Iranian Elections

[MATLABdude]

I haven't seen anybody else post this, so I figured I might as well.

According to the official tally, with a turn-out of 85% of eligible voters, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has secured himself a second-term as the President of Iran, winning 62.6% of the vote, against:

Reformist candidate (and former Prime Minister) Mir-Hossein Mousavi, 33.75% of the vote
Mohsen Rezai (who denounces Ahmadinejad for not doing enough vis a vis the west), 1.75%, and
Mehdi Karroubi (another reformist candidate), 0.9%


Above figures from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098305.stm

Since this would make Ahmadinejad the single most popular President in Iranian history (raw number and percentage of vote), and has him crushing Mousavi by nearly a two to one ratio (polls, such as they are, had predicted a victory for Mousavi, or at least a tighter race), various parties are crying foul, led by Mousavi himself:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5523414/Iran-elections-rival-Mir-Hossein-Mousavi-wont-accept-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad-victory.html

Juan Cole deconstructs the results, though it's mostly circumstantial in nature:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Stratfor reports unconfirmed rumours that the head of the Expediency Council (think of them as the election monitors), Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, has resigned declaring the elections invalid, and calling for a do-over:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/followup-on-earlier-posts.html

Since the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) and Guardian Council gets to, in effect, scrap the election results, and has the prerogative to name the President themselves, the fact that this is happening is rather odd. They also hold ultimate say over the direction of the country, and the President (though he gets a great deal of latitude in terms of the economy) is viewed as a figure head. Presidential Elections (once the candidates have been 'vetted' by the Guardian Council for suitability) have largely been run fairly in the past (and Reformist Khatami won two terms as President). Assuming the election has, in fact, been stolen, there would really be no reason for the Supreme Leader to do it.

There are some who think that, in actuality, a coup has occurred, with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the military taking control of the government, and keeping the Supreme Leader on as a figurehead. Others think that perhaps this a coup from the top on down, while still others think that perhaps we were all bamboozled by a good story of a Reformist, pro-western candidate, and/or expecting Tehran and the young to represent the whole of the country. All three of the above scenarios are presented at:
http://www.mideastanalysis.com/1/post/2009/06/what-happened-in-iran.html

Nevertheless, there's at least some degree of rioting, murmurings and anecdotal tales of ballot shenanigans, and a whole lot of confusion as to what's going on over there (journalists are having their visas revoked, and being asked to leave the country). There's a lot of Iranian grad students at my university, but I haven't seen or talked to any of them since before the elections. I don't know of any that *AREN'T* liberal pro-Reformist types, but that seems to be the prevailing sentiment over there amongst the young and educated.

FYI, I heard that something like 2/3 of Iranians are under 25!

[MATLABdude]

Some pictures from the demonstrations / rioting in Tehran (found by way of a Fark thread):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mousavi1388/sets/72157619592664479/

[math_04]

Of course the elections were rigged, they were always going to be rigged. Mir Hossain Moussavi represents the side of pragmatism, a side that wants to negotiate cautiously with the West and avoid the inflammatory rhetoric of Ahmadinejad. But the Guardian Council, Ministry of Interior and the Revolutionary Guards probably got together and decided that Moussavi represents a danger to the 'revolutionary' ideals of the Islamic Republic especially in light of Obama's outreach.

I doubt any coup took place but honestly, Ali Khamenei has to agree with the hardliners. Although he himself has tried to steer a course between hardliners and the pragmatic conservatives, at this point in time, the hardliners call the shots. He has neither the charisma nor the willingness to challenge them.

Ahmadinejad does have a following amongst the poor and parts of the working class, all he did was bribe them with money though. Iran is definitely going to face trouble now, apparently the latest news is that Moussavi is under house arrest and yes Rafsanjani has retired. That was to be expected, Rafsanjani was humiliated by Ahmadinejad and furthermore, his power and standing amongst the ruling elite has now diminished.

[MATLABdude]

Khamenei did certify the elections, proclaim the strength of the revolution / the people, and called for calm, but why should he bother rigging the elections when, in the event of a Mousavi victory, he can literally wave his hands (on a piece of paper), invalidate the election, and make Ahmadinejad president?

EDIT: Wow, sounds like Rafsanjani has been Zhiyanged:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Ziyang

[math_04]

That is not the way Khamenei does things. He rarely makes a public show of his powers, everything is done behind the scenes. The problem here is not only Ahmadinejad winning the election, the margin that he won by seems fantastical, 67% compared to Moussavi 33%. The reason Khatami won the elections in 1997 was due to him rallying Iranians from all the across the political divide and especially the students. Ahmadinejad won narrowly in 2005 due to the reformists boycotting the vote. This year, the reformists turned out in large numbers to vote and still Ahmadinejad won by a record margin? That is just unbelievable.

I guess all the world can hope for is that the president elect can tone down his racist, ugly rhetoric that has hurt Iran's image abroad and respond favorably to President Obama's outreach.

[Gokul43201]

Of course the elections were rigged, they were always going to be rigged. Mir Hossain Moussavi represents the side of pragmatism, a side that wants to negotiate cautiously with the West and avoid the inflammatory rhetoric of Ahmadinejad. But the Guardian Council, Ministry of Interior and the Revolutionary Guards probably got together and decided that Moussavi represents a danger to the 'revolutionary' ideals of the Islamic Republic especially in light of Obama's outreach.Yet Khatami, who was Finance Minister under Mousavi, who was PM) was "allowed" to win twice. And Khatami threw his support behind Mousavi for this election.

Why should the GC "block" Mousavi (not saying they didn't) through irregular means (they could have blocked his nomination in the first place - they have the power to do that) when they didn't block Khatami? I guess my question is aimed at examining possible motive.

[math_04]

They did not block Mousavi because there would be dissent from the pragmatists and reformists for not having at least one of their candidates competing. Normally, even the conservatives agree that there should be at least one reformist candidate participating. While not as strong as the hardliners, they do have some notable members in powerful positions. Also they probably grossly underestimated the strength of the reformist movement and the fact that quite a few Iranians are not happy with Ahmadinejad's economic policies.

During 1997-2005, Iran's ruling elite probably felt more safer than they do now. It might have been a 'lets see what happens' scenario. Khatami asked for too much reform and most of his policies were scuttled away by Ayatollah Khamenei. With the nuclear program, Obama's unclenching of the fist etc, the ruling elite probably feel they need one of their men in charge. Ahmadinejad and his revolutionary zeal helps promote the principles of the Islamic republic according to the elite. In fact, quite a few powerful clerics want him to stay on as president forever.

It does seem hard to understand what they do, a whole library of books and data has been written on Iran since the revolution and yet, unless you are part of the government, it is very hard to know what is going on.

[Gokul43201]

They did not block Mousavi because there would be dissent from the pragmatists and reformists for not having at least one of their candidates competing. Normally, even the conservatives agree that there should be at least one reformist candidate participating. Keep in mind that Karroubi is also a reformist.

During 1997-2005, Iran's ruling elite probably felt more safer than they do now. It might have been a 'lets see what happens' scenario. Khatami asked for too much reform and most of his policies were scuttled away by Ayatollah Khamenei. With the nuclear program, Obama's unclenching of the fist etc, the ruling elite probably feel they need one of their men in charge. Ahmadinejad and his revolutionary zeal helps promote the principles of the Islamic republic according to the elite.This may be possible, but I remember reading a while ago something about Khamenei considering Ahmadinejad an embarrassment (can't recall if it was news or opinion, will have to look for the source)

In fact, quite a few powerful clerics want him to stay on as president forever. Interesting - I hadn't heard that. Do you have a source for it?

[math_04]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1534604/Ayatollah-who-backs-suicide-bombs-aims-to-be-Irans-next-spiritual-leader.html

There were a few other sites too, where Yazdi apparently gave a fatwa saying that Ahmadinejad's election in 2005 was god given and finally there is a true Islamic republic. He has much clout with the Revolutionary Guards and is part of the powerful Assembly of Experts (in charge of selecting a new Supreme Leader and supervising his activities).

Yea, Khamenei has had a few disagreements with Ahmadinejad although they have not spilled over into public domain. Karroubi is a reformist too but no chance he would win, he personally insulted Khamenei's son in the last election accusing him of election fraud which resulted in an absolute uproar. In fact, it was surprising that he managed to get through the Guardian Council filter to compete at all.

[Office_Shredder]

CBS reports a fairly worrying development

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/14/world/main5087285.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline


Mackell says the crackdown on protests has also extended to journalists, making it almost impossible for the media to cover the story. "I saw yesterday a Japanese camera crew who have full government permission and were working with an approved government translator, still were beaten and arrested by the police for filming at a protest. That kind of thing is happening to a lot of people. Journalists are having their cameras taken.

"There's been a decision not to extend any press visas. None of the foreign press are going to have their visas extended. And because the visas are only given out for a week to ten days to start with, that means very shortly all of the foreign press will be gone, except for those who have bureaus here.

"I wouldn't say the police have been showing restraint, they're been really going hard after the protestors, but after the foreign press goes, who knows what will happen.

[russ_watters]

Khamenei did certify the elections, proclaim the strength of the revolution / the people, and called for calm, but why should he bother rigging the elections when, in the event of a Mousavi victory, he can literally wave his hands (on a piece of paper), invalidate the election, and make Ahmadinejad president?
Because it is much better politically to rig an election than to throw it out after the fact. The rigging can't be proven and it enables them to claim (as A-jad has) that he's a democratically elected leader.

The thing that annoys me is that the tone of the media the past few weeks didn't really go into this issue at all. It left me thinking that this might actually be a real election and A-jad might actually lose. Then after the fact, they say - 'oh, and by the way, it doesn't matter anyway because he doesn't have supreme political power in the country and is a farce of a figurehead'. Of course I knew that, but I allowed myself to forget it.

[MATLABdude]

Because it is much better politically to rig an election than to throw it out after the fact. The rigging can't be proven and it enables them to claim (as A-jad has) that he's a democratically elected leader.

The thing that annoys me is that the tone of the media the past few weeks didn't really go into this issue at all. It left me thinking that this might actually be a real election and A-jad might actually lose. Then after the fact, they say - 'oh, and by the way, it doesn't matter anyway because he doesn't have supreme political power in the country and is a farce of a figurehead'. Of course I knew that, but I allowed myself to forget it.

I think there's something else to remember here: you and I have a notion of what electing a Presider / Prime Minister means, but the Iranians know that the true leader is going to be the Supreme Leader. So the Iranians nod and smile, keep their heads down, and hope that things might just be a little better under the new figurehead. What better way to show who's boss than to come in and invalidate an election? Everything he does is divinely-ordained, and he has the ability to 'correct' the results of any election to suit this. Although I will agree that even dictators have some notion of 'optics' (as much as I dislike that word)--or some notion of 'why not make things fair? the people love me!'.

I still think there's some credence to the internal coup theory. Despite Ahmadinejad's ultraconservative values, and thus presumed alignment with the clerics, elections in the past have been run pretty fair, and according to the rules laid out ahead of time. What might've happened if they saw the returns, realized that things weren't going their way, and Ahmadinejad goes up to the Supreme Leader and says, "Certify this. Or else."? The 'or else' being that at the very least, there's a new Supreme Leader (say, Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor and mentor Mohammad Mesbah-Yazdi) or that Iran is torn asunder in civil war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Taghi_Mesbah_Yazdi

[Cyrus]

I think these events are great because they expose the sham of a government in Iran.

[LowlyPion]

Whatever the case as to the elections, those that collected the vote and counted it, must know that if the election of Ahmadi-Nejad is faked, that they are in serious trouble. Clamping the kettle tighter, only means a bigger explosion later. To the extent that they suppress popular demonstration, arrest, and beat ... so shall they reap. It is not a good crop to be planting, and it seems that now they sowing lots of seeds, pretty indiscriminately.

The Mullahs only kid themselves, if they think that lying or cheating the people of an actual election will ultimately accomplish anything, but hasten their complete repudiation. Water seeks its own level. These younger people become older, and the Mullahs age and die.

Perhaps Obama's rise is symptomatic of a more profound seismic shift in generations that is springing up everywhere?

[mheslep]

Tehran appears to be coming unglued after the election.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8098896.stm
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/123578958/tehran-street-clashes-a-policeman-is-taken-by
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/06/iran-on-fire.php

Totten points out a dedicated You Tube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=ahriman46&view=videos

With good reason by some reports:
On the basis of what we know so far, here is the sequence of events starting on the afternoon of election day, Friday, June 12.

* Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide
* Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers
* The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men
* National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner
* The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency
* But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad
* Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility
* The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility (also see the comments of Juan Cole at the title link)
* Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`i publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements
* Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.
http://garysick.tumblr.com/post/123070238/irans-political-coup

[math_04]

The coup theory, although interesting, should probably be discarded. Firstly, Ali Khamenei forged many useful contacts within the Revolutionary Guards and most of this trusted advisors are spread through Iran's political and security apparatus. Secondly, Mesbah Yazdi, although popular amongst the hardline militia like the Basij, does not have the clout or power to unite all the different factions behind him. Remember he lost the Assembly of Experts election to Rafsanjani.

Most likely, Khamenei, a conservative who shares many of the aspirations of the hardliners, felt the need to stop any openings that could have thawed relations between the West. Khamenei certainly does not want to normalise relations with the West, certainly will not bow down to pressure over the nuclear program and certainly will not abandon any of the repressive domestic policies like morality police, widespread censorship etc. Therefore, he may have forced the Ministry of Interior to announce that Ahmadinejad had won. The president of Iran is the Supreme Leader's poster boy who hardly has much powers within the establishment.

[math_04]

I wish I could share your optimism LowlyPion but the facts are that even the reformists were once revolutionary zealots who still love the Islamic Republic and its clerical establishment. For a revolution to occur, there needs to be a charismatic leader who would not have grown up during the revolution and the conflict with Iraq. There has to be widespread dissent around Iran, not just the sporadic clashes seen in a few cities.

[Greg Bernhardt]

Some disturbing photos of the situation
http://picasaweb.google.com/iranonfire/IranElectionDemonstrations#

Telegraph running leaked results story
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5540211/Iran-protest-cancelled-as-leaked-election-results-show-Mahmoud-Amadinejad-came-third.html

[math_04]

The Telegraph story is very disturbing. Live ammunition! If there is a protest which is a real possibility, hundreds could be killed.

[turbo]

I can't find the story right now, but I'll see if it pops up again. The reporter claimed that a major cause for suspicion amongst supporters of the reformers was the fact that the election results were reported so quickly after the election, with little or no chance that all those paper ballots could have been counted during the intervening time. We'll see where this leads...

[Greg Bernhardt]

The internet is simply amazing. Take these comments/tweets with a grain of salt.

http://friendfeed.com/iran-primary-sources
http://twitter.com/persiankiwi
http://iran.twazzup.com/?q=%23IranElection

[math_04]

There were other reasons too. The fact that Ahmadinejad won Tabriz and Tehran by a decent margin is astounding to say the least. Tabriz is the hometown of Mir Hossain Mousavi and he is extremely popular there. With Tehran, even though Ahmadinejad was the mayor, many in the city are not particularly fond of him either. Also, the fact that Ayatollah Khamenei announced pretty quickly that Ahmadinejad had won and the Iranian nation should rally behing the president elect. Normally, the constitution of Iran post revolution states that officially, the victor is announced after three days and then Khamenei makes the announcement.

