Outside Tehran, Ahmedinejad is enormously popular

[JackRiddler]

I watched this on HBO last night:

http://www.letterstothepresidentmovie.com/

"Letters to the President"

SYNOPSIS:

Running time 72 minutes.

This is an observational verité film about President Ahmadinejad’s regime in Iran. Allowed to travel on several of the President’s populist trips to the countryside, the filmmaker (the only foreigner given such access) shows Ahmadinejad to be different than he is portrayed by the international media: much less the fiery dangerous leader than an ordinary but charismatic politician. During his trips, the President receives many letters – the government claims ten million – from poor Iranians asking for help. The film takes these letters to the President as its narrative thread, and as a device to provide a glimpse into an Iran that is usually not open to outsiders. While not finding evidence for the government’s claim that its charity resolves the problems of most letters, the film does show that promises and propaganda almost always kindle the sometimes desperate hope of the poor. A hope that finds different outlets, particularly for the religious poor, who turn to belief in a Shia messiah, the Mahdi, who will come at the end of time to bring the world justice. At the holy Mosque where the Mahdi will one day reappear, the poor write letters to the Mahdi, put them in a wishing well, hoping their prayers might be answered.

The HBO version is under an hour and doesn't include the Mahdi stuff.

Here's what you see: The crowds that gather for Ahmedinejad on his tours of the provinces during the summer of 2008 are enormous and very emotional. People really do seem to love him and identify with him as one of their own. Always appearing genuine, humble and warm, soft-spoken, he shows great personal concern to everyone he meets and plays to Iranian patriotism and pride, evoking defiance of imperialism and religious feeling. One is left with no doubt of his personal sincerity.* (Please note that none of this implies an endorsement of the man or his politics!)

People eat it up! They crowd around his entourage, trying to pass letters. Some of these give no more than their name and phone number. A team at Ahmedinejad's offices works around the clock to answer the letters and direct requests to appropriate agencies. Whether or not these responses are effective, the fact of getting any answer serves to bind people's hopes to the figure of the president.

Quite a few skeptics are shown, especially in Tehran, where most of the people interviewed are disaffected about the stifling medievalism and laugh at the idea of sending their problems to Ahmedinejad. Everyone interviewed complains about the country's enormous problems and the price of rice, and lays much of the blame on the government, but at the same time most of them do not blame Ahmedinejad and believe he is fighting for the poor. They even take him as an anti-establishment figure!

Is this an empty and manipulative populism? Probably! It is also, however, a case of effective political outreach. This is what Ahmedinejad has been doing in the four years after his election, before the impressive Mousavi surge of the last few weeks.

If forced to bet, at this point I'd say the election results were real. There are several suspicious circumstances, above all the lightning-quick announcement of the results and the lack of transparency, also the suspiciously low Karroubi vote. But the election night call for Ahmedinejad followed Mousavi's own claim of a landslide victory, which suggests the authorities were responding to shut down the impression Mousavi was trying to create. On what basis was Mousavi claiming the win?

Let's look again at a typical argument being advanced for fraud based on statistical anomalies, that of Nate Silver of 538.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/if-he-did-it.html

In the first round of voting in 2005, the three conservative candidates for Iran's presidency -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ali Larijani and Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, got a collective 41 percent of the vote. Last Friday, ostensibly, Ahmadinejad got 63 percent of the vote. Where exactly did those extra votes come from?

Silver ignores that in the 2005 runoff, Ahmadinejad (as the sole conservative candidate against the remaining opponent, Rafsanjani) got 62 percent of the vote, roughly the same result as in 2009.

Once that share of the people voted for him, it may have become much easier for them to do it again. They had four years to look back on their 2005 decision and judge whether they regretted it. Who is to say they did not come to agree with their own decision? (People tend to do that!)

Silver's implicit presupposition is that people will vote the same way in each election, with only small shifts. But sometimes there are big shifts. Where did Ronald Reagan's 10 percent in extra votes in 1984 (as opposed to 1980) come from? Unfortunately, more people decided to support him, because they decided they liked what he was doing, despite a record that was already horrible (as I suspect Nate Silver would agree).

One way to address this question is by means of multiple regression analysis. We can take the vote shares for the seven candidates in 2005, and compare in each of Iran's 30 provinces to the share of the vote received by each of the four candidates this year. I will weight this regression by the square root of the number of votes in each province, to give more emphasis to those with larger vote totals.

And another way is to look at the actual development of Iranian politics in the last four years, since it's not a static situation, and barring fraud all mathematically measurable changes follow from real-world shifts in opinion, of the sort that are constantly happening everywhere.

Silver's other implicit presupposition here is that Ahmedinejad's support should fade while he is in office, especially if conditions worsen during his tenure. But that's not a natural law. Even if things get worse, blame is fungible. Westerners tend to look at the Iranian economic problems and blame Ahmedinejad and the regime. Ahmedinejad however may successfully (even correctly) shift the blame for economic woes to fluctuations in world prices for food and oil, or the sanctions campaign against Iran. Right or wrong, Iranians may come to see Ahmedinejad as their man against both the world and the economically corrupt elements of their own establishment (like Rafsanjani, the most important ally to Mousavi).

This effect can also work with the Karroubi voters in his home provinces. They were a reform-minded faction in 2005 who seem to have shifted to Ahmedinejad in the 2009 elections, at least based on statistical analysis. What if they've come to see Ahmedinejad as the best hope for at least economic reform against the rest of the regime? This may look ridiculous to us, but perhaps is no more ridiculous than the widespread idea among Americans that the latest candidate on horseback financed by the same banks and arms-makers as always is actually an outsider running against Washington corruption.

Statistical analysis doesn't cut it if it isn't wed to an understanding of the largely emotional and often irrational shifts among the people on the ground.

Once again, none of this is to take away from the courage of those who are now protesting for their most fundamental rights as human beings in Tehran. Their greater cause in demanding individual freedoms is right, even if the proximate motivation of the supposed election fraud turns out to be wrong.

If I were Iranian, I'd be trying to bring down the regime even if Ahmedinejad won the election. (Prior thread)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5863158&mesg_id=5863158

[billyoc]

1. Iranians remember Mousavi was even more repressive than Ahmedinijad when he was PM.

Unlike American Twitter fetishists.

[quiller4]

33. Repressive; yes. More repressive than Ahmedinijad; not by a long shot.

Ahmedinijad has actually begun to rival the Shah which is why so many are willing to flood the streets in "green" protest.

[JackRiddler]

36. Tens of thousands of opposition people were rounded up and executed in the 1980s...

during the tenure of Prime Minister Mousavi in 1981-1989. There were mass execution actions in 1981 and 1988. This was also the time when the "hardline" regime that he now supposedly wants to reform took shape. Under him!

Mousavi wasn't the most powerful man in the land (neither is Ahmedinejad), but he was the highest official of the secular government and thus fronted for the regime's actions during that decade. The Iran-Iraq war killed a million people, and Iran chose to extend it for several years in the mistaken belief that its "final offensives" would cause the Iraqi defense to collapse.

Nothing comparable has happened under Ahmedinejad.

[Hannah Bell]

45. mousavi reportedly shut down the universities for several years.

[billyoc]

50. Much more repressive than Ahmedinijad.

He also campaigned on a return to the teachings of Khomeini.

lol @rival the shah. :eyes:

[MADem]

52. Ahmadi is way worse than the Shah!

You couldn't talk politics then, and you risk your life with baseej or secret police if you talk now, too. It's still "Watch what you say, watch what you do!"

But back in the Shah days, you could walk down the street, go see an UNCENSORED film, a concert, a play, even go to the disco on a date with a member of the opposite sex, and not be beaten on the street for appearing in unIslamic dress with someone who was not a parent, a sibling or a spouse! You could go out to dinner and have wine or the very popular ab-e-jo (beer, which history says is a Persian invention) with your meal, and no one would blink an eye. If you came from the middle class or up, you could even go swimming in a community pool with people of the opposite sex in the pool as well (some fuddy duddy pools would put a set of floats to divide the pool for men and women, but not all)!

It certainly wasn't a paradise for the poor then, not by a long shot-- but it sure as hell isn't now, either. In Shah days, there was no small amount of "make work" employment--even if all people did was sweep the street, water the lawns of the parks and the verges of the roadways (holding the hose, yes really) or selling cigarettes and kleenex on the streets. Wages weren't great for everyone back then, not by a long shot. But they aren't now, either. And land reform? Shah took the land from the mullahs and distributed it. The mullahs took the land from the Shah and distributed it. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Of course, there is no disco now--except when the young people get together (illegally) in the private homes. There is no liberty. There is a dress code, a behavior code, a thought code. People are most free within the walls of their homes. When they step onto the street, they feel the eyes of the state on them, and cannot even trust their neighbors to not inform on them. It's horrible. The worst thing is the inability to trust or let down one's guard, ever. That is probably the thing that is the most damaging to the population as a whole.

[JackRiddler]

55. Maybe you could see an uncensored film, back in the Shah's days...

But could you organize an opposition group without being rounded up and possibly subjected to torture by SAVAK?

I find the present regime reprehensible, most of all for its many medievalist rules on behavior, dress and thought. For starters, it's anti-woman.

But you paint a picture of the Shah days that makes it sound like there was no SAVAK, no bloody repression, no impoverished masses, and no reason to overthrow that swell prince (a princely swell).

So why did they?

[MADem]

57. Of course not--but you cannot NOW, either. And you would be subject to torture by

the new, improved SAVAK.

People do not seem to understand that the Mousavi supporters in the streets are NOT "an opposition group."

Mousavi was one of four candidates that the Supreme Leader and the Guardians "allowed" to participate in the election.

The parties that exist in Iran are the ones that are "allowed" to exist by the government. The government, in the form of the clerics who run the nation, are the ones who choose the candidates. Many wonderful candidates (reformers usually) are told that they can't be put on the ballot, and the decision is final. There is no appeal. See, there is no real democracy--the most the country can do is try for incremental change.

Under the Shah, though, even the despised and diametrically opposed commie-pinko Tudeh were allowed to exist, though they were harassed and infiltrated. Today, if you were foolish enough to say that you were Tudeh, you'd be hanged in the square from a crane as a warning to others, or at the very least, imprisoned.

And isn't this ironic, considering that Tudeh were a big part of the Revolution to oust the Shah. See, no good deed goes unpunished!

