Iranian Elections

[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.

[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.

[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]

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."

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.

[Lemur]

Hmm, this discussion is complicated enough without dragging Israel into it.

The Economist has a very good, very pithy summation 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 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.

[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.

[Xiahou]

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 by Nader Mousavizadeh. I think he makes some interesting points.

[Lemur]

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 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.

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 and Pat Buchannon, two men of wildly different political persuasion who have arrived at the same conclusion.

[drone]

For more perspective, here's a WaPo column 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.

[Lemur]

Another response 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.”

[TinCow]

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?

[Lemur]

Good analysis 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.

[Viking]

The Persian Bay

[drone]

The Persian Bay

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.

[Lemur]

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.

-edit-

BBC has good footage 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]

Where's M'a Dinnerjacket?

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.

[drone]

Why wait for the NSA? Got a decent connection and a spare boxen? Set one up yourself.

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...)

[Lemur]

More info about what civilians can do.

[Xiahou]

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 a big truck.

[seireikhaan]

I think this is telling.

What do we want?

1. Remove Khamenei from supreme leader
2. Remove Ahmadinejad because he took it forcefully and unlawfully
3. Put Ayatollah Monazeri as supreme leader until a review of the constitution is set up
4. Recognize Mousavi as official president
5. Let Mousavi rule as the constitution is reformed
6. Free all political prisoners, immediately
7. Call off all secret militia and offices

Numero uno, remove the Supreme Leader....

[Lemur]

Since everything is always about us, here's Robert Kagan's op-ed, Obama, Siding With the Regime, and Mat Duss' 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]

Ayatollah Khomeini 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]

Ayatollah Khomeini 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]

it's rare that we agree, but i'm with you on this one.

[Fragony]

Ayatollah Khomeini endorses the election results officially an calls for people to get behind Ahmedinejasefsdfgljnbvdirhgrv because....

priceless

[CountArach]

More quotes from the Ayattolah thanks to Reuters:

"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."

[tibilicus]

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..