like the people aren't going to take this lying down.
CR
Lord Winter
06-14-2009, 23:41
If anything, the protests disprove the theory that democracy is incompatible with an Islamic state.
CountArach
06-14-2009, 23:46
If anything, the protests disprove the theory that democracy is incompatible with an Islamic state.
Yeah, it shows that they cherish it jsut as much as the west. I wouldn't be surprised if some Ahm. supporters are out there as well.
EDIT:
Oh great, paramilitaries forces (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6499534.ece) get involved:
All weekend, late into the night, squads of 30 or 40 riot police tore round the capital on motorbikes, roaring along pavements when the roads were blocked, and waded into crowds of chanting Mousavi supporters with their batons. Others charged up streets on foot, or rode around in black Toyota Land Cruisers. They used teargas, rubber bullets and stun grenades, and by Saturday night they had been joined by marauding bands of basiji — volunteer paramilitaries — waving the national flag and chanting Ahmadinejad slogans.
Marshal Murat
06-15-2009, 05:49
Just a little rant (I finished Robert Massie's "Dreadnought, powerful stuff):
As I read all this stuff about Iranian protests about the "elections", riots, government repression of media groups, I get the distinct impression of "screwed if you do, screwed if you don't". I bring this up because of the intense dissatisfaction that I get watching all happen and know that we're (West mainly US) is caught between the skillet and fire.
If we do fail to ratify the results, declare this a fraudulent election, and support the Iranians in their struggle, we'll gain some support (Germany and France seem to be sitting on the fence despite an official "EU" response) and maybe work out a suitable agreement, hopefully leading to a successful detente between the Iranian and American governments.
If we do ratify the results, we're condemning Iran to the same fate that befell Hungary in the 1950s, when they tried to not only break away from the USSR's hold, but to also get US assistance, which we wouldn't provide (for obvious reasons, but it's not that great either ya know?). :shame:
Those protesting Iranians are counting on assistance from the West, not because we'll be securing oil, but because we're actually grabbing a pair and doing something about human injustice in this world. Doing something that we couldn't do in Hungary, doing something we were unwilling to do in Rwanda.
:wall:
endrant
I hope that those in Washington make a good choice, so we can all learn something.
:help:
Crazed Rabbit
06-15-2009, 07:39
Some posts from Sullivan's blog:
WE NEED HELP. WE NEED SUPPORT. Time is not on our side, waiting and making sure means more casualties, more disappointment, more brutality.
The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to A.N government as an official, approved one. They need help by sending true information. All the medias are under arrest or close control. Help them have the information.
They only try to show the fraud to the world. Help them please. You can not imagine the level of brutality we saw these two awful days.
Message From Mousavi
Via my contacts at the Farsi-speaking BBC, a telephone plea:
I AM UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE SHAM ELECTION. THEY HAVE CUT ME OFF FROM ANY COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE AND AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE. I ASK THE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THE STREETS BUT AVOID VIOLENCE
It seems there will be no successful riots. The regime is not afraid to use brutality, and they have the power.
So the question becomes - what can we (or the US) do? Would it help to issue a statement calling Mahmoud's win bogus and saying he is not recognized as the legitimate president?
CR
seireikhaan
06-15-2009, 07:55
Some posts from Sullivan's blog:
It seems there will be no successful riots. The regime is not afraid to use brutality, and they have the power.
So the question becomes - what can we (or the US) do? Would it help to issue a statement calling Mahmoud's win bogus and saying he is not recognized as the legitimate president?
CR
As unlikely as this possibility seems, the election could be used as an excuse to build up international support to oust the Iranian regime. However, there's a few problems- 1) The US isn't likely to stomach another war in the middle east, 2) I doubt NATO wants involvement in this, because NATO is essentially made up of about half free-riders, and 3) There's the definite possibility that any conflict could spark a big, big mess.
Most likely nothing will happen.
It is not that NATO is half free-riders, it is the fact NATO is more about defence than offence. In other words, if mother Russia steam rolls into a NATO country, the Jet Riders of the Wild West zoom across the shores and make them disappear.
seireikhaan
06-15-2009, 08:04
It is not that NATO is half free-riders, it is the fact NATO is more about defence than offence. In other words, if mother Russia steam rolls into a NATO country, the Jet Riders of the Wild West zoom across the shores and make them disappear.
I consider the defensive nature of the alliance to basically be a system of free riding- most of the nations in NATO benefit much, much more from protection afforded to them then they could themselves offer to a fellow NATO member in the event of an attack.
Probably true, but more the merrier, right?
seireikhaan
06-15-2009, 08:37
Probably true, but more the merrier, right?
Well, sorta. The whole "purpose" of NATO is a bit ill-defined at the moment. However, more people agreeing not to kill each other is always good. :yes:
And to clarify- I didn't mean to sound accusatory towards smaller nations in NATO- they made a smart decision for themselves for the most part. I was trying more to clarify why I thought they wouldn't dive headfirst into Iran.
Hosakawa Tito
06-15-2009, 11:13
There's no way the US will militarily intervene in Iran; we don't have the resources, men, and/or the political will nor the right to do so. That would be giving the current regime there just what they want & need, someone to blame their failures & shortcomings on. 30 years ago they had a legitimate grievence about outside interference, but not this time, though they are certainly going to be complaining of "outside interference" this time too. Nope, the self-delusion has been exposed, and the current regime is no better than the one it replaced, no surprises there. The protester shouts of "Death to the dictators" are an echo from the past during the reign of the Shah. Now the old revolutionaries have come full circle and history repeats itself, except this time they have no one to blame but themselves.
It's difficult to watch and disheartening to see such brutality inflicted upon people who expected better treatment from their government, but I can't say I'm absolutely shocked. Those who hold absolute power tend to go to violent extremes to keep it.
Hopefully the nations of the free world will have the political will to "call a spade a spade" because you can be certain that there will be support for this fraud coming from like minded regimes.
Marshal Murat
06-15-2009, 13:03
Ayatollah orders fraud probe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31365097/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/)
Iran's state television said Monday that the supreme leader ordered an investigation into claims of fraud in last week's presidential election.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the powerful Guardian Council to examine the allegations by pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has claimed widespread vote rigging in Friday's election. The government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner in a landslide victory.
It was a stunning turnaround for Iran's most powerful figure, who previously welcomed the results.
Very interesting and very smart decision.
Conqueror
06-15-2009, 14:17
It's smart alright. Of corse, if the election was rigged then so will be the investigation, but in either case it's an effort to calm the protests.
Furunculus
06-15-2009, 14:38
Just a little rant (I finished Robert Massie's "Dreadnought, powerful stuff):
great book, i have a copy.
Nate Silver digs through the supposed election results (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iranian-election-results-by-province.html) province-by-province. Just the sort of thing he's good for. Upshot: "The statistical evidence is intriguing but, ultimately, inconclusive."
-edit-
Michael Totten, an independent journo, is cranking out the reports. Unfortunately, his site is overwhelmed. Google cache here (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:DF3oVmzuCOsJ:www.michaeltotten.com).
Crazed Rabbit
06-15-2009, 16:13
Two pollsters (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)speak of their pre-election poll that showed Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket on course to win, saying there might have been no fraud at all:
"The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
...
The fact may simply be that the re-election of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted."
Wow, great work there cretins. And it's being re-reported by Reuters (http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40343320090615) with no mention of why there was fraud.
And a video of a huge rally of Mousavi supporters (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9Kgf-cB40).
CR
Kagemusha
06-15-2009, 16:19
In my view it is up to Iranian people. If the majority wants enough to overthrow the government, surely there will be outside help and resources available for them to do so.
As far as i remember. It was the people of Iran who overthrew the Shah also back in 70´s.
I consider the defensive nature of the alliance to basically be a system of free riding- most of the nations in NATO benefit much, much more from protection afforded to them then they could themselves offer to a fellow NATO member in the event of an attack.
Of course the sum of the defense they'd get from allies is greater than what they could provide- that's the whole point. An entire group of nations has more defensive capability than a single member.
Ayatollah orders fraud probe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31365097/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/)
Very interesting and very smart decision.Interesting indeed. :yes:
tibilicus
06-15-2009, 17:45
I'm currently following someone's twitter who appears to be a student inside Iran. I will post some of his recent updates on the situation.
# Bahram81German ARD TV "more than 1.5 million in the streets" #iranelectionhalf a minute ago from web
# Bahram KBahram81what do you mean who's shooting? who do you think has the guns? #iranelection8 minutes ago from web
# Bahram KBahram81BBC, gunshot heard around Freedom sqr. demo. turning violent #iranelection9 minutes ago from web
# Bahram KBahram81CNN website pics still suck, outdated, zoomed it. use wide lenses you boons #cnnfail #iranelection12 minutes ago from web
# Bahram KBahram81(VIDEO) CNN finally woke up http://bit.ly/k8J2a #iranelection14 minutes ago from web
# Bahram KBahram81Very bad news from Kermanshaah, brutal suppression of the protests #iranelection
It appears that the authorities are starting to move in and suppress those who refuse to accept Ahmadinejads victory.
A sickening situation indeed, lets hope the protesters wont go down quietly, the re-election of Ahmadinejad is a threat to us all, not just Iranians.
Marshal Murat
06-15-2009, 18:01
According to ABC (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2009/06/irans-election-the-odds-of-fraud.html)
The poll, done by telephone last month, found 34 percent support for Ahmadinejad vs. 14 percent for Mir Hossein Mousavi. The incumbent led by “a more than 2 to 1 margin – greater than his actual margin of apparent victory in Friday’s election,” today’s op-ed says. “Our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.”
Strange, then, that TFT’s analysis of these same data last month predicted a runoff.
The problem with both analyses is the vast number of respondents who declined to answer the vote preference question at all. Fifty percent either said they had no opinion (27 percent), refused to answer (15 percent) or favored “none” of the candidates (8 percent) – higher levels of non-response than on any other question in the survey.
Washington Post weighs in (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html?wprss=behind-the-numbers)
Methodologically, this survey passes muster as it's relatively straightforward to pull a good sample of the Iranian population, using the country's publicly available population counts and listed telephone exchanges. But the poll was conducted from May 11 to 20, well before the spike in support for Mousavi his supporters claim...
One should be enormously wary of the current value of a poll taken so far before such a heated contest, particularly one where more than half of voters did not express an opinion.
seireikhaan
06-15-2009, 18:46
Of course the sum of the defense they'd get from allies is greater than what they could provide- that's the whole point. An entire group of nations has more defensive capability than a single member.
Indeed. That's basically what I was getting at.
tibilicus
06-15-2009, 19:10
The tweets I posted before have now been confirmed by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8101098.stm
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but where the hell is the leader of the free world? I would of expected an official statement from the US by now.
A bit early...
It's said that a group of Mousavi supporters assaulted a Basji base and that these then got shot at. We'll see.
Sources:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSEVA14340720090615
http://www.afp.com/afpcom/en/taglibrary/activity/web/multimedia/afp-online-news
KukriKhan
06-15-2009, 19:25
The tweets I posted before have now been confirmed by the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8101098.stm
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but where the hell is the leader of the free world? I would of expected an official statement from the US by now.
There have been a few:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-obama-administration-election-results
Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, maintained a cautious approach when questioned by reporters today, refusing to go beyond an expression of concern about the conduct of the election.
Gibbs said: "Obviously, we continue to have concern about what we've seen. Obviously, the Iranians are looking into this, as well. We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.
Obama's presidential opponent last year, John McCain, today expressed disappointment with the apparent outcome of the Iranian election. He told CNN: "We should speak out in opposition to what was clearly a corrupt election."
So far: "Easy does it" seems the current White House strategy.
Don Corleone
06-15-2009, 19:27
The current U.S. administration will not challenge the results. The closest they'll get to that has already come and on.... sending Crazy Joe out to the Sunday morning news shows.
I'm very interested in what English Assassin has to say on the matter, as he's got some pretty good insights and first-hand data. What do you say, old boy, you out there lurking on this one?
To be fair, its very difficult for the US to do anything other than 'call' for peace.
There has been no conclusive proof of election rigging, certainly not enough for the US to weigh in, and it would probably do more bad than good, as the US is hardly popular within Iran.
Hosakawa Tito
06-15-2009, 19:46
For now it's probably best to keep a low profile and not actively interfere. Keep the focus of Iranians to their own society. The mullahs need a diversion from this mess and being able to blame external enemies & foreign media for instigating this fight would be divine intervention for them. Don't give them that boogey-man, this is a self-inflicted internal problem. If they fear a loyalist like Moussavi then the mullahs are really losing touch with reality.
To state the blindingly obvious: If we (the U.S.) throw in behind the reformers, this will give the mullahs and the military a chance to paint the protesters as American stooges. Expressing direct support for them would be a very dicey thing, and would probably backfire.
Sorry to say, the Iranians need to do this themselves. There's precious little we can do to aid and abet.
tibilicus
06-15-2009, 20:08
has anyone heard anything "official" about the violence relating to pro government militias? All I have at the moment is "tweets" from Iranians claiming pro government militias are attacking protesters. Obviously i'm taking such news with a grain of salt due to the fact non of it is official/ can be verified.
To state the blindingly obvious: If we (the U.S.) throw in behind the reformers, this will give the mullahs and the military a chance to paint the protesters as American stooges. Expressing direct support for them would be a very dicey thing, and would probably backfire.
Sorry to say, the Iranians need to do this themselves. There's precious little we can do to aid and abet.
:yes:
Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of this. Backing the protesters publicly would only hurt their cause. We have to deal with the Iranian leaders regardless of who they are, and backing a potential revolution that fails would serious harm our ability to influence them in the future. This is no different than Hungary in '56, Prague in '68, or China in '89. We may seriously support the protesters and hope they are successful, but there's realistically nothing much we can do except watch and wait.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-15-2009, 20:39
Obama has always expected he'll be working with "dinner jacket" as the public voice. Khamanei is still the key decision maker -- so little in the way of major change will occur.
Supporting the election-dissenters -- aside from a call for review in the interests of fairness -- is, I agree, counter-productive. Either we dispute the succession and declare war (don't hold your breathe waiting for that one), or leave it up to the Iranians.
Marshal Murat
06-15-2009, 22:20
A nice satirical look at the Iranian protests (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/ahmadinejad-says-huge-cro_b_215691.html)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad paid tribute to the "enthusiasm and energy of the Iranian people" today, claiming that the hundreds of thousands of people jamming the streets of Tehran were hoping to audition for "Iran's Got Talent."
In a sign that the Iranian government is cracking down on dissent, the Interior Ministry banned most Facebook applications today, except for the "What Ayatollah Are You Most Like" game.
CountArach
06-15-2009, 23:19
To state the blindingly obvious: If we (the U.S.) throw in behind the reformers, this will give the mullahs and the military a chance to paint the protesters as American stooges. Expressing direct support for them would be a very dicey thing, and would probably backfire.
Sorry to say, the Iranians need to do this themselves. There's precious little we can do to aid and abet.
Yep. This isn't the West's fight. A solely Iranian revolution is needed.
Yep. This isn't the West's fight. A solely Iranian revolution is needed.
Yup... I would be rioting too if I were an Iranian. Living under a theocracy is bullcrap.
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 01:29
Doesn't it speak a LOT about the US view on the world when there's even a discussion of "do something about it or not".
Why would you meddle in a sovereign states internal affairs?
I'm sorry Kadgar, I didn't realize that you woke up on the self-righteous side of the bed this morning. Whe we speak of "doing something," we're mostly talking about pretty tame stuff -- do we recognize the election as legit and congratulate the winner? Do we voice support for the reformers and the students being killed? It's much the same debate every western country is having right now.
But if you'd prefer that we huddle into a self-loathing ball in the corner and shut up if we know what's good for us, well, I'll take it under advisement.
KukriKhan
06-16-2009, 01:51
Doesn't it speak a LOT about the US view on the world when there's even a discussion of "do something about it or not".
Why would you meddle in a sovereign states internal affairs?
Count Arach is Australian, not US.
However, to your point: no need to meddle, and doing so would likely be counter-productive; I, for one, just want to figure out and plan for whoever will be the next guy we have to deal with to slow down or prevent Iran's nuclear war-making abilities.
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 01:56
I'm sorry Kadgar, I didn't realize that you woke up on the self-righteous side of the bed this morning. Whe we speak of "doing something," we're mostly talking about pretty tame stuff -- do we recognize the election as legit and congratulate the winner? Do we voice support for the reformers and the students being killed? It's much the same debate every western country is having right now.
But if you'd prefer that we huddle into a self-loathing ball in the corner and shut up if we know what's good for us, well, I'll take it under advisement.
I know most talk about tame stuff... i was refering to those fingering the trigger already :)
Kukrikahn, it goes for the whole western world :)
Although the US admitedly ace that attitde.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2009, 02:05
I don't see a problem with interfering, especially if the people want the USA to. On the other hand, it looks like that will be counterproductive if we try it now, so in this case it might be best to take a step back and watch what is happening.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-16-2009, 03:26
I don't see a problem with interfering,
There's these people, they call themselves Republican Guards or something silly like that. But they got sharp sticks and a bad attitude, and that counts as a problem in my book.
I'll just throw in a saying my father told me,
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely"
Things we civilians can do to help:
Set up a proxy (http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens-for-windows/) for Iranians to get around government censorship
Change your Facebook page to green, adding this image (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011571177d0d970b-500wi) as your profile
(I'll admit, the second one is kind of dopey, but it's what some of the Iranian students have been asking for, and twenty-year-olds facing down guns don't have a big sense of irony.)
Things we civilians can do to help:
Set up a proxy (http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens-for-windows/) for Iranians to get around government censorship
Change your Facebook page to green, adding this image (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e2011571177d0d970b-500wi) as your profile
(I'll admit, the second one is kind of dopey, but it's what some of the Iranian students have been asking for, and twenty-year-olds facing down guns don't have a big sense of irony.)
Changed mine to green :yes:
Good post at AmCon (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/15/political-colors/) for those who think our Prez should dig in and get involved:
The President of the United States is not and must not be seen as a partisan in the elections of other nations. No matter the party and no matter the country, their cause is not and cannot be the same as his. [...] It would be seen as an attempt to use worldwide sympathy for the movement in question to bolster himself politically while doing absolutely nothing for the people with whom he supposedly sympathizes. It would give the regime the pretext of treating Mousavi as an American lackey. They may do this in any case, but Washington need not enable or provide justification for this. The administration’s wait-and-see approach is the right one.
-edit-
Tried to change the background color in Facebook. Epic fail.
This liveblog thread at HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html) seems to have the most up-to-date information from the most sources.
Time has a decent article indecently spread over six pages (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1904645_1904644,00.html). Here's the text:
Was Ahmadinejad's Win Rigged?
Iran's Interior Ministry announced Saturday that incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 63.29% of the vote in the country's presidential election — a landslide. But Iran's opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi says he won and that the result had been rigged; Mousavi supporters have taken to the streets in Tehran and other cities to protest the official outcome.
Ahmadinejad, for his part, insists that he won fairly, while Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, initially congratulated Iranians for proving their "great worth." The result, Khamenei said, was a "divine assessment." On Monday, though, Khamenei ordered the powerful Guardian Council to investigate the fraud allegations.
So far, Washington has taken a cautious approach to commenting on the election, though a senior U.S. official called the results "not credible" and Vice President Joe Biden told Meet the Press that "there's some real doubt" whether Ahmadinejad actually won. "There's an awful lot of questions about how this election was run," he said. Here are five key questions being raised about the legitimacy of the results.
Was the Voting Properly Supervised?
As always in Iran, this election was run by the Interior Ministry. In each ward, ministry and local government officials and respected local leaders form committees to oversee the election process. Iran's powerful Guardian Council appoints thousands of officials to supervise actual voting at polling stations. Candidates can also send an observer to each polling station to watch the voting and ballot count. However, there are no independent election observers in Iran.
Did the Voting go Smoothly?
Not everywhere. On Friday, the polling day, there were reports that opposition observers were barred from entering some voting stations. Mousavi campaign officials also said that a number of stations in the northwest and south had run out of ballots.
The huge numbers of people voting — the government says turnout was more than 80%, one of the highest rates since the Revolution in 1979 — meant that some stations were kept open until late Friday night. Many Iranians, especially those in Tehran, have reported that just before voting ended text-messaging and pro-Mousavi websites were blocked.
Was the Government's Fast Announcement of Results Normal?
No. The Interior Ministry announced the first results within an hour of the polls closing, and the official result less than a day later. The ministry is supposed to wait three days after voting before it certifies the result to allow time for disputes to be examined. Friday's announcement, which was based on a very small count, came just minutes after Mousavi declared himself to be "definitely the winner." According to a Mousavi official in Paris, the opposition leader was initially informed by the Interior Ministry that he had won. But ministry officials shortly thereafter publicly called it for Ahmadinejad.
Gary Sick, a Columbia University professor and Iranian-affairs adviser for three U.S. Administrations, said that given the apparent record turnout, it would have been impossible to announce a definitive result so soon after the polls closed because Iran does not use voting machines. The country uses paper ballots that must be counted by hand — a time-consuming process, Sick said in an interview posted on the Council on Foreign Relations website.
A fast announcement is not necessarily proof of rigging, says John Stremlau, vice president for peace programs at the Carter Center, which has monitored 75 elections over the past two decades. But for people to have confidence in those announcements a country needs an independent electoral commission that acts fairly and transparently. "You have none of that in the case of Iran," says Stremlau.
Are Any of the Vote Totals Suspicious?
Yes. Support for Ahmadinejad was strangely consistent across the country, a real change from previous elections when candidates drew different levels of support in different regions.
There were several other puzzlers in the results:
• According to official figures, Ahmadinejad handily beat Mousavi in Mousavi's hometown of Tabriz — a shocking result given the candidate's popularity in his own region.
• Ahmadinejad beat Mousavi in the big cities, even though Iran's very limited polling and anecdotal evidence indicate that Mousavi is far more popular than the President in cities.
• The official figures put support for the other main reformist candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, at below 1%. That is far less than what was expected, and a drastic departure from the pattern in previous elections.
How Popular Is Ahmadinejad in Iran?
It's possible that the President is simply far more popular than people outside Iran want to believe. There's no doubt that he has won the support of many voters by focusing on Iran's nuclear ambitions and by playing up the perceived threat from Washington and Israel.
At the same time, Iran's economy is a mess, and people are unhappy about a raft of everyday issues, from the price of food to joblessness.
The result is also surprising in light of Iran's demographic trends. There is a lot of evidence that as the country grows younger, it is also growing more moderate. A reform candidate won Iran's presidency with 70% of the vote in 1997, and increased his share to 78% four years later. In 2005, the reform movement had fallen on lean times and many young voters stayed at home; Ahmadinejad squeaked into the presidency in a second round of voting widely seen as having been tampered with. If the results this time are legitimate, it means that two-thirds of Iran's voters have become more conservative over the past four years.
It's also worth noting that big turnouts are often a sign that voters want change and tend to favor the challenger. This time around, by contrast, the incumbent President won two-thirds of the votes cast, according to the government.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2009, 04:56
Lemur - Thanks for the update and my Facebook profile pick has changed.
Recent HuffPost update also states that some Revolutionary Guard generals have been arrested after trying to get Iranian Army troops to join protests...unconfirmed.
If only there were facts that the media could accurately report to satisfy my curiosity.
Banquo's Ghost
06-16-2009, 07:44
The shootings by the Basiji were recorded and broadcast by the UK's Channel 4 news (http://www.channel4.com/news/).
tibilicus
06-16-2009, 11:11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8102400.stm
A recount has been announced. Not sure what that really means though in a country like Iran. Seems like the presidents purpose is to simply act as a puppet to please some ageing radical Islamists..
Reports are still coming in as well of militia raiding university dorms and arresting those who who are suspected of supporting the opposition.
The recount will be interesting. The result probably depends on whether the recent protests have persuaded the Council that Ahmadinejad is a liability.
It would be nice to know what the general consensus in Iran is.
:2thumbsup:
What they probably will do, they will actually make it look almost tied, but it is shown that Ahmadinejad did win.
Hosakawa Tito
06-16-2009, 13:19
I wonder how accurate this is:
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a recount would provide another opportunity for the government to manipulate the results.
He said the council ordered the printing of 53 million ballots for the elections, but only 39 million were used. Fourteen million ballots were missing. taken from this article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.elections.protests/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).
The alleged missing ballots coincidently add up to the margin of victory. What is the winning threshhold to prevent a run off between the top two vote getters, is it 51% ?
KukriKhan
06-16-2009, 13:56
I wonder how accurate this is: taken from this article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.elections.protests/index.html?eref=rss_topstories).
The alleged missing ballots coincidently add up to the margin of victory. What is the winning threshhold to prevent a run off between the top two vote getters, is it 51% ?
I think so, based on the history of their last (2005) election. 1st round, highest % was 21% - the rest garnering less (among 7 candidates on-ballot), forcing a runoff between Rafsanjani & Ahmedjinidad, then a first-past-the-post deal, which A-Jad won with 62% (Wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2005)).
Hosakawa Tito
06-16-2009, 14:47
Here's some more info on the Supreme Leader (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16cleric.html?hp).
Straight from the I-seriously-doubt-he'd-be-saying-this-if-he'd-been-elected-President department:
DAVID GREGORY: Let's get right to it on Iran. How does the U.S. deal with an emboldened Iranian President Ahmadinejad?
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, we lead; we condemn the sham, corrupt election. We do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights. We speak out forcefully, and we make sure that the world knows that America leads — and including increased funding for part of the Farda, Iranian free radio.
No. Just no.
rory_20_uk
06-16-2009, 15:05
Straight from the I-seriously-doubt-he'd-be-saying-this-if-he'd-been-elected-President department:
DAVID GREGORY: Let's get right to it on Iran. How does the U.S. deal with an emboldened Iranian President Ahmadinejad?
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, we lead; we condemn the sham, corrupt election. We do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights. We speak out forcefully, and we make sure that the world knows that America leads — and including increased funding for part of the Farda, Iranian free radio.
No. Just no.
If he were I just hope his advisors can dissuade him from uniting the Uranian people against foreign inteference.
~:smoking:
tibilicus
06-16-2009, 15:25
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8103269.stm
Not really surprising. I loath the Iranian political system, it disgust me that their "supreme leader" can even associate himself with any form of Theistic God.
I'm really amazed at how off-target the cable news channels have been. Larry King devoted an hour and a half to American Idol this weekend. Fox News was obsessed with the Letterman-Palin feud. Didn't catch any MSNBC, but I expect they were just as tone-deaf.
Meanwhile HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html), Michael Totten (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/06/iran-on-fire.php) and Sullivan (http://dailydish.typepad.com/) have been indispensable, and The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230115&title=Irandecision-2009---Election-Results), of all people, has a correspondent in Iran. Meanwhile, Matt Drudge finally conceded to reality by posting a non-Obama story last night, which must have pained him greatly. (Just checked: He's back to another Obama headline. Old habits die hard.)
MSM fail.
-edit-
I guess CNN realizes what idiots they've been. Here's a video from the weekend (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV1CDz-TLFg) where they spend ten minutes justifying their Iran coverage.
-edit of the edit-
Great piece in the NYT today (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/opinion/16iht-edcohen.html). Glad to see at least one of the majors has a man on the ground calling it like he sees it.
Hosakawa Tito
06-16-2009, 15:38
I'm really amazed at how off-target the cable news channels have been. Larry King devoted an hour and a half to American Idol this weekend. Fox News was obsessed with the Letterman-Palin feud. Didn't catch any MSNBC, but I expect they were just as tone-deaf.
Meanwhile HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html), Michael Totten (http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/06/iran-on-fire.php) and Sullivan (http://dailydish.typepad.com/) have been indispensable, and The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230115&title=Irandecision-2009---Election-Results), of all people, has a correspondent in Iran. Meanwhile, Matt Drudge finally conceded to reality by posting a non-Obama story last night, which must have pained him greatly. (Just checked: He's back to another Obama headline. Old habits die hard.)