[ShortnFiery]

61. No ruler was more FEARED or OPPRESSIVE than the late Shah of Iran a.k.a. America's Puppet.

:grr: :thumbsdown:

[Billy Burnett]

2. Too long for Twitter.

Ho hum.

:yoiks:

[JackRiddler]

3. Sorry!

[Judi Lynn]

4. Washington Post: ..nationwide survey more than 3 wks before showed Ahmad. leading more than 2 to 1..

The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

More:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

[Judi Lynn]

5. Related material from former Reagan Asst. Sec. of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts:

Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts

June 16, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

More:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22844.htm

[MADem]

8. Like Iranians tell the truth to a ... pollster. They don't tell the truth to their neighbors.

That "undecided" third knew who they wanted, they just didn't want to tell the pollster, who they suspect might be a tool of the government, a baseeji, or a secret police, so what's the safest answer? Either "I dunno yet" or "Oh, glorious leader, we just love being shit on and denied social freedoms and economic opportunity!" Yeah, that's the ticket!

I think this poll is suspect, to put it nicely, and I think, despite their lame attempts to explain away their results, that their margin of errors are HUGE and they don't have a clue about a little something within Iranian culture called "taroof." It centers around making your guests (even pollsters) feel comfortable and going out of one's way to be hospitable, welcoming and agreeable to them, telling them what you THINK they want to hear, even if you think it's total bullshit. It makes the negative answer to "Does my ass look fat in this outfit?" look like amateur hour.

http://insidehookah.com/site/content/view/44/1/

[JackRiddler]

10. Fine, but that doesn't give you authority to claim how the "undecideds" would have voted...

It's all speculation.

In the part that is less speculative, Ahmedinejad began with a 2-1 advantage among those who answered the question.

[MADem]

13. These people interviewed a thousand people in a culture where, if you showed up at my

door in northern Teheran at seven in the morning, you'd be invited in, given the best chair, offered a huge meal of fruits and sweets and coffee or tea, and the entire household would be disrupted catering to your every whim or need....even if not a single person in the house could stand you, never mind like you.

When the door closed after you (generic you, mind you) departed, eyes would roll, the assembled family would sigh with relief, the bitching would start, and the person who was so fucking stupid to open the door to you without quietly peeking first would have their ass handed to them.

Iranians do NOT always tell the truth, and they feel freer to, for want of a better word, "bullshit" you. This is not a "slam" or an "insult," it is a cultural thing, and it is often done, truly, as a courtesy (the culture is a very courteous one). Most people who are doing the bullshitting know that you know you are being bullshitted, often as not, though sometimes they'll go over the top and bullshit you with enormous sincerity and flattery. If you are in the culture, you "get it," and if you aren't and haven't been clued in, you don't.

When someone is responding, particularly to a contentious topic, telling you that they "don't know," let me tell you, in my considerable experience, is the most common response. They very often DO know but they believe that their view will hurt your feelings or they perceive that it will piss you off...OR they believe that by telling the truth it could get them in trouble, somehow--so they play it cute, and say "Oh, I don't know." It is an infuriating AND endearing aspect of the culture, and I do not think there is any way a poll of a thousand and one people, out of the millions of Iranian voters in Iran--and around the world--can accurately correct for this cultural aspect.

This regime is OPPRESSIVE, and they make better use of Evin Prison than the Shah ever did. Only someone with a death wish would tell a complete and total stranger any more than they needed to know, even if they said they were a pollster--after all, that asshole calling himself a "pollster" could in fact, be a baseeji currying favor or secret police. People get hanged in the public square for "crimes against chastity" or being gay. How much babbling do you really think the wise Iranian does about how they feel and what they think to complete and total strangers?

[JackRiddler]

16. Once again, your excellent description of Iranian ways...

nevertheless lacks any basis for determining how the undecided block would have voted.

On the contrary, one could argue after reading what you wrote that many prospective Ahmedinejad voters said they'd vote for Mousavi so as to make the Western pollsters feel at home.

The more you demonstrate that Iranians would avoid speaking plainly to the pollsters, the more you cast doubt on any of your speculations about how the undecideds would have voted.

The regime is undeniably repressive, the question of whether or not 63 percent voted for Ahmedinejad is a separate one, however.

[MADem]

21. Well, it is kind of like saying "How do you KNOW those "undecided" black people will not

vote for John McCain?" I mean, you just know--unless they are Condi Rice or Alan Keyes. They'd write in a sports hero or film star before they'd vote McCain-Palin, and everyone knows it. It's that level of "knowledge" that I am talking about, in the urban/suburban areas. Yes, in the countryside Ahmadi has his friends, but the countryside isn't densely populated. The countryside is full of stupid old men who won't let their women go to vote, too.

I don't know what else I can tell you. The pro-Ahmadis are working overtime to cast doubt and discredit what is happening in Iran as simply the actions of a small bunch of students (even though there are more than a few fat and older fellows in the streets with them). I am surprised at how many people, in the interest of being "open minded," are way too willing to give the regime an excess of slack, even after seeing the brutal crackdown following the election. Real winners don't shoot people in the street. Real winners don't let the blood of children spill on the sidewalk. Real winners don't "need" to smash every computer in every university to prevent students from communicating. Real winners would be able to muster a sustained "Pro-Ahmadi" counter-demonstration....but they couldn't even do that. They rounded up the usual schmucks for one demonstration, gave them their flags and signs, told them what to chant (which they did with minimal enthusiasm), they took the photos, and then bussed them back home.

The regime is better at "framing" than many might give them credit. I'm just amazed their horseshit is getting as much traction as it is in America.

[JackRiddler]

22. I don't think the opposition is a small movement at all.

They are obviously millions, and they are the best and the brightest.

Furthermore, I think they're right in general and I hope they get their demands.

The regime is illegitimate regardless of where the majority stands, because it violates the inalienable rights of all human beings. Because it has a divine-right "Supreme Leader" chosen by a handful of corrupt fundamentalist clerics. Because it commits atrocities against the opposition, as you describe. All of the above, and more.

Furthermore, regardless of the real results, there is the question of transparency and accountability in elections. The Iranian regime has failed those tests.

I just refuse to be blinded to the evidence that the majority support Ahmedinejad.

Just as a majority in the United States supported Ronald Reagan, although his administration was a disaster for the country and the world. Democracy can produce less than amusing results.

[MADem]

27. There is no "evidence." There's framing by the regime. That's all it is.

No one even counted the votes. And the reason they didn't is because there is no way Ahmadi would have won, particularly in Teheran and Tabriz (or any of the population centers). It's just insane to even contemplate--it's like suggesting that Kerry would win seventy percent of the vote in Crawford TX, or McCain-Palin would take that same percentage in Chicago. It just defies belief and logic. You don't need poll results (exit or otherwise) or a ballot count (which was never done) to come to these conclusions. It's just obvious. And it's even more obvious when you see the angry "Where Is My Vote" citizens risking their lives and being shot in the street to demand their rights as citizens.

To suggest the results that Ahmadi is suggesting is asking people to suspend their intelligence and become mouth-breathing idiots. There is no way he won.

Here, read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6506512.ece

The majority didn't "support" Reagan in America. Almost half didn't even show up to vote. The best figures for total voter turnout were just over fifty percent, on average, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html with some (populated) states having much lower numbers. It was more like they were "opposing" Carter than supporting Reagan, in the big scheme.

Carter was polling in George W. Bush territory--horribly. The Democratic Party was split, thanks to Ted Kennedy and other forces (not the least of which were a horrible economy, an Ayatullah with fifty two American hostages in Iran, and gas shortages). AND the networks called it for Reagan before voting closed in the west, further depressing turnout.

This is not the case at all in Iran today, where they had an eighty five percent turnout, which is way more than the "contentious" Reagan turnout....and in Iran, they turned people away from the polls (and the Ahmadi people played games to shut the polls down as well).

You never see that kind of election enthusiasm anywhere when the object is to return the incumbent to power. You never see it when people are content with their lives (see the VA democratic primary, what a disgraceful lack of turnout). Unless, of course, it's at the point of a gun, like in Iraq when Saddam got 99 percent of the vote.

[woo me with science]

66. Excellent posts. Thank you. nt

[Prometheus Bound]

79. Just for the record, it was a telephone poll.

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf

Executive Summary:
In a new public opinion poll across Iran before the critical upcoming June 12, 2009 Presidential elections, a plurality of Iranians said they would vote for incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iranians also continue overwhelmingly to favor better relations with the United States and would like to directly elect their Supreme Leader in a free vote. The desire for improved American relations and a more open and democratic system in Iran have been consistent findings in all our surveys of Iran over the past two
years.

These are among the many results of a new nationwide public opinion survey of Iran conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion (“TFT”), the New America Foundation, and KA Europe SPRL (“KA”).

Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, polls in Iran are either conducted or monitored by the Iranian government and other affiliated interest groups, and can be untrustworthy. By contrast, our poll—the third in a series over the past two years—was conducted by telephone inside Iran over May 11th to 20th, 2009, with 1,001 interviews proportionally distributed covering all 30 provinces of Iran, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Full survey results and methodology follow. This survey tracks earlier nationwide surveys of Iran also conducted by TFT and KA in March 2008 and June 2007, which was the first to ask similar controversial questions since September 2002. Funding for the survey was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The survey follows not only two prior polls of Iran, but also more than thirty similar surveys throughout the Muslim world by TFT since 2005.

Iranians Favor President Ahmadinejad’s Re-Election
At the stage of the campaign for President when our poll was taken, 34 percent of Iranians surveyed said they will vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s closest rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi, was the choice of 14 percent, with 27 percent stating that they still do not know who they will vote for. President Ahmadinejad’s other rivals, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai, were the choice of 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don’t know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current
system.

89 percent of Iranians say that they will cast a vote in the upcoming Presidential elections. The poll shows that 87 percent of Persians, 94 percent of Azeris an around 90 percent of all other ethnicities intend to vote in the upcoming elections.

About seven in ten Iranians think the elections will be free and fair, while only one in ten thinks they will not be free and fair.

The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi, is likely. In the 2005 Presidential elections, the leader in the first round, Hashemi Rafsanjani, lost to his runner-up, Mr. Ahmadinejad, in the second round run off—though an incumbent has never been defeated in a Presidential election since the beginning of the Islamic Republic.

