Iranian Elections

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.

It's an extraordinary time.

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."

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.

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/independ...616-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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 has this interesting bit, which if true insinuates that the latter may be the case:

Quote:

---

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.

Last night on MSNBC Rachel Maddow had an interesting interview with Nico Pitney. The link for the video is in my last post. With the foreign media prevented from broadcasting just about anything Nico is scooping them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

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/independ...616-cgkl.htmll

---

Page not found. Got a backup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Page not found. Got a backup?

---

He fat-fingered the URL. Here's the corrected version.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Cam across this useful web page. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/.../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, 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Senator McCain

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:

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Or more insidiously, Lemur, there may be those who were excited about a war on Iran that were rooting for Amadinejad...

There's an incendiary letter 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"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There's an incendiary letter 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 of voter turnout in excess of 100% have surfaced...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

There's an incendiary letter 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.

If you want an idea of some of the numbers turning up to the protests and the demographics they represent check out these pictures. 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 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Iranian Legislature considering a sit-down with the three "losing" candidates

Quote:

---

- 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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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 doesn't sound too unreasonable to me either:

Quote:

---

"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.

---

Quote:

---

"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.

Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter that if Obama accepts the rigged election, they're "doomed".

HuffPost Opinion/Summary

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Meanwhile, protesters tell a CNN reporter 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

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: