Iranian Elections

[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

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.

[FactionHeir]

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?

[Lemur]

Page not found. Got a backup?

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

[Marshal Murat]

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

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]

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?

[Lemur]

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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[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.

[Haudegen]

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.

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.

[drone]

Obama needs to throw his support behind Imadinnerjacket, thereby labeling him as a tool of the Great Satan and unworthy of the presidency.

[Hosakawa Tito]

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.