Inside Iran, considerable attention has been given to Mr. Moussavi’s Azeri background, emphasizing the appeal his Azeri identity may have for Azeri voters. The results of our survey indicate that only 16 percent of Azeri Iranians indicate they will vote for Mr. Moussavi. By contrast, 31 percent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad.

[MADem]

89. I wonder if the calls were made to land lines--those would be

older, more staid people. It's the young ones who have the cell phones. When "Don't Know" polls at almost thirty percent, though, it suggests a lack of enthusiasm.

Also, and this is a very KEY point-- the debates (where Ahmadinejad behaved like a crazed loon--not just a little, either--a LOT--he even went after Mousavi's WIFE, which was stupid, because she's rather popular) most likely turned a bunch of people who were reluctantly going to vote for Ahmadi off--and they happened around two weeks after this survey was conducted, and only a week or so before the voting.

Debate highlights: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-debate4-2009jun04,0,6067431.story

I think the debates made the survey rather moot, actually.

[JackRiddler]

90. Okay.

You do seem connected to the country. Why don't you give us an idea of your experience with Iran, just enough to have some basis for assessing your statements?

[MADem]

91. I lived and worked there for many years before the revolution. I still have friends there

and some who came here before and after Feb 79...and I stay in touch. I lived in both Teheran and Esfahan, under the regime of Shah, though I never spoke about him except in the most trivial way (even to make a joke you had to be very careful about who you spoke with). When I lived there, it was well before cell phones (you had to pay a huge bribe to get a land line phone), only one TV station (NIRT) that broadcasted for only part of the day, and I got all my news from the newspapers, mostly the international ones, like IHT and Le Monde, and the wireless (BBC-- "This...is....LONDON"). Every so often I'd buy a TIME or NEWWEEK International (they cost the earth), but people got very good at sussing out rumors and figuring out what was what.

The shah beat me out of the country. I left (evacuated) not too terribly long after Khomeini arrived, and saw all of that coverage (morning, noon, and night) on NIRT tv. It was very dangerous towards the end--there was shooting in the street, there were dusk to dawn curfews, and there were a lot of robberies and violence happening as well. It was an ugly time.

All that said, I would go back if I could for a visit, anyway to see friends who are still there (and much older now like me). It's a very beautiful land, even though there are parts that are somewhat harsh. The history is stunning, the culture is interesting as well (though I preferred it with a lighter religious overlay than exists now).

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. No, the part that is less speculative is just as speculative as the

speculative 'undecideds'.

If, as is the norm in an authoritarian state, people are lying to the pollster how can you claim any knowledge based on that poll?

Did you know that 50% of stopped speeders will tell they cop they KNEW they were going under the speed limit, even though both they and the cop know better? And that's just to keep from getting a ticket, not to avoid being hauled away in the night because of counter-revolutionary sentiments.

The correct framing is 'those answering the question voiced support for Ahmedinijad by 2 to 1'. There is a difference between SPEAKING support and GIVING support.

[MADem]

18. Just next door, Saddam Hussein had a ninety nine percent approval rating.

And if you asked, people would both speak AND give support in that environment--if they knew what was good for them.

The poor Iranian population foolishly thought they could get away without actually 'giving support' at the voting booth--they didn't count on the Stalinesque "He who counts the vote" stuff biting them in the ass. See, the votes weren't even counted. They didn't even pretend to do it.

These people in America who think that a vote for Mousavi is a vote for radical change are mistaken--a vote for Mousavi is a vote for incremental change. Mousavi is a product of Khomeini's revolution; what he would do, that appeals to the population, is fix the economy (he's done that before, during a war, no less) and take Iran on a path that includes reopening dialogue and trade with the west. That, in turn, will produce jobs in Iran and provide career opportunities (besides being a busibody baseej and beating the shit out of your neighbors for showing their hair under their scarf, or walking alone with a cousin of a different gender). He would also rachet down the Iranian equivalent of "culture wars" where the religious restrictions are rigidly enforced.

Most Iranians want to engage with the world, they don't want to be walled off by backward and rigid fundamentalists who fear progress. A vote for Ahmadinejad is a vote for another brick in the wall.

[Zodiak]

74. After interviewing an Iranian student today over the issue

...and hearing his take on it (he's been in the US less than a year).

I have come to the conclusion that you know what you are talking about.

Listen to MADem on this one.

[Billy Burnett]

49. "They don't tell the truth to their neighbors". But the Tweets are the gawds honest truth.

So much vetting goes on here on DU, except not the case when it comes to tweets supposedly from Iran (which, as it turns out, the place of origin of tweets can't even be verified in any way - as we've seen a couple of threads here on DU describing ways to fake tweets origin location).

[JackRiddler]

51. Not only that twitter locations can be faked...

As you say, we've received instructions on how to do it, here at DU - by people asking us to do it on behalf of the Tehran protesters! Thus it IS presumably being done, at their request. There are fake "Tehran" tweeters.

[woo me with science]

62. Yeah, but it kinda wrecks your argument

against believing despite proof when you yourself post a definitive statement about what Iranians believe, that YOU can't possibly prove.

I think there is more evidence for rigged election than against, and I will cheer the throngs of young men and women in the streets risking their lives to have their votes counted.

[JackRiddler]

64. Um, I didn't post a "definitive statement" ...

about "what Iranians believe." That wouldn't exist, as different Iranians clearly believe different things.

I started out by writing about an HBO documentary by a Czech filmmaker, which I saw last night, and in which it was clear, from film of rallies in various cities outside Tehran, that Ahmedinejad attracts enormous favorable crowds.

Otherwise, like you I "cheer the throngs of young men and women fighting for change in the streets" challenging the mullah regime.

But that doesn't mean every claim they make is true.

[woo me with science]

65. Sure you did.

You stated that Ahmadinejad is "enormously popular" outside of Tehran. That's a pretty definitive statement.

I think several posters have given you very good reasons why that conclusion is subject to doubt. In certain areas, maybe....but outside Tehran as a blanket statement? Based on the polls you cite? I doubt it.

But I'm glad you cheer the protesters on, too.

[MADem]

63. You must use your own judgment. What is said in the twitter reports is backed up by the YOUTUBE

videos, though.

Stephen Speilberg must have been working overtime to fake those special effects, if that stuff is not real. I do believe my own lying eyes. The video and photographs are quite compelling, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the enormity of what is happening in Iran.

Even the football team is in on the act--this is an act of defiance that is VERY brave, IMO:

17-Jun-2009 10:44:00 PM
Related Links
Teams
Iran
Earlier today, Iran and South Korea battled it out in an entertaining 1-1 draw. However, the quality of the match is not what is currently buzzing around the Iranian airwaves.

An alleged attempt at political protest by six Iranian players saw them take to the pitch wearing green wristbands, green being the colour of the opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi Khameneh. His 'Green movement' has been dominating the news with their daily demonstrations following Iran's presidential election.

Mehdi Mahdavi Kia, Ali Karimi, Mohamad Nosrati, Javad Nekounam, Masoud Shojaei, Hossein Kaebi were the protagonists in the incident.

Each player was asked to remove their wristbands at half-time, but three of those involved refused the request and opted only to cover their green wristband with white bandages.

Interestingly, Osasuna midfielder Shojaei also wore a green undershirt, and, as expected, was also asked to remove the garment in fear that the player might score and remove his shirt to celebrate. As fate would have it, Shojai was indeed responsible for the first goal.

Iran's team manager, Mansour Pourheidari, said to reporters: "This was not a political move, but rather players were using an Islamic symbol to defeat Korea. Because players felt the move maybe mistaken for a political act, we asked the players to take off the wristbands. "

The gaffer's statement was not bought many in the Iranian public, on whom the occurence had an emotional impact.
http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/141/asia/2009/06/17/1331282/iran-players-in-green-wristband-political-demonstration

Look at these pictures, and then tell me this is fiction: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/17/iran.eyewitnesses/#cnnSTCPhoto

[NYC Liberal]

12. From the link at the bottom of that article:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2009/06/about_those_iran_polls.html

Quote

The validity of the unreleased Iranian surveys cannot be assessed in detail, but a closer look at the one sponsored by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation reveals ample reason to be skeptical of the conclusions drawn from it.

....

But the poll was conducted from May 11 to 20, well before the spike in support for Mousavi his supporters claim.

....

More to the point, however, the poll that appears in today's op-ed shows a 2 to 1 lead in the thinnest sense: 34 percent of those polled said they'd vote for Ahmadinejad, 14 percent for Mousavi. That leaves 52 percent unaccounted for. In all, 27 percent expressed no opinion in the election, and another 15 percent refused to answer the question at all. Six Eight percent said they'd vote for none of the listed candidates; the rest for minor candidates.

...

One should be enormously wary of the current value of a poll taken so far before such a heated contest, particularly one where more than half of voters did not express an opinion.

[MADem]

15. Also, please look at my remarks just upthread.

It's absurd to think, in that oppressive regime, that people will tell a total stranger calling himself a pollster the truth in every--or even most--circumstances. I'd lie like a rug to a stranger showing up at my door, or calling me on the phone. "Oh, I don't know" or "Everything is fine just as it is" are usually safe answers--no surprises there.

[CreekDog]

26. That poll had Ahmadinijad at 34% --that's all!

but keep spreading the propaganda. :fistbump:

[MADem]

30. There are people in America who LIKE Ahmadi, because he is a "perfect enemy"

He's like Kim Jong Il--batshit crazy, an asshole, a person everyone loves to hate. He is an OBJECT upon which America and the West can focus their scorn.

He is a justification for putting off resolving the issue of Palestine, because his proxies in Lebanon (that fat bastard running Hizbollah) PREFER an adversarial stance and have no desire to do the whole Negotiation/Diplomacy business. It's so much easier to leave everything "as is" because people making weaponry and aircraft and other accoutrements associated with high levels of security keep making money, and peace would screw up their profit margin.

So, for some greedy people, it's a "good thing" that Ahmadi "won" this election, and they want Americans to stop talking about it. Go along, get along, nothing to see here.

The truth is that the Midget Mayor of Teheran got his ass handed to him by the electorate, and he knew it was going to happen, so he planned this crackdown--with Khameini's permission and complicity--IN ADVANCE (I still can't get over the craven duplicity of the "Supreme Leader"--it stuns me). Ahmadinejad is disgusting, but the people propping him up over here (while at the same time crying "Oh, isn't he just AWFUL!") are just as bad, and have blood of Iranian young adults on their hands as well.