MSM fail.
-edit-
I guess CNN realizes what idiots they've been. Here's a video from the weekend (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV1CDz-TLFg) where they spend ten minutes justifying their Iran coverage.
Actually, somehow I managed to stay awake long enough last night to watch this interview by Rachel Maddow (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/16/1966272.aspx) and Fawaz Gerges. Click the video link to watch.
Good clip, Hosa. Glad to see that not every broadcaster on every cable news channel is oblivious to history when it happens.
Pat Buchannan nails it (http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting_the_ayatollahs):
When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran's affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans. [...]
Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran's right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument -- that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran's defense.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2009, 16:37
What Obama needs to do is tell the American people that we can't intervene, that's probably the biggest problem with the situation, is that we don't know where, exactly, the President stands on the issue. He basically said "We support you, but we can't do anything about it." He should come right out and say to the American people "We have to support them, but we can't do alot and here's why..."
Wall Street Journal Article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124514075458818255.html)
A 23-year-old Ahmadinejad supporter near the gathering said she was sympathetic to the young Mousavi supporters. But said they should stop protesting to prevent more violence. "The government has chosen Ahmadinejad," she said. "There is no use fighting it and getting young people killed." That's the worst excuse I've ever heard for standing up to a repressive government.
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 16:48
"his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran"
Wait... this wasn't public knowledge until now???????????????????????????????????????????????
:inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive: :inquisitive:
Wait... this wasn't public knowledge until now?
It's one thing for it to be "public knowledge," and quite another for the President of the United States to attest to it in a formal setting.
For a contrary example, the Armenian Genocide is "public knowledge," but you aren't going to hear a Turkish Prime Minister acknowledge it in your lifetime.
These distinctions, while relatively meaningless to us, mean a lot to the aggrieved parties. It looks as though the President's take on how to approach Iran was clever in the extreme.
Not really surprising. I loath the Iranian political system, it disgust me that their "supreme leader" can even associate himself with any form of Theistic God.
Its far better than many Middle-Eastern systems. Despite the president not having complete authority, he is still important in governing the country, and has much influence. The press have limited freedom, but the fact Mousavi gained such support demonstrates it was not entirely restricted. Hopefully the current problems will lead to a further reform towards actual democratic government, but I would take it over absolute dictatorship any-day.
It disgusts me that the Pope can associate himself with any for of God to gain authority. The Supreme Leaders power has little to do with 'spiritual backing,' more political reality.
A 23-year-old Ahmadinejad supporter near the gathering said she was sympathetic to the young Mousavi supporters. But said they should stop protesting to prevent more violence. "The government has chosen Ahmadinejad," she said. "There is no use fighting it and getting young people killed."
That's the worst excuse I've ever heard for standing up to a repressive government.
I don't agree with it in this case, but I can see the logic. Violent clashes, especially between rival supporters, but also the police can cause unneccesary harm.
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 17:09
It's one thing for it to be "public knowledge," and quite another for the President of the United States to attest to it in a formal setting.
True, you got me.
There ARE a lot of things that are public knowledge but that the President of the United States would never attest to in a formal setting.
My bad!
Dutch_guy
06-16-2009, 20:34
True, you got me.
There ARE a lot of things that are public knowledge but that the President of the United States would never attest to in a formal setting.
My bad!
Probably so, just like it is for pretty much any modern day nation. Don't forget that.
:balloon2:
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2009, 21:44
There's these people, they call themselves Republican Guards or something silly like that. But they got sharp sticks and a bad attitude, and that counts as a problem in my book.
I'm talking about the USA interfering in foreign countries to help with fair elections against organizations like the Republican Guard. :inquisitive:
EMFM, if there is one, single thing we could do to wipe out this reformist revolution and unite the country behind the mullahs, you've just nailed it. "Counterproductive" doesn't even do it justice.
One of the many reasons I no longer watch cable news (http://gawker.com/5292562/fox--friends-bunch-is-thinking-hard-about-the-iran-election-thing).
Lemur, I'm surprised you've tooken such an interest in this.
I've always thought that Iran would one day be our partner in the middle east. Long history ofa middle class, respect for law, respect for education, democratic tradition ... yeah, in time they will be as good an ally as Turkey, and probably far better than Israel. All we need do it wait for the democratic forces to assert themselves.
This is big news for the world, but also big news for America.
And somebody please take out a gag order on Rep. Mike Pence (http://www.mikepence.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3522&Itemid=94), who wants to author a Congressional resolution in favor of the reformists. I call it the "Imedinnerjacket salvation bill."
"Today I'm introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009. It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections. And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law. [...] Today I'll introduce a resolution. I urge all my colleagues in both parties to join me in expressing their support for these brave and courageous men and women."
No. Just no.
I've always thought that Iran would one day be our partner in the middle east. Long history ofa middle class, respect for law, respect for education, democratic tradition ... yeah, in time they will be as good an ally as Turkey, and probably far better than Israel. All we need do it wait for the democratic forces to assert themselves.
This is big news for the world, but also big news for America.
QFT. I've been glued to this news for days, and most of my friends and coworkers only started hearing about it yesterday evening. It's been slow in coming, but it seems like a lot of Americans are finally realizing what is really going on over there. This has the makings of a serious liberalizing, reform-minded democratic revolution. If it succeeds, this could completely rewrite the entire political situation in the Middle East.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2009, 22:17
The picture of Iranian Policemen reminded me of these guys.
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee125/Tokugawa141/IranianGuard.jpg
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee125/Tokugawa141/Atstcrew.jpg
Iskander 3.1
06-16-2009, 22:27
TC and Lemur, you guys took the words right out of my mouth.
Marshal Murat
06-16-2009, 22:30
I can only agree with Lemur. I actually cared when I heard that it was a possibility that A-man might lose his election. Then it all broke loose, and I've been looking at HuffPost since, disappointed with the 24/7 news sources. If Iran finally comes around vis-a-vis a democratic moderate Islamic state, then it's gonna be good tidings for all who seek peace in the Middle East.
Hezbollah will have decreased support for terrorist attacks in Lebanon (Hezbollah backed party lost in Lebanon), Iraq will actually settle down, Saudi-Arabia/Kuwait/Turkey don't have to worry about fanatical Shiite Muslim armies (withdrawing the need for serious US troop commitments), Afghanistan will settle down as well.
I almost wish the Iranian Air Force told Ahmadenijad "No, we don't want you, go back to Russia."
Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2009, 22:40
The picture of Iranian Policemen reminded me of these guys.
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee125/Tokugawa141/IranianGuard.jpg
https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee125/Tokugawa141/Atstcrew.jpg
I have to say that a lot of the video reminded me of the DDR.
Are people making too much of this? Barring a complete revolution, whichever candidate wins we're not likely to see any major policy changes from Iran are we?
Hosakawa Tito
06-16-2009, 23:41
Hope can be infectious, but whoever does win is still just a front man for the mullahs. I just like the fact that for a change they don't have the West to blame for anything. Even the Soviet Union couldn't rule solely by fear & intimidation forever.
Kadagar_AV
06-16-2009, 23:46
I urge people to do their outmost to support the demonstrations...
As mentioned, not cause it will lead to great changes short-time...
However, giving the Iranian population a sence of hope, showing them they have support can in a longer perspective lead to great things in the middle east.
my thoughts go to the students being killed as we speak :shame:
Marshal Murat
06-16-2009, 23:48
Are people making too much of this? Barring a complete revolution, whichever candidate wins we're not likely to see any major policy changes from Iran are we?
This whole protest is a step by the "liberal" moderate Iranians, actually mobilizing and acting out against a the repressive government. Iranians are fed up with being poor, unemployed, and having their government run by a militaristic nutjob. Many Iranian commentators liken this the Revolution of 1979, this is a revolt against a "coup" by Ahjmadenijad's miltarist/populist followers. They want change, and while Mousavi isn't a Western-phile at heart, he isn't going to try and wipe Israel off the map; with the current American administration we're looking for greater dialogue and more open relations than had under previous administrations (who knows, we might see a loosening of trade restrictions). You're right in that there won't be major policy changes, but it'll relax the tensions between the two countries (US & Iran), a "reset" sorely needed to bring about greater peace and stability in the Middle East, if only the first step
To avert an escalation, Ayatollah Khamenei may have to find a way either to persuade the losers and their backers and followers that the results were genuine and fair, or to pacify them by other means - perhaps by curbing Mr Ahmadinejad or diluting his policies in some way. The mullahs have to either curb the power of Ahmadenijad to prevent him from even usurping their powers, or have Mousavi elected.
My thoughts:
Were the elections rigged? Only Anotherdinnerjacket, God and the Iranian Government know.
Has this been an important moment in Iranian history?
Absolutely.
tibilicus
06-17-2009, 00:50
Here's some images for you all. Shows what these militia and pro Adinnerjacket thugs are up to. http://picasaweb.google.com/iranonfire/KooyeDaneshgahTehranUniComplex#
Also a video for you all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BjczWD8F0U
Marshal Murat
06-17-2009, 02:13
McClatchy Newspaper, I've never heard of them before so take a grain of salt with this post.
Senior Ayatollah Condemns Voting as Rigged (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iran/story/70155.html)
Supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the disputed presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, massed in competing rallies Tuesday as the country's most senior Islamic cleric threw his weight behind opposition charges that Ahmadinejad's re-election was rigged.
"No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible."
Are people making too much of this? Barring a complete revolution, whichever candidate wins we're not likely to see any major policy changes from Iran are we?
Impossible to judge. The protesters are demanding far more than a recount at this point. Very hard to squeeze the toothpaste back in the bottle when hundreds of thousands have joined together in public opposition to the regime.
Remember that 50% of Iran's population is under 25. Change may not only be possible, it may be inevitable.
The senior cleric denouncing the results is big. Muy grande.
-edit-
National Review's Seth Leibsohn gets it almost perfectly wrong (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzVhYjk5NGI5ZWU5NmRhYzk5ODY5ZmZiZDNmZTZmMmM=):
'The U.S. Doesn't Want to be Seen As Meddling'
That's the take-away line from President Obama on Iran. That's not going to do it. One can imagine hundreds (if not thousands) of protesters in Iran asking "Where is the U.S.? What does Obama think?"
Really? Is that what the streets full of young Iranians are asking? They're wondering what Obama thinks? Really? Then he concludes with: "This may not be Iran's Tiananmen moment, but it sure is ours." What the **** does that mean?
I've seen some stupid, wrong-headed comments on how the U.S. should behave in this situation, but this takes Best In Show.
Kadagar_AV
06-17-2009, 03:57
Lemur, to Seth Leibsohn's defence.. One might argue that there ARE a hundred, if not a thousand people wondering just that.
Of course, at the same time HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS are demonstrating out on the streets...
Marshal Murat
06-17-2009, 04:24
It's the palpable sense of frustration about the situation, as thousands are repressed by paramilitary troops without being able to assist (see rant) in any meaningful way. I can only assume it stems from the Boston Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre). The Peloponnesian War is a perfect example (as I've come to realize) as democratic forces led a revolution, were supported by Athenian troops, and the Democrats slaughtered whole swaths of Oligarchs. So the best thing we can do is, while it pangs me, is to wait-and-watch, and hope that there aren't too many human rights abuses before the end of this.
Incongruous
06-17-2009, 08:03
It will change something, but not enough. It will change the Theocrats view that Iran can be handled easily when they start taking too many blatant liberties. It will not change the overall power structure of Iran.
Also, I think both Britain and the U.S.A may be hoping too much, if we think that Iranian democracy will be pro-Western, many Iranians still remember their last democratic leader, and that he was ousted by a C.I.A-SIS coup and replaced with the brutal and idiotic Shah. A truly democratic leader would probabaly look alot like Mossadeq, rather than Karzai.
Also, I think both Britain and the U.S.A may be hoping too much, if we think that Iranian democracy will be pro-Western, many Iranians still remember their last democratic leader, and that he was ousted by a C.I.A-SIS coup and replaced with the brutal and idiotic Shah. A truly democratic leader would probabaly look alot like Mossadeq, rather than Karzai.
That one always makes me go like this: :bounce: every-time Democracy is mentioned in Iran by Western Powers.
If you didn't know. The leader nationalised Anglo-Persian oil company (known today as BP - British Petroleum). In essence, it is sort of the same reason the "West" hates Hugo Chavez and other leaders for nationalising their oil supplies.
Incongruous
06-17-2009, 09:08
That one always makes me go like this: :bounce: every-time Democracy is mentioned in Iran by Western Powers.
If you didn't know. The leader nationalised Anglo-Persian oil company (known today as BP - British Petroleum). In essence, it is sort of the same reason the "West" hates Hugo Chavez and other leaders for nationalising their oil supplies.
Yeah, its so frikin ironic.
What's this?
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6357/mousavi.jpg
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8103546.stm
The first is Ruhollah Khomeini. (leader of the revolution, first supreme leader)
The second is Ali Khamenei. (his successor and current)
The third is.. I am not sure.
The fourth is Mir Hossein Mousavi. (ex-prime minister and contender)
The first is Ruhollah Khomeini. (leader of the revolution, first supreme leader)
The second is Ali Khamenei. (his successor and current)
The third is.. I am not sure.
The fourth is Mir Hossein Mousavi. (ex-prime minister and contender)
Thanks. I am though wondering how to interpret it; tbh I don't quite trust this Mousavi fellow [to be the freedom loving person you sometimes get the impression of].
Prodigal
06-17-2009, 10:31
Are people making too much of this? Barring a complete revolution, whichever candidate wins we're not likely to see any major policy changes from Iran are we?
Been thinking the exact same thing, as far as foreign policy goes & attitudes to the "west" it will doubtless make not one iota of difference who is in power.
From the on going protests, the sheer size of them, it certainly appears that the voters think that it would make a pretty considerable difference to them though.
The whole election stinks like a fish that's been in the sun too long, whoever decided the winner made a seriously bad call.
