News Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide

[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 a lot 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 a lot 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 criticize 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.

 

[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

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.

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