[CreekDog]

32. I challenge the other two posters to prove they have more knowledge of this than you do

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

37. Sounds like MADem knows Iranian culture first hand. I do not.

That doesn't mean MADem is right in this debate. Others who also have a greater knowledge base than I do disagree with MADem. They're not automatically right, either. The point is to research as best one can and evaluate each argument for its facts and logic. Cheerleading doesn't make anyone more right, by the way.

[JI7]

75. and Hillary was leading Obama at one time in polls also, doesn't mean much

and Iranian campaigns only start about a month before unlike here where it starts years before.

[KittyWampus]

6. Yeah, Bush drew some enthusiastic crowds too. His elections were marred with lack of accountability

As is Iran's.

What part of that reality is so hard for a small number of DU'ers to grasp?

[JackRiddler]

9. No, I get it.

The election results could still be faked. The authorities are not presenting a transparent and accountable way of confirming the results. The protests are justified on that basis, and more importantly against the regime in general.

However, the idea of a 2-1 landslide for Mousavi (as he claimed) seems implausible. Ahmedinejad is hated by many, but loved passionately by at least as many.

Mousavi's premature and unfounded announcement probably prompted the government to respond in kind, and appears to be an act of cynical manipulation calculated to produce the impression of election fraud. Mousavi/Rafsanjani are a corrupt gang with a worse record for atrocity than Ahmedinejad. Their adoption of the reform agenda is opportunist.

The US media coverage of this crisis is also opportunist and biased. They constantly act as though there is no doubt that the results were fraudulent, which is far from proven.

What's so hard to grasp about all that?

A number of seemingly conflicting or complex assertions can all be true simultaneously!

[KittyWampus]

7. Oh, and there are different PARTS of Iran "outside Teheran" where tribalism would indicate

Ahmedinejad would be unpopular and never get 65% of the vote.

[MADem]

23. Like the Azeris. (VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE, HERE!)

They'd vote for Ahmadi like little old Jewish ladies would vote for ... Pat Buchanan!!

Yet Ahmadinejad "won" two thirds in that area? Please!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6506512.ece

June 16, 2009

Crackdown after victory points to fix in the voting for Ahmadinejad

From The Times

June 16, 2009

Martin Fletcher

“I voted for Ahmadinejad in 2005, but I’ve switched to Mousavi this time because I think he’ll improve the economy. Under President Ahmadinejad inflation has shot up,” Aboldazl Zamani, 45, a bazaari (shopkeeper), said as he voted last Friday at a mosque in Shoosh, a poor area of south Tehran that is an Ahmadinejad stronghold. “My family and relatives have also switched to Mousavi,” .....A few votes switched to Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate presidential contender, are neither here nor there, of course, but the point is this: in eight hours spent touring polling stations in and around Tehran The Times found a number of Iranians who had deserted Mr Ahmadinejad since 2005, but not one who had switched to him.

Had the election committee announced that Mr Ahmadinejad had won with, say, 51 per cent of the vote, few independent observers could have said with certainty that the election was rigged — Mr Ahmadinejad undoubtedly has millions of devoted followers. But the idea that he won with 63 per cent ran contrary to every manifestation of the public mood before polling day, defied electoral logic, and was simply incredible.

There were those huge Mousavi rallies, and all-night street parties pulsating with the passion and excitement of people who knew the tide was flowing strongly their way. By contrast, Mr Ahmadinejad’s rallies felt more scripted, less spontaneous, with supporters bussed in.

There was the massive turnout of 85 per cent on election day. Low votes favour hardliners such as Mr Ahmadinejad, while high turnouts favour reformers. There is the dire state of Iran’s economy, with rampant unemployment and 25 per cent inflation — unlikely conditions for an incumbent to win by a landslide.

The dirty tricks in the campaign, such as the sudden power cuts that sabotaged opposition rallies, lent credence to allegations of dirty tricks on polling day — shortages of ballot papers in Mousavi strongholds, the declaration of some results before ballot boxes had even been opened.

Of the last dozen (admittedly unreliable) opinion polls, seven put Mr Mousavi ahead. On election eve Mousavi aides confidently told The Times that their man would win between 55 and 60 per cent. The declared results improbably suggest Mr Ahmadinejad won more than half the vote in Tehran, a Mousavi stronghold, and 57 per cent in Tabriz, capital of Mr Mousavi’s native Azerbaijan region.

Mr Ahmadinejad had men in key positions to rig the vote and enforce the result. Sadeq Mahsouli, the Interior Minister, and Kamran Daneshjoo, the election commission chief, are his cronies and appointees.

Perhaps the most damning evidence that the vote was rigged was the sheer speed, scale and efficiency of the subsequent crackdown. The results had scarcely been declared before security forces flooded on to the streets, websites were blocked and mobile telephone and text-messaging services taken down to prevent the opposition mobilising. It had to have been planned in advance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Fuck Ahmedinejad.

[JackRiddler]

17. Sure. And fuck Ronald Reagan, too.

But that doesn't change the 1984 election results in the US, where the plainly disastrous administration of Ronald Reagan was rewarded with 60-plus percent of the popular vote. Sometimes democracy produces less than amusing results.

So thanks for your brilliant input. Do you engage at this low level so as to make people feel they must be right if they disagree with you? Is it a kind of gift?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Fuck Ahmedinejad.

[JackRiddler]

20. Thanks for the kick!

[dos pelos]

25. Seconded.Fuck Ahmedinejad

[tiny elvis]

53. and to hell with Vince McMahon

I wish Big Show would pick him up and slam him.

[JackRiddler]

24. Stratfor analysis argues similarly...

Basically, argues that the reporting here is skewed because Westerners rely on English-speaking sources. But those who made the revolution or support Ahmedinejad today do not speak English...

Begins with a very interesting memory of 1979: half the Western experts thought the Shah would survive. The other half thought the revolution would produce an increase in human rights and liberty. Both were wrong. Both barely spoke Farsi...

Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality
June 15, 2009 | 1745 GMT

By George Friedman
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_misconceptions_meet_iranian_reality

SNIP

Ahmadinejad’s Popularity

It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn’t speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.

First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization — whether from the shah or Mousavi — as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.

Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs — who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this — have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.

Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don’t necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war — something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.

Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad’s favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran — something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Upper East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn’t win.

[CreekDog]

28. If he is so popular, why did that poll in the WaPo have him at only 34%?

:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

29. 34% as opposed to 17% for Mousavi.

[CreekDog]

31. The incumbent was wildly popular with 34% weeks ago

keep going. :eyes:

[JackRiddler]

34. Who said wildly?

Millions of supporters turning out for Ahmedinejad rallies would make him very popular, yes. Someone can even be popular without holding a majority - as Mousavi appears to be, for example.

The point being that all this talk about how "obvious" it is that Iran would reject Ahmedinejad and the results are therefore a fraud is tendentious. The results may be a fraud, but Ahmedinejad has a huge base regardless. In a population that doesn't speak English or have the same connections with the Western media, to be sure.

[CreekDog]

You said Ahmadinijad was "enormously" popular in your OP

And does he have a huge base? 34% in that quite aged pre election poll doesn't suggest a huge base at all.

[JackRiddler]

42. ???

What's a "huge base," if 34% isn't? Republicans won a bunch of elections with no more of a base than that.

10 percent and up is a huge base. Where one goes with it from there is a different matter.

Anyway, enough of semantics.

[MADem]

38. Oh, come on. George Friedman has an agenda. He is a pro-Israel, conservative Republican.

His parents were holocaust survivors. Of COURSE he has a "view." And his view includes "what's best for Israel," which some people (though not all) mistakenly believe is leaving Ahmadi in place, so there's an "enemy" to worry about and focus on, which gives Israel a genuine and understandable reason to continue to maintain a militaristic stance in the region.

George Freidman has a platform at STRATFOR, so everyone "ooohs" and "ahhs" over his pronouncements, but it is imperative that people look at what he's saying in the context of his own prejudices--which are substantial.

His analysis is profoundly colored by his biases. We all have them, and I have no problem with him having his own (we are all entitled to opinions, which is what these are), but to take his words at face value and not consider the context from which they come is a mistake. This man is a conservative Republican. He is a Jew with a personal connection to the atrocities. He is fervently pro-Israel. Start there, and you can figure where it will end.

Freidman has an interest in maintaining an adversarial Iran--a friendly Iran would not be good for Israel, in his view, because it would require that peace be made with Palestine, and then, why, Israel will eventually be overrun--not violently, but simply because Palestinians are reproducing at at astounding rate, and Israelis are not. Israel could very well end with a whimper, not because of violence, but because they become integrated with the majority (and you know, with peace, there would eventually be intermarriage and all the stuff that goes with that).

Background source material:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010620223212re_/www.booknotes.org/transcripts/10085.htm In this link, he tells Brian Lamb he is a conservative Republican

http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/151525 In this link, he pooh-poohs the influence of the Israeli lobby, and goes so far to suggest that US-Israel relationships, if severed, wouldn't affect relations with the Muslim world in a big way, and that wouldn't make Al Q like us any better--it's a real "protest too much" piece. It does indicate that he's a fan of the "status quo" to no small extent. I suppose he figures it's at least certain.

[JackRiddler]

39. Thanks for that information about Friedman.

It doesn't refute or buttress his argument, which seems well-grounded to me, but it's important to know.

[robertpaulsen]

35. Did you read Robert Fisk's take on all this?

Very interesting:

snip

Back on the streets, there were now worse scenes. The cops had dismounted from their bikes and were breaking up paving stones to hurl at the protesters, many of them now riding their own motorbikes between the rows of police. I saw one immensely tall man – dressed Batman-style in black rubber arm protectors and shin pads, smashing up paving stones with his baton, breaking them with his boots and chucking them pell mell at the Mousavi men. A middle-aged woman walked up to him – the women were braver in confronting the police than the men yesterday – and shouted an obvious question: "Why are you breaking up the pavements of our city?" The policeman raised his baton to strike the woman but an officer ran across the road and stood between them. "You must never hit a woman," he said. Praise where praise is due, even in a riot.

But the policemen went on breaking up stones, a crazy reverse version of France in May 1968. Then it was the young men who wanted revolution who threw stones. In Tehran – fearful of a green Mousavi revolution – it was the police who threw stones.