There are how many dead now 8? Attacks on universities have been carrying on over night, its likely to get much worse, just hope that it doesn't end in the same way as burma.
CountArach
06-17-2009, 10:54
Are people making too much of this? Barring a complete revolution, whichever candidate wins we're not likely to see any major policy changes from Iran are we?
Foreign policy-wise no, probably not, but why should that be a concern to us? Why should that change my judgement?
Hosakawa Tito
06-17-2009, 11:03
Impossible to judge. The protesters are demanding far more than a recount at this point. Very hard to squeeze the toothpaste back in the bottle when hundreds of thousands have joined together in public opposition to the regime.
Remember that 50% of Iran's population is under 25. Change may not only be possible, it may be inevitable.
The senior cleric denouncing the results is big. Muy grande.
-edit-
National Review's Seth Leibsohn gets it almost perfectly wrong (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzVhYjk5NGI5ZWU5NmRhYzk5ODY5ZmZiZDNmZTZmMmM=):
'The U.S. Doesn't Want to be Seen As Meddling'
That's the take-away line from President Obama on Iran. That's not going to do it. One can imagine hundreds (if not thousands) of protesters in Iran asking "Where is the U.S.? What does Obama think?"
Really? Is that what the streets full of young Iranians are asking? They're wondering what Obama thinks? Really? Then he concludes with: "This may not be Iran's Tiananmen moment, but it sure is ours." What the **** does that mean?
I've seen some stupid, wrong-headed comments on how the U.S. should behave in this situation, but this takes Best In Show.
Rachel Maddow and Trita Parsi interview - first video link. "Strategery for Dummies" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31396275)
Kagemusha
06-17-2009, 13:24
I see hope in this. If the people of Iran are truly fed up with their government, then it is only matter of time before new Iran emerges. I hope this will be the start of the end for theocracy in Iran.
Banquo's Ghost
06-17-2009, 14:23
It's an extraordinary time (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html).
As the fume-filled dusk fell over the north Tehran streets, the crowds grew wilder. I listened to a heavily bearded Basiji officer exorting his men to assault the 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the other side of the police line. "We must defend our country now, just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war," he shouted above the uproar. But the Ahmadinejad man trying to calm him down, shouted back: "We are all fellow citizens! Let's not have a tragedy. We must have unity."
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-17-2009, 14:37
Something that hasn't been suggested yet, maybe the Supreme Leader had nothing to do with any fixing and it was all the dinnerjacket?
That seems to be what the Iranians think, and it makes more sense in light of past Iranian elections. if so, it could mean no change in the long run, other than the Council not allowing funny buisness next time.
aimlesswanderer
06-17-2009, 15:23
I am not entirely sure that the election was substantially rigged. A seemingly representative poll before the election suggested that Ahmadinejad was going to win.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/independent-opinion-poll-backs-official-result-20090616-cgkl.htmll
And the numbers were always against Mousavi. Since the 'West' wanted someone slightly less bellicose and a bit more reasonable than Ahmadinejad, they were hoping that Mousavi would win. However, his support only seems to have been strong among the uni students, and the more educated and wealthier Iranians in large cities, whereas most of the population lives in rural areas and small towns, is poor, and is more conservative. So the numbers were always against him.
I just hope that the power struggle within the regime doesn't end with a purge of the more moderate elements, leaving the hardliners in charge. That would complicate the region, and not in a good way.
Something that hasn't been suggested yet, maybe the Supreme Leader had nothing to do with any fixing and it was all the dinnerjacket?
That seems to be what the Iranians think, and it makes more sense in light of past Iranian elections. if so, it could mean no change in the long run, other than the Council not allowing funny buisness next time.
If this were true, I would have expected Khamenei to be very wary of the results and to be far more willing to make a serious and open investigation into any fraud. If Ahmadinejad rigged the election without Khamenei's approval, it's essentially a coup against Khamenei as well and cracking down on it would only make him more popular. This isn't what he has done; he's stood by the election results and made very minimal efforts to appease the populous. Those aren't the actions of someone who thinks he's been duped. Khamenei either believes the results are legit, or he was part of the fraud in the first place.
HuffPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html) has this interesting bit, which if true insinuates that the latter may be the case:
2:01 AM ET -- Aslan: Rafsanjani calls "emergency" meeting of Assembly of Experts. If true, this is a bombshell. Appearing on CNN last night (video below), Iran expert Reza Aslan reported this:
There are very interesting things that are taking place right now. Some of my sources in Iran have told me that Ayatollah Rafsanjani, who is the head of the Assembly of Experts -- the eighty-six member clerical body that decides who will be the next Supreme Leader, and is, by the way, the only group that is empowered to remove the Supreme Leader from power -- that they have issued an emergency meeting in Qom.
Now, Anderson, I have to tell you, there's only one reason for the Assembly of Experts to meet at this point, and that is to actually talk about what to do about Khamenei. So, this is what I'm saying, is that we're talking about the very legitimacy, the very foundation of the Islamic Republic is up in the air right now. It's hard to say what this is going to go.
On another note, I must express my disbelief that I'm actually reading HuffPost. Every previous time I've looked at that site, it's been little more than a liberal propaganda rag. However, from the very beginning of the Iran situation, they have had by far the best coverage and the most information. I keep coming back to them because no other website seems to be doing anywhere near the quality of work that they are. Very strange.
Hosakawa Tito
06-17-2009, 15:55
Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow had an interesting interview with Nico Pitney. The link for the video is in my last post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=117776&page=5). With the foreign media prevented from broadcasting just about anything Nico is scooping them all.
FactionHeir
06-17-2009, 16:18
I am not entirely sure that the election was substantially rigged. A seemingly representative poll before the election suggested that Ahmadinejad was going to win.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/independent-opinion-poll-backs-official-result-20090616-cgkl.htmll
Page not found. Got a backup?
Page not found. Got a backup?
He fat-fingered the URL. Here's the corrected version (http://www.smh.com.au/world/independent-opinion-poll-backs-official-result-20090616-cgkl.html).
Marshal Murat
06-17-2009, 16:20
I am not entirely sure that the election was substantially rigged. A seemingly representative poll before the election suggested that Ahmadinejad was going to win.
I assume (the link was broken) that you're referencing the 2:1 poll taken three weeks before election. Those results are only those who chose to respond to the poll, while 27% said that they didn't have a decision yet. Hardly the best way to refute nearly 100,000 disgruntled Iranians arguing that Mousavi lost a rigged election not only in Tehran but in his hometown.
Previous Link to Polling Data (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html)
More to the point, however, the poll that appears in today's op-ed shows a 2 to 1 lead in the thinnest sense: 34 percent of those polled said they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Eight percent said they'd vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates.
One should be enormously wary of the current value of a poll taken so far before such a heated contest, particularly one where more than half of voters did not express an opinion.
tibilicus
06-17-2009, 17:10
Cam across this useful web page. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/17/iran-uprising
Live updates on the situation as new events emerge.
Also does it not strike anyone else as odd that Adinerjacket is still in Russia?
Senator McCain re-states his position (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/opposing-view-speak-out-forcefully.html#more), that we should be forcefully involving ourselves with the reformist revolution in Iran. I'm starting to think that this is more than grandstanding on his part; maybe he actually believes this would work. Not encouraging.
The Obama administration has responded passively and tepidly to the extraordinary demonstrations on the streets of Iran, in which tens [more like hundreds, Lemur] of thousands have protested fraudulent elections and a media crackdown. The president has carefully avoided offering any expression of solidarity to the brave men and women who are risking their lives, and the State Department has even refused to use the word "condemn" in response to violent attacks against them.
Defenders of this approach claim that such restraint is necessary, and that to do otherwise would either discredit the protesters or undermine our nuclear diplomacy with the regime they oppose.
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps that is why our democratic allies in Europe have shown no such hesitation to speak out forcefully against what they recognize as the Iranian regime's reprehensive conduct. The United States should be at the forefront of these efforts, leading all those nations that care about human freedom in an effort to condemn sham elections, denounce the violence against peaceful protesters and express solidarity with those millions of Iranians who want change. The world should expect nothing less from us, and we should expect nothing less of ourselves.
Yeah, the thing is, if America really wants the change, it can't be seen as supporting the opposition or it turns into "Iran versus America" and let's put it this way, America isn't that popular over there.
Haudegen
06-17-2009, 20:54
These arguments are not persuasive. To begin with, engagement with the regime should not come at the expense of engagement with the people. It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who conducted hard-headed diplomacy with leaders of the Soviet Union at the same time he publicly challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. His words, then widely viewed as needlessly provocative, provided a beacon of hope to those suffering behind the Iron Curtain.
:wall:
Ok, President Reagan held that speech in 1987.
But in 1989, during the weeks and months when the Eastern German people were busy overthrowing the dictatorship, fortunately there was not a single politician in the western world who was foolish enough to repeat Mr. Reagans words or did other things that could be viewed as "needlessly provocative".
There can be no doubt that the government in East Berlin would have responded very violently against the protesters (Tien-An-Men-Massacre reloaded) if they had gotten the impression that the whole thing was somehow organised or actively supported by their capitalistic enemies.
Obama needs to throw his support behind Imadinnerjacket, thereby labeling him as a tool of the Great Satan and unworthy of the presidency. :idea2:
Hosakawa Tito
06-17-2009, 21:49
Maybe Senator McCain and others should politely enquire of the reformists if they require any aid from the US first, before running at the mouth. I don't doubt their motives, just their methods & strategy.
Influential Revolutionary and former Deputy Prime Minister kidnapped from his Hospital Bed
(CNN) -- A former Iranian deputy prime minister who headed a group supporting increased freedom and democracy was pulled from his hospital bed and arrested Wednesday in Tehran, his granddaughter told CNN.
Ibrahim Yazdi, who is about 76 years old, is secretary-general of the Freedom Movement of Iran, said Atefeh Yazdi of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. He has suffered from prostate cancer, and his condition must be closely monitored, she said.
The arrest comes amid reports of widespread protests and violence in the wake of disputed Iranian elections.
The family found out about the arrest -- as well as that of her uncle Mohandas Tavassoli, who also is involved in the Freedom Movement of Iran -- when Ibrahim Yazdi's wife called her daughter, Lily Yazdi, in Mountain View, California.
"We knew that this was a possibility," Lily Yazdi told CNN. "They had just arrested [Tavassoli] yesterday."
She said her son, who is visiting in Tehran, had taken her father to the hospital Tuesday because he was not feeling well. He was put under observation, she said.
Her mother reported that members of the Basij came to their home and attempted to force their way in, Lily Yazdi said. Told that Ibrahim Yazdi was not home, they left, but apparently discovered he was in the hospital.
The Basij is a volunteer paramilitary force that takes its orders from Iran's Revolutionary Guard and is suspected of being behind most of the reported violence.
There has been no word from either man, granddaughter Atefeh Yazdi said, and attempts to reach relatives by telephone and online have been unsuccessful.
"It's just been very stressful," she said. "We kind of had a feeling, had a hunch that something might happen. He's been arrested before. Family members have been in prison before. He's got a history of being sought after by the government."
Atefeh Yazdi said the arrest is proof of something her grandfather has predicted for a while: that another revolution in Iran is imminent.
Ibrahim Yazdi was an aide to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the 1979 revolution that overthrew the ruling monarchy and established Iran as an Islamic republic, according to a 1979 article about him in Time magazine. Following the revolution, Yazdi held the post of deputy prime minister for revolutionary affairs in the provisional government of Medhi Bazargan, Time said. The magazine reported he later gave up that position to serve as foreign minister.
Supporters of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown in 1979, do not like Yazdi because of his role in the revolution, his granddaughter said. And the current government doesn't like him because "he's a little too liberal," she said.
According to the Freedom Movement of Iran's Web site, its main objective "is to gain freedom, independence and democracy for the Iranian nation, on the basis of modern interpretation of Islamic principles."
Atefeh Yazdi said her grandfather does not support President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the present government.
"This is just really hard because of his health condition," she said of her grandfather. "Apparently, they took him somewhere. We don't know who these people [the kidnappers] are."
Family members are worried he might be mistreated and his health will not be looked after.
"They're not nice in prisons in Iran," Lily Yazdi said.
She believes her father and Tavassoli were arrested because the Freedom Movement had put out two announcements on the election, although they were "fairly mild." The two have done nothing wrong, she said, but the government is attempting to keep any potential leadership from the people, so they will have no one else to look to. Members of other dissident groups, numbering in the hundreds, have been arrested for the same reason, she said.
The Freedom Movement's newspaper announced Ibrahim Yazdi's arrest and said 15 other members were also arrested in towns and villages across Iran, Lily Yazdi said.
Ibrahim Yazdi has been secretary-general of the Freedom Movement since 1995, according to the group's Web site.
Lily Yazdi said she has sporadic contact with her family in Iran as phone lines are up and down. But she said she is hopeful, hearing that protests have recently become more peaceful and police are providing better protection for members of the public.
News about Ibrahim Yazdi's arrest came on the day that defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi asked Iran's courts to release those arrested for protesting Friday's disputed election, according to a statement on the Web site of Moussavi's campaign.
He was 76 years old and bed ridden. These idiots must be getting desperate.
Yeah, the thing is, if America really wants the change, it can't be seen as supporting the opposition or it turns into "Iran versus America" and let's put it this way, America isn't that popular over there.I think we could safely support peaceful protests and condemn murderous crackdowns without throwing our support behind any one candidate.
I think we could safely support peaceful protests and condemn murderous crackdowns without throwing our support behind any one candidate.
I'm trying to figure out how you would go about doing that in the current situation without appearing to back the reformers and playing into the mullah's hands. Can't quite picture it.
I hate to say it, but some commentators and politicians seem to be opposing the President's course because he's Obama, and not because they've given any strategic thought to reality.
Hosa nailed it, anyway. If the reformists ask for our help or public support, it will probably be forthcoming. In the meantime, every Iranian I've seen interviewed says that laying low is exactly what the U.S. government should be doing.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-18-2009, 06:59
Or more insidiously, Lemur, there may be those who were excited about a war on Iran that were rooting for Amadinejad...
