Iranian Elections

[Lemur]

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]

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

[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"?

[CountArach]

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...

[Furunculus]

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.

[Xiahou]

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:

"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.

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

[Lemur]

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 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.

[Xiahou]

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?

[Lemur]

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:

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

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 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:

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.

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.

[Lemur]

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: "The president is also speaking in code. [...] The code the administration is using is implicit support for this repressive, tyrannical regime."

Hays: "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: "[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."

[Idaho]

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.

[Idaho]

What's this?

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.

[Lemur]

The Guardian has a liveblog 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 on Obama's performance.

[Scurvy]

The Guardian has a liveblog 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

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.

[Adrian II]

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.