An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

[MADem]

47. I would be willing to bet a hundred dollars that Fisk's friend, who "never lies" to him,

is an informer for Secret Police. And of course his friend criticized the regime on occasion. The best ones do, to establish and maintain their bona fides. A reporter doesn't want to talk on background to an acolyte--they want to talk to someone who appears impartial. But there were no impartial people in Iran during this election, except maybe the profoundly disabled or those in comas.

Maybe Fisk's source was, once upon a time, a reform-minded person. However, for whatever reason (and I don't discount bullying and threats), he's working for Ahmadi now. He's repeating verbatim the Ahmadi arguments, pretty much.

The secret police are not all thuggery and bullying--they do very well with operatives and surrogates who appear unlikely (and bring their wives to restaurants, in an effort to show themselves as "not fundamental" and thus more approachable) and no small amount of "friendly persuasion" as well. I've heard that "carpet weavers' excuse" from other sources, too--apparently, it's in the Ahmadi talking points memo.

And of course Fisk was able to stroll to the Interior Ministry and get through the barriers simply by presenting his press card--his buddy probably nodded discreetly to the Guard to let him through.... One of the agents demanded to see my pass but when I showed my Iranian press card to him, he merely patted me on the shoulder and waved me through....
What a vastly different experience from the experiences of the BBC and other reporters who were rounded up, prevented from reporting, had their video cameras confiscated, their credentials revoked, and so forth. Gee, wonder why Fisk got the VIP treatment, no one challenges his press pass, and others did not?

But of course, so that Fisk does not get suspicious, someone is sent to smack his translator around on the odd occasion,... My own Persian translator was beaten three times on the back...so Fisk can feel a sense of danger. No kick in the balls for his translator, though--and you have to wonder how hard the guy was beaten, too. As Fisk walked the streets of Teheran, he was probably surrounded by more Secret Police than he could shake a stick at, all intent on making sure he lived to report his restaurant conversation with his "reasonable" source. It is my opinion that the guy was being played. His little story is very neat, in a land where nothing is neat.

Come on. Use your heads, people. He was being fed a story, and he obliged them by putting those earnest and well meaning paragraphs in his story that are quoted in this thread. Yes, he reported on ball-kicking and pavement stone tossing, but the thing that gets cut-n-pasted is the same talking points that are making the rounds in a dozen or more venues now.

Sow doubt while busting heads, that's the goal. Brook no dissent! Repeat the lie often enough, and it is true, as if by magic!

23 percent inflation wipes away any handout that Ahmadi gives out. And no one in their right mind thinks that Mousavi (who does know how to manage the troublesome Iranian economy, he has done it before) would slash social programs. His goal was to expand economic opportunity across the board, and give more markets to farmers and rug weavers and so forth, to say nothing of the unemployed and underemployed from all levels of the social strata.

And of course, I challenge anyone to count up all the votes, by hand, in all those sealed plastic tupperware containers all over the country and the world, and tally the results in a couple of hours after the polls closed. Even the Canadians take a day to do it!

But now, like Florida 2000, they are going to do a "partial recount." I imagine they've pulled out all the troublesome ballots, so that their numbers will add up. Will they gild the lily, and make their count match exactly? Or will they give Ahmedi an even larger margin of victory?

There was no vote count--unless you call "The Stalin Way" a vote count.

[JackRiddler]

48. Counting the vote within a few hours is not impossible... another misconception.

Here are a couple of comments to Nate Silver's article at 538 (making the case for vote fraud) that claim

a) with sufficient labor it's possible to count the vote within a few hours, as is done in Canadian elections (unless you think those are faked);

and

b) in most places they had more like nine hours before the announcement, and even by the next morning they didn't claim to have counted more than 66% of the votes.

hosertohoosier said...

Yes, Iran is poorer than Canada. But tabulating elections with paper ballots is a labour-intensive activity, and cheap labour is abundant in Iran. So even if they have less money with which to hire poll workers than Canada, those workers are much cheaper. With unemployment at 12.5% officially (and surely higher unofficially), there is a much larger reservoir of poll workers to draw on.

As for Canada having an advantage in its smallness... err... Canada is the world's largest country, and has one of the lowest population densities.

Secondly, Iran did not count all of the votes in 3 hours. According to IRNA 66% of the ballots had been counted by early Saturday. That story is dated June 12 7:10 EST, or 4 am June 13th in Iran.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSEVA14340720090612?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Most of Iran's polls closed at 9:30 am EST, or 6:30 PM Iranian time. Where does that 3 hour number come from? In a few cases where there were long lines, a 6 hour extension was granted. However, in the majority of cases, there were 9 hours to count, not 3.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105287388&ft=1&f=1004

By the end of Saturday, 80% of the vote had been counted.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009612195749149733.html

Are these numbers "too fast"? You claim this is not typical for Iranian elections. I think you are pulling this claim out of your rear end.

In the 2005 Iranian election, the polls closed at 22:22 June 17th in Ireland (see below for source), but that was partly because of a 4 hour extension. So polls closed in Iran at 2 am on June 18th, though officially at 10 pm on June 17th.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0617/iran.html

60% of ballots were counted at some point on Saturday, when this article was released. Of course a result took longer to announce because it was a multi-candidate race, and a small difference in votes would have a large impact on the outcome (since only the top two guys go to the runoff).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701344.html

According to the Seattle Times, 66% of the vote was counted in 2005 by June 18th 12:47 am Seattle time, or 12:47 PM Iran time (10 hours after polls closed, and 14 hours after they closed in most of the country).

So yes, the vote count was a little slower in 2005. However, the difference was not radical and could easily be explained by different allocation of resources, and the added difficulties of a multi-candidate race.

The 3 hour figure (which should be 3 and a half hours) assumes that vote counting didn't start right away, but forgets that there was a 6 hour extension. It also ignores that only 66% of the vote was counted in this time, not all.

If you want an example of fast, Canada usually has close to 100% of votes counted by 3 am.

Erik Nilsson said...

@Kenny Powers "40 million hand balots counted in 3 hours flat. wanna give a probability on that ?!?!"

That's fast, but it's not as preposterous as it sounds to an American. The ballots, AFAIK, had only one question on them, as opposed to the many questions on the typical American ballot. So you can count by sorting into piles. If you want to be meticulous about it, it takes some time. I worked on an election with about 80 million hand-counted paper ballots. I recollect we got the bulk of the counting done in about a day.

Also, sloppy isn't the same as fraudulent. In a big national election, if you're not trying to be perfect, you can go surprisingly fast and still end up with a result that is very, very close to what a more careful count would give you.

So, it's conceivable to me that a well organized effort pursuing speed to the modest detriment of accuracy could in fact count 40 million ballots in 3 hours.

However, my question is, was it possible to collect that number of ballots in ballot boxes from polling places to counting places (in rural areas in particular), and report up central results that fast? (Perhaps this is what Kenny meant.) I suspect that this is completely impossible in Iran. Without knowing a lot about how the Iranian election was organized logistically, I can't say for sure, but Iran includes some fairly remote, rugged areas. Unless counting was all in polling places and reported by satellite phone,
it's hard to think of a way to do it that fast. Even with polling-place counting, it sounds tough.

So the speed of reported results is a potentially fruitful way of trying to understand more about what really happened, but as with most election questions, you have to be sure everybody interprets the question in a similar way.

hosertohoosier said...

Regarding the hand-counting in 3 hours thing, a few points. Firstly, you silly Americans, there are lots of countries that count paper ballots (Canada, for instance), where the result of elections are known within a few hours. You don't need to count every vote in order to call an election (from a media standpoint).

Iran may also have had advance polls, such most of the results had been counted already by election day.

As for the comment "but counting paper ballots would require hundreds of thousands of workers", err... yes, you are right. That is how you do it. Again, using my Canadian comparison, we had 170,000 ballot counters in 2006. That was for 15 million votes (I don't know how long they worked, but they got paid $185 a pop).

Iran's elections had 40 million votes, so assuming they worked at Canadian speeds, they probably needed about 450,000 vote counters (probably paid less than $185).

[MADem]

67. Explain, then, why Mousavi got the call telling him he'd won, and then ....

suddenly...he hadn't won? http://docudharma.com/diary/14231/iranian-filmmaker-says-mousavi-was-told-he-won

And what about the reports of plastic bins being sent off to be burnt, with the security ties still on them? And what of reporters saying the votes were never even opened?

And most importantly, efficiency is never a Persian strong suit--ever. It's a charming trait, in most circumstances. But to think they'd hop to and count every vote so quickly is completely opposite to the paradigm.

The reason those students are in the streets, in a demonstration in Teheran alone that was ten kilometers long, is because there was widespread fraud. Everyone knows it. No one is buying this bullshit that Ahmadinejad won sixty some percent of the vote.

Ahmadi was a stupid fool--he should have learned from his mentor, Bush--when you cheat, you cheat around the margin of error. Had he won by three or five percent, everyone would have been disappointed but they would have lived with it. Instead, Ahmadi took the numbers that Mousavi should have gotten, because his weakness is that he is prideful (with no reason to be so).

The reason this isn't over, too, is because Iran is on the brink of revolution in a SERIOUS way. I think it's down to a cage match between the forces of Rafsanjani and the forces of Khameini. If the latter win, the people will be fucked for another decade, most likely. And for those suggesting there is no one WITHIN Iran screaming "Fraud, fraud!" besides the students, well, that is just not accurate:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak02.html

.... A 29-year-old female journalist working in a moderately conservative Tehran newspaper spelled it out for Radio Free Europe: "Coup means that right now they're beating people in the streets. A coup means they didn't even count people's votes. They announced the results without opening the ballot boxes. It was sent as a circular to the state television, which announced it. Is it so difficult for the world to understand this?"

The trillion-dollar-question regarding this new "revolutionary" situation is that as things stand, no pacifying solution can be found within the institutional framework of the Islamic Republic. In a nutshell, Ahmadinejad has made his power play against Mousavi and Rafsanjani. The Supreme Leader fully supported him. Mousavi and Rafsanjani, plus Khatami, need an urgent counterpunch. And their only possible play is to go after Khamenei.

As Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, among others, has noted, Rafsanjani is now counting his votes at the Council of Experts (86 clerics, no women) - of which he is the chairman - to see if they are able to depose Khamenei. He is in the holy city of Qom for this explicit purpose. To pull it off, the council would imperatively have to be supported by at least some factions within the IRGC. The Ahmadinejad faction will go ballistic. A Supreme Leader implosion is bound to imply the implosion of the whole Khomeini-built edifice.