[Gokul43201]

I happened upon a website[1] that makes a pretty compelling case for fraud, if you accept the authenticity of its source data. It says that partial results announced during all stages of counting maintained a constant ratio of Ahmadinejad votes : Mousavi votes.

http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/linearvote-590x493.jpg
The vertical axis (y) shows Mr. Mousavi’s votes, and the horizontal (x) the President’s. R^2 shows the correlation coefficient: the closer it is to 1.0, the more perfect is the fit, and it is 0.9995, as close to 1.0 as possible for any type of data.

Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own.

I tried to verify the data by going to the source website[2], but couldn't tell easily where the numbers came from. Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?

Ref:
1. http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/ *
2. See, for example, http://jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100909281058

* Note: This is not a reliable, mainstream source.

[Greg Bernhardt]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201157114ecdd970b-800wi

Guy in the blue shirt white beard is Mousavi at the present protest.

[mheslep]

I happened upon a website[1] that makes a pretty compelling case for fraud, if you accept the authenticity of its source data. It says that partial results announced during all stages of counting maintained a constant ratio of Ahmadinejad votes : Mousavi votes.

http://tehranbureau.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/linearvote-590x493.jpg


I tried to verify the data by going to the source website[2], but couldn't tell easily where the numbers came from. Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?

Ref:
1. http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/ *
2. See, for example, http://jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100909281058

* Note: This is not a reliable, mainstream source.
Also past elections show wide swings in outcome among the various provinces, according to some of the sites I posted above, nothing like this near 1.0 fit.

[Gokul43201]

An article by former Indian Ambassador M. K. Bhadrakumar, describes the election as a front for a behind-the-scenes power struggle between Rafsanjani and Khamenei. It reads almost like a Ludlum or a Forsyth. :D

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak05.html
...
The regime was already well into the election campaign when it realized that behind the clamor for a change of leadership in the presidency, Rafsanjani's challenge was in actuality aimed at Khamenei's leadership and that the election was a proxy war. The roots of the Rafsanjani-Khamenei rift go back to the late 1980s when Khamenei assumed the leadership in 1989.

Rafsanjani was among Imam Khomeini's trusted appointees to the first Revolutionary Council, whereas Khamenei joined only at a later stage when the council expanded its membership. Thus, Rafsanjani always harbored a grouse that Khamenei pipped him to the post of Supreme Leader.
...

Warning: There are a number of annoying typos near the end of the article, where Khamenei is referred to as Khatami. They should be read as below in the following paragraphs:

#19: "While Rafsanjani hobnobbed ... Khamenei turned ..."
#20: "Power inevitably ... Khanenei had already become ..."
#24: "Simultaneously ... unnerve Khamenei, ... Khamenei did the worst ..."
#25: "The IRGC ... Khamenei gave the seal ..."
#27: "Khamenei's message ..."

I think that's all of them.

[IntellectIsStrength]

Here are some recent pictures:
http://twitpic.com/photos/madyar


Warning: The above link shows images of dead/dying people which some may find disturbing. -- cristo

[MATLABdude]

MSNBC (probably an AP feed) reports that shots were fired at the rally, and at least one protester killed:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31365097/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

Article reports that the protesters attempted to storm a militia-held (Bassij?) building, at which point the shots were fired directly into the crowd.

[rootX]

Where is Ahmadinejad or his supporters?

I remember reading few months ago that Ahmadinejad did not have good ratings (public support) and he was not doing enough. (He had like 80% 4 yrs ago IIRC). I think I posted the link in other thread that time. It does not sound possible that he could have a landslide victory.

[LowlyPion]

Where is Ahmadinejad or his supporters?

I remember reading few months ago that Ahmadinejad did not have good ratings (public support) and he was not doing enough. (He had like 80% 4 yrs ago IIRC). I think I posted the link in other thread that time. It does not sound possible that he could have a landslide victory.

There was a demonstration organized yesterday of his supporters in declaring victory. But given the size of the outpouring of demonstrations today - into the hundreds of thousands - in an illegal demonstration - not state sponsored like yesterday's - I think the idea that it was a landslide, universally over the country is shaping up to fraud.

Bush wanted the Islamic countries to embrace democracy. Unfortunately what they may have learned is maybe closer to how Bush himself weaseled into office in 2000.

[russ_watters]

Whatever the case as to the elections, those that collected the vote and counted it, must know that if the election of Ahmadi-Nejad is faked, that they are in serious trouble. That, of course, assumes the votes were collected and counted. They couldn't possibly have manually counted the votes in the less than 24 hours before they announced the "official" results (much less the 1 hour that they first results): http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1904645_1904644_1904640,00.html

Besides that there were very unusual voting patterns, such as a very even victory margin across all geographic areas. Sounds to me like the leaders of Iran are so arrogant that they didn't even put much effort into trying to make the rigging believable.

[edit] So most of that was obsolete by now....

[rootX]

Besides that there were very unusual voting patterns, such as a very even victory margin across all geographic areas. Sounds to me like the leaders of Iran are so arrogant that they didn't even put much effort into trying to make the rigging believable.

I don't know what they are trying to do but looks like they just wanted trouble (considering endorsing the president). Either current environment was desired, or they are arrogant or plainly stupid (in that case a high school student can do a better job).

[Ivan Seeking]

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is discovering that there is a power far greater than the US - the internet.

[russ_watters]

Either current environment was desired, or they are arrogant or plainly stupid (in that case a high school student can do a better job). I tend to think that arrogance is the predominant driver of despots and they can't even fathom the need to put any effort into something like this. They are probably shocked that their people aren't just rolling over and accepting their rule.

[russ_watters]

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is discovering that there is a power far greater than the US - the internet. The most dangerous weapon in the world: the free flow of information.

[LowlyPion]

Reports are now that Kohemeni is allowing an inquiry into the election to proceed.

But that is simply absurd. What will they do? Say it was fraudulently reported? That Ahmadi-Nejad had fraudulently declared himself the victor? That would be jail or worse, I'd think. Are the Mullahs really ready to throw Ahmadi-Nejad under the bus? Or is the military already so entrenched in control that the Mullahs have no options, even if they wanted to?

I'd say there can only be one predetermined finding, that though there was minor inadvertent "adjustment"in tabulation the final results are not changed.

[MATLABdude]

Footage from the UK's Channel 4 of the protester shooting by the Bassij:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=26415347001

However, you have to infer a fair bit as you can hear the shots fired, and then cut to the aftermath.

EDIT: Link from a Fark thread. Looks like just the one guard got a case of itchy trigger finger and started shooting into the crowd.

[Gokul43201]

An article by former Indian Ambassador M. K. Bhadrakumar, describes the election as a front for a behind-the-scenes power struggle between Rafsanjani and Khamenei.
This same idea is also explored in this article by Time Magazine today.
Ayatullah vs. Ayatullah: Could Ayatullah Khamenei Be Vulnerable?
...
Apart from the Iranian electorate, Khamenei has a couple of very important constituencies to deal with. Indeed, while most people describe Khamenei as the unelected leader of Iran, he was chosen by a small but critical institution, the Assembly of Experts. He must also deal with the Guardian Council, which is equally small but also influential — and must certify the election results. Some pundits are now arguing that the Assembly of Experts could find constitutional means to remove Iran's Supreme Leader and that a refusal by the Guardian Council to validate the election could throw the country into further crisis.

The main impetus for this speculation is the influence in both groups of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the last surviving powerful member of the revolution's founding fathers. Rafsanjani was a very loud critic of Ahmadinejad, and thus indirectly of the President's patron, the Supreme Leader.
...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904729,00.html

[mheslep]

I find Irantracker (http://www.irantracker.org/)is on top of the various issues. Its run by Fred Kagan et al, who was probably the man most directly responsible for the intellectual basis of the US troop surge in Iraq, in 2006 when things were darkest.

In particular, they have by-province vote count data from the Iranian Interior ministry here:
http://www.irantracker.org/analysis/iranian-2009-presidential-election-results-province

[math_04]

Well even if Hashemi Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts, there are quite a few hardline conservatives within the group as well. Rafsanjani would need a broad agreement across the political spectrum if he is to unseat or even control Ali Khamenei. Plus Rafsanjani is unpopular amongst the Revolutionary Guards which represent another powerhouse in the establishment. They are strongly aligned with Ali Khamenei and strongly support Ahmadinejad's presidency. Remember how Ahmadinejad, the president with little real power, insulted and humilated the whole Rafsanjani family on state television. Ten years ago that would have been unthinkable, but it shows how the hardliners have cemented their position amongst the ruling elite in Iran.

[Hepth]

Those numbers are astounding.

in Mazandaran : nearly 2 MILLION people, and 99.43% voted. Thats just crazy. I didn't know that many people cared about the election in ANY country. Unless they were solicited door to door or something.

Or inflated...

[Cyrus]

Here are some recent pictures:
http://twitpic.com/photos/madyar


Warning: The above link shows images of dead/dying people which some may find disturbing. -- cristo

Holy cow look at those photos. So many people on the streets!

Great link!

(This is the best kind of uprising. Unlike President Bozo the clown (Bush) wanting to Invade Iran, this process came from within so it can't be deligitimized by the Iranians saying "Oh, this is just the Americans imposing their form of democracy" like in Iraq).

[Pyrrhus]

Wow, good luck to Iran. I mean Persia.

[Office_Shredder]

Ah, the most time honored tradition of a modern democracy

Recount time! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/iran.elections.protests/index.html)

This is a perfect opportunity for Obama to spread the American ideal of settling elections in court

[math_04]

The whole recount is a sham, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will continue to be president of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei, the hardliners and the Council of Guardians will ensure that the incumbent still wins. They cannot suddenly just say,yes Mousavi won and we were wrong all along. Not the way a theocratic dictatorship works.

And reading the latest news, Ahmadinejad is already in Moscow and up to his usual tirades against the West.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6SjlVyVSwFpQUCdA_cVbU_UiACQD98RN7F00

[Astronuc]

I happened upon a website[1] that makes a pretty compelling case for fraud, if you accept the authenticity of its source data. It says that partial results announced during all stages of counting maintained a constant ratio of Ahmadinejad votes : Mousavi votes. It seems rather blatant.


I don't know what they are trying to do but looks like they just wanted trouble (considering endorsing the president). Either current environment was desired, or they are arrogant or plainly stupid (in that case a high school student can do a better job). Or both. If the evidence in Gokul's post is true, and it appears that someone just used a linear fit to determine that Ahmadinejad had at least twice as many votes as Mousavi.

It appears that Khameini was premature in declaring Ahmadinejad the winner.

But in a rare break from a long history of cautious moves, he rushed to bless President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for winning the election, calling on Iranians to line up behind the incumbent even before the standard three days required to certify the results had passed.

. . . . http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16cleric.html

Defiance Grows as Iran’s Leader Sets Vote Review
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/16iran.html
TEHRAN — Hundreds of thousands of people marched in silence through central Tehran on Monday to protest Iran’s disputed presidential election in an extraordinary show of defiance from a broad cross section of society, even as the nation’s supreme leader called for a formal review of results he had endorsed two days earlier.

Having mustered the largest antigovernment demonstrations since the 1979 revolution, and defying an official ban, protesters began to sense the prospect — however slight at the moment — that the leadership’s firm backing of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had wavered.

The massive outpouring was mostly peaceful. But violence erupted after dark when protesters surrounded and attempted to set fire to the headquarters of the Basij volunteer militia, which is associated with the Revolutionary Guards, according to news agency reports. At least one man was killed, and several others were injured in that confrontation.
. . . .
Even if Ahmadinejad were declared winner by a smaller margin, there appears to be a strong shift in Iran away from the belligerence of Ahmadinejad. Perhaps the silent majority won't be so silent.

[Lisa!]

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is discovering that there is a power far greater than the US - the internet.

The internet speed gets really slow here most of the time after the election!

[Gokul43201]

Hi Lisa! Good to hear from you. If you are willing, could you give us your perspective on the situation over the last few days?

[LowlyPion]

I see that McCain has popped in with his attempt at Manichean analysis.
McCain, interviewed on NBC’s “Today” show, said the United States should support the Iranian people “in their struggle against an oppressive, repressive regime.” He said Iran “should not be subjected to four more years of [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and the radical Muslim clerics.”
Unfortunately for McCain I think it shows a shallow grasp of the realities there. The election regardless of who would win apparently doesn't effect the rule of the Muslim clerics. The group more potentially at risk seems to be the Revolutionary Guard, the military, whom Ahmadi-Nejad seems to serve with the consent of the Supreme Leader Kohemeni. I'm puzzled as to why McCain feels compelled to criticize Obama's measured response, to what is an internal situation, that I see no great advantage to the US inflaming further, and as a practical matter would be something that we cannot support in any meaningful material way, without turning the whole Muslim world against us.

With militia busting through the student dorms indiscriminately and other reports of state sponsored counter-agitprop, the entire society looks to be turned on edge. Democracy has a determined way of breaking out despite repression. The best course must be for us to wait and see what can be done, before rushing to the barricades of this battle. Regardless of this outcome, surely there is a longer road we must not poison.

And here McCain was the one that was supposed to at least have offered more foreign policy experience.

[Ivan Seeking]

The internet speed gets really slow here most of the time after the election!

Yes, I saw that in some reports on the internet, including yours. :biggrin:

[qsa]

The whole recount is a sham, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will continue to be president of Iran. Ayatollah Khamenei, the hardliners and the Council of Guardians will ensure that the incumbent still wins. They cannot suddenly just say,yes Mousavi won and we were wrong all along. Not the way a theocratic dictatorship works.

And reading the latest news, Ahmadinejad is already in Moscow and up to his usual tirades against the West.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6SjlVyVSwFpQUCdA_cVbU_UiACQD98RN7F00

Ahmadinejad is the winner; he represents the poor and normal working families. He was originally got elected based on his anti-establishment agenda i.e. corruption. He has made a lot of enemies at home and abroad because of the fundamental principals, power-justice to the people (everywhere) and independence from the supper-powers(the ideals of iranian revelotion).

[rootX]

Please keep American politics (Obama, McCain, Bush) out of this thread. I think else this will turn into another ugly American politics thread...

[LowlyPion]

I suspect that Ahmadinejad is discovering that there is a power far greater than the US - the internet.

From the dorm room attack:
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/06/16/gal_tehran_6.jpg

[Ivan Seeking]

Ahmadinejad is the winner;

How did they count the votes so quickly. That isn't possible.

[Gokul43201]

From LP's post, according to McCain: the United States should support the Iranian people “in their struggle against an oppressive, repressive regime.”

Virtually every Iran expert I've heard weigh in on this has said nearly the exact opposite: that the US should try to stay detatched for as long as possible. Marrying Moussavi to the evil US may be all Ahmadinejad needs to quiet the dissent that's boiling over now.

And I bring this up, not to delve into local US politics, but rather to weigh in with my opinion on the effect of possible US actions on the situation in Iran.

[Ivan Seeking]

Tonight: Was the election rigged?

120% say no.
- Colbert Report [comedy]

[math_04]

Anyway, Mousavi is not exactly an angel either. He was responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of Iranians who protested against the absolute theocratic rule of Ayatollah Khomeini during the early 1980s. He strongly believes in the rule of the clerics, strongly favors continuing the nuclear program etc. I guess it is just choosing the lesser of the two evils, the real reformists were not allowed to even contest the presidential elections by the Guardian Council.