Banquo's Ghost
06-18-2009, 07:15
There's an incendiary letter (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secret-letter-proves-mousavi-won-poll-1707896.html) being distributed.
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
CountArach
06-18-2009, 08:03
There's an incendiary letter (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secret-letter-proves-mousavi-won-poll-1707896.html) being distributed.
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
I don't trust that at all. There is no way that Ahmadinejad only achieved 5.6 million votes and that Karroubi somehow got more than him. That doesn't go with any of the polling data or expected results prior to the election.
New allegations (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/jun/17/iran-election-rigging) of voter turnout in excess of 100% have surfaced...
Furunculus
06-18-2009, 10:16
There's an incendiary letter (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secret-letter-proves-mousavi-won-poll-1707896.html) being distributed.
For the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.
Could this letter be a fake? Even if Mr Mousavi won so many votes, could the colourless Mr Karroubi have followed only six million votes behind him? And however incredible Mr Ahmadinejad's officially declared 63 per cent of the vote may have been, could he really – as a man who has immense support among the poor of Iran – have picked up only five-and-a-half million votes? And would a letter of such immense importance be signed only "on behalf of the minister"?
haha, looks like US psyops are playing merry-hell in iran right now.
CountArach
06-18-2009, 12:59
If you want an idea of some of the numbers turning up to the protests and the demographics they represent check out these pictures (http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1163.html). Mostly young people (And a hell of a lot of them), but also a mix of older and middle aged people as well.
Additionally several reformst clerics (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98410.htm?sectionid=351020101) are holding a rally on Saturday at which Mousavi is expected to speak. If he turns up and says the right things, then this could well be the turning point where this becomes far more revolutionary.
It also might be worth keeping an eye on this (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98334.htm?sectionid=351020101)
Mostly young people (And a hell of a lot of them), but also a mix of older and middle aged people as well.
It's mostly young people because Iran is composed of mostly young people. Apparently 70% of the population is under the age of 30, which also means 70% of the population has no memory of the Shah.
Marshal Murat
06-18-2009, 14:32
Iranian Legislature considering a sit-down with the three "losing" candidates (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55F54520090618?sp=true)
- Iran's top legislative body, seeking to calm days of public fury over a disputed presidential election, has invited the three losers to discuss their complaints on Saturday, its spokesman said on Thursday.
A reform-minded Muslim speaks out (http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/06/iran-doesnt-need-obama-to-spea.html):
What Obama has done instead has been to quietly facilitate and encourage what he referred to as the "healthy debate" within Iran about reform. For example, the State Department asked Twitter to delay their network upgrades, so as not to interfere with the social-media-driven organizing of the reform movement and rallies. This is in stark contrast to the short-sighted closure of Radio Amadi in 2002 by the Bush Administration, which effectively neutered the widespread popular uprisings in the streets of Tehran after the sentencing of popular reformist academic Hashem Aghajari. Of course, the Bush Administration routinely engaged in empty rhetoric against the Iranian regime ("axis of evil"), which only made the regime less willing to tolerate reform. [...]
Let's not forget that Obama has spoken directly to the Iranian people before the election — Obama's Nowruz greeting to the Iranian people was an end-run around the regime and a tangible encouragement for the Iranians to seek change, as this anecdote from an Iranian-American girl visiting family in Tehran illustrates:
Arguably, it was Barack Obama who brought down the virtual wall between Iran and the West with his conciliatory and hopeful Nowruz (Iran's New Year) message on YouTube. I looked on as my friends and family watched his message with adoration in Tehran. "Why can't he be our president", one aunt gushed. It hit a chord, mainly because it made Ahmadinejad look foolish.
The point here is that saber-rattling and stern lectures about freedom and democracy are one approach, which give the appearance of "support" for reformists' cause but in fact make things much worse. What does work is direct engagement of the people, giving them resources they can use as they take their own destiny in hand.
I'm trying to figure out how you would go about doing that in the current situation without appearing to back the reformers and playing into the mullah's hands. Can't quite picture it.You could say something like... I dunno "We support the right of people everywhere to be able to organize and peacefully protest in the exercise of free speech and we condemn any violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters." You can't picture that? Surely there's room to condemn the political killings we're seeing now without endorsing any specific candidate.
What Gordon Brown is quoted as saying (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gFE4gvAEEv39bOJoZmVZHfzqSYhA) doesn't sound too unreasonable to me either:
"The elections are a matter for the Iranian people, but if there are serious questions that are now being asked about the conduct of the elections, they have got to be answered," he said.
"There must be no violence in response to peaceful protests," he added, after seven people were killed in demonstrations in Iran on Monday.
"The relationship they will have and the respect they will have from the rest of the world will depend on how they respond to what are legitimate grievances that are being expressed and have to be answered."I think Obama's comparative silence is implicit support for the current Iranian regime and is realpolitik- he wants to work with the regime on the nuclear issue rather than upsetting them by criticizing their violent crackdowns on protesters. Will his decision pay off? I guess we'll see.
Actually, as of last night, Obama has somewhat tepidly raised concerns saying that he was "deeply troubled" by the violence and notes that the Iranian government is looking into alleged election "irregularities". Read the transcript here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-President-Meets-with-Prime-Minister-Berlusconi-Comments-on-Iran/).
Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcFx380pFA) that if Obama accepts the rigged election, they're "doomed".
Marshal Murat
06-18-2009, 15:07
HuffPost Opinion/Summary (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/a-coup-manual-what-we-sho_b_216461.html)
The foreign media and western states are confused and puzzled as to how to interpret the Iranian election on June 12th. Over the past few days I've been speaking with many journalists in Tehran who normally go there for one or two weeks on assignment. Many of them, initially, believed that Ahmadinejad's declared re-election was similar in nature to his first term election in 2005. Meaning that he had successfully mobilized his base of poor people and conservatives and that the reformists and Iranian middle class had, once again, lost the election. But recent development tells us that this is not the real story.
So, what are the sources of confusion? What went wrong and why are people angry and un-accepting of the results? Here are some essential questions that one might ask in order to fully understand the issues at hand:
Was the Iranian election rigged?
No doubt it was. There are many signs that indicate a very organized fraud, which has been in the works for many months.
It's inconceivable that Ahmadinejad could have won 24 millions votes. How could he when he had only received just over 5 million in the first round of the 2005 election? (MM Bold and interesting point) In the second round he gained 16 million and that was simply because he was running against Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was very unpopular at the time, a man that was rumored to have corruption in his family, rumors that became etched in the memory of the Iranian people. There was even a saying that "anybody could beat Hashemi in the second round". At that time, even Ahmadineajds's second position in the first round was so controversial that he was accused of an organized fraud led by Iran's militia forces, Basijis, and the Revolutionary Guard. Now, without any change in Iran's demography, he received, in some places, figures of twenty times more votes than he did four years ago.
During the past four years, Ahmadinejad's economic policies have increased inflation from approximately 11 percent to 25 percent, more than double. The effects of such policies have been a hard reality for millions of Iranians. He is the only president in Iran who has not gained the support of Iran's middle class and elite. Although his government spent billions of dollars on propaganda, he remained widely criticized by reformists, experts, civil society activists and even some conservatives. On the other hand, Mousavi (Iran's prime minister at the time of war with Iraq 1980-1988) is very well respected and popular in the society.
Iranian people know him as a man of integrity, a politician who managed the war economy quite thoughtfully. The overwhelming support for Mousavi by the Iranian middle class, the political elite, reformists and millions of people was contagious even amongst part of the conservative base (also known as Ahmadinejad's base). Mousavi drew crowds of more than 50,000 to his rallies over the past three months in small and large cities alike, not just in Tehran. So a landslide victory seemed like a joke.
When did the suspicion start?
On election night, Mousavi received a call from the Ministry of Interior telling him of his victory. Meanwhile, a committee, which included the Minister of Interior himself and two of his deputies, announced different results. They declared Ahmadinejad as Iran's President elect faster than anyone could imagine. While the election was still in progress a news agency, known to strongly support Ahmadineajd, had already written about his landslide victory. It was as if they knew in advance. In less than a few hours the authorities began announcing the results by the millions. Everybody who is familiar with Iran's bureaucracy knows that it's just impossible to have possibly counted the ballots this fast. The voting process is not computerized but totaled by hand and therefore it takes quite a bit of time, particularly with voter turnout being at a record high. So it was obvious that the results were not based on actual votes. Also, like many countries including the United States, Iran is a very diverse country. Candidates naturally have more support in some provinces than in others, like their hometown for example. It's impossible that a candidate could win by a same margin in every single province as Ahmadinejad, allegedly, has. This is numerically improbable and does not make sense to anybody. The results of this election make a mockery of the Iranian voting system and their history as a democracy.
Is it a coup?
It might not seem a classic coup. But there are indications that the fraud did not happen just on the actual Election Day. Even if 90 percent of the people voted reformists, it would never have been reflected in the ballot counts. It's just impossible. Let's review different segments of the game and then you call it whatever you want:
1. Before the elections, Ahmadinejad's supporters, major news agencies and radical newspapers, predicted a landslide victory. They even mentioned a plausible win by 60 percent! An alarming and odd a prediction in a country where one cannot even predict the price of a tomato, or an onion, from one day to the next.
2. The results were announced too quickly to be true. It was as if they already knew what the numbers were going to be. So it seems that the authorities didn't even have to bother to actually count the ballots for results.
3. On Election Day, the police were ready for the huge presence of protesters in the major cities. They were fully armed and well equipped with anti-riot gear. What was supposed to happen? Why were they so prepared?
4. A few hours after the results were announced, and even with all of the complaints, the Iranian Supreme Leader announced Ahmadinejad as the next president, and asked all of the other candidates to cooperate with the winner. Why such a rush?
5. Dozens of prominent reformist politicians and journalists were systematically arrested within 48 hours of the announcement of the presidency. Forces were organized, knowing who to arrest and where to go without legitimate reason. But this game could not afford prominent political figures to potentially play leadership roles against the outcome.
6. On Election Day SMS services were cut off followed by cell phone reception the day after. Reformists websites were blocked as well, which forced a disconnect between surprised reformists and their supporters. Everything happened very quickly. It's been part of the plan to be swift.
7. A top-down pressure began. Mousavi and Karrubi were placed immediately under unofficial house arrest. There were told that it was for their own security. Simultaneously, some of the major religious figures from the office of the Supreme leader, and reportedly, some of the other officials in power pressured Mousavi to accept the results.
8. The next day Ahmadinejad's supporters, many of whom were armed with cold arms, rallied in one of the squares in Tehran in a show of power.
9. At the same time, the spontaneous, and unexpected massive protests began. (Which was not expected on such a scale (because Iranians know how the police and the government can go wild and brutal).
Ahmadinejad called it a rebellion. It was a necessary label for justifying the police action taken to stop the protesters. The protests were peaceful, but the police themselves, started to destroy cars setting the scene for confrontation.
10. Now, you put together the above pieces and tell me what you would call it.
Is the media covering this election properly?
There are some good reports. But consider that many of the journalists are not able to report freely. They know that the government monitors their work closely. They can easily be forced to leave the country. The news agencies, which have correspondents in Tehran, do not want to jeopardize their visa situation nor their ability to have their people on the ground. Even CNN's Christiane Amanpour grossly underreported on the number of Mousavi supporters in Monday's protest in Tehran. She described "thousands" when in fact, it was apparent that there were "hundreds of thousands". It is no surprise. I personally know many journalists who have never been able to renew their visas after writing blunt pieces about the realities on the ground. For many of them it is a matter of professional survival. Beyond this, many of them are not able to connect the dots. They cannot travel throughout the country, many of them do not speak Farsi and there are there just there for a few weeks and like many are just as surprised.
Also, some of the commentators on cable TV tend to add the United States to the equation unnecessarily. This is wrong. What is happening in Iran has nothing to do with the United States. Iranians have been fighting for their rights for decades now. However, if the U.S. had an open and amicable relationship with Iran, it would be more likely that the Iranian authorities would have to behave and respect the demands of the people. The best way to follow the development of the events as they unfold is to follow multiple and diverse news channels.
What should the United States do?
President Obama is in a very critical situation. No matter what happens in the coming days, Obama should not congratulate Ahmadinejad for his victory. He did not win the election, he stole it. However he should stick to his plans to negotiate and communicate with the Iranian government. Most of the U.S. allies in the Middle East, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, have a much worst political situation on their hands and yet they remain friendly with Washington.
If the Iranian government engages with the U.S. in the coming months and years under Ahmadinejad's second term, it will surely be harder for the Iranian government to ignore their responsibility to the Iranian people. Iran's disconnect from the outside world has served the radicals in Tehran more than anybody else.
Also, the United States should not take side. If Obama supports the protesters it gives the Iranian authorities the reasons they want and need to portray the recent protest as an American phenomena. Play into made up stories of how, for instance, CIA and Moosad and the other intelligence services on the planet are behind the scenes of such an original and genuine movement. The United States and other western countries should put more pressure on the United Nations to act more decisively. So far more than 10 people have died. (I just received word from a reliable source that 9 people died in Rasool e Akram Hospital in Tehran, and a tenth one had been shot and killed earlier). The United Nation's Security Council really should hold an emergency meeting over this issue. The protests have potentials to be another Tiananmen Square, particularly when the police and the militia are interested in turning these peaceful protests to chaos. This gives them an excuse to use force, something they are waiting to do it. The UNSC should adopt a resolution in condemnation of the use of force against peaceful protests.
This post will be updated with more questions.
You could say something like... I dunno "We support the right of people everywhere to be able to organize and peacefully protest in the exercise of free speech and we condemn any violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters." You can't picture that?
I think your disdain for our President is coloring your thinking. Obama has been quite effective so far.
I think Obama's comparative silence is implicit support for the current Iranian regime and is realpolitik- he wants to work with the regime on the nuclear issue rather than upsetting them by criticizing their violent crackdowns on protesters.
So now President Obama supports Imadinnerjacket? And the reason he's walking softly is that he doesn't want to upset the mullahs? Well, if we begin from the premise that Obama is a quisling traitor to America and freedom, that makes sense.
Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcFx380pFA) that if Obama accepts the rigged election, they're "doomed".
Which is why our crypto-muslim socialist President has congratulated Imadinnerjacket on his win, and endorsed the election as legitimate. Oh, wait, that never happened.
I think your disdain for our President is coloring your thinking. Obama has been quite effective so far.
So now President Obama supports Imadinnerjacket? And the reason he's walking softly is that he doesn't want to upset the mullahs? Well, if we begin from the premise that Obama is a quisling traitor to America and freedom, that makes sense.
Which is why our crypto-muslim socialist President has congratulated Imadinnerjacket on his win, and endorsed the election as legitimate. Oh, wait, that never happened.
What a worthless post, Lemur. Really- look at what you've written. Making a point is so much harder than just saying the other person has cooties, huh?
A big part of Obama's foreign policy is negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program. It should be clear to anyone thatat least some part of his unwillingness to criticize the regime for arresting and killing protesters is due to the fact that he doesn't want to sour his relationship with them before any talks....
Nevermind, I should just call you a mindless Obamaton and dismiss everything you say. That's how it's done, isn't it? :yes:
So grumpy, Xiahou. Is it always like this in the morning?
Sure, staying officially neutral allows the admin to negotiate later if the mullahs succeed in smashing the protests. It also neuters the regime's ability to brand the protesters as American tools. Seems like a typical Obama move to me, serving several purposes at once.
Whereas making grand public announcements serves what purpose?
From an Iranian expat (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/obamas-words-from-iran.html):
I'm an Iranian living in Canada. A few hours ago I talked to my brother who is a student at Sharif University, he was at the big rally yesterday and they were only feet away from Karoubi when they marched from the university entrance to Azadi square. He asked what had Obama had said and I started reading the transcript. When I got to "the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]" my brother sighed and said thank God this guy gets it.
What's this?
https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6357/mousavi.jpg
2nd from right is Rafsanjani - one of the foudners of the reformist movement in the 90s.
And the numbers were always against Mousavi. Since the 'West' wanted someone slightly less bellicose and a bit more reasonable than Ahmadinejad, they were hoping that Mousavi would win. However, his support only seems to have been strong among the uni students, and the more educated and wealthier Iranians in large cities, whereas most of the population lives in rural areas and small towns, is poor, and is more conservative. So the numbers were always against him.
Mousavi has a lot of support among the Tehran middle classes and in his home area, but not much elsewhere. I spoke to one Iranian who was unimpressed with him. Mousavi used to be in the government and never amounted to much when he was.
The point here is that saber-rattling and stern lectures about freedom and democracy are one approach, which give the appearance of "support" for reformists' cause but in fact make things much worse. What does work is direct engagement of the people, giving them resources they can use as they take their own destiny in hand
Well quite. The legacy of the Bush years - agression, election rigging, torture, moralising are all legimitimised. Do what we say, not what we do.
The Guardian has a liveblog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/18/iran-unrest) of today's protests. Don't know if they have a local or if they smuggled a reporter in, but they're getting info out, so kudos.
-edit-
Reza Aslan (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20520?in=46:18&out=49:19) on Obama's performance.
So grumpy, Xiahou. Is it always like this in the morning?
Sure, staying officially neutral allows the admin to negotiate later if the mullahs succeed in smashing the protests. It also neuters the regime's ability to brand the protesters as American tools. Seems like a typical Obama move to me, serving several purposes at once.
Whereas making grand public announcements serves what purpose?
Well, you almost made your point without name-calling. Imagine if you had just done that in the first place. :idea2:
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
Here is an interesting article from the Politico (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/16/politics/politico/main5090862.shtml) that looks at arguments from both sides. As an aside, I think James Rosen is a strong contender for "best journalist question of the year" for this exchange::beam:
On Saturday, the White House was merely “monitoring” the situation, press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement. On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden said he had “doubts” about the election. And on Monday, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. is “deeply troubled” by events in Iran but stopped short of condemning them.
“I haven’t used that word, ‘condemn,’” he told the State Department press corps. “We need to see how things unfold.”
“You need to see more heads cracked in the middle of the street?” Fox News’ James Rosen shot back.
“We need a deeper assessment of what’s going on,” Kelly said. I actually saw that quip- great stuff. :laugh4:
I'm certain that an outright endorsement of the opposition by the US would be unhelpful and unwelcome. But I also think we could stand to speak out more strongly against the political killings and mass arrests that we're seeing now. Once the government finishes cracking down on the protesters, which they most likely will, I'd prefer that our nation had gone on record supporting their rights to free speech rather than having just stood idly by. The Iranian regime should know that we'll call them out on abuses, and the Iranian people should know that we support their rights to organize and speak out while being free from violent reprisals. Would that irritate the current regime? Of course it would- but Ahmadinejad has yet to speak with anything but derision when it comes to negotiations anyhow, so it's hard to see how much it would hurt.
I acknowledge the realpolitik angle, I'm just not certain it's the right approach. I don't know that condemning the Iranian regime's human rights abuses will change anything either. But, our having said something substantive would sit with me a lot better once this is all over. Regardless, I'm not going to claim to be so sure of the right answer that anyone disagreeing is only doing so to score political points.
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
If a rhetorical question gets asked in the woods, does a tree fall?
I think your position is strangely history- and strategy-free. When we comdemn human rights abuses, 99% of the time we are not doing so in a place where we helped overthrow a democratically elected government. That may not register for you, but it certainly does for Iranians.
I think James Rosen is a strong contender for "best journalist question of the year" for this exchange
So you think a Fox News reporter deserves a special award for asking about "cracked heads." There's so much irony potential in this that I don't know where to start.
Once the government finishes cracking down on the protesters, which they most likely will, I'd prefer that our nation had gone on record supporting their rights to free speech rather than having just stood idly by.
Like many conservatives, you seem to believe that the odds of reform in Iran are small. What leads you to this conclusion?
Would that irritate the current regime? Of course it would- but Ahmadinejad has yet to speak with anything but derision when it comes to negotiations anyhow, so it's hard to see how much it would hurt.
On the contrary, Imadinnerjacket would rejoice if we publicly supported the reformers at this point. He'd likely send flowers and a thank-you note, maybe a fruit basket. Nothing could make the mullah-military complex happier.
But, our having said something substantive would sit with me a lot better once this is all over.
To which I say, don't just do something, stand there! Tomorrow the situation may be different, but at the moment the prudent course for the U.S. seems blindingly obvious. As it stands, 24 hours is a long time in Iranian politics.
Here's a buffet sampler of opinions from people who think we should be doing more:
Krauthammer (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY1OTEzOTI0Y2RjOTg0OWE2ZmMzOWZmY2NlYTU1OTE=): "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."
Hays (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjcyYTNkYTFhMzU3NmU3N2Q1YTQzYjY3MDM5ZTRiOTE=): "Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it."
Rubin (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWFiZDdkZjkwM2Y1ODhmYWExNTU0ZDM5MGNkNTBiZjE=): "[R]ather than dismiss Obama's approach as a fantasy, the belief that engagement and dialogue can always succeed is an ideology, one that infects a good proportion of those who consider themselves realists. Carter, as president, started with a different ideology, one that saw human rights in foreign policy as paramount. Memoirs of Carter administration officials show he moved to undercut the Shah in part because, he felt that Khomeini would be better for human rights. Carter was wrong, and stubborn. Rather than admit some of his pet targets — Mugabe, Arafat, Assad were not interested in peace or human rights, he simply shed this pretext and embraced the same ideology which Obama appears to have now — a belief in moral equivalency and the idea that negotiation can solve all ills regardless of the extremism of the adversary and the immorality of the position."
As to the purpose: What purpose does the US condemning human rights abuses anywhere serve? Should we ever do it?
You never seemed that bothered by the Patriot Act or G-Bay.
Krauthammer (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDY1OTEzOTI0Y2RjOTg0OWE2ZmMzOWZmY2NlYTU1OTE=): "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."
Hays (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjcyYTNkYTFhMzU3NmU3N2Q1YTQzYjY3MDM5ZTRiOTE=): "Obama is the first American president who is unaware of the historical sources of America’s moral strength. In his tepid response to events in Iran, the president hailed democratic process, freedom of speech, and the ability to select one’s own leaders as “universal values.” But they aren't. A quick glance around the world’s totalitarian regimes, including most especially that of Iran, should convince anyone of that. These values come from America and the West. Imagine having a president who either doesn't know or won't say it."
Rubin (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWFiZDdkZjkwM2Y1ODhmYWExNTU0ZDM5MGNkNTBiZjE=): "[R]ather than dismiss Obama's approach as a fantasy, the belief that engagement and dialogue can always succeed is an ideology, one that infects a good proportion of those who consider themselves realists. Carter, as president, started with a different ideology, one that saw human rights in foreign policy as paramount. Memoirs of Carter administration officials show he moved to undercut the Shah in part because, he felt that Khomeini would be better for human rights. Carter was wrong, and stubborn. Rather than admit some of his pet targets — Mugabe, Arafat, Assad were not interested in peace or human rights, he simply shed this pretext and embraced the same ideology which Obama appears to have now — a belief in moral equivalency and the idea that negotiation can solve all ills regardless of the extremism of the adversary and the immorality of the position."
Right wing zionists are terrified of an invigourated and democratic middle east. Nothing scares them more. They would rather dismiss those opposed to Israel and loons and demagogues. They never want it to be known that the people of the middle east can legitimately manage their own politics, and (almost swoons) their own natural resources.
Hmm, this discussion is complicated enough without dragging Israel into it.
The Economist has a very good, very pithy summation (http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13856232&source=hptextfeature) of the dilemma the mullah-military complex faces:
Mr Khamenei faces a deep quandary. A resolution to the crisis that fails to assuage the huge and growing mass of Mr Mousavi’s supporters would do permanent damage to his regime’s democratic pillar. Few Iranians would ever again deign to volunteer for the empty pageantry of voting. Yet giving in completely to their demands would expose his own weakness and fallibility. Underlying all this is the bitter irony that in its paranoia to avoid a “velvet revolution”, Iran’s deep state has itself engineered precisely the conditions that might make such a revolution happen.
-edit-
And a long-viewed assessment (http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/06/17/soft-geeky-power/) of what we are doing:
It turns out that while all this was going on, the State Department was—quietly and without fanfare—calling up Twitter, which had effectively become critical infrastructure for the opposition, to delay a maintenance outage scheduled for peek Iranian tweeting-hours. That may not have been why there was a delay, but it does suggest that perhaps the administration is finding subtle ways to support democratic openness without a lot of counterproductive bluster that would conjure bad memories of U.S. interference in other countries’ choice of leaders. They’d probably have more instruments for gentle pressure if we weren’t already totally disengaged from Iran—the trouble with making a big show of utterly shunning bad regimes is that you’ve got nowhere to go when there’s a propitious occasion to give them a nudge in a healthier direction—but for all we know they’re doing other similarly subtle, unobtrusive stuff behind the scenes. It’s almost as if they’re more concerned with what actually contributes to human rights in Iran than with what provides the best fap-fodder for hawks at home.
The Guardian has a liveblog (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/18/iran-unrest) of today's protests. Don't know if they have a local or if they smuggled a reporter in, but they're getting info out, so kudos.
Our man in Tehran, Saeed Kamali Dehghan, says Mousavi joind the silent protesters at 6pm local time while supporters shouted: "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein".
the silent protest going well then :beam:
Its all getting very interesting though, I originally dismissed the protest as a short-term reaction to the election result, but it seems it has the potential to go further.
I think your position is strangely history- and strategy-free. When we comdemn human rights abuses, 99% of the time we are not doing so in a place where we helped overthrow a democratically elected government. That may not register for you, but it certainly does for Iranians.I'm very well aware of our history with Iran. I just don't see how standing quietly by while democracy takes another beating will absolve our previous acts.
Like many conservatives, you seem to believe that the odds of reform in Iran are small. What leads you to this conclusion?I don't know one way or the other- but I think objective thinking suggests that these protests leading to an overthrow of the Iranian government, while possible, is far less likely than the regime rounding up/purging ring leaders and having the protests eventually fizzle. I'd much prefer regime change, I just don't think it's the most likely outcome.
On the contrary, Imadinnerjacket would rejoice if we publicly supported the reformers at this point. He'd likely send flowers and a thank-you note, maybe a fruit basket. Nothing could make the mullah-military complex happier.Well, seeing as how the British Ambassador was summoned by the Iranians for a chewing out over Brown's statements, it's a little hard for me to believe that they'd send us a fruit basket for, similarly criticizing their abuses. As for "publicly supporting reformers", I don't think anyone has advocated that.
So you think a Fox News reporter deserves a special award for asking about "cracked heads." There's so much irony potential in this that I don't know where to start.I don't care who he's a journalist for- I just thought it was funny how he caught a State Dept bureaucrat in an absurd statement. (paraphrasing)"No, we aren't condemning the violence, we're going to wait and see what happens." What Rosen said was the perfect response to that.
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
I think objective thinking suggests that these protests leading to an overthrow of the Iranian government, while possible, is far less likely than th regime rounding up/purging ring leaders and having the protests eventually fizzle.
Sounds like a false dichotomy rather than "objective thinking" to this lemur. Why must the resolution be either total revolution or total oppression? I don't think either of those outcomes is likely. There are splits within the regime over how to handle this, they're presenting anything but a unified front. If the mullah-military cabal wants to avoid looking like butchers (and it increasingly seems they do) they're going to have to come up with some sort of compromise with the protesters, which will probably involve blaming everything on Ahmadinejad and throwing him under the nearest bus.
Direct that "objective thinking" at the reality on the ground; look at what is actually happening.
Well, seeing as how the British Ambassador was summoned by the Iranians for a chewing out over Brown's statements, it's a little hard for me to believe that they'd send us a fruit basket for, similarly criticizing their abuses.
Oh, no doubt they would express outrage and issue a thousand condemnations, while grinning all the way to the armory.
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
Xiahou, I've noticed that you've been doing a double "http://" in all of your links lately, which renders them broken. Might want to look into that. Here's the corrected version (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html?hpid=opinionsbox1).