Null and void
As a prelude, Mousavi has already bypassed the Supreme Leader, sending an open letter to the powerful mullahcracy in Qom asking them to invalidate the election. Hojjatoleslam Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour, head of the election vote-monitoring committee, has officially requested that the Council of Guardians void the election and schedule a new, fully monitored one.

One of the stalwarts of Qom power, the moderate Grand Ayatollah Sanei, who had issued a fatwa against vote rigging, calling it a "mortal sin", has already declared the Ahmadinejad presidency "illegitimate". His house and office are now under police siege. Iranians eagerly expect a public pronouncement from Grand Ayatollah Muntazeri, the country's true top religious figure (not Khamenei) and a certified anti-ultra-right wing.

Even more strikingly, a group of Ministry of Interior employees sent an open letter to the chairman of the Council of Experts (Rafsanjani), the president of the parliament (Majlis), former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, the heads of the legislative and the judiciary, and many other government agencies. The crucial paragraph reads: "As dedicated employees of the Ministry of Interior, with experience in management and supervision of several elections such as the elections of Khamenei, Rafsanjani and Khatami, we announce that we fear the 10th presidential elections were not healthy."

The Islamic Combatant Clergy Association (ICCA), close to Khatami and supportive of Mousavi, said on its website that the counting process was "widely engineered ", and there was enough evidence to prove it. So for the ICCA, the election should be nullified.

.........The fact that the electoral commission had less than three hours to hand-count 81% of 39 million votes is positively a "divine assessment".

.....Karroubi had less than half of Ahmadinejad's vote and came in a distant second in his own hometown of Oligudarz. Karroubi not only didn't win in his home province of Lorestan, he had less votes than volunteers helping in his campaign. The first numbers on election night came from rural villages and small towns voting Ahmadinejad. Something immediately seemed to be way off when less than 1% of voters in western Iran went for Karroubi, very popular not only in his native Lorestan but also in Kurdistan.

As for Rezai, from Khuzestan, where most of Iran's oilfields are, he expected 2 million votes in his province alone. He polled less than a million nationwide. Everywhere, all over the country, Ahmadinejad got between a steady 66% and 69%, no matter the region, no matter the predominant ethnic group, no matter the demographics.

By law, the Electoral Commission must wait three days before certifying the results. Then they inform Khamenei and he gives his seal of approval. This is to prevent any "irregularities". This time, Khamenei approved the official results in less than four hours.

[JackRiddler]

68. That may be something Mousavi has to explain, but hardly for me...

Well, who did he get this call from? Was it real? Or was this story the real fake -- made up to establish the perception of election fraud. Because that's where the story begins -- with Mousavi's announcement, not the government's. Isn't it possible that Mousavi's announcement of his supposed landslide victory is exactly what prompted the government to show more efficiency than the leisurely Persia you describe?

Actually, I don't know. I have no way of knowing. And I submit, you don't know either.

The difference between us is, you're certain of your versions -- right down to knowing exactly who Fisk met and why his translator was beaten! -- whereas I've been focusing on reasons to doubt the dominant narrative in the Western media.

I'm for an Iranian revolution and I don't want Ahmedinejad to have won. I don't want the election results to be real. I just see that the claims of fraud are not definitive, and will not rush to judgement. That is all.

Thanks for that article.

[MADem]

71. The Iranian filmmaker who is making the report is as valid a source, if not more so, than Fisk.

He's not just "some guy." It would be like Steven Spielberg or Oliver Stone or Francis Ford Coppola coming out and making the assertion--someone with an established international reputation.

I have a strong feeling that Fisk is hooked up with pro-Ahmadinejad people, anyway, and that is how he is "allowed" to continue to report. While others are kept locked up, forced to "report" from their offices, or have had their visas and press credentials revoked, he's wandering around in the thick of things, waving his press pass, and in every dispatch, he's repeating those Ahmadi themes (perhaps a condition of his permission to continue to report, I ask, cynically?), even as he points out that it's not as clear cut a matter today as he suggested in his article from a few days ago.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html

I find it amazing (and a bit disturbing) that Fisk knows where the murdered students are buried, when their own families do not. Who's his source for THAT? It's got to be someone on the Ahmadi team--the basiji? The police? It's someone who is keeping him from harm in a volatile environment, IMO:

Only hours earlier, seven men killed by the Basiji at the end of Monday's march, were secretly buried by police in Cemetery 257, a large graveyard close to the Khomeini shrine, where the founder of the Islamic Revolution lies beneath a mosque of golden cupolas and blue-tiled walls. No such honours for the seven victims of the Basiji. They lay beneath a covering of earth, no markers on their graves, no word sent to their families of their fate.

[robertpaulsen]

70. I don't know your credentials where Iran is concerned. How do they measure up to Fisk?

Robert Fisk (born 12 July 1946 in Maidstone, Kent) is an English journalist and author. He is the Middle East correspondent of the UK newspaper The Independent, has spent more than 30 years living in and reporting from the region, and won awards for his work. He lives in Beirut, Lebanon <1>.

Fisk has been described in the New York Times as "probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain." <2> He covered the Northern Ireland Troubles in the 1970s, the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He has received numerous awards, including the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year award seven times. Fisk speaks vernacular Arabic, and is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden – three times between 1994 and 1997.

In 1991, Fisk won a Jacob's Award for his RTÉ Radio coverage of the first Gulf War.<18> He received Amnesty International UK Press Awards in 1998 for his reports from Algeria and again in 2000 for his articles on the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999. He received the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year seven times, and twice won its "Reporter of the Year" award.<19> In 2001, he was awarded the David Watt Prize for "outstanding contributions towards the clarification of political issues and the promotion of their greater understanding" for his investigation into the Armenian Genocide by the Turks in 1915.<20> In 2002 he was the fourth recipient of the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. More recently, Fisk was awarded the 2006 Lannan Cultural Freedom Prize along with $350,000.<21>

He was made an honorary Doctor of Laws by the University of St Andrews on June 24, 2004. The Political and Social Sciences department of Ghent University (Belgium) awarded Fisk an honorary doctorate on March 24, 2006. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by the American University of Beirut in June 2006. Trinity College Dublin awarded him a second, honorary, Doctorate in July 2008.<22>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk

I'll bet you $100 that the scenario you painted of Fisk being duped by the Secret Police is 100% fiction. Too bad neither one of us will be able to collect on that. Nobody's perfect, but you make Fisk sound gullible beyond belief. You're entitled to your opinion, but I ain't buying it.

But that doesn't mean you're wrong on the subject of election fraud. What I'm apprehensive about is some of the binary thinking being employed by those reporting on that possibility. My own personal opinion is that this election was like the poker game in The Sting between Paul Newman and Robert Shaw, resulting in Robert Shaw's character Doyle Lonnegan bellowing, "What was I supposed to do - call him for cheating better than me, in front of the others?" I'm getting pretty sick of MSM painting this situation as a good guy/bad guy (Mousavi/Ahmedinejad) match-up. That may be easy to do when the incumbent is a murderous homophobe/Holocaust denier, but it's still fucking lazy at best, dishonest at worst.

Have you read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine? Understanding the crossroads Iran is at now in the context of Disaster Capitalism might give you a different insight into what you wrote about 23% inflation. That percentage is nothing compared with Chile in the 1970's, but it's still significant enough to make the country ripe for "shock therapy" in the wake of chaos. I don't doubt that the majority protesting in the streets are crying out for genuine democracy - but Mousavi is not the man to bring it to them. Plus, something about his alliance with Rafsanjani makes me think there's some sort of free market "Shock Doctrine" collusion with NED/CIA built to exploit the protests to bring in radical capitalist privatization to Iran. That's the plan I think, but ultimately Cheney's destruction of Brewster Jennings & Associates destroyed their Iran intelligence capabilities to such a degree that this might just be a Hail Mary pass on the neo-con's part. What irony.

[MADem]

80. Tell me why Fisk is allowed to report, when everyone else has their credentials suspended?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-fear-has-gone-in-a-land-that-has-tasted-freedom-1706912.html

Tell me why Fisk is down in Vanak Square just last evening, right at the line between the two factions, watching the police try to keep them apart and providing such intimate coverage about what the police say and where the basiji are headed?

Tell me how Fisk knew where the bodies of the students were buried, when even their families do not know?

Lebanon is an Arab country. Iran is not. What do they have in common? Hizb'ollah--which is funded in Lebanon by whom? Their dear friend Ahmadinejad and Khameini, who are interested in expanding the influence of Iran across the shi'a crescent through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the sea. This is no secret, either--they've said as much.

Who provided paramilitary training and support to Hizb'ollah? The Pasaradan, Mahmoud's "crew" from back in the day, and his solid backers now.

Fisk's resume (and I thank you for providing it) makes me look askance at his impartiality in a bigger way than I did previously. Before, I thought he was just listening to "some guy" he knew from years of knocking around the region. Now, I think, more than ever, that this "some guy" is probably someone he met as a consequence of activity or connection in Lebanon---and based on the information about his "hometown," I believe that his sources are pro-Ahmadi.

Please don't give me the "Chile was worse" routine. Right now, as events unfold, I just do not care about Chile, and if they were worse or not--I'll gladly concede the point, if that makes you happy. Right now, my concern and worry isn't with Chile. I care about Iran.

I don't think this is a "Good Guy--Bad Guy" issue at all. It's a "Horrible Guy-Tolerable Guy Who Will Incrementally Move Iran Towards More Diplomacy and Openness" issue. Anyone hoping for more is not going to get that, not without another
real revolution, as opposed to a Velvet one.

Both Ahmadi and Mousavi are products of the Revolution. Both have connections to Imam Khomeini that they can point to if anyone wants to know if they're sufficiently Islamic. We're not talking a great sea change here. But what we are talking is the potential for Iran to go down a different path, that, down the line, will make a big difference to them. And the world. Also, Mousavi knows how to handle a budget and an economy, he's done it before (during wartime, too). Ahmadinejad has spent away all of the reserves on state-sponsored bribes, and he's tumbled the economy into a ditch.