[Gokul43201]

Anyway, Mousavi is not exactly an angel either. He was responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of Iranians who protested against the absolute theocratic rule of Ayatollah Khomeini during the early 1980s. He strongly believes in the rule of the clerics, strongly favors continuing the nuclear program etc. I guess it is just choosing the lesser of the two evils, the real reformists were not allowed to even contest the presidential elections by the Guardian Council.More about this in the article I cited in an earlier post:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak05.html


...
Who is Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmedinejad's main opponent in the election? He is an enigma wrapped in mystery. He impressed the Iranian youth and the urban middle class as a reformer and a modernist. Yet, as Iran's prime minister during 1981-89, Mousavi was an unvarnished hardliner. Evidently, what we have seen during his high-tech campaign is a vastly different Mousavi, as if he meticulously deconstructed and then reassembled himself.

This was what Mousavi had to say in a 1981 interview about the 444-day hostage crisis when young Iranian revolutionaries kept American diplomats in custody: "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years."

Most likely, he had a hand in the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ali Akbar Mohtashami, Hezbollah's patron saint, served as his interior minister. He was involved in the Iran-Contra deal in 1985, which was a trade-off with the Ronald Reagan administration whereby the US would supply arms to Iran and as quid pro quo Tehran would facilitate the release of the Hezbollah-held American hostages in Beirut. The irony is, Mousavi was the very anti-thesis of Rafsanjani and one of the first things the latter did in 1989 after taking over as president was to show Mousavi the door. Rafsanjani had no time for Mousavi's anti-"Westernism" or his visceral dislike of the market.
...

There's probably also some more background on Mousavi in the irantracker site that mheslep linked to earlier.

[LowlyPion]

I have to admit that I think the BBC seems to offer a bit better coverage on Iran than the US networks.

Perhaps its fewer axes to grind, or maybe just not so anxious to sensationalize it? It's sensational as it is for goodness sakes, and they just seem to get the news out without trying so hard to goose ratings.

But whatever the reason, I think their coverage is more measured and likely more thorough than some of the Twitter and Facebook and Skype feeds that some of the others are running with.

[Cyrus]

More about this in the article I cited in an earlier post:




There's probably also some more background on Mousavi in the irantracker site that mheslep linked to earlier.

Thanks for that link. I honestly don't know enough about him, but I doubt hes any different that Ahmedinijad. He probably doesn't make outrageous statements, but policy wise he's probably no different.

[qsa]

How did they count the votes so quickly. That isn't possible.
only 4 candidates. here are your approx. numbers

40000000(votes)/10000(station)=4000 votes
4000*.3MIN=1200 MINutes almost 24 hours

not exactly rocket science.

[Lisa!]

Now that some people like to comment base on their imagination and they just go to the conclusion that they like them to be true I think I'd better to be out of this thread!:biggrin:
Good luck

[Ivan Seeking]

only 4 candidates. here are your approx. numbers

40000000(votes)/10000(station)=4000 votes
4000*.3MIN=1200 MINutes almost 24 hours

not exactly rocket science.

Where do you get those numbers [10,000 stations]? Also, I thought they announced within a couple of hours of the polls closing.

[MATLABdude]

This was the only thing I could find on Iranian electoral procedures, and where manipulation could theoretically take place (note that the byline is from June 10th, a day or two before the elections began, depending on how you reckon things):
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/06/irans_voting_manipulation_indu.html

I remember the official results came out in something like 2 hours, and hearing that these weren't supposed to be announced for 4 days.

EDIT: And the article mentions that there are 60,000 polling stations. Never mind how long it takes to count the ballots, how long does it take to count the results from these 60,000 stations?!

[mheslep]

From LP's post, according to McCain: the United States should support the Iranian people “in their struggle against an oppressive, repressive regime.”

Virtually every Iran expert I've heard weigh in on this has said nearly the exact opposite: that the US should try to stay detatched for as long as possible. Marrying Moussavi to the evil US may be all Ahmadinejad needs to quiet the dissent that's boiling over now.

....
For example:
Five Ways Obama Could Promote Freedom in Ira (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520276223621661.html)n
First, Mr. Obama should contact Mr. Mousavi to signal his interest in the situation and Mr. Mousavi's security. Our own experience with dissidents around the world is that proof of concern by the U.S. government is helpful and desirable. The administration was wise to send Vice President Joe Biden to Beirut on the eve of the Lebanese elections, and his presence there helped galvanize the anti-Hezbollah coalition. Mr. Obama's political capital in the region has only expanded since his June 4 Cairo address. If Mr. Mousavi deems talking to the American president not to be politically helpful, then he can refuse the call. But that should be a judgment for him to make.

Second, Mr. Obama should deliver another taped message to the Iranian people. Only this time he should acknowledge the fundamental reality that the regime lacks the consent of its people to govern, which therefore necessitates a channel to the "other Iran." He should make it clear that dissidents and their expatriate emissaries should tell us what they most need and want...
...
Mr. Senor is an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Mr. Whiton is policy adviser to the Foreign Policy Initiative. They served as officials in the administration of George W. Bush at Central Command in Qatar, with the Coalition in Iraq, and at the State Department.

I certainly don't know that this is the best approach, but the authors are clearly not stating that expressions of "concern" are the limit of US response. There are other good reasons, other than geopolitical, why it is important to hear from the US. The historys of dissidents in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block show that it can be a very lonely thing to resist a totalitarian government; common cause from the 'last, best, hope on earth' buoyed them.

The US need not get materially involved nor attach itself to Moussavi, which I don't see McCain saying, but the US could show more common cause with Iranian protesters than 'Im deeply concerned' without being seen as interfering. As an example, and to track this discussion back towards an international viewpoint on the Iranian elections, I point out some comments from France's Sarkozy:
The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.

The President who spoke those words was France's Nicolas Sarkozy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520170103721579.html
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98318.htm?sectionid=351020101

[qsa]

Where do you get those numbers [10,000 stations]? Also, I thought they announced within a couple of hours of the polls closing.
Actually Iranian TV reported around 14000 areas and sub areas. Have you ever watched actual poll counting for any election? It’s boring. Iranian TV reported 15% after 4 hours and 35% after 8 hours, and then I had to go to bed (around 2 am middle east time).Rigging is certainly possible but Iran had mostly presidents from reformers camp and non-fair election has never been an issue in the past. And it was under khatemi (reformer) that ballistic and nuclear technologies were developed first.

[LowlyPion]

Actually Iranian TV reported around 14000 areas and sub areas. Have you ever watched actual poll counting for any election? It’s boring. Iranian TV reported 15% after 4 hours and 35% after 8 hours, and then I had to go to bed (around 2 am middle east time).Rigging is certainly possible but Iran had mostly presidents from reformers camp and non-fair election has never been an issue in the past. And it was under khatemi (reformer) that ballistic and nuclear technologies were developed first.

Rigging an election is easy, once you start tabulating. US elections have poll workers, of both parties overseeing all phases of the process ... and still there is the potential for abuse. The US 2000 election was quite contentious over just these concerns.

Just because the state TV would show people at tables counting ballots doesn't mean anything. Especially if the tabulators are government employees owing their jobs to the one that wins.

538.com has a pretty interesting analysis of this election compared with the past, as to the behavior in different areas, and the vote for candidates. There certainly seems to be enough to suggest that what we have seen to date is the result of some process bias.

[qsa]

Rigging an election is easy, once you start tabulating. US elections have poll workers, of both parties overseeing all phases of the process ... and still there is the potential for abuse. The US 2000 election was quite contentious over just these concerns.

Just because the state TV would show people at tables counting ballots doesn't mean anything. Especially if the tabulators are government employees owing their jobs to the one that wins.

538.com has a pretty interesting analysis of this election compared with the past, as to the behavior in different areas, and the vote for candidates. There certainly seems to be enough to suggest that what we have seen to date is the result of some process bias.
The analysis of 538 is likely correct on both counts. Najad has taken votes from Karoubi and Rafsanjani. Najad has put a lot of efforts during his last term in empowering the rural areas; this was the promise of the revolution. Although Iran did have al large program for that but Najad took it to a different level. Is that smart politics or does he believe it , probably both.

[Ivan Seeking]

The Iranian government is trying its best to shut down internet access.

The restrictions imposed by the government made such social-networking sites as Twitter and Flickr more prominent — with even the U.S. State Department calling on Twitter to put off a scheduled shutdown for maintenance.

Iranians were posting items online, but it wasn't known how much of that information was being seen by others inside the country. And although some of the posts on Twitter appeared to be from users in Tehran, others clearly were not.

Following a massive opposition rally Monday, authorities restricted journalists — including Iranians working for foreign media — from reporting on the streets. They could effectively only work from their offices, conducting telephone interviews and monitoring official sources such as state TV...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJV3PeXNYF8-HXBgHkLBl94HkCHgD98SFEUG0

According to CNN, many people are using proxies to get around the government shut-down of internet services.

I thought Iran was suppose to be a free country. It doesn't sound very free to me. It sounds more like a corrupt government trying to suppress public discontent.

[qsa]

Iran is just another third world country,still developing. It is not a democracy of the western style, the histories are different. But the government is not a dictatorship, it is been setup by the people, although there is a large (30%) strong opposition made up of right wing nationalists and monarchists (secularists). Running countries affairs can be ugly in times of crisis, especially with perceived external threats. McCarthyism for example.

[rootX]

Iran is just another third world country,still developing. It is not a democracy of the western style, the histories are different. But the government is not a dictatorship, it is been setup by the people, although there is a large (30%) strong opposition made up of right wing nationalists and monarchists (secularists). Running countries affairs can be ugly in times of crisis, especially with perceived external threats. McCarthyism for example.

Does a country need be developed for having a good (not perfect) democracy?
How about India?

[Cyrus]

Iran is just another third world country,still developing. It is not a democracy of the western style, the histories are different. But the government is not a dictatorship, it is been setup by the people, although there is a large (30%) strong opposition made up of right wing nationalists and monarchists (secularists). Running countries affairs can be ugly in times of crisis, especially with perceived external threats. McCarthyism for example.

Ha,Ha,HA. Did you forget your history that fast? Iran most certainly wasn't a third world country in the late 70s. It was like Paris. You all did a great job bringing down Iran to 3rd world status.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ha,Ha,HA. Did you forget your history that fast? Iran most certainly wasn't a third world country in the late 70s. It was like Paris. You all did a great job bringing down Iran to 3rd world status.

More importantly, the Iranian people are just as sophisticated as the people in any advanced nation.

[Cyrus]

More importantly, the Iranian people are just as sophisticated as the people in any advanced nation.

I don't know any actual Iranians living in Iran to say yes to that. All the one's I've met here that have come over recently have been pretty level headed. Though, reading the stuff the government does over there, one has to wonder sometimes. The government isn't the people, but I question how much to the people actually speak out about what the government does or if they quietly support it. For example, hanging Jews and homosexuals.

[LowlyPion]

Iran is not a second world country. They are not aligned with either of the two super powers. (I'd think in fact the Soviet Union only barely hangs onto Second World status at times.) Iran is hardly a satellite of the Soviet Union in any event.

A third world country most definitely, and apparently a third tier power too.

For more useful information about what Third World Countries are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

None of that says anything about how sophisticated the people are, and I'd say shouldn't be interpreted that way.

[kyleb]

Ha,Ha,HA. Did you forget your history that fast? Iran most certainly wasn't a third world country in the late 70s. It was like Paris. You all did a great job bringing down Iran to 3rd world status.
Iran was a tinpot dictatorship in the late 70's, since the US backed coup in '53. Considering that history, I'm rather still weighing the evidence as to what has gone on here.
For example, hanging Jews...
It seems you are confused, there are tens of thousands of Jews in Iran.

[Cyrus]

Iran was a tinpot dictatorship in the late 70's, since the US backed coup in '53. Considering that history, I'm rather still weighing the evidence as to what has gone on here.

What's that got to do with what I said? The living conditions in Iran weren't nearly as bad as they are today.

It seems you are confused, there are tens of thousands of Jews in Iran.

And? Do you think they are well liked?

[qsa]

India itself is in a mess. Gujarat riots thousand of death (ethnic), cashmere civil war, Assam independence war, Maoists, Hyderabad riots (hundreds died ) , independent area lords, criminals of all sorts, underdeveloped country with a hardly decent district, all kinds of ethnic tensions simmering and boiling, corruption to the bone, just to name a few problems. Not to mention appalling poverty with nobody there to care. Some hotels are good though, for tourists that is. I have been there twice and I’ve seen enough. Nevertheless, their democracy is better than nothing, it is all relative. Again.
As for the issue of sophistications. People are of different levels in all countries; education, wealth ..Etc.

“Hanging Jews and homosexuals”. Have a heart. In Iran transsexual operations are legal.

Iran was like Paris for the few rich! It still is by the way.

[Cyrus]

India itself is in a mess. Gujarat riots thousand of death (ethnic), cashmere civil war, Assam independence war, Maoists, Hyderabad riots (hundreds died ) , independent area lords, criminals of all sorts, underdeveloped country with a hardly decent district, all kinds of ethnic tensions simmering and boiling, corruption to the bone, just to name a few problems. Not to mention appalling poverty with nobody there to care. Some hotels are good though, for tourists that is. I have been there twice and I’ve seen enough. Nevertheless, their democracy is better than nothing, it is all relative. Again.
As for the issue of sophistications. People are of different levels in all countries; education, wealth ..Etc.

“Hanging Jews and homosexuals”. Have a heart. In Iran transsexual operations are legal.

Iran was like Paris for the few rich! It still is by the way.

hahahaha! That's new to me. It's funny how places with strict rules (usually religions) have so many internal inconsistencies.

Iran, hates Jews but has Jews.
Hates gays, but has sex operations.


BTW: Is satellite TV still illegal down there? I remember you used to get lashes for having one. If you're going to watch illegal satellite tv, please do NOT watch David Hasselhoff.

[mheslep]

“Hanging Jews and homosexuals”. Have a heart. In Iran transsexual operations are legal.
Why? There's no need, because
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," - Ahmadinejad 9/2007
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw

[Cyrus]

Why? There's no need, because
- Ahmadinejad 9/2007
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw

Hhahaha, that goes back to my post before yours about internal inconsistencies. Anyways, I don't want to stray off topic for the OP.

[kyleb]

What's that got to do with what I said?
The first part was in response to your comparison to Paris, the second to your mention of history, and the third a comment on the discussion in general.
The living conditions in Iran weren't nearly as bad as they are today.
Could you please elaborate here?
And? Do you think they are well liked?
Israel's conquest of Palestine has made them the unfortunate victims of guilt by association to many in the region, but I haven't seen anything to back your claim of Jews being hanged.

[math_04]

Iran, hates Jews but has Jews.

Get your facts right, Iran has a fair amount of Jews. The president may be anti semitic but most of the leadership in Iran view Jews as Iranians. In fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the region apart from Israel.

All Ahmadinejad has done is isolate Iran internationally and attempt to invent himself as a pious, humble individual in order to gain votes from the poor, disadvantaged citizens and gain the support of the clerics.

Ha,Ha,HA. Did you forget your history that fast? Iran most certainly wasn't a third world country in the late 70s. It was like Paris. You all did a great job bringing down Iran to 3rd world status.