The article hopscotches over the reality on the ground and thunders straight to the nuclear question. Analysis of what's actually happening right now is light, bordering on fluffy. "First, the administration should provide unequivocal recognition of Iran's popular movement for greater freedoms and openness, and condemn the government's crackdown."
I'd be interested to hear your response to Reza Aslan (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/20520?in=46:18&out=49:19) and Pat Buchannon (http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatBuchanan/2009/06/16/outlasting_the_ayatollahs), two men of wildly different political persuasion who have arrived at the same conclusion.
For more perspective, here's a WaPo column (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.
I read that earlier this morning. I liked the idea of bypassing Imadinnerjacket for talks. If you make the presidency a sham, it should be treated as such.
Another response (http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1340) to the "let's inject ourselves into the Iranian situation" crowd:
Conservatives’ approach — which is based on dangerous ideology and ignorance of the situation in Iran — would endanger demonstrators and undermine broader U.S. objectives. Commentator Joe Klein remarked that the comments by McCain and his conservative colleagues are consistent with their “dangerous habit of making broad, extreme statements based on ideology rather than detailed knowledge of the situation in Iran and elsewhere.” Even right-wing commentator Pat Buchanan condemned the approach taken by congressional conservatives, saying: “When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way... U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.” Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post reported Iranian national television playing clips of FOX News to show that foreign press was trying to divide the Iranian people in order to take advantage of a weakened Iran. Trita Parsi explains their approach is not based on any familiarity with the situation in Iran: “They’re [conservatives] coming out and saying that we should side with the opposition, with Moussavi. I’m really curious to know if they’ve been in contact with Moussavi, and asked him if he thinks that’s a good idea. That’s the test that we’ve failed to pass in the past, in the sense that we’ve made up our mind on what they should want, and then we act. And then, even when it doesn’t work out the way that we hoped for, we think that it’s their fault, that they did understanding, genuinely, how positive our intentions were. We can’t do it this way.”
Obama should only step in if the Iranian people themselves ask him to. At the moment, Mousavi is the leader of the protest movement and he hasn't asked. In fact, nearly every statement I've read from Iranians on the subject indicates they are glad Obama is staying out of it. Why in the world would we want to step in when the protesters themselves don't want us to?
Good analysis (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion) from Roger Cohen:
At the immense opposition demonstration earlier this week, I asked a young woman her name. She said, “My name is Iran.” [...]
The Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again. It has always played on the ambiguity of its nature, a theocracy where people vote. For a whole new generation, there’s no longer room for ambiguity. [...]
Unlike the student-led protests of [1999 and 2003], a wide array of Iranians of all ages and classes are in the streets. Shopkeepers and students march side by side. Construction workers perched on scaffolding flash them the “V” for victory sign.
Protest is broader, and accompanied by more visible splits in the ruling elite than ever surfaced before. These divisions have thrust the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, into the fray from his preferred perch.
The balance of forces has changed, which is not to say the outcome will be different. But it could be.
The regime’s fundamental mistake was to insult the intelligence of Iranians. A proud people, they do not take kindly to being treated as puppet-like fools.
The Persian Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/)
The Persian Bay (http://thepiratebay.org/)
:laugh4:
The grassroots level of support from various web groups (4chan, Fark, TPB, twitterheads, etc.) has been fun to watch, while the MSM took it's time realizing what a big deal this really is. If the US wants to "intervene", maybe No Such Agency should set up a bunch of uber high speed web proxies.
If the US wants to "intervene", maybe No Such Agency should set up a bunch of uber high speed web proxies.
Why wait for the NSA? Got a decent connection and a spare boxen? Set one up yourself (http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens-for-windows/).
-edit-
BBC has good footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8107866.stm) of today's march. Just look at it. How can anyone in their right mind see this kind of momentum building and conclude that nothing will change?
Marshal Murat
06-18-2009, 19:54
Where's M'a Dinnerjacket? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/18/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-iran)
Speculation is intensifying about the whereabouts of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claimed victory in the Iranian presidential election but has not been seen in public since Monday, when he was in Russia for a conference.
Iranian media have reported only that the president was greeted by a number of senior government officials when he arrived home late on Tuesday.
Ahmadinejad's last public appearance in Iran was on Sunday, when he gave a combative press conference at his Tehran office for foreign and local media, and compared the supporters of the defeated election candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi to football fans whose team had lost.
Why wait for the NSA? Got a decent connection and a spare boxen? Set one up yourself (http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/15/how-to-setup-a-proxy-for-iran-citizens-for-windows/).
I would imagine that the NSA could set up huge tubes (big enough to drive a truck through), with superfast servers, in many different countries and on many different IP blocks. Something the average .Org dweller cannot do (but the "Proxy@Home" movement has its advantages, wide regional distribution being the biggest). They could either setup and run them under a front, or openly with some form of plausible deniability (um, AA3 download servers, yeah, that's the ticket...)
More info (http://iran.whyweprotest.net/) about what civilians can do.
I would imagine that the NSA could set up huge tubes (big enough to drive a truck through), with superfast servers, in many different countries and on many different IP blocks. Something the average .Org dweller cannot do (but the "Proxy@Home" movement has its advantages, wide regional distribution being the biggest). They could either setup and run them under a front, or openly with some form of plausible deniability (um, AA3 download servers, yeah, that's the ticket...)The Internet is not (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs) a big truck. :stare:
seireikhaan
06-18-2009, 21:26
I think this (http://emsenn.com/iran.php) is telling.
What do we want?
Remove Khamenei from supreme leader
Remove Ahmadinejad because he took it forcefully and unlawfully
Put Ayatollah Monazeri as supreme leader until a review of the constitution is set up
Recognize Mousavi as official president
Let Mousavi rule as the constitution is reformed
Free all political prisoners, immediately
Call off all secret militia and offices
Numero uno, remove the Supreme Leader....
Since everything is always about us, here's Robert Kagan's op-ed, Obama, Siding With the Regime (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html), and Mat Duss' Open Letter To Robert Kagan (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/06/17/open-letter-to-robert-kagan/).
I can't decide if this debate is just partisan hackery as usual or an eruption of national narcissism.
CountArach
06-19-2009, 11:04
Ayatollah Khomeini (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6534685.ece) endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
Mr Ahmadinjad had opinions closer to his own than the other candidates.
tibilicus
06-19-2009, 11:19
Ayatollah Khomeini (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6534685.ece) endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
Disgusting. And if they don't what's he going to do? Send in his "revolutionary" Guard to slaughter them? That wouldn't be something Allah would want surely?
This is why Iran needs a completely new political system, you can't have some whack job claiming to be a religious figure of authority and then at the same time claim to be a democratic country.
Furunculus
06-19-2009, 11:42
it's rare that we agree, but i'm with you on this one.
Ayatollah Khomeini (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6534685.ece) endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....
priceless
CountArach
06-19-2009, 12:25
More quotes from the Ayattolah thanks to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/middleeastCrisis/idUSLJ459110):
"Differences of opinion do exist between officials which is natural. But it does not mean there is a rift in the system.
"The enemies (of Iran) are targeting the Islamic establishment's legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity before and after (the vote)."
"After street protests, some foreign powers ... started to interfere in Iran's state matters by questioning the result of the vote. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference."
Most of those are comedy material in and of themselves, but this one really puts the icing on the cake...
"It's a wrong impression that by using street protests as a pressure tool, they can compel officials to accept their illegal demands. This would be the start of a dictatorship."
:laugh4:
tibilicus
06-19-2009, 14:32
Unofficial reports are claiming the revolutionary Guard are now moving into Tehran. If this is indeed true then expect a blood bath..
I guess if anything has been gained from this situation it's that the Iranian government has been shown in its true light, a theocratic dictatorship. I know Obama hopes to have "relations" with Iran but the reality is that's never going to happen under the current leadership. I think we all know where this is going to lead to a couple of years down the line..
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVshuVeTx0do) condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]
Meanwhile, since President Obama is not willing to play villain for the mullahs, they've been stretching out, looking for other people to blame everything on. Britain is declared the most evil country in the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-khamenei-uk-gordon-brown), which sounds waaaay too ambitious for modern-day Britannia. Also there are unconfirmed reports that state-run Iranian TV is recycling clips from Fox News to show their people what a war-mongering, hateful country we are. Glenn Beck is Imadinnerjacket's useful idiot. Who knew?
The Supreme Leader decides to double-down on his regime, and instead of throwing Ahmadinejad under the bus, as I predicted, he's trying to focus outrage on Rafsanjani by giving him a poisoned kiss. Complicated stuff.
Meanwhile, protesters aren't having it (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&ref=opinion):
Iran has sought independence and some form of democracy for over a century. It now has the former but this election has clarified, for an overwhelmingly young population, the Islamic Republic’s utter denial of the latter.
The feeling in the crowd seems to be: today or never, all together and heave!
A man holds his mobile phone up to me: footage of a man with his head blown off last Monday. A man, 28, whispers: “The government will use more violence, but some of us have to make the sacrifice.”
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
Marshal Murat
06-19-2009, 19:33
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
Powerful stuff.
tibilicus
06-19-2009, 19:36
Meanwhile, since President Obama is not willing to play villain for the mullahs, they've been stretching out, looking for other people to blame everything on. Britain is declared the most evil country in the world (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-khamenei-uk-gordon-brown), which sounds waaaay too ambitious for modern-day Britannia. Also there are unconfirmed reports that state-run Iranian TV is recycling clips from Fox News to show their people what a war-mongering, hateful country we are. Glenn Beck is Imadinnerjacket's useful idiot. Who knew?
]
I laugh in the Mullahs face, any excuse to divert the failings of their radical and oppressive regime.
They'll get what's coming to them soon enough. Even if this revolution does get stomped out, do these mad men think the world will tolerate a nuclear Iran?
See ya in about 5 years Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, I'm counting down the days till we see your head on a silver plater. :2thumbsup:
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVshuVeTx0do) condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]The House 405-1 voted in favor of the following statement:
RESOLUTION
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.There's nothing there that I have a problem with. It's short, direct, and doesn't take sides.
For some more reading, here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=5018&page=0) is an interview with Mousavi spokesperson, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who recently spoke to members of th EU parliament,
Lord Winter
06-19-2009, 20:35
The last two points are fine. I don't see how you can see the first as anything else then support for the protesters.
I see that only Ron Paul had the guts to vote against it. Whatever, I suppose it doesn't matter; the mullahs want to put a face on the enemy, and that's Obama. As long as he plays it cagey they're out of luck.
-edit-
Dr. Paul's statement: "I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions."
Adrian II
06-19-2009, 21:31
I hate to say it, but some commentators and politicians seem to be opposing the President's course because he's Obama, and not because they've given any strategic thought to reality.Hear hear. American-Iranian history has been so poisonous that taking sides and applying US pressure woudl have only averse effects upon the present movement for more democracy. Obama is doing the right thing. I think his 'Twitter move' proves that the US are working behind the scenes, but very very carefully.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-19-2009, 21:34
I wonder if point 3 applies to everyone or just Iranians.
Good analysis from an anonymous Iranian here (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/the_four_iran_s/), with this heartening (and chilling) detail:
[A]s the general crowds spread into their homes militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'.
Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they after hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected.
The Basiji's are not.
These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.
CountArach
06-19-2009, 22:48
The Guardian has another live day coverage (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/19/iran-unrest)... including this piece:
It was 4pm at Vanak Square in Tehran, and people were protesting against the election results. The riot police were standing in front of us.
Suddenly the police started to run towards us, with their black helmets and batons they were so scary. Some people escaped and some others ran towards them and threw stones.
As we were running down Vali Asr Avenue, a young man fell on the ground. I saw that, as he was there a soldier reached him and started beating him in the back with the baton. He shouted and cried for help. I ran towards the soldier and punched him in the face. The young man managed to escape.
As I tried to escape two other soldiers were behind me. They cornered me. I didn't have any way of escaping. They started beating me like hell, and the one that I'd punched also came in.
The three of them hit me at least 50 times. One of them grabbed me and tried to push me on the ground. The punched one tried to beat me in the face and I had to protect it with my left hand.
As people saw this, they threw stones at them. Fortunately a big one hit one of them in back, and I managed to push him and run like hell.
I didn't even dare to go to hospital because they might easily catch you there. I've been taking painkillers just to able to sleep.
When the people don't even trust the doctors... :no:
rory_20_uk
06-19-2009, 23:07
When the people don't even trust the doctors... :no:
That is twisting things. There's a good chance there's police / security services / revolutionary guard keeping watch, so even if the medical staff don't say anything (and OK, they might be informants in Iran) you'll still be picked up.
~:smoking:
CountArach
06-19-2009, 23:18
That is twisting things. There's a good chance there's police / security services / revolutionary guard keeping watch, so even if the medical staff don't say anything (and OK, they might be informants in Iran) you'll still be picked up.
~:smoking:
True, I didn't think of that angle. My mind leaped to people not trust doctors to keep their Hypocratic oaths.
My mind leaped to people not trust doctors to keep their Hypocratic oaths.
Please tell me you did that on purpose.
Anyways lols
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/forum090616_620.jpg
Crazed Rabbit
06-20-2009, 07:50
I see that only Ron Paul had the guts to vote against it. Whatever, I suppose it doesn't matter; the mullahs want to put a face on the enemy, and that's Obama. As long as he plays it cagey they're out of luck.
-edit-
Dr. Paul's statement: "I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly. I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions."
Good on Obama, and good on Dr. Paul. *Becomes wistful...*
Another whisper: “Where are you from?” When I say the United States, he says: “Please give our regards to freedom.”
I'm speechless.
[A]s the general crowds spread into their homes militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'.
Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they after hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected.
The Basiji's are not.
These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.
For those wondering what use guns would be for people fighting tyranny...
There's nothing there that I have a problem with. It's short, direct, and doesn't take sides.
It's a thin and threadbare veil, and we all know what it means. I think Obama is going down the right path.
CR
CountArach
06-20-2009, 10:32
Please tell me you did that on purpose.
That's what I get for posting at 8 in the morning whilst feeling sick...