[robertpaulsen]

85. You're asking the wrong Robert. ;)

Going back to Fisk's resume, it's quite possible that he may have picked up his source from some activity or connection in Lebanon from his reporting on the Civil War there. Or it could have come from his reporting during the 1979 Iranian Revolution, or even during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War. Fisk's work has been prolific and extensive, so there are a number of possibilities. This paragraph in the wiki link sticks out:

During the 2003 Iraq War, Fisk was stationed in Baghdad and filed many eyewitness reports. He has criticized other journalists based in Iraq for what he calls their "hotel journalism", literally reporting from one's hotel room without interviews or first hand experience of events.<15> His opposition to the war brought attacks from pro-war supporters such as the right wing and unionist Irish columnist and Senator Eoghan Harris<16> and Guardian columnist and war supporter Simon Hoggart

It sticks out because it illustrates his commitment to his craft. Fisk is probably the only journalist who foresaw and elaborated on the rise of the insurgency before the statue of Saddam fell. You may be right that his sources are pro-Ahmadinejad. I don't know. What I take issue with in your assessment is that Fisk was "played". To be a good reporter, you have to have a good bullshit detector. I think Fisk is a great reporter who deserves his many awards. Plus I don't think Fisk's story where he refers to Ahmadinejad is "The Democrator" is "very neat" as you say. Rather I think it illustrates just how messy a situation it is where repression mounts, protests erupt, yet it just might be possible that The Democrator actually got the most votes. Not a popular statement to make in the Western Media, but I admire Fisk for exploring that possibility. I also admire him for allowing, as Douglas Carpenter points out in post 82 downthread, that there may have been fraud too. Both events are not mutually exclusive, which most of MSM seems to be ignorant of.

I don't know what you mean by the "Chile was worse" routine. I threw Chile out as an example of countries in the last 35 years that have undergone the Friedmanite "shock therapy" radical capitalist privatization overhaul. It doesn't have to be as extreme as Pinochet; Bolivia, Poland, China or South Africa qualify as examples as well. The point is that for the people of Iran, I fear that this is not a case of "Horrible Guy-Tolerable Guy Who Will Incrementally Move Iran Towards More Diplomacy and Openness" issue. It may be a case of moving from the frying pan into the fire - I fear these poor people who genuinely desire democracy will be exploited by the Shock Doctors who thrive on this sort of crisis. Read The Shock Doctrine and you'll understand the particulars in greater detail.

I think you and I both agree that unless there is a real revolution, as opposed to a Velvet one, there will not be a change for the better for the people of Iran. I think we also agree that in Iran, as well as in America, EVERY VOTE MUST BE COUNTED!

[MADem]

88. I don't think he is in anyone's pocket. And he is now covering the other team.

And "the letter"-- http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secret-letter-proves-mousavi-won-poll-1707896.html

It just distressed me that there was so much "insider" coverage in that particular column. I also think it's dreadful that he knew where and when the police buried the children, and before their parents even knew they'd died (and perhaps they're still not sure?). I just have to wonder if he agreed to put the talking points in his column as a condition of getting the continued access to what the army/police/pasaradan (hard to tell who) were up to, and not having his credentials pulled. That kind of stuff does happen. It just read, to me, almost as though he were doing a "ride along," with the authorities.

I do not think Iran is ready for "real" revolution, though. I would be delighted if I were completely wrong about that. It's a shame but I think the best we can hope for in the near term is a "better" situation, not an ideal one, with a bit more talk and openness, a slight loosening of "social" strictures, and the economy will still be tightly managed from within. I don't expect miracles from Mousavi--I do think the old revolutionary has mellowed with age, and I think his wife has done a lot to change his mind and heart, but there's only so far that a fellow will go. However, if he is allowed to take the reins, and Khameini is neutered (or maybe even ousted, who knows? That's where the REAL story is) then "things" could move forward in Iran. Maybe they can get some decent refining capacity--that will help their economy, but that's a big ticket item--they'd have to make a deal with a devil (hopefully a better deal than in the old BP et. al. days).

I do think change will be incremental, though, not dramatic. I don't see the flower of Iranian youth dancing at the disco in Teheran any time soon. I think if they can reduce the influence of the clerics, and rachet up the influence of the people, in time they'll have something. But I don't see it happening rapidly or suddenly. Maybe I am wrong.

In any event, I hope there is improvement, either incremental or massive. It just cannot keep on as it is. Thirty years is far too long. I still shake my head in wonder when I realize this amount of time has passed!

[Douglas Carpenter]

82. Robert Fisk still said on Al Jazeera last night that he is certain that there was massive fraud

Mr. Fisk commented on his Al Jazeera interview that he believes that it is quite plausible that Ahmadinejad might have legitimately won the election by a modest margin but that the lopsided landslide in districts and parts of the country where he clearly is not popular was implausible to the point of absurdity.

Mr. Fisk speculates that the those in power did not want to take any chances and they wanted to humiliate and marginalize the opposition and that was their motive for all the fraud and vote rigging.

[MADem]

83. This is very interesting. His view has changed over the course of days.

I am happy he isn't a tool of the Pasaradan!

Thank you for bringing this fact to the table, because it's helpful in understanding some of his reporting.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. well I don't know. But Robert Fisk was absolutely clear that there was massive fraud in the election

although he did also says that he thinks Ahmadinejad might very well have won, but by a much, much smaller margin. He could not have been clearer about stating this on his interview on Al Jazeera just last night.

And please remember, in the article by Mr. Fisk, he is quoting someone else. No where, absolutely now where does Mr. Fisk indicate that he agrees with him.

All of this stuff about Ahmadinejad being extremely popular runs absolutely counter to real live people I know who have numerous long time contacts in Iran. All of them including a friend of mine who just got back from touring the whole country for a month told me that everyone he met absolutely loathed Ahmadinejad, whether they were urban and educated or less educated rural people.

It should also be pointed out that the main topic of Robert Fisk article mentioned above was the repressive tacts used by Iranian authorities:

Robert Fisk: Iran erupts as voters back 'the Democrator'

A smash in the face, a kick in the balls – that's how police deal with protesters after Iran's poll kept the hardliners in power

Sunday, 14 June 2009

link: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

First the cop screamed abuse at Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporter, a white-shirted youth with a straggling beard and unkempt hair. Then he smashed his baton into the young man's face. Then he kicked him viciously in the testicles. It was the same all the way down to Vali Asr Square. Riot police in black rubber body armour and black helmets and black riot sticks, most on foot but followed by a flying column of security men, all on brand new, bright red Honda motorcycles, tearing into the shrieking youths – hundreds of them, running for their lives. They did not accept the results of Iran's presidential elections. They did not believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 per cent of the votes. And they paid the price.

"Death to the dictator," they were crying on Dr Fatimi Street, now thousands of them shouting abuse at the police. Were they to endure another four years of the smiling, avuncular, ever-so-humble President who swears by democracy while steadily thinning out human freedoms in the Islamic Republic? They were wrong, of course. Ahmadinejad really does love democracy. But he also loves dictatorial order. He is not a dictator. He is a Democrator.

Yesterday wasn't the time for the finer points of Iranian politics. That Mir Hossein Mousavi had been awarded a mere 33 per cent of the votes – by midday, the figure was humiliatingly brought down to 32.26 per cent – brought forth the inevitable claims of massive electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Or, as the crowd round Fatimi Square chorused as they danced in a circle in the street: "Zionist Ahmadinejad – cheating at exams." That's when I noticed that the police always treated the protesters in the same way. Head and testicles. It was an easy message to understand. A smash in the face, a kick in the balls and Long Live the Democrator.

link to full article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html

[MADem]

86. If you read all his dispatches from that date forward, he repeats the Ahmadi themes.

I do not particularly think he has a dog in this fight, especially since he makes some objectively honest comments about Ahmadinejad ahead of the election. What I do think though, is that his source for that piece you are quoting was an Ahmadi source, as I've said elsewhere, because the source repeats the talking points, down to the "little old lady carpet weavers" like he's reading a list. I also think he has an "in" with the government. It seems curious to me that he is allowed to wander the streets when BBC journalists, even Persian ones working for BBC, are ordered off the street, their visa taken, their press credentials rescinded, and their camera 'film' (digital media) taken from them as well.

I wonder if he was able to continue to wander the streets (I'm guessing with someone from the police or the army--maybe even Pasaradan?) if he agreed to repeat the Ahmadi talking points?

Before the voting results were in, Fisk was telling us that Mahmoud was whacky and Mousavi was "the guy." And the election, at least, was close, and "coup-ishness" if you will, was in the air. See this comment on the 12th:

All the world wants to know the results of today's presidential election in Iran, not least the Republican Guard supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But will it make a difference, either to the Iranians or to the rest of the world?....

Mousavi is at least backed by the saintly ex-president Mohamed Khatami – the West's rejection of his rule brought us the triumph of the oddball Ahmadinejad, another victory for America at the time – and this might just give Mousavi the 50 per cent plus one seat for a clear win. But the Basiji and the Iranian Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) scream about velvet and green revolutions à la Ukraine, as if threatening a coup to overthrow a coup. It is interesting to remember that only a month ago, the corps stated that "on the eve of elections, the IRGC, as a matter of policy, does not let its official and contractual personnel nor the special Basiji interfere in election affairs, including support for or against a particular candidate." A month is clearly a long time in Iranian politics.


True, the campaign has given us some spectacular television bust-ups in which Ahmadinejad's loopy views on the world – not to mention his doubts about the Jewish Holocaust – have been held up to ridicule by Mousavi. But does that have them laughing in the millions of villages and hundreds of cities across Iran where the poor last gave their vote to the humble man who is the incumbent President and claimed a "halo" shone around him at the United Nations, causing his listeners not to blink for 25 minutes?


Iranian politics has always produced a weird combination of sacred old men and smart economists – occasionally in highly unsacred coalition – and Mousavi's steady hand as prime minister during the Somme-like Iran-Iraq war may add to his popularity. But this was a war fought largely by the Basiji and the Republican Guards – as Ahmadinejad is well aware – and which Iran lost.

And now to find on the very eve of the election that Ahmadinejad is threatening to jail his opponents because of what he claims are their Hitler-like lies is surely moving towards infantilism of a unique kind. It is certainly odd that Ahmadinejad denies Hitler's greatest crime and then accuses his opponents of being Hitler. If Hitler didn't kill the Jews of Europe, which crimes, one wonders, was Iran's weird President thinking of?