Iran in the 1970s, had a wide gap between the rich and poor. There was a large part of the population that was living in near poverty while the Shah and his associates built up their wealth and used it on grand but unnecessary projects. Opposition to his regime was not allowed and SAVAK (his secret police), cracked down brutally on any dissent. So I fail to see the analogy with Paris unless you lived in a rich part of Tehran.:smile:

The problem with Iran is it has experienced two extremes, a religious and secular extreme. Hopefully there can be a middle ground that can be decided upon.

[Cyrus]

Could you please elaborate here?

Source: Every Iranian I know that emigrated here in the early 80s, including my father.

Israel's conquest of Palestine has made them the unfortunate victims of guilt by association to many in the region, but I haven't seen anything to back your claim of Jews being hanged.

I mixed up the Jews with the Homosexuals. My fault. It's homosexuals that are hung. (Hahah, I just realized thats a horrible pun by mistake!)

[Ivan Seeking]

It's homosexuals that are hung.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Cyrus]

Get your facts right, Iran has a fair amount of Jews. The president may be anti semitic but most of the leadership in Iran view Jews as Iranians. In fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the region apart from Israel.

Did I say Iran doesn't have Jews?

Iran in the 1970s, had a wide gap between the rich and poor. There was a large part of the population that was living in near poverty while the Shah and his associates built up their wealth and used it on grand but unnecessary projects. Opposition to his regime was not allowed and SAVAK (his secret police), cracked down brutally on any dissent. So I fail to see the analogy with Paris unless you lived in a rich part of Tehran.:smile:

That is all correct. However, they were also allies with the United States.

The problem with Iran is it has experienced two extremes, a religious and secular extreme. Hopefully there can be a middle ground that can be decided upon.

I'm not aware of a secular extreme there. Secular in what regard?

[qsa]

""The problem with Iran is it has experienced two extremes, a religious and secular extreme. Hopefully there can be a middle ground that can be decided upon. ""

this I agree with 100%, for all the moslem countries.

[math_04]

Secular extreme in regards to the Shah's crackdown on religious activity in parts of Iran. The Shah attempted to Westernize Iran which was a grave mistake. Iran has its own culture, identity and religion which have served well for thousands of years.His father was the same, brutally cracking down and forcing the people to accept secular values. While I am for secularism, I still believe that you cannot force people to abandon their religious beliefs and that which is deeply entrenched in their culture

[LowlyPion]

I found this video stunning insofar as how quiet so many people could be. This was apparently from Wednesday. I see reports of vandalism being caused by the basiji plain clothes forces, so the government can apparently condemn the protesters and attack them. This would certainly be no way to win the people over and lessen the tension. Discouraging to be sure, but for the demonstrations to be continuing, at this scale, in the face of such seemingly purposeful widespread communication outages, ... The genie looks to be out of the bottle.

CLo_6Qp1eTk

The NYT shows the same demonstration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html

[LowlyPion]

Even the soccer players protest.
Iranian soccer players wear green armbands
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-skorea-iranprotest&prov=ap

[Cyrus]

I found this video stunning insofar as how quiet so many people could be. This was apparently from Wednesday. I see reports of vandalism being caused by the basiji plain clothes forces, so the government can apparently condemn the protesters and attack them. This would certainly be no way to win the people over and lessen the tension. Discouraging to be sure, but for the demonstrations to be continuing, at this scale, in the face of such seemingly purposeful widespread communication outages, ... The genie looks to be out of the bottle.

CLo_6Qp1eTk

The NYT shows the same demonstration:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html

No kidding, considering what loudmouths we can be. HAHahaha.

The problem is that Ahmedinijad has equally large gatherings just across the street.

[LowlyPion]

The problem is that Ahmedinijad has equally large gatherings just across the street.

I don't think so after the first demonstration for Ahmadi-Nejad. There was another much smaller one yesterday, but these demonstrations in protest look to be widespread and much larger. BBC World News has been pretty good about calling it both ways.

[MATLABdude]

I don't think so after the first demonstration for Ahmadi-Nejad. There was another much smaller one yesterday, but these demonstrations in protest look to be widespread and much larger. BBC World News has been pretty good about calling it both ways.

This has been making the rounds... Someone with a keen eye noticed something about one of those pro-Ahmadinejad rallies:
http://boingboing.net/2009/06/17/ahmadinijad-sucks-at.html

Unverified reports (via Twitter) indicate that government employees and local people have been 'encouraged' to show up at the rallies by the Bassij.

[LowlyPion]

This has been making the rounds... Someone with a keen eye noticed something about one of those pro-Ahmadinejad rallies:
http://boingboing.net/2009/06/17/ahmadinijad-sucks-at.html

Unverified reports (via Twitter) indicate that government employees and local people have been 'encouraged' to show up at the rallies by the Bassij.

This wouldn't be the first Photoshopped image out of Iran. I recall their 4 or 5 rocket launch that amazingly managed identical contrail exhausts.

Today it seems the theme is black. Black for mourning those killed by the basiji. If people weren't dying, these ham-handed basiji, would be a joke for their clumsy ineptness in resorting to violence, intimidation and deception to control the population.

[kyleb]

I recall their 4 or 5 rocket launch that amazingly managed identical contrail exhausts.
It was four rockets with one being chopped in to cover for projectile dysfunction:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/jul/10/iranianmissiletestsnotwhat

But hey, it's not like they have Hollywood to do moon landings for them.


(just kidding!)

[LowlyPion]

From the looks of things, Iran is in a bit of a pickle. Both sides are at a stand-off. The Opposition is not escalating any violence, but neither are they backing down. The government has exposed themselves with this ill-conceived, inept vote reporting. They can't admit they were wrong in the counts, or they are admitting they are frauds and not fit to rule, whatever the vote count. They can't escalate the violence overtly, or there will surely be the Devil to pay. Instead, they nibble at the edges, discouraging, heckling, provoking, threatening ... but the lessons of Gandhi and India are clear. The Government cannot remain against the will of the people forever. Making martyrs will serve the Government no good at all.

I guess the question is who will blink first.

[LowlyPion]

The BBC is currently reporting that arrests have escalated. That there are now hundreds arrested. As many as 800. Reform activists.

Also Iranian state sponsored hackers are apparently trying to hack the blogosphere to stifle dissent - closing access to sites, etc. But their efforts are difficult because there are so many pores that news leaks through. They can't shut down the Internet because, the country and the Government itself relies on it to function.

[mheslep]

The BBC is currently reporting that arrests have escalated. That there are now hundreds arrested. As many as 800. Reform activists.

...That would be inline w/ the techniques of the Chinese security people they use: don't bust heads initially, take a lot a photographs and identify leadership; later, single them out and arrest them, disappear them.

[LowlyPion]

Two children of former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a political opponent of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have been barred from leaving Iran, the semi-official Fars News Agency said on Thursday.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090618/tpl-uk-iran-election-rafsanjani-sb-43a8d4f_2.html

Now comes this rubbish claim by Iran:
Iran says thwarted election day bomb plot

... It said this plot was uncovered on election day.

State television said members of the plot had planned to place bombs in polling stations in 20 districts of Tehran.

It aired statements by four people with pixellated faces.

One of them said: "We had contacts with the Americans in Iraq and they wanted to have information from inside Iran about the situation. They gave us formula to build bombs."http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090618/tpl-uk-iran-election-plot-sb-43a8d4f_3.html

Dick Cheney hasn't left the country in months.

[qsa]

The BBC is currently reporting that arrests have escalated. That there are now hundreds arrested. As many as 800. Reform activists.

Also Iranian state sponsored hackers are apparently trying to hack the blogosphere to stifle dissent - closing access to sites, etc. But their efforts are difficult because there are so many pores that news leaks through. They can't shut down the Internet because, the country and the Government itself relies on it to function.
If you are not familiar with Iranian politics, here is a take. Ironically, the government system is based on the US one. Both are presidency and both have two large parties. These parties are just like the US the Reformers (Republicans) cater for the rich, business (bazaar in case of Iran), affluent... etc. But in case of Iran the more liberal mined (opposite of US) have aligned themselves with Reformers although they do not strictly agree with the system. This is the Reformers sell to the system in exchange for privileges (very similar to US except Republicans sell “DEFENCE” to the system). On the other hand, Fundamentalists backed by the majority poor, lower class, rural…etc. sell “DEFENCE” to the system in exchange for more government care and power. The competition is intense but both belong to the system, just like the US. But it may take some modification to make it work more smoothly.

[Ivan Seeking]

Haha, I heard on CNN that hackers are infiltrating the systems that are intended to block or limit internet access.

[Pupil]

Haha, I heard on CNN that hackers are infiltrating the systems that are intended to block or limit internet access.

I hope hackers infiltrate every single one. I can hardly think of a more grotesque way for a government to censor its people than to try to stop worldwide communications such at the internet. It really angers me that their government knows it did something wrong, and is so scared that it attempts to mute them to the rest of the world.

[LowlyPion]

It really angers me that their government knows it did something wrong, and is so scared that it attempts to mute them to the rest of the world.

There is a practical reason to interrupt their internal access. It's to cut down on the organization of more demonstrations and dissent.

But when you have 100,000 people a day demonstrating, word gets out without any internet needed I'd guess.

As far as the government goes, I'm thinking there are no good outcomes available. Short term "winning" will only fester into further real resentment. Without moral authority, I don't see how they can hope to maintain a state theocracy.

[LowlyPion]

Apparently Khomeini has taken a hard line.
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran's supreme leader said Friday there was "definitive victory" and no rigging in disputed presidential elections, offering no concession to protesters demanding the vote be canceled and held again.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a rare speech at Friday prayers at Tehran University, said the election dispute was nothing more than a family disagreement within the frame of the Islamic Republic. He added that the legitimacy of the regime was never at question and all candidates had a shinning track record of serving the Islamic Republic.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124540205628930963.html

Apparently there is no middle road between a rock and a hard place. Our prayers should be with those that will surely face greater violence going forward.

[turbo]

Apparently Khomeini has taken a hard line.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124540205628930963.html

Apparently there is no middle road between a rock and a hard place. Our prayers should be with those that will surely face greater violence going forward.Notice that he offered only limited reviews of the polling, and then called the election a "definitive victory" without allowing the reviews to be conducted. He's stuck, but unless he is removed from power, he has the authority to approve the election results.

[Ivan Seeking]

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.

[qsa]

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.
Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

[Gokul43201]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.From what I've heard, there is just a little bit of justification for such talk but mostly, it seems too early to tell. For comparison, the 1999 protests were not this widespread with as many participants and they had no political support to speak of. But I think there's also a fair amount of wishful (or should I say 'hopeful'?) thinking as well as a psychological tendency to diminish the enormity of things that happened in the past that is contributing to the tone of the commentary today.

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

I can only tell you what he said. Also, why do you assume which side he is on? In fact he was complaining about Iranian Americans in Los Angeles who are flying the old flag of the Shah. He was insistent that this is a very bad thing to do. IF you mean to imply that he was a fan of the Shah, then you are wrong. He is the first to denounce the events that brought the Shah to power.

It sounds a bit to me like you are the one taking sides here. What is your interest in this matter?

I think his point was that the pattern of events is the same. Also, many involved in the original revolution are once again with the opposition.

[mheslep]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.Who say's they're in the minority? All we know for sure is they are not in power.

[mheslep]

.... Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?
...
Google to the rescue Gokul:
Today
Google Adds to Translation Tools (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124540872085031059.html)

[Cyrus]

BAD BAD INTERNET!!!!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/beth_yeah_right_whatever/freedombabe.jpg

Here, take my ISP number and connect me to the world wide web! Me, connect me!

[mheslep]

This is a bit tangential. The consequences of the current Iraqi republic versus a Saddam Hussein on Iran's border have not been addressed here. It is arguable that the rebellion in Iran is connected to the outcome in Iraq in two ways. First, Iranians see the real thing right on their border: vigorous Iraqi elections at local and national levels open to all comers, no weeding out by some mysterious supreme council, and all under comment by a rampaging free Iraqi press. (And they do know what's going on, they've been making pilgrimages to historic Iraqi sites since the Bathists fell). Second, a serious and known threat on the border in the form of a Saddam Hussein still in power and who previously killed or wounded 1 million Iranians would tend to chill internal dissent. It is an entirely different thing to take the streets in open rebellion when your country is under threat. Ahmadinejad uses the ruse of external threats now against his own regarding the US/UK; when Saddam was around it was the real thing. So it is arguable that absent the US intervention in 2003, Iran has no rebellion.

[mheslep]

Former Iranian political prisoner on the Iranian election and ...
"We are really disappointed in the US Gov. right now", 3:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdeXLktbFQ&feature=player_embedded

[MATLABdude]

This is a bit tangential. The consequences of the current Iraqi republic versus a Saddam Hussein on Iran's border have not been addressed here. It is arguable that the rebellion in Iran is connected to the outcome in Iraq in two ways. First, Iranians see the real thing right on their border: vigorous Iraqi elections at local and national levels open to all comers, no weeding out by some mysterious supreme council, and all under comment by a rampaging free Iraqi press. (And they do know what's going on, they've been making pilgrimages to historic Iraqi sites since the Bathists fell). Second, a serious and known threat on the border in the form of a Saddam Hussein still in power and who previously killed or wounded 1 million Iranians would tend to chill internal dissent. It is an entirely different thing to take the streets in open rebellion when your country is under threat. Ahmadinejad uses the ruse of external threats now against his own regarding the US/UK; when Saddam was around it was the real thing. So it is arguable that absent the US intervention in 2003, Iran has no rebellion.

I think the premise for this is flawed in three ways:


Iran doesn't generally prevent its citizens from leaving (unless you happen to be a third class citizen like a believer of Baha'i--think of them as Shi'a schismatics--official persecution, no representation, and no access to higher education), nor once you've left (temporarily or permanently) from phoning home (in whatever sense you take this to mean), or returning. In my country (Canada), they're about to overtake India and China as the number one source of graduate students in the hard sciences and engineering. I have no idea how Iranians rank in terms of US graduate admissions, but I thought it was a quirk how there seemed to be so many from a purported enemy state.

Their best and brightest are leaving for the west to pursue higher education, and having direct exposure to functioning democracies with all the institutions necessary for that: the rule of law, systems of checks and balances, general lack of official discrimination, and obvious corruption, and all around societal stability. They see what we have here, and they see that the institutions there are just a parody of the real deal. These institutions do not yet exist in Iraq. They also understand how things actually work over there, and have a generally negative sentiment towards it, along the lines of "We have elections, but the Supreme Leader is the real power."

Who led the Tiananmen Protests? The Chinese kids who went abroad (to the west) for graduate school and then returned, or the ones who had western professors talking about what it was like 'back home'. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that when things shake down over there, that you'll see the same thing. Either those who returned from studies abroad, or those who had family that went abroad. I won't argue that this is purely a student movement--I don't believe that it is, and the protesters have come from many segments of Iranian society--but I'd argue that that's probably where the intellectual basis and organization is coming from.

I have yet to meet a non-Reformist Iranian over here. Whether that's because they're all young and educated, generally from a middle-class background, or whether only the ones with Reformist-leanings would leave in the first place (or all of the above) is another matter of debate. Anyways, back to the point...


