Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide

[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 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

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.

 

[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:

 

[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 he's 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!
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:
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.