Furunculus
06-20-2009, 12:56
Our well-paid idiots in the House of Representatives just passed a resolution (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVshuVeTx0do) condemning the crackdown in Iran. Well, that will make everything better then, won't it? [/sarcasm]
i don't buy that line of reasoning.
adult are supposed to be able to take responsibility for their actions, and by supporting a US refusal to condemn the violence in case it creates an excuse for tehran to shift the blame from themselves you do nothing but infantilise the population of iran.
tehrans actions are disgusting, and the only honourable action for a civilised nation state to take is to publicly condemn it.
if it does lead to a resurgence of support for the regime because the iranian people choose to accept tehran demonising the US then so be it.
the iranian electorate are adults, they make their bed and they deserve to lie in it.
rory_20_uk
06-20-2009, 13:12
A couple of assumptions there:
Adults rarely take responsibility for their actions
Adults are very rarely well read or articulate and will often mob to a banner rather than think
Adults in no country likes others to meddle in their internal affairs
I would rather take a more pragmatic approach than have countries turn against mine purely as I was following the theoretically best one.
~:smoking:
Furunculus
06-20-2009, 13:26
your telling me that adults are frail creatures prone to failure and mistakes................ i agree.
i also don't care. iranian adults should be treated as such otherwise we should invade them so they can be taken into social-care, because clearly if they cannot act in the self-knowledge that their actions have consequences then they are not legally responsible, they are in fact children that mustn't be allowed to play with sharp objects.
KukriKhan
06-20-2009, 14:04
your telling me that adults are frail creatures prone to failure and mistakes................ i agree.
i also don't care. iranian adults should be treated as such otherwise we should invade them so they can be taken into social-care, because clearly if they cannot act in the self-knowledge that their actions have consequences then they are not legally responsible, they are in fact children that mustn't be allowed to play with sharp objetcs.
rofl
CountArach
06-20-2009, 14:08
Did someone say police state (http://tazahorate-ma.blogspot.com/2009/06/teheran-6202009.html)?
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/5153_101309286546507_10000002308248.jpg
Also The Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/20/iran-unrest)
Protester have been dispersed with teargas, according to Reuters witnesses.
Smoke was rising over Enghelab (Revolution) Square, a witness said.
Witnesses have told AP that protesters are holding "small" rallies in Tehran.
tibilicus
06-20-2009, 14:33
Did someone say police state (http://tazahorate-ma.blogspot.com/2009/06/teheran-6202009.html)?
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/5153_101309286546507_10000002308248.jpg
Also The Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/20/iran-unrest)
Protester have been dispersed with teargas, according to Reuters witnesses.
Smoke was rising over Enghelab (Revolution) Square, a witness said.
Witnesses have told AP that protesters are holding "small" rallies in Tehran.
Ayatollah Khamenei says the Islamic republic would not cheat, so let me guess, the Islamic republic is also not a police state?
I sincerely hope this guy hurries up and dies so a real revolution can get under way.
KukriKhan
06-20-2009, 14:36
As abhorrent and brutal as the outcome may be, the silver lining in the Tehran Tragedy is: the powers-that-be obviously now fear a large part of the population; they have to deploy both overwhelming force and calls for religious compliance to quell the expression of unrest.
But the unrest won't disappear. The protesters will remember their empowerment. And some day...
tibilicus
06-20-2009, 17:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sW3HVHGvgkE
Absolutely phenomenal.
According to comments on that video foreign embassy's are starting to accept the injured as the hospitals aren't safe.Ayatollah Khamenei no doubt will try and sue such actions as propaganda. The guy genuinely sickens me.
Crazed Rabbit
06-20-2009, 17:56
The Mouse that Roared:
https://img231.imageshack.us/img231/1723/18503320.jpg
CR
According to comments on that video foreign embassy's are starting to accept the injured as the hospitals aren't safe.
A list being circulated of embassies that are accepting wounded:
Australian Embassy accepting injured: No. 13, 23rd Street, Khalid Islambuli Ave - Telephone+98 21 8872 4456
Finnish Embassy Corner Of Nilou St, Below Vanak Sq, Vali-e Asr Ave
German Embassy: Avenue Ferdowsi 320-324 -
British Embassy 198, Ferdowsi Avenue Tehran 11316-91144
Dutch Embassy No.36, Jahansouz Alley, Sarbedaran St., Ostad Motahari
Norway: #412 8th Kohestan, Northern Pasdaran Ave
Belgian Embassy No.3,Babak Alley, Shabdiz St.,Shahid Fayyaz Bakhsh Ave.
Italian Embassy accepting injured at 81, Neauphle Le Chateau Ave.
Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia Tehran No 30, Narenjestan 8th Alley Pasdaran Avenue
Portugese Embassy No.30, Nezami St., Abbas Pour St., Valy-e-Asr
God bless them all.
Adrian II
06-20-2009, 18:16
But the unrest won't disappear. The protesters will remember their empowerment. And some day...They will remember their number. Dissidents in dictatorships are always kept isolated, silenced, supervised to keep them unaware of their strength and number. The sheer number of kindred souls pouring into the streets these days is what the Iranians will remember most, both those who hold power or support it, and those who contest it. This is very hopeful indeed, even if the wrong 'tollahs prevail.
Marshal Murat
06-20-2009, 19:04
On HuffPost their also talking about a "suicide bombing" of a shrine by Iranians "trained in America and Britain" or somesuch nonsense (how does one train for suicide bombings?)
Devastatin Dave
06-20-2009, 19:54
I'm with Obama on this one. Best to stay out of this one because the Iranians in power now would love nothing more than to blame the Big Satan on this one. Regardless as to if Afterdinnerjacket or this other guy becomes the prez, either one is going to hate the US and blame the West in general as the source of all their problems.
So there, I got Obama's back on this one.:laugh4:
In Washington, President Barack Obama urged Iranian authorities to halt "all violent and unjust actions against its own people." He said the United States "stands by all who seek to exercise" the universal rights to assembly and free speech.That (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election) wasn't so hard. :wink:
Best post of the day. Please read it (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21tehran.html?_r=1). Reprinted below the tag.
A Supreme Leader Loses His Aura as Iranians Flock to the Streets
By ROGER COHEN
Published: June 20, 2009
TEHRAN — The Iranian police commander, in green uniform, walked up Komak Hospital Alley with arms raised and his small unit at his side. “I swear to God,” he shouted at the protesters facing him, “I have children, I have a wife, I don’t want to beat people. Please go home.”
A man at my side threw a rock at him. The commander, unflinching, continued to plead. There were chants of “Join us! Join us!” The unit retreated toward Revolution Street, where vast crowds eddied back and forth confronted by baton-wielding Basij militia and black-clad riot police officers on motorbikes.
Dark smoke billowed over this vast city in the late afternoon. Motorbikes were set on fire, sending bursts of bright flame skyward. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, had used his Friday sermon to declare high noon in Tehran, warning of “bloodshed and chaos” if protests over a disputed election persisted.
He got both on Saturday — and saw the hitherto sacrosanct authority of his office challenged as never before since the 1979 revolution birthed the Islamic Republic and conceived for it a leadership post standing at the very flank of the Prophet. A multitude of Iranians took their fight through a holy breach on Saturday from which there appears to be scant turning back.
Khamenei has taken a radical risk. He has factionalized himself, so losing the arbiter’s lofty garb, by aligning himself with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against both Mir Hussein Moussavi, the opposition leader, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a founding father of the revolution.
He has taunted millions of Iranians by praising their unprecedented participation in an election many now view as a ballot-box putsch. He has ridiculed the notion that an official inquiry into the vote might yield a different result. He has tried pathos and he has tried pounding his lectern. In short, he has lost his aura.
The taboo-breaking response was unequivocal. It’s funny how people’s obsessions come back to bite them. I’ve been hearing about Khamenei’s fear of “velvet revolutions” for months now. There was nothing velvet about Saturday’s clashes. In fact, the initial quest to have Moussavi’s votes properly counted and Ahmadinejad unseated has shifted to a broader confrontation with the regime itself.
Garbage burned. Crowds bayed. Smoke from tear gas swirled. Hurled bricks sent phalanxes of police, some with automatic rifles, into retreat to the accompaniment of cheers. Early afternoon rumors that the rally for Moussavi had been canceled yielded to the reality of violent confrontation.
I don’t know where this uprising is leading. I do know some police units are wavering. That commander talking about his family was not alone. There were other policemen complaining about the unruly Basijis. Some security forces just stood and watched. “All together, all together, don’t be scared,” the crowd shouted.
I also know that Iran’s women stand in the vanguard. For days now, I’ve seen them urging less courageous men on. I’ve seen them get beaten and return to the fray. “Why are you sitting there?” one shouted at a couple of men perched on the sidewalk on Saturday. “Get up! Get up!”
Another green-eyed woman, Mahin, aged 52, staggered into an alley clutching her face and in tears. Then, against the urging of those around her, she limped back into the crowd moving west toward Freedom Square. Cries of “Death to the dictator!” and “We want liberty!” accompanied her.
There were people of all ages. I saw an old man on crutches, middle-aged office workers and bands of teenagers. Unlike the student revolts of 2003 and 1999, this movement is broad.
“Can’t the United Nations help us?” one woman asked me. I said I doubted that very much. “So,” she said, “we are on our own.”
The world is watching, and technology is connecting, and the West is sending what signals it can, but in the end that is true. Iranians have fought this lonely fight for a long time: to be free, to have a measure of democracy.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution, understood that, weaving a little plurality into an authoritarian system. That pluralism has ebbed and flowed since 1979 — mainly the former — but last week it was crushed with blunt brutality. That is why a whole new generation of Iranians, their intelligence insulted, has risen.
I’d say the momentum is with them for now. At moments on Saturday, Khamenei’s authority, which is that of the Islamic Republic itself, seemed fragile. The revolutionary authorities have always mocked the cancer-ridden Shah’s ceding before an uprising, and vowed never to bend in the same way. Their firepower remains formidable, but they are facing a swelling test.
Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas. I’d lit a cigarette minutes before — not a habit but a need — and a young man collapsed into me shouting, “Blow smoke in my face.” Smoke dispels the effects of the gas to some degree.
I did what I could and he said, “We are with you” in English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging.
There were about 20 of us gathered there, eyes running, hearts racing. A 19-year-old student was nursing his left leg, struck by a militiaman with an electric-shock-delivering baton. “No way we are turning back,” said a friend of his as he massaged that wounded leg.
Later, we moved north, tentatively, watching the police lash out from time to time, reaching Victory Square where a pitched battle was in progress. Young men were breaking bricks and stones to a size for hurling. Crowds gathered on overpasses, filming and cheering the protesters. A car burst into flames. Back and forth the crowd surged, confronted by less-than-convincing police units.
I looked up through the smoke and saw a poster of the stern visage of Khomeini above the words, “Islam is the religion of freedom.”
Later, as night fell over the tumultuous capital, gunfire could be heard in the distance. And from rooftops across the city, the defiant sound of “Allah-u-Akbar” — “God is Great” — went up yet again, as it has every night since the fraudulent election. But on Saturday it seemed stronger. The same cry was heard in 1979, only for one form of absolutism to yield to another. Iran has waited long enough to be free.
CountArach
06-21-2009, 08:44
Best post of the day. Please read it (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21tehran.html?_r=1).
Wow, I got chills reading that. It sounds like it is growing increasingly radical at this point... it is what the people need.
Some other news; people have actually been shouting "Marg Bar Khamenei!", which means "Death to Khamenei!". It looks like they have lost some of their faith in the Ayatollah.
Yesterday Mir Hussain Moussavi also washed his hands in preparation for martyrdom. I get most of my info here (http://niacblog.wordpress.com/)
point of no return?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/
never shoot pretty young girls people don't like that, and if you absolutely have to make sure nobody is filming. This is where a single image can change the course of a country, it's a horrible video, the way she looks in the camera just before she starts giving up blood is worth a thousand speeches.
Samurai Waki
06-21-2009, 11:03
absolutely heart rending. I hope the Iranians find whatever they're looking for. :shame:
tibilicus
06-21-2009, 12:05
point of no return?
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/21/iran.woman.twitter/
never shoot pretty young girls people don't like that, and if you absolutely have to make sure nobody is filming. This is where a single image can change the course of a country, it's a horrible video, the way she looks in the camera just before she starts giving up blood is worth a thousand speeches.
It's even more sickening than that, she doesn't actually intentionally look at the camera. Apparently when you die/ are dying your eyes roll upwards, it was just a coincidence that her eyes rolled up towards the camera. The video is awful though, the way the blood comes rushing out is extremely graphic, it just hits home how violent yesterday actually was.
Also today should be interesting, peaceful protests are due to take place around the world. Now who wants to make a bet that the Mullahs will some how use it as anti-western propaganda?
Banquo's Ghost
06-21-2009, 12:14
May she and all those dying for freedom in Iran rest in peace. Let us hope their sacrifice will not be in vain. Her father's cries have touched me to the core - no man should have to watch his daughter die.
May I extend a particular thanks to Lemur for your excellent range of articles and blogs that have been so useful in understanding and following what is going on. I am not blessed with any Google-fu, and I'm extremely grateful for your contributions. :bow:
Now who wants to make a bet that the Mullahs will some how use it as anti-western propaganda?
Maybe it is, it's a bit too good, Neda means 'voice' in farsi, and Spielberg couldn't have shot it better.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-21-2009, 13:21
Maybe not, the sad truth is that more and more scenes like this are being filmed on the streets, it was only a matter of time before a "good" one popped up.
A word of caution, all those hoping for a secular democracy to come out of this should be dissapointed. It looks increasingly like this will at best be a changing of hats. Possibly less corrupt hats, but I'd say that is no better than an even bet at this point.
Samurai Waki
06-21-2009, 13:26
Change isn't usually made all at once. It will take time, especially a society like Iran's. However, this may be a death knell for the Ayatollah's.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
06-21-2009, 13:30
Or it may just be a death knell for this one. If he is declared apostate and the other Mullahs all stand against him the theocratic element can be maintained by declaring him an enemy of God.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.