I think the Bush-administration policy in regards to the middle east was that, with Iraq holding their own elections and being a shining beacon to the mid-east, you'd have a blossoming of democracy. They wanted liberal democracy, and they pushed hard for elections in the Palestinian Authority on the assumption that the good[er] guys would win, and carry the mandate of the people. Instead, Hamas won the West Bank! It wasn't so much that those in the PA were pro-Hamas as opposed to anti-PLO (which was viewed as being corrupt and ineffectual). Similarly, Lebanon, after the Cedar Revolution saw Hezbollah and Amal capture 30% of the Lebanese Legislature!

Just because you have liberal democracy does not guarantee you liberal democrats (all used in the small l and small d sense, especially vis a vis the general mideast mindset).


There is precedent for both reformers and anti-establishment protests in Iran. Just not on this scale. We may view the selection process as flawed (in the sense of pick-one-of-the-guys-we-allow-you-to democracy), but they've generally played by their rules. We know of Khatami as a reformist president, but the two-term guy before him, Rafsanjani, is also identified as a reformist (as others have mentioned here--though reformist here means less 'Death to America' and 'Export the Revolution' and more focusing on the economy, and letting people be.

Ahmadinejad represented a hard (radical?) swing back to the clerical / conservative faction, which is ironic as he was the first non-cleric president.

[MATLABdude]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Perhaps we've got a reverse bogeyman thing going on, and we've gotten into thinking that our Iranian friends, lab mates, and Iranian-your-nationality-heres represent Iranians as a whole (or at least, as a majority). As impressive and inspiring as the protests have been, what if, in the end, they really are just a minority?

[Ivan Seeking]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Perhaps we've got a reverse bogeyman thing going on, and we've gotten into thinking that our Iranian friends, lab mates, and Iranian-your-nationality-heres represent Iranians as a whole (or at least, as a majority). As impressive and inspiring as the protests have been, what if, in the end, they really are just a minority?

The real question is if the election results could be legitimate. The evidence suggests otherwise no matter who actually won. As for bias, I have no idea if one side would be any better than the other for US interests.

[math_04]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Keep in mind that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the elections in 2005 mainly due to indifference and boycotts by the reformists. The same reformists who catapulted Mohammed Khatami to power in 1997 and and 2001. Iran is not like Iraq, it does not split along ethnic and cultural lines as easily.

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.

It seems unlikely.The reformists are too entrenched in the system and lack charismatic leaders to bring about real change. Mousavi and Rafsanjani are the old crowd, very much a relic of the Islamic revolution. Secondly, the Shah was deeply unpopular amongst nearly all Iranians and even the Shah's heavily financed military were reluctant to deal with the protesters. Compare that to now where there is a considerable presence amongst protesters but not the kind of nationwide protests that swelled into the tens of millions in 1978-1979.

Thirdly, the clerics in Qom have stayed silent for now, they are normally well respected by the people and hold a lot of power. Before the revolution, they were instrumental in adding illegitimacy to the Shah's rule and wooing the religious conservatives. For a revolution to take place, you would need a serious split amongst the conservatives which has not taken place. Some infighting but no serious split about the ideals of the Islamic republic. The Iranian Army and Guards hold a good deal of power and only with conservative infighting will there be support for a revolution amongst the Iranian military which would add further legitimacy to any sort of overthrow of the Iranian regime. So in total, people power in Iran can only work with the support of powerful conservatives i.e; high placed regime officials, respected clerics and parts of the military. Otherwise it will be another Tiananmen square incident.

[math_04]

The real question is if the election results could be legitimate. The evidence suggests otherwise no matter who actually won. As for bias, I have no idea if one side would be any better than the other for US interests.

With Mousavi, America will not have to worry about inflammatory, racist rhetoric therefore it probably will be easier to negotiate. Also, Mousavi has indicated that he is ready to talk with the West and overall, is a pragmatist who believes that Iran needs to be more open with the rest of the world to lessen the damaging sanctions. Also, it seems that he wants Iran to be respected by the world, and not antagonized as a belligerent, rogue nation. Overall, a decent opening for Barack Obama to work with! :smile:

With Ahmadinejad, well........even with Obama, he has shown no signs of letting up. How can you negotiate with a president who calls your nation 'the Great Satan', goes to a anti racism conference and goes on an hour long racist tirade? :frown: The chances are definitely slimmer with Ahmadinejad in power.

[LowlyPion]

One of the more convoluted lines of reasoning I gleamed from Khomeini's speech was that there couldn't have been vote fraud, because the margin of victory was so great.

What good is it to educate people, if they would be expected to subscribe to such an argument? It seems that Khomeini's grasp on power is tied to seeing Ahmadi-Nejad remain. A rather tenuous position for a man of conscience, who would presume to be the ultimate power over all the people.

[LowlyPion]

Iran police 'use gas' on protesters http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009620132648106415.html

Besides clashes, there seems to have been a suicide bomber at a Khomeini shrine.
As the clashes took place, a suspected suicide bomber blew himself up outside the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution in 1979, injuring at least two people.

[mheslep]

There is precedent for both reformers and anti-establishment protests in Iran. ...
[/LIST]
Yes, but not since the '80s Iran Iraq war - the threat of Saddam. Not any significant civil disobedience.

[mheslep]

I think the premise for this is flawed in three ways:

...

I think the Bush-administration policy in regards to the middle east was that, with Iraq holding their own elections and being a shining beacon to the mid-east, you'd have a blossoming of democracy. They wanted liberal democracy, and they pushed hard for elections in the Palestinian Authority on the assumption that the good[er] guys would win, and carry the mandate of the people. Instead, Hamas won the West Bank! It wasn't so much that those in the PA were pro-Hamas as opposed to anti-PLO (which was viewed as being corrupt and ineffectual). Similarly, Lebanon, after the Cedar Revolution saw Hezbollah and Amal capture 30% of the Lebanese Legislature!


The Lebanese rebellion and expulsion of Syria occurred during that time.

[LowlyPion]

Here is an interesting NYT piece about the extent to which the US may be influencing Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cooper.html?ref=global-home

[jreelawg]

Why is it taboo to discuss Iranian history?

[Cyrus]

Why is it taboo to discuss Iranian history?

Who is not discussing Iranian history? :confused:

[jreelawg]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take.

[Cyrus]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take.

Ah, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant taboo in the sense of the posts in this thread.

[Astronuc]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take. The problem for many in the west, particularly the US, is that Iran has been pretty much closed, so that there is little opportunity of Americans and Europeans to visit Iran and learn. And even if one could visit, how would one know whose political ideas or whose version of recent history is correct.

There are irregularities in the election, and when the government para-military groups are called out, then it leaves the impression that the elections are probably not fair, and that the current government is not interested in free and fair democratic elections. Instead the government seeks to maintain an autocratic regime or oligarchy.

[rootX]

India itself is in a mess. Gujarat riots thousand of death (ethnic), cashmere civil war, Assam independence war, Maoists, Hyderabad riots (hundreds died ) , independent area lords, criminals of all sorts, underdeveloped country with a hardly decent district, all kinds of ethnic tensions simmering and boiling, corruption to the bone, just to name a few problems. Not to mention appalling poverty with nobody there to care. Some hotels are good though, for tourists that is. I have been there twice and I’ve seen enough. Nevertheless, their democracy is better than nothing, it is all relative. Again..

But, democracy is the best they can have. Dictatorship wouldn't solve those problems.

In case of Iran, I would like to know what you are advocating for. I believe few of things you are defending are:
1) Elections were not rigged and all the data provided by Interior ministry is valid
2) Iran authorities should use all necessary methods to prevent chaos.
3) Iran cannot sustain democracy or freedom rights like in western countries

From reading few of the posts, I couldn't make clear what exactly you are thinking.

[qsa]

But, democracy is the best they can have. Dictatorship wouldn't solve those problems.

In case of Iran, I would like to know what you are advocating for. I believe few of things you are defending are:
1) Elections were not rigged and all the data provided by Interior ministry is valid
2) Iran authorities should use all necessary methods to prevent chaos.
3) Iran cannot sustain democracy or freedom rights like in western countries

From reading few of the posts, I couldn't make clear what exactly you are thinking.
I agree with the first point only. Iran like the rest of Muslim countries has large conservative population and relatively small 20-30% affluent, liberal section and some in-between. I say Let them work it out. Iran cannot rule by majority, it has to take the concern of all of its members, but majority should not be treated like nothing and they already decided they won't be. A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in. Similar things are happening in all Muslem countries, but Iran has crystallized the situation. The west has always geared this enigma for its advantage,or tried to.

[Cyrus]

I agree with the first point only. Iran like the rest of Muslim countries has large conservative population and relatively small 20-30% affluent, liberal section and some in-between. I say Let them work it out. Iran cannot rule by majority, it has to take the concern of all of its members, but majority should not be treated like nothing and they already decided they won't be. A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in. Similar things are happening in all Muslem countries, but Iran has crystallized the situation. The west has always geared this enigma for its advantage,or tried to.

You make it sound as if they shouldn't. You're being unreasonable here in your criticism.

Might I remind you about Iran's use of sending IEDs into Iraq. So, the Iran is a victim argument isn't going to fly.

[Astronuc]

A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in. Please provide the evidence to support this assertion. Perhaps Nejad and his government are corrupt.

I can find criticism of Nejad, e.g., "Ahmadi-Nejad’s attacks against private “plunderers” and “corrupt officials” have rattled civil servant and domestic entrepreneurs without triggering concrete change in government openness or accountability. Instead, his appointment of close associates to positions for which they are unqualified, coupled with the award of billion dollar no-bid contracts to the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), have brought charges of cronyism and political favouritism."
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4647&l=1

And I can find accusations by Ahmadinejad against his opponents.

And I can find accusations by an ally of Ahmadinejad against the 'old guard' -
Scandal as ally of Ahmadinejad acccuses old guard of corruption
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4107326.ece
A close ally of President Ahmadinejad has accused 44 leading members of the Iran’s old guard of corruption, among them several prominent ayatollahs.

The unprecedented accusations are seen as a daring challenge to Iran’s ruling establishment by the intensely ambitious president as he strives to secure more power for himself and his office.

The incendiary “disclosures” were made by Abbas Palizar, a member of a parliamentary investigative committee into corruption. In a speech to students at Hamedan University in western Iran this month, he denounced the country’s judiciary as the “centre of economic corruption”, according to reports from Tehran.

Some Iranian newspapers have touched on the scandal without naming names but it is receiving far wider coverage on Iranian news websites. A video of Mr Palizar’s speech, in which he identified allegedly corrupt officials and clerics, has been posted on the internet by Hamedan University students.
. . . .
Some analysts see the allegations as an implicit challenge to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. Others believe Mr Ahmadinejad would not dare embarrass Ayatollah Khamenei, who they suspect has allowed the debate to go public in order to play rival wings in the conservative camp against each other.
. . . . Sounds like a mess to those of us on the outside. And Ahmadinejad's rants against Israel and the US have done little to prove his credibility.

[russ_watters]

I've put some effort into cleaning up this thread to keep the off-topic rants down. For the new members, this is a good thread on an important and historic event. Don't ruin it by injecting these off topic rants into the discussion. And consider the purpose of your membership on PhysicsForums.

For the existing members, try to avoid responding to these rants and instead report them. I've also contributed by responding and I'll try to stop as well. I know it can be tough...

[math_04]

The problem for many in the west, particularly the US, is that Iran has been pretty much closed, so that there is little opportunity of Americans and Europeans to visit Iran and learn. And even if one could visit, how would one know whose political ideas or whose version of recent history is correct.

I would not say it is hard to visit Iran. The media seems to have portrayed Iran as an ultra religious conservative country that is xenophobic and arrogant. It is quite the opposite, the Iranian people are open about politics and most topics in general. Many Iranians will tell you that the Revolution was a just cause but what happened afterwards was something totally different. A repressive, corrupt monarchy replaced by an equally repressive and somewhat corrupt theocracy. The other side, hardline conservatives will agree on the timeline until the Revolution and quickly diverge to say that the theocracy and its hardline stance has helped shed 'corrupt' Western influence and brought great pride to Iran. If you want an unbiased version of how Iran has progressed, take the middle road between reformists and conservatives as usual! :smile:

And I can find accusations by an ally of Ahmadinejad against the 'old guard' -
Scandal as ally of Ahmadinejad acccuses old guard of corruption

That is actually quite surprising that Ahmadinejad accuses the old guard of corruption. The so called charities, called bonyads, are run by senior high ranking clerics and are not controlled by the government. To accuse them of rampant corruption is to indirectly put blame on the 'rule of clerics' and the religious foundation. That is a serious charge and Ahmadinejad, while well meaning, may have lost important allies and probably earned the ire of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who also relies heavily for legitimacy from the clerics.

[MATLABdude]

The Lebanese rebellion and expulsion of Syria occurred during that time.

Yes, but in the aftermath of that, Hezbollah and Amal got 28 of Lebanon's 128 National Assembly Seats, and their affiliated pro-Syrian March 8th alliance controlled nearly 44% of the seats. There was serious worry that, in this past election cycle, these folks might actually take a majority. They won 55% of the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election,_2005#Total
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election,_2009

I read an article a while back in, I think, The New Republic or the Atlantic, where the question was posed: should we [meaning you] support imperfect and illiberal (but friendly to the US / West) democracies, or liberal democracies where those that were adamantly against you were poised to win. In an ideal world, the liberal democracies would end up selecting those with ideals similar to the Western democracies, but this hasn't always turned out to be the case (and again, I think you need to have certain institutions in place before democracies can flourish or, at the very least, remain as democracies).

Yes, but not since the '80s Iran Iraq war - the threat of Saddam. Not any significant civil disobedience.

I'd say that the 1999 Students' Protests (18th of Tir) were pretty bad. The spark that caused that was the closing of Reformist newspapers (this while Reformist Khatami was president), and it led to "the worst protests seen since the 1979 Revolution":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879535.stm

They weren't as severe as what we're seeing today, but they also had no organization, little leadership and no momentum. Similar body count (also at the hand of the Basijis and Iranian Hezbollah) but no mass arrests (though 70 something people are said to have 'disappeared' afterwards):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_student_protests,_July_1999

By contrast, the commemorative protest held 4 years after the fact was a complete failure, and set back the Reform movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_of_Khordad_Movement#18_Tir_national_day_of_pro test_.282003.29

Don't get me wrong, I'm not poo-pooing the real gains in Iraq (finally) but that whole fiasco just cemented the thought in my head that change has to come from within, not from some Trotskyist exported revolution (not Trotskyism the political philosophy, just the notion that the world was just waiting for someone to bring about an armed revolution and empower / liberate / whatever them). I think Obama and most of the US administration are right to sit on their thumbs, and not let whoever it is twist it about and claim that the protesters are just western stooges or misguided fools, and that Iranians don't themselves want this change. And a military invasion does nothing but confirm this notion, while evaporating whatever support the protesters have. But that's just my 2c.

[math_04]

Well, Ahmadinejad has thanked the Supreme Leader for his kind words. (more like kind actions :uhh:)

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98642.htm?sectionid=351020101

It seems like Ali Larijani, speaker of the Majlis (Iranian parliament) and former close advisor to the Supreme Leader, has come out all guns blazing. After first congratulating Ahmadinejad, he has criticized the Interior Ministry and now the Guardian Council. Not surprising since he has had differences of opinion with Ahmadinejad (being a pragmatic conservative like Hashemi Rafsanjani). So the cracks are starting to grow wider.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98645.htm?sectionid=351020101

[Lisa!]

I just saw this post:


I tried to verify the data by going to the source website[2], but couldn't tell easily where the numbers came from. Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?

Ref:
1. http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/ *
2. See, for example, http://jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100909281058





I can't!:biggrin: what do you want me to read?

[Equate]

This is so horrible:

GRAPHIC CONTENT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=MvPHxmXYILA

[Astronuc]

Struggle among Iran's clerics bursts into the open
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

In the wake of the election, it seems the hardliners are moving on the reformists.

TEHRAN, Iran – A backstage struggle among Iran's ruling clerics burst into the open Sunday when the government said it had arrested the daughter and other relatives of an ayatollah who is one of the country's most powerful men.

State media said the daughter and four other relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani were released later Sunday but their arrests appeared to be a clear warning from the hardline establishment to a cleric who may be aligning himself with the opposition.

Tehran's streets fell mostly quiet for the first time since a bitterly disputed June 12 presidential election, but cries of "God is great!" echoed again from rooftops after dark, a sign of seething anger at a government crackdown that peaked with at least 10 protesters' deaths Saturday.

The killings drove the official death toll to at least 17 after a week of massive street demonstrations by protesters who say hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole his re-election win. But searing images posted online — including gruesome video purporting to show the fatal shooting of a teenage girl — hinted the true toll may be higher.

Police and the feared Basij militia swarmed the streets of Tehran to prevent more protests and the government intensified a crackdown on independent media — expelling a BBC correspondent, suspending the Dubai-based network Al-Arabiya and detaining at least two local journalists for U.S. magazines.

. . . . Only an illigitimate government uses violence against the people living under its control.

[math_04]

Well, the protests seem to be coming to an end now that the Basij and Guards have come out in full force. What is surprising is that they managed to arrest Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter, his power seems to be lessening by the hour.

[LowlyPion]

This is so horrible:

Reports are that she (Neda, the alleged name of the woman in that video) was buried today, but that any memorial service was banned.

In different news, it seems that the claims about election irregularities was exaggerated:
"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such an irregularity could be over 3 million and the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, "it has yet to be determined whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98711&sectionid=351020101

That must be a great source of comfort that voting in only 50 districts exceeded the number eligible. How ever can the people there be questioning the legitimacy of results?

[LowlyPion]

Well, the protests seem to be coming to an end now that the Basij and Guards have come out in full force. What is surprising is that they managed to arrest Hashemi Rafsanjani's daughter, his power seems to be lessening by the hour.

The BBC reports that Rafsanjani's daughter was released several hours later.

[math_04]

There was an interview with Robert Baer, former CIA agent and now best selling author and film maker. He wrote a really thought provoking book on Iran and its political goals last year. This interview is very enlightening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ehfH-Nx23E - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R27tJjuEqA - Part 2

The BBC reports that Rafsanjani's daughter was released several hours later.

Oh ok. Well the fact that she was arrested is quite a shock. Hashemi Rafsanjani, at least technically, is the second most powerful member in the Iranian political establishment. It is quite possible that he has been deposed or being kept against his will. The rumours were that he called an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts to probably discuss the Supreme Leader's hasty decisions, well, it seems that he failed in whatever he was planning and I can only guess where he is now.


Reports are that she (Neda, the alleged name of the woman in that video) was buried today, but that any memorial service was banned.

That was so shocking, probably will remain an enduring image of the Iranian people's will to fight against an oppressive theocracy. :frown:

[LURCH]

This is for anyone who wants to take an active role:

I don't know how much of this is true, so could someone please verify?

As most of you know, most of the news coming out of Iran is coming via the Internet, especially social websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc.. News through "official channels" is notoriously unreliable, as the government controls the media. The government is also trying to control the Internet channels, and attempting to track down Iranians who post on the social networks.

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30. Many bloggers, Facebook ers', and Twits (is that the correct personal form?) Are doing this in the hopes that, every time they post, it gives the Iranian government one more thing to track down. The idea is to introduce hundreds of millions of decoys into the hunt, making their task impossible.

[CRGreathouse]

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30.

I think it's a good idea. I think there should be more diversity in cities, though -- why Tehran and not Qom, for example?

[Astronuc]

In Iran, One Woman's Death May Have Many Consequences
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599190604900

Iran's revolution has now run through a full cycle. A gruesomely captivating video of a young woman - laid out on a Tehran street after apparently being shot, blood pouring from her mouth and then across her face - swept Twitter, Facebook and other websites this weekend. The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran's escalating crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes. Some sites refer to her as "Neda," Farsi for the voice or the call. Tributes that incorporate startlingly upclose footage of her dying have started to spring up on YouTube.

Although it is not yet clear who shot "Neda" (a soldier? pro-government militant? an accidental misfiring?), her death may have changed everything. For the cycles of mourning in Shiite Islam actually provide a schedule for political combat - a way to generate or revive momentum. Shiite Muslims mourn their dead on the third, seventh and 40th days after a death, and these commemorations are a pivotal part of Iran's rich history. During the revolution, the pattern of confrontations between the shah's security forces and the revolutionaries often played out in 40-day cycles.
. . . .
"Neda" is already being hailed as a martyr, a second important concept in Shiism. With the reported deaths of 19 people Saturday, martyrdom also provides a potent force that could further deepen public anger at Iran's regime.
. . . .
The first Shiite martyr was Hussein, the prophet Mohammed's grandson. He believed it was better to die fighting injustice than to live with injustice under what he believed was illegitimate rule. Elevating Neda to martyr status would seem to provide powerful motivation to those opposing the current regime.

Iran's Key Players
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1905910_1905908,00.html

[math_04]

A London based agency, Chatham House, has done a thorough analysis of the elections using the data provided by the Ministry of Interior and found profound differences in voting patterns from previous years.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUyMnsTPIBzrzCJ48FGXyFzksezwD98VTNB80

The actual analysis is below. Have a look through.

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

[Hans de Vries]

This is for anyone who wants to take an active role:

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30. Many bloggers, Facebook ers', and Twits (is that the correct personal form?) Are doing this in the hopes that, every time they post, it gives the Iranian government one more thing to track down. The idea is to introduce hundreds of millions of decoys into the hunt, making their task impossible.

You can use this photo:

http://images.alarabiya.net/mid1_11560_76734.jpg

ندا آقاسلطان، شهید (Neda )

[Equate]

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30.

Done. :approve:

[rootX]

How good is to help Iran people in opposing their government?

[Hans de Vries]

Google's Persian (Farsi) to English translation (alpha version) can still
be accessed via the following link:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t#fa|en|

It's not available from their main page.

http://www.facebook.com/mousavi
http://www.leader.ir/
http://www.president.ir/fa/


Regards, Hans.

[qsa]

Done. :approve:

How good is to help Iran people in opposing their government?

Google's Persian (Farsi) to English translation (alpha version) can still
be accessed via the following link:

http://translate.google.com/translate_t#fa|en|

It's not available from their main page.

http://www.facebook.com/mousavi
http://www.leader.ir/
http://www.president.ir/fa/


Regards, Hans.

I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.

[seycyrus]

I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.

Don't make assumptions regarding the nature of another person's concerns.

[Ivan Seeking]

No need to fake concerns.

What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?

[Office_Shredder]

I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.


Strawman argument?

[turbo]

We have Iranian members here. I chatted with one of them last night around midnight (thanks for leaving that open Greg - it was nice to touch base.)

[qsa]

Don't make assumptions regarding the nature of another person's concerns.

What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?

Strawman argument?

I wish to God that you really mean it. And it is not just politics of interest. That will be a wonderful world.

[qsa]

What makes you think the concerns are fake? You talk as if you have no understanding of the West whatsoever.

Why are the protestors displaying signs written in English?

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I like all the people of the world especially western ones since I have lived with them most of my adult life. I usually do not participate in forums It takes too much time to explain (I do read once in a while to update on people’s minds). But I found the root of all the disputes is in knowing enough details (matched to the statement being made) and in the real purpose of the arguments (if understanding the issue is fundamental or we just want to prove our point regardless).I apologize for any ruddiness.

[rootX]

I think you will do well by helping to clean up your own society. The Iranians will take care of their own. No need to fake concerns. One billion people are hungry tonight.

Sorry if I was misunderstood. I like all the people of the world especially western ones since I have lived with them most of my adult life. I usually do not participate in forums It takes too much time to explain (I do read once in a while to update on people’s minds). But I found the root of all the disputes is in knowing enough details (matched to the statement being made) and in the real purpose of the arguments (if understanding the issue is fundamental or we just want to prove our point regardless).I apologize for any ruddiness.



I've put some effort into cleaning up this thread to keep the off-topic rants down. For the new members, this is a good thread on an important and historic event. Don't ruin it by injecting these off topic rants into the discussion. And consider the purpose of your membership on PhysicsForums.

For the existing members, try to avoid responding to these rants and instead report them. I've also contributed by responding and I'll try to stop as well. I know it can be tough...

I never used the report functionality .. I believe you are going off topic.

The Iranians will take care of their own.
That's what I was talking about. I don't think authorities will change now - they claimed elections were not rigged. Encouraging the opposition would only result in the losses of more lives but I don't think that would change anything.

[qsa]

I never used the report functionality .. I believe you are going off topic.


That's what I was talking about. I don't think authorities will change now - they claimed elections were not rigged. Encouraging the opposition would only result in the losses of more lives but I don't think that would change anything.

I agree with you ,that is why I think there is no easy way to know if outsiders can help or hurt. Iran is a young democracy of a sort, they will learn from their mistakes,maybe.

[Count Iblis]

Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.


You can imagine that the government wanted to silence the opposition at this time when they could still do it, rather than the opposition gaining power and then slowly having to sit and watch how Iran becomes a secular state. If in the future they wanted to intervene, it would be too late.


So, perhaps the government thought: "Let's have a Tiananmen moment right now. Let's not rig the votes a little by letting Ahmadinejad win by 1%, let's instead give him a huge lead".


The government can monitor cell phone traffic and the internet, so they would have gained a lot of intelligence about the opposition. The people who would be inclined to defect to the opposition would have done so. The government thus knows who is loyal and who is not. They can now take repressive measures against the people who are not loyal to the regime.


On the foreign policy front there are also advantages. The US will now find it difficult to offer to Iran to lift sanctions in exchange for Iran giving up uranium enrichment. The US position in this dispute will thus be weakened, as it is the US that wants something from Iran here, not the other way around.

[Cyrus]

I found this video to be very interesting

VsPooaGUsG4&feature=fvw

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO:

What Iran has learned is that the genie is out of the bottle. As a result of the information age, the "Great Satan" nonsense will continue to strain credibility such that change is a foregone conclusion. It is really just a matter of how, and how fast it happens.

The Iranian people will not tolerate a police state - they are much too sophisticated for that and dictators can no longer hide their actions. Also, now the opposition has an entire field of martyrs.

It will become more and more clear that the American people, the West in general, and the Iranian people, are already great friends at heart. The only thing getting in the way now is the time it will take for the politics to catch up.

[LowlyPion]

Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.

After reading the Khameini Prayer speech from last week, I am afraid that the clerics must think the people really are stupid enough to accept concocted tallies. The hope I suspect was that they couldn't suffer a close election, because a run-off might be a bit too much given the elevated interest and the growing reform for women's rights. So ... I guess if it was going to be dial-a-result already, then they likely figured in for a penny, in for a rial.

Unfortunately I think, regardless of the short term, there is a guaranteed long term loss for the current ruling clique. On the one hand they want to embrace technology, they want the atom bomb, ... but to do all of that they need highly skilled workers. That means education. That means connectivity. That means people thinking for themselves and not just taking orders. That means democracy is an inevitable consequence, regardless of their repression.

I think they only fool themselves if they think that they can continue indefinitely to rule by force. And in this the clerics make themselves hypocrites, if they choose the side of repression against the people. Choosing secular power, over theology. Once again power corrupts, and even the Supreme Leader, apparently lacks the wisdom and the strength to resist its intoxication. The sands of progress are weighing daily against them. And they grow old, while the legions of the young swell and get ever more educated.

[math_04]

It will become more and more clear that the American people, the West in general, and the Iranian people, are already great friends at heart. The only thing getting in the way now is the time it will take for the politics to catch up.

Most people in the world are friends with one another, it is just politicians and their propaganda machines that drive a wedge between possible friendship. Unfortunately, both the US and Iran have politicians who have an innate distrust of one another. The world will certainly be a better place when that distrust is replaced with friendship.


I think they only fool themselves if they think that they can continue indefinitely to rule by force. And in this the clerics make themselves hypocrites, if they choose the side of repression against the people. Choosing secular power, over theology. Once again power corrupts, and even the Supreme Leader, apparently lacks the wisdom and the strength to resist its intoxication

Unfortunately, you probably will see Iran ruled by a theocracy for at least the next 10-15 years. Already the 'green revolution' is gradually dissipating because many Iranians, no matter how brave, cannot bear to see fellow countrymen mowed down indiscriminately by a brutal security force. And there still is not enough support, they need a few high ranking officials and clerics to speak out against the regime. But these protests are the seeds of a revolution in the making just like the overthrow of the Shah. Things do not happen quickly, they take time and the regime is doomed to collapse.


Was the election result a deliberate provocation by the conservatives to bring the reformists on the streets? The election results were so outrageous that you would almost have to believe this.


Well, the Iranian regime probably expected a few protests which could be handled easily but they were taken aback by the sheer number and support from a few powerful figures within the establishment. I think they wanted to show the world and the reformists that no one can challenge the regime and attempt to send a message that Iran is strong, united and hates Western influence. Well, it did backfire spectacularly!

[Math Is Hard]

I went to a protest in Westwood tonight. The support is huge here because there is such a big Iranian community. The crowds seem to grow every day, and I hope the pictures are making it back to Iran.

[Phrak]

There's irony here.

Iranians learned the power of the press and overthrew the Shah, 30 years ago. The streets would be quite. Western cameras arrived ready to roll. The crowds would gather. "Death to the Shah." "Death to America." Chanting and gesturing to the cameras. US flags could materialize to be burned.

When the cameras stopped rolling, the crowds would peaceful disperse to resume their suspended business.

The sons and daughters have learned from the stories of the parents to overthrow what their parents have made.

[Phrak]

The Iranian people will not tolerate a police state

Tolerance? Tolerance has nothing to do with it. Power to change does.

- they are much too sophisticated for that

How does intolerance derive from 'sophistication'? Do you mean disillusionment?

[LowlyPion]

Meanwhile behind the scenes ...
Iran supreme leader's son seen as power broker with big ambitions Mojtaba Khamenei is being positioned to succeed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but he lacks the stature to overcome any opposition from a key panel, analysts and former dissidents say.http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-khamenei-son25-2009jun25,0,6876741.story

[LowlyPion]

Then comes this reference:
"The city is on lockdown, and we are like sheep ready to be slaughtered," said one Teherani in a brief telephone interview. "It is important for us to be prepared and to have protection," he added, implying an effort to obtain arms. "Anyway, 40 days from Saturday's bloodshed" - a key symbolic day of mourning - "we will be ready."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184920016&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Not exactly the way Gandhi approached things.

[LowlyPion]

US Rescinds Invitations to Iranian Diplomats
By David Gollust
State Department
24 June 2009

The Obama administration said Wednesday it has rescinded invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 U.S. Independence Day celebrations at American diplomatic missions around the world. The State Department said an Iranian presence at such events would be incongruous with a celebration of American values. http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-24-voa58.cfm

Apparently it would be lost on them in any event.

[Flat]

This is for anyone who wants to take an active role:

I don't know how much of this is true, so could someone please verify?

As most of you know, most of the news coming out of Iran is coming via the Internet, especially social websites like Twitter, Facebook, etc.. News through "official channels" is notoriously unreliable, as the government controls the media. The government is also trying to control the Internet channels, and attempting to track down Iranians who post on the social networks.

Anyone who wants to help, and has an account on one of the social networks (or is willing to open an account, as I have) can simply open their "profile," change their location to "Tehran," and their local time to GMT + 3:30. Many bloggers, Facebook ers', and Twits (is that the correct personal form?) Are doing this in the hopes that, every time they post, it gives the Iranian government one more thing to track down. The idea is to introduce hundreds of millions of decoys into the hunt, making their task impossible.

or
http://iran.whyweprotest.net/

[LowlyPion]

Disorganized unrest from yesterday apparently.
The current regime must know they are in deep doody at this point. They don't look to be in such firm control, at least in the streets. I was reading that they are showing lots of films now on the state TV stations to hopefully occupy people at home ... just like the Shah did in 1979. Khameini might want to think for a moment about how that worked out for the Shah.

MD13WNKNGQk

[Count Iblis]

If divisions spread to the security forces and the army as it did at the time of the Shah, then things will change rapidly. Otherwise I don't think anything will change.

[Sorry!]

It's illegal for the Iranians to protest peacefully right? All I know is that if protest around here started off this way instead of just a demonstration I would be quite pissed off regardless of if the protestors were right or wrong

[MATLABdude]

For those who haven't seen it, a great look at Iran (in better times about a month ago) courtesy of Jason Jones and the Daily Show:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/castBio.jhtml?castId=25158

Canadians can go to Comedy Network online:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/correspondents/#clip186805

A great series of clips chronicling the people of Iran presented with the standard Jason Jones mock-idiot host. Ends on a rather somber and distinctly serious note (shot after they came back probably near the start of the Iranian elections).

EDIT: The last clip (June 25th) probably hasn't yet been posted

[Astronuc]

An interesting perspective on Iran and the US response.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231561


According to Reza Aslan, Iran is teetering between [becoming like] China (more open to the world) or N. Korea (more militaristic and closed).

[LowlyPion]

The inevitable collision of events - culture, propaganda, news:

TvOx4avw8WY

[buffordboy23]

LowlyPion, nice video. It stirred significant emotion within me. It fired me up to see people fighting for their own freedom. Many people in Iran have probably never felt more alive than now.

[Ivan Seeking]

The overall message that I got this week from political analysts is that the Iranian government has been fundamentally discredited in the eyes of the world; not because of the election, but because of the brutal reaction to the crowds afterwards. Ironically, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of election fraud, the theocracy set events in motion that have done far more to weaken their position than would have a challenged election. As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people.

[Count Iblis]

As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people.


I agree, but then I don't think the current leadership in Iran really wants much beterr relations with the World. It is actually mainly the West who want something from Iran, not the other way around. We want Iran to stoip enriching uranium and we want Iran to stop supporting groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.


If there had been no election fraud and either Moussavi or Ahmadinejad had been re-elected, then the talks with Iran and the US would have been held under a better atmosphere. But this would be mainly an advantage for the US. The US strategy would be to put on the table proposals to limit the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for incentives.


Then, if Iran were to no cooporate well with these proposals, then the US would go to Russia and China and say: "See, we've been very reasonable, and Iran is flat-out rejecting any reasonable proposal. We want you to join us with imposing strong sanctions against Iran"


But, now look at what has happened after the elections. Russia has congratulated Ahmadinejad, China has even blamed the West of trying to change the "legitimate election outcome" by supporting the protests.

So, we now have China and perhaps Russia who are more critical of the West and later this year, if talks with Iran fail, we'll likely have weaker argument for them to support stronger sanctions, as the deal we will offer to Iran will include less incentives.

[russ_watters]

The overall message that I got this week from political analysts is that the Iranian government has been fundamentally discredited in the eyes of the world; not because of the election, but because of the brutal reaction to the crowds afterwards. Ironically, by refusing to acknowledge the possibility of election fraud, the theocracy set events in motion that have done far more to weaken their position than would have a challenged election. As one analyst put it, there are no more arguments in favor of Iran.

It is clear that the Iranian Theocracy is not qualified to be a member of the world community. They are an echo from the past. No civilized government brutalizes its own people. I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now?

[edit] This is a truly miraculous turn of events for Obama. He made an error in judgement that was revealed in spectacular fashion, but at the same time revealed in a way that presents not only an opportunity for him to show true leadership (for both him and his country) but also an opportunity to use that leadership to make a real and significant difference on the course of history.

What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.

[Hans de Vries]

But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were.

After we had Obama's conciliatory openings to the Arab world we've seen
similar conciliatory voters in Lebanon choosing reconciliation above Hezbollah.
We did see religious Moslims in Pakistan attacking Taliban extremist and we
did see the voters in Iran preferring reformists over Ahmadinejad and going
to the streets after it became clear that Ahmadinejad rigged the elections.

I wonder what we would have seen after the first hundred days of the
neoconservative's "one hundred year war against Islam"?

Nevertheless it's clear now that Ahmadinejad must have been carefully
preparing this ever since his candidates where "wiped from the map" in
the 2006 city elections. http://www.citymayors.com/politics/iran_elections_06.html

What must happen depends on Ahmadinejad. Nobody will trust him on his
words now, but nobody did so, or would have done so, on issues like
nuclear energy and weapons. Trust on these issues is only possible through
free independent investigation.

The recent developments are no cause for optimism that Ahmadinejad
appreciates this.


Regards, Hans

[Count Iblis]

What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.


That won't work, because Obama is not the president of the World. The problem with Bush was that he pretended to be the de-facto ruler of the World. So, he ordered Saddam and his two sons to leave Iraq in 48 hours and order Iran to stop enriching uranium etc. etc. But because in reality he did not have the power he pretended he had, his policies were doomed to fail, even if he had been correct on the issues (which he wasn't).

[Astronuc]

I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now? Some analysts are indicating that the reaction to the voting is in part motivated by Obama's desire to 'talk to' Iran. I don't believe Obama indicated that he would sit down and have a nice friendly chat with Iran or Ahmadinejad.

Bush (and his belligerent rhetoric) that was a factor in Ahmadinejad's becoming president after winning the 2005 presidential election, and thus Bush has contributed significantly to the world becoming a more dangerous place, as did Clinton's indolence, as did Bush Sr's abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda after the Soviets withdrew.

Most people who favor Obama's approach do not defend Iran, but rather realize that alot of innocent people, those who are demonstrating would be killed if it got to military action as folks like Cheney were suggesting.

Likely Obama is making the world a little safer - because he's not ignoring Afghanistan like his immediate predecessor, he provides a contrast to his billigerent predecessor, and there is more respect for the US now from other parts of the world than before he took office. There is still a long way to go, and Obama has the challenge of cleaning up the mess he inherited.

[Ivan Seeking]

I get how stark the events of the past two weeks have been, but for a decade or two, people have been defending Iran and saying we should talk to them on level terms, give them the benefit of the doubt, etc. I guess it is nice that these people have finally come around to the reality of what Iran is, but a great many people, including our last President, who took a lot of flak for his position, already knew all this.

I'm not saying this as a gloating 'I told you so', I'm just pointing out that this isn't some big epiphanny moment for the world: only for that fraction of the world who for so long has denied reality. Consider how different geopolitics would have been for the past decade or two if that fraction had accepted reality.

Obama made a real effort here to be as neutral as possible (and took a lot of flak for it) and A-jad essentially called him a Bush clone. For the supporters of Obama who needed this, I guess it was nice that A-jad provided such a direct response. But it is important to accept just how wrong Obama, his supporters, and others in the world community who would be conciliatory were. The world is a more dangerous place today because such people have ignored this reality for so long. But even more important: what now?

[edit] This is a truly miraculous turn of events for Obama. He made an error in judgement that was revealed in spectacular fashion, but at the same time revealed in a way that presents not only an opportunity for him to show true leadership (for both him and his country) but also an opportunity to use that leadership to make a real and significant difference on the course of history.

What Obama should do now is take some snippets of that quote Ivan posted and repeat it in front of the UN. He should tell the world that he gave Iran the opportunity to engage the US in diplomacy and Iran had their own opportunity to show the world they are an enlightened member of the world community via the election and Iran failed on both counts, and in spectacular fashion.

My response is that you fail to understand how change happens. It will not and never would have come through the Iranian leadership. It will come through the hearts of the Iranian people whom I know to be decent and loving people who are ready to join the world. Obama has shown that we are ready to welcome them with an open hand rather than a clenched fist.

[mohd_adam]

Bush (and his belligerent rhetoric) that was a factor in Ahmadinejad's becoming president after winning the 2005 presidential election, and thus Bush has contributed significantly to the world becoming a more dangerous place, as did Clinton's indolence, as did Bush Sr's abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda after the Soviets withdrew.

Most people who favor Obama's approach do not defend Iran, but rather realize that alot of innocent people, those who are demonstrating would be killed if it got to military action as folks like Cheney were suggesting.

Likely Obama is making the world a little safer - because he's not ignoring Afghanistan like his immediate predecessor, he provides a contrast to his billigerent predecessor, and there is more respect for the US now from other parts of the world than before he took office. There is still a long way to go, and Obama has the challenge of cleaning up the mess he inherited.


Astronuc ,
What is your opinion , if you open a new a topic about Afghanistan, in my opinion, solving of the Afghanistan conflict will happen when America negotiate with Taliban. Every time America kill f Pashtun civilians , this mean more men from Pashtun want to fight and revenge from US army. Now al Qaeda is very week , to defeat them more quickly , you must separate between them and Taliban.

[Ivan Seeking]

I agree, but then I don't think the current leadership in Iran really wants much better relations with the World.

The leadership is still stuck in the dark ages. The people, however, clearly wish to be a part of the world community. That is why they were twittering and marching in the streets while holding up signs written in English.

[Ivan Seeking]

Look, we have been screwing around in ME politics since WWI. It is no wonder that we and other Western countries are not trusted. We earned the title of the Great Satan. Recall for example that were supplying weapons to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war! No wonder they hated us!!! Were I in their position, I would have felt the same way. But that is all history and it is time for us all to move on. We cannot undo the sins of our fathers.

[mheslep]

After we had Obama's conciliatory openings to the Arab world we've seen similar conciliatory voters in Lebanon choosing reconciliation above Hezbollah. We did see religious Moslims in Pakistan attacking Taliban extremist and we
did see the voters in Iran preferring reformists over Ahmadinejad and going
to the streets after it became clear that Ahmadinejad rigged the elections.
...We also have seen all this after the establishment of a real functioning democracy in Iraq where there used to be a vicious Arab dictator, and of a struggling democracy in Afghanistan where there used to be another theocratic dictatorship.

[LowlyPion]

We also have seen all this after the establishment of a real functioning democracy in Iraq ...

The book is still open on that one.

We imposed a democracy on them for the time being. Whether it takes root and grows is something we can't know yet until we are withdrawn. The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.

[mheslep]

The book is still open on that one.As it is on every democracy. They've only been around in true form for a couple of centuries. At the moment, Iraq's is real.

We imposed a democracy on them for the time being. This is nonsense. Ten's of millions have Iraqis voted repeatedly in fair elections under threat of violence. Thousands have stood for office under threat of assassination to their families and themselves. Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet. In the North, the Kurds have had little or no foreign troop presence and a flourishing democracy and economy for some time now.


Whether it takes root and grows is something we can't know yet until we are withdrawn. The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.Comparisons of the illegitimate and authoritarian Diem to Nouri al-Maliki are unhistorical. The only legitimate comparison between the former S. Vietnam and modern Iraq as it now exists is the threat of military attack and subversion by its neighbors.

[LowlyPion]

Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet.

Neither did they win this democracy by the conviction of their own blood. It was given to them cheaply as a by product of a misguided, ill-conceived foreign policy by the US.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will lapse into another form of totalitarianism.

[turbo]

It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will lapse into another form of totalitarianism.The factional violence in Iraq (involving Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam) is troubling, and it may be that when the US withdraws troops from there that all H-E-double hockey sticks will break loose. I haven't seen any signs that the Christians and Jews who fled Iraq now show any enthusiasm for returning to their homes. If anybody can educate me on this angle, I'd be glad to know of any progress. Saddam was an arrogant jerk, but at least he did not allow religious fanatics to take control of the populace and control them. He was a really horrible person, but under his rule, women and minorities had more rights and status than under any contemporary Arab rule.

[Count Iblis]

This is nonsense. Ten's of millions have Iraqis voted repeatedly in fair elections under threat of violence. Thousands have stood for office under threat of assassination to their families and themselves. Nobody marched them to the polls at the point of bayonet. In the North, the Kurds have had little or no foreign troop presence and a flourishing democracy and economy for some time now.

Democracy is not the same as holding elections. In a democracy you hold elections to get a consensus for a new goverment. The people who voted for the losing party will accept the winning party as their government, even though they had preferred another outcome of the elections.

In Iraq, this process clearly failed. The Sunnis in Al Anbar province stopped their insurgency only after the US forced the Iraqi government to make consessions that could never have been reached via the normal democratic processes. The Shia majority would never have voted for a government who would have made such consessions to the Sunni minority.

In case of Iran, the conservatives have a solid base of support, perhaps 30% of the population. The army and security forces are solidly behind the conservative government. This means that if these conservatives do not want to change, you cannot have a real democracy in Iran. The conservatives will always have a veto, unless the army and security forces would no longer support the conservatives.

So, Iran can only become a democracy if the fanatical supporters of Khamenei will accept that, even though these people will always be a relatively small minority of the population. This means that the success of the current protests must be measured by looking at how many conservatives start to criticise the government and not by the fraction of the populaton who support the protests.

[jreelawg]

An interesting perspective on Iran and the US response.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231561


According to Reza Aslan, Iran is teetering between [becoming like] China (more open to the world) or N. Korea (more militaristic and closed).

Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China. What I see happening is that perhaps the outcome of this protest may be that Iran will end up more like china in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to protest etc, all of which China has absolutely no tolerance.

[math_04]

Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China.

Well, China does have less human rights violations than Iran but in terms of freedom, I think both have the same level of censorship. While China subtly enforces disinformation procedures and works behind the scenes to root out criticism of the state, Iran has both heavy handed approaches like prison terms, torture and state control of all information outlets. That is not to say that China does not practice heavy handed approaches like Iran but it is of a lesser degree.


The leadership is still stuck in the dark ages. The people, however, clearly wish to be a part of the world community. That is why they were twittering and marching in the streets while holding up signs written in English.

We can only hope that the leadership can gradually evolve into a more pragmatic and less belligerent regime than what they are now. The Iranian people tried to fight for democracy and social freedoms but unfortunately, that battle is going to be long and possibly bloody. :frown:

[MATLABdude]

Economically yes, but I would argue that Iran is more of a free country and less abusive of human rights than China. What I see happening is that perhaps the outcome of this protest may be that Iran will end up more like china in terms of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, right to protest etc, all of which China has absolutely no tolerance.

I think the Chinese struck a bargain with those most likely to ferment and lead revolution (i.e. the young, educated and/or ambitious, and organized). We'll make you rich, we'll give you certain freedoms, but never threaten (or even attempt to threaten) our control. You can grouse, and complain (a good outlet) but never actually (even threaten to) do anything about it.

There was an interesting article over at time, "China's Me Generation" that took in a week in the life of a couple of upwardly-mobile chinese youth (i.e. Yuppies), and they sounded much like the youth everywhere else (pop culture, what they were doing that summer, etc.) The one verboeten topic (whether from disinterest or just from training / indoctrination) was politics and the government:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647228,00.html

That came from a link in a TNR article about how this bargain might be breaking down in light of the global recession, especially in China's favourite customer, the US:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8beb6bb5-123c-4d73-9a49-2aa1e82922a8

[Vanadium 50]

The democracy we implanted there may be no more robust than the one we planted in Vietnam at the cost of 58,000 American lives.

We did? I thought we left South Vietnam to the communist North? Were any of the South's leaders elected? My recollection is that they weren't, although in public at least they claimed that as soon as the war with the North was over that there would be.

[LowlyPion]

News Flash. It's a Shocker:
Iran confirms Ahmadinejad victory
..."The secretary of the Guardian Council in a letter to the interior minister announced the final decision of the Council... and declares the approval of the accuracy of the results of... the presidential election," the state broadcaster said.

A partial recount of the election carried out on Monday showed no irregularities in the vote, Iran's English-language Press TV television station added, according to Reuters news agency.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8125284.stm

[Ivan Seeking]

He had better enjoy it while it lasts. Ahmandinejad was Iran's answer to Bush.

[mheslep]

He had better enjoy it while it lasts. ...That's an ominous statement, implying time is running out for A-jad.. What makes you think so? The protests are trending down. BTW, 'enjoy it while it lasts' is just as pugnacious as Bush ever was regarding Iran. Well done.

[LowlyPion]

The recount revealed that Ahmadi-Nejad may have won by an even greater margin than announced on election day.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99387&sectionid=351020101

[math_04]

The recount revealed that Ahmadi-Nejad may have won by an even greater margin than announced on election day.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id...onid=351020101


:rofl::rofl:

What a joke! Rub salt into the wounds of the opposition, just what the Iranian regime would do.

[LowlyPion]

What a joke! Rub salt into the wounds of the opposition, just what the Iranian regime would do.

The one lie deserves an even bigger encore.

Ahmadi-Nejad is just giving the fans what they want.

[buffordboy23]

Neither did they win this democracy by the conviction of their own blood. It was given to them cheaply as a by product of a misguided, ill-conceived foreign policy by the US.

It remains to be seen as to whether or not they will lapse into another form of totalitarianism.

I thought the same thing. It's harder to value to something and to understand why you value it that was just given to you. Government affairs can be complex and they often take place behind closed doors, so a coup seems as realistic possibility if the democracy doesn't meet expectations. I'm not too knowledgeable about world history, but I wonder if any similar scenarios occurred and how they played out.

EDIT: Whoops! Off topic I go.

[turbo]

From the Islamic Republic News Agency: Click on the right-arrow next to the image on the front page, then click on the central image in the next group for a close-up. These are supposedly ballots that are being "recounted", but they show little evidence of having been handled and certainly haven't been folded, as is customary, before they are inserted into the ballot-box. Witnesses claim that in some precincts, large blocs of ballots all appear to have been written using the same pen, and in the same hand-writing. I won't link to that source, since it is hosted by a progressive blog, but the photos released by Iran's own state media are damning enough.

http://www.irna.ir/View/FullStory/Photo/?NewsId=567619

[LowlyPion]

... , but they show little evidence of having been handled and certainly haven't been folded, as is customary, before they are inserted into the ballot-box.

Geez. Maybe they should have run them through a clothes dryer with some stones, like counterfeiters do for making money look used?

But then again the whole thing is a joke anyway. Why bother to go through the charade and take pictures of a recount in the first place? No one believes them.

[math_04]

Why bother to go through the charade and take pictures of a recount in the first place? No one believes them.

Delusional thinking is why they do it, they believe that the Iranian people and the world will believe them if they put on this unbelievable sham of a democracy. They are hurting themselves when they blame the West for interference, it sounds so far fetched for everyone except the die hard supporters of the regime. It is a joke that the Guardian Council, vehemently opposed to the reformist movement and whose members are picked by Ayatollah Khamenei based on their undying loyalty, actually were the ones in charge of supervising the elections and doing the recount. :frown:

To add insult to injury, Ahmadinejad has ordered an inquiry into the death of Neda Soltan calling it a propaganda mission by foreign media while the state media has called it a staged event. The Iranian government never ceases to amaze the world with its paranoid and evil statements.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6601570.ece

[turbo]

It gets worse. Iranian security has ordered the prosecution of Dr Arash Hejazi, a physician who tried to save her life. He is now in the publishing business and lives in England, but had returned to Iran on business, and witnessed Ms Soltan's death, and tried to staunch the flow of blood. His crime is "progagandizing", apparently because he gave this BBC interview, and Interpol has been asked to arrest him for prosecution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/06/090626_hejazi_wt_sl.shtml

[MATLABdude]

It gets worse. Iranian security has ordered the prosecution of Dr Arash Hejazi, a physician who tried to save her life. He is now in the publishing business and lives in England, but had returned to Iran on business, and witnessed Ms Soltan's death, and tried to staunch the flow of blood. His crime is "progagandizing", apparently because he gave this BBC interview, and Interpol has been asked to arrest him for prosecution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/06/090626_hejazi_wt_sl.shtml

I thought Interpol doesn't touch "Political" stuff with a 20-foot pole? I'd hope that whatever Interpol direction council that reviews the overall course / mission of the agency puts the kibosh on this nonsense.

[turbo]

I thought Interpol doesn't touch "Political" stuff with a 20-foot pole? I'd hope that whatever Interpol direction council that reviews the overall course / mission of the agency puts the kibosh on this nonsense.I expect that the next step might be the issuance of a fatwa condemning Dr Hejazi. We'll see. The clerics seem to be pursuing a hard-line policy denouncing all violence as provocation by Western meddlers and collaborators.

[LowlyPion]

I thought Interpol doesn't touch "Political" stuff with a 20-foot pole? I'd hope that whatever Interpol direction council that reviews the overall course / mission of the agency puts the kibosh on this nonsense.

Interpol doesn't currently list Hejazi as wanted, fwiw.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Wanted/Search/ResultListNew.asp?EntityName=Hejazi&EntityForename=&EntityNationality=&EntityAgeBetween=15&EntityAgeAnd=95&EntitySex=&EntityEyeColor=&EntityHairColor=&EntityOffence=&ArrestWarrantIssuedBy=IRAN+(ISLAMIC+REPUBLIC+OF)&EntityFullText=&cboNbHitsPerPage=8&cboNbPages=20&Search=Search

[LowlyPion]

And now for the rest of the story:
... , a spokesperson for Interpol flatly denied any involvement whatsoever in an investigation into Sultan's death.

"We've not received any request for information or for assistance on the death of that lady," spokesperson Rachel Billington said.

"We've received nothing from Iran," she emphasized.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/02/world/worldwatch/entry5129152.shtml

[MATLABdude]

All this has happened before. All this will happen again.

AP Reports that some of the staff of the British Embassy in Tehran will be tried for their roles in instigating the recent protests (based on their 'confessions'):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31722550/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/

[Ivan Seeking]

Delusional thinking is why they do it, they believe that the Iranian people and the world will believe them if they put on this unbelievable sham of a democracy. They are hurting themselves when they blame the West for interference, it sounds so far fetched for everyone except the die hard supporters of the regime. It is a joke that the Guardian Council, vehemently opposed to the reformist movement and whose members are picked by Ayatollah Khamenei based on their undying loyalty, actually were the ones in charge of supervising the elections and doing the recount. :frown:

To add insult to injury, Ahmadinejad has ordered an inquiry into the death of Neda Soltan calling it a propaganda mission by foreign media while the state media has called it a staged event. The Iranian government never ceases to amaze the world with its paranoid and evil statements.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6601570.ece

Indeed! When I said that the current regime has been discredited, I meant not only in the eyes of the world, but also in the eyes of the Iranian people. So now the regime is forced to act as a police state and make ridiculous claims, but the Iranian people are too smart to be fooled by such absurdities for very long.

Of course I guess we could have snuck in tens of thousands of secret agents, and those are the people we saw protesting. By the same logic, pigs can fly, so I'm going bird hunting and having bacon tonight.

[Count Iblis]

There is still a part of the Iranian population who swallow these nonsensical statements as gospel. Because Iran is not a real democracy, all that the regime needs is some sizeable fraction of the population who will back them and the support of the army and security forces.

[Cyrus]

Good video

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/06/30/HP/A/20323/Heritage+Foundation+Discussion+on+Irans+Nuclear+We apons+Program.aspx

[LowlyPion]

Mousavi details accusations of fraud. I found this allegation particularly interesting.
The committee also asked why the Interior Ministry had printed 14 million more ballots than the total registered electorate of some 46 million.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99873&sectionid=351020101

I guess they were expecting a heavier turn out than usual.

[math_04]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6644817.ece

Well, the largest clerical association in Iran has declared the election invalid. It should be interesting to hear the reaction from Ayatollah Khamenei and the ruling government. According to Fareed Zakaria, the power of the clerics has waned in recent times and been replaced by the Revolutionary Guard along with the Basij.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/30/iran-khamenei-rafsanjani-clerics

[LowlyPion]

Ahmadinejad says his reelection gave him a mandate
The Iranian president says vote, despite being derided by critics, was the 'freest and the healthiest election the world has ever seen' and that ' the path people are taking is clearer than before.'

... "People put their seal of approval to [my] four years in office," he said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran8-2009jul08,0,2316972.story

The election is a mandate? Or the election result was mandated?

[Cyrus]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran8-2009jul08,0,2316972.story

The election is a mandate? Or the election result was mandated?

I don't understand your question, as it was clearly answered in the first paragraph of the article on what he meant by mandate.

[mheslep]

This is a bit tangential. The consequences of the current Iraqi republic versus a Saddam Hussein on Iran's border have not been addressed here. It is arguable that the rebellion in Iran is connected to the outcome in Iraq in two ways. First, Iranians see the real thing right on their border: vigorous Iraqi elections at local and national levels open to all comers, no weeding out by some mysterious supreme council, and all under comment by a rampaging free Iraqi press. (And they do know what's going on, they've been making pilgrimages to historic Iraqi sites since the Bathists fell). Second, a serious and known threat on the border in the form of a Saddam Hussein still in power and who previously killed or wounded 1 million Iranians would tend to chill internal dissent. It is an entirely different thing to take the streets in open rebellion when your country is under threat. Ahmadinejad uses the ruse of external threats now against his own regarding the US/UK; when Saddam was around it was the real thing. So it is arguable that absent the US intervention in 2003, Iran has no rebellion.
Hitchens today on this theme:
Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran? (http://www.slate.com/id/2222254/)

Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.
There was a documentary 1-2 years ago on Iranians taking pilgrimages to Najaf. He concludes:
...Every Iranian I know is now convinced that if this is not the end for the Khamenei system, it is at least the harbinger of the beginning of the end.I hope that's true, but I think history shows this to be naive. That kind of talk circulated after the Soviets squashed Prague, and instead of a fall of the communists another generation or two of Czechs were held captive.

[Cyrus]

Hitchens today on this theme:
Did the Toppling of Saddam Hussein Lead to Recent Events in Iran? (http://www.slate.com/id/2222254/)

There was a documentary 1-2 years ago on Iranians taking pilgrimages to Najaf. He concludes:
I hope that's true, but I think history shows this to be naive. That kind of talk circulated after the Soviets squashed Prague, and instead of a fall of the communists another generation or two of Czechs were held captive.

You should watch the video I posted from CSPAN. Answers these questions by experts who work for congress and have studied Iran for over 30 years. A much more informative view than Hitchens, IMO. (Though I do love hitchens - he's great).

[mheslep]

You should watch the video I posted from CSPAN. Answers these questions by experts who work for congress and have studied Iran for over 30 years. A much more informative view than Hitchens, IMO. (Though I do love hitchens - he's great).

Yes I tried, the video player time out the other day. Will retry.

[Astronuc]

I hope that's true, but I think history shows this to be naive. That kind of talk circulated after the Soviets squashed Prague, and instead of a fall of the communists another generation or two of Czechs were held captive. They Iranians will have to work it out and perhaps there are signs that may be beginning.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/middleeast/08clerics.html
In postelection Iran, there is growing unease among many of the nation’s political and clerical elite that the very system of governance they rely on for power and privilege has been stripped of its religious and electoral legitimacy, creating a virtual dictatorship enforced by an emboldened security apparatus, analysts said.

. . . .

Most telling, and arguably most damning, is that many influential religious leaders have not spoken out in support of the beleaguered president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Indeed, even among those who traditionally have supported the government, many have remained quiet or even offered faint but unmistakable criticisms.

According to Iranian news reports, only two of the most senior clerics have congratulated Mr. Ahmadinejad on his re-election, which amounts to a public rebuke in a state based on religion. A conservative prayer leader in the holy city of Qum, Ayatollah Ibrahim Amini, referred to demonstrators as “people” instead of rioters, and a hard-line cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi, called for national reconciliation.

. . . . It seems to be shaping up as a struggle between democrats (those interested in the 'people') and the autocrats (those egotists interested in their own power and wealth). I would expect there are many who can see the parallels between Khameini/Ahmadinejad and the Shah and his regime.

[gravenewworld]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881.html

U.S. Is Said to Expand Covert Operations in Iran
Plan Allows Up to $400 Million for Activities Aimed at Destabilizing Government


Operation Ajax part deux.

[mheslep]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881.html




Operation Ajax part deux.
That's a strange comment given the story.
...for activities ranging from spying on Iran's nuclear program...I hope somebody is, though I'd take anything reported by Hirsch with a grain of salt.

[Astronuc]

Ahmadinejad: Iran will "bring down" Western foes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

What a nut! :rolleyes:

[MATLABdude]

Ahmadinejad: Iran will "bring down" Western foes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090716/wl_nm/us_iran_ahmadinejad

What a nut! :rolleyes:

Increased confrontation to gain the respect abroad which he lacks at home? Shocking. :rolleyes:

TNR further prognosticates on what you can expect in his second at-bat:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=82fc3d09-a037-48be-b4e1-957aece9de6b

[mbisCool]

Rafsanjani inspires more political protest after speaking at Tehran University. Dissent appears to be as great as ever.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-prayer18-2009jul18,0,6890660.story

[MATLABdude]

Here's an interesting side bar from about a week ago...

Ahmadinejad's Vice Presidential choice kaiboshed due to moderate stance towards Israel (their kids are married to each other, for a possible nepotistic angle to the appointment):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-resign20-2009jul20,0,6965373.story

The hardliners, and Khamenei himself, opposed this move and threatened to withdraw their support over the matter (so it's interesting to see that Ahmadinejad hasn't pulled an Enabling Act, and still has to act in accordance to the wishes of his supporters).