Edit to add link and to tell you I hit post by mistake--I'll continue my remarks below: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-irans-establishment-ready-to-crush-revolution-14336453.html

[MADem]

87. To continue my remarks (because I hit post in error)!

On the day of voting, he does one of those "many voices" pieces, and notes:

We were all being watched and listened to – at far too close quarters – by a young army officer, a lieutenant with an AK-47 rifle, unshaven but with hard, strong eyes. Was this Big Brother, coming to betray those who wished to speak their minds?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-iran-united-by-spirit-of-democracy-14337609.html

The next day, he writes this creepy treatise which paints Ahmadinejad as a scary nut job:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-ahmadinejad-whips-supporters-to-frenzy-14338749.html

I hate to use the "Hitler" word, but if you change the names, Mahmoud is certainly sounding 'not quite right'....

....what do you make of a man who five times refers to the presidential poll as a football match and then utters – in front of us all – in the softest of voices and with the gentlest and most chilling of smiles, a terrible warning to the mysteriously absent Mousavi. "After a football match, sometimes people feel their side should have won and they get into their car outside and drive through a red light and they get a ticket from a policeman. He didn't wait for the red light to change. I am not at all happy that someone ignores the red light." We all drew in our breath.

But there was that infuriating refusal to deal with physical realities. When I asked Ahmedinejad the Good if he remembered the young Iranian woman dragged screaming to the gallows a few weeks ago, pleading with her mother by mobile phone to save her life seconds before her neck was broken by the rope, and whether he would guarantee that such a terrible event would never be repeated in the Islamic Republic, he set forth on an exegesis of the Iranian legal system. "I am myself against capital punishment," he replied. "I do not want to kill even an ant. But the Iranian judiciary is independent." And then he promised to talk to the judiciary about softening punishments and thought Iranian judges would benefit from "dialogue" with their opposite numbers in Europe and America. But the young woman so cruelly executed – for a murder she may not have committed – had disappeared from his response. She wasn't an ant. She had been in the hands of Ahmedinejad's noble, caring, compassionate, just Iran.


Nor was Mousavi an ant when CNN's Christiane Amanpour demanded Ahmedinejad the Good's guarantee for his life and those of his supporters. That's when we got the bit about the red light and all that it represented. Amanpour repeated the question. "Perhaps I missed something in the translation of your reply," she said sarcastically. "Perhaps you missed the translation that you didn't ask for a second question," Ahmedinejad snapped back. "No," said the imperishable Amanpour," this isn't a second question. I'm repeating the first one!"


Useless, of course, especially when the Iranian and Arab journalists arrived with their fawning questions, always preceded by congratulations for Ahmedinejad's real or imagined victory. In fact, the most frustrating thing about this performance was that he kept praising the massive turnout on Friday – perhaps more than 80 per cent – as his personal victory. But it wasn't the enthusiasm to vote that proved his presidency. It was the nature of how the result was calculated that enraged so many of Ahmedinejad the Good's noble Iranians.


But then, as they say, the mask slipped. Down amid the hot crowds on Val-y-Asr square – the scene of a huge 1979 Revolution massacre – Ahmedinejad the Bad was with us, screaming of his victory in confronting America.


"The enemy is furious because the Iranian nation is firm in its ideology... I will do my best to make the imperial powers and governments bow before you and bow before the nation of Iran." ....

And then, while the rest of the reporters are being told to go to their offices and that they aren't allowed to cover any protests, he's right up in there, using his press pass to go through barriers and up against the barricades at another demo--and repeating the Ahmadi talking points. That's why I wondered if he agreed to recite them in his piece, in exchange for "access" (and they are, for whatever it is worth, being "cut-n-pasted" to "prove" a point, to suggest that Mahmoud won--and I don't think that is possible, I just do not).

Yesterday, he covered the protesters in earnest:

Not since the 1979 Iranian Revolution have massed protestors gathered in such numbers — or with such overwhelming popularity — through the boulevards of this torrid, despairing city. They jostled and pushed and crowded through narrow laneways to reach the main highway and then found the riot police in steel helmets and batons lined on each side. The people ignored them all. And the cops, horribly outnumbered by these tens of thousands smiled sheepishly — and to our astonishment — and nodded their heads towards the men and women demanding freedom.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/robert-fisk-deaths-follow-protests-in-iranrsquos-lsquoday-of-destinyrsquo-14339899.html

And now, he is, in fact, in his latest comments, declaring that (as I've been saying all along) Mousavi won.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-secret-letter-proves-mousavi-won-poll-1707896.html

.......the photocopy appeared to be a genuine but confidential letter from the Iranian minister of interior, Sadeq Mahsuli, to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, written on Saturday 13 June, the day after the elections, and giving both Mr Mousavi and his ally, Mehdi Karroubi, big majorities in the final results. In a highly sophisticated society like Iran, forgery is as efficient as anywhere in the West and there are reasons for both distrusting and believing this document. But it divides the final vote between Mr Mousavi and Mr Karroubi in such a way that it would have forced a second run-off vote – scarcely something Mousavi's camp would have wanted.
Headed "For the Attention of the Supreme Leader" it notes "your concerns for the 10th presidential elections" and "and your orders for Mr Ahmadinejad to be elected president", and continues "for your information only, I am telling you the actual results". Mr Mousavi has 19,075,623, Mr Karroubi 13,387,104, and Mr Ahmadinejad a mere 5,698,417.



I have to walk my dog! I will be back later....

[Douglas Carpenter]

92. I guess I just have so much respect for Robert Fisk because of the way he approaches atrocities

He brutally reports them from all sides without wavering, faltering or showing bias.

Some pro-Israeli people don't like him and even some have called him an anti-Semite for reporting Israeli or Israeli backed atrocities. But Mr. Fisk has been equally brutal in reporting atrocities by Palestinian and other Arab militias and by Arab government forces. Mr. Fisk was not only the first Western journalist inside the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut to report on the blood bath carried out by the Phalange militia under the watchful eye of the Israelis, he was also the first western journalist inside Hama in Syria to report on the blood bath carried out against Syrian civilians in the neighborhoods thought to be supporting pro-Islamist.

In all his writings, whether he is reporting on the civil war in Algeria or the Soviet/Afghan war, Mr. Fisk never, never, never once wavers when it comes to bringing to life human cruelty during times of conflict - regardless what side they are on, who is doing it and why.

[MADem]

97. I don't for a second think he's lying here. I realize I have probably been unclear.

I think he may have been "sleeping with the enemy" as it were, for the purposes of getting a story. That quote in his column about Ahmadi "winning" the election from the friend with the wife in the restaurant, to me, seemed like a quid pro quo deal was made. "I will quote your talking points, word for word, in my article, in exchange for being permitted to tag along with --the police, the pasaradan, the army, the baseeji--some governmental enforcement agency while this rioting and demonstrating and head cracking is going on--I want to see it up close.

His access, when everyone else (including native Persian speakers) couldn't leave their offices, had visas and press passes revoked, etc., remained extraordinary, which is why I looked askance. I mean, he's slogging along with a translator, not doing the "blend in" routine. I simply pictured in my imagination a deal being made along the lines of "Look, I have to give my boss something--just quote the talking points about how 'the numbers' suggest Ahmadi won, so I have something to show them--oh, and be sure to use the anecdote about the carpet weavers, too--and yes, you can come with us while we make our rounds this evening. I'll tell them you're with us, not against us."

I know you have to quote even the stuff that the crazy bullshit people say, but Fisk "prepared the soil" before he planted those seeds, by telling us how nice his old friend was, how he was a Revolutionary from back in the Khomeini days and had suffered his share of slings and arrows, how his old friend never lied to him, how he was having a nice meal in the restaurant with the guy and the guy's wife, etc. And then he gives us this great pile of honking "Ahmadi Won, And Here's Why" total horseshit from the friend (and without any snorting editorial comment whatsoever in his first-person piece, either--which he's not shy about doing). Why should all of the friend's bona fides matter if the points can stand on their own? And why not put in a single sentence that at least suggests "cough, bullshit?"

Maybe I'm making too nuanced a point here. What was happening "behind the print" in that article just jumped out at me as the first question in my mind--I don't know why, it just did. My antennae just went up in a big way when I read that article, because it sounded to me like his sources were deep inside Ahmadi's camp.

But no, I don't think Fisk is lying. And I agree that his coverage is very thorough. I'd just be interested in knowing what the backstory was behind that particular column.

[mamaleah]

40. In rural areas? Dictators always make a huge impression on people in

areas where there are many who are poor or downtrodden. People outside of Tehran, or any educational center, may also be more religiously and socially conservative.

This is somehow a surprise to people?

[JackRiddler]

41. I'm not speaking in support of the man, do note!

Not all that is popular is good, right? The point is, these people you speak of may have made the difference in the election.

[mamaleah]

43. Thats something that should be remembered by everyone

Popular does not mean good. Slavery was popular. Stalin was popular. Hitler was popular. Paris Hilton is popular.

[backscatter712]

44. Even the biggest asshole politicians have a base.

Take a look at Dick Cheney. Sure he's Mr. 17 Percent, but he can still go to rallies with thousands of screaming fans.

28% of the population can be considered Right-Wing Authoritarian, and would enthusiastically support a totalitarian dictator.

It doesn't mean that Ahmedinajad won, and even if he did win, it doesn't excuse the ballot-box burnings, the attacks from right-wing militias like the Basiji or Ansar Hezbollah, the arrests, the killings, the repression of free speech through Internet censorship, cutting of phone & SMS service, and so on. Even if Ahmedinajad won, he is now guilty of crimes against humanity, and the people of Iran demand he be held responsible.

It's the crimes committed by the state and its allies in the wake of the election that have resulted in the Green revolution becoming what it is now - something that will take Khamenei and the clerics out of power entirely and form a new Iran.

[JackRiddler]

46. You say...

"It doesn't mean that Ahmedinajad won, and even if he did win, it doesn't excuse the ballot-box burnings, the attacks from right-wing militias like the Basiji or Ansar Hezbollah, the arrests, the killings, the repression of free speech through Internet censorship, cutting of phone & SMS service, and so on. Even if Ahmedinajad won, he is now guilty of crimes against humanity, and the people of Iran demand he be held responsible."

No, it doesn't mean he won, but he might have. Otherwise, I agree: there is no excuse for the crimes you list, or for the many crimes the regime committed before the election. (Including those of Mousavi and Rafsanjani.)

"It's the crimes committed by the state and its allies in the wake of the election that have resulted in the Green revolution becoming what it is now - something that will take Khamenei and the clerics out of power entirely and form a new Iran."

I hope so and wish you luck! The cause is righteous, and my doubts about the chances quite irrelevant. Que sera, sera!

[JackRiddler]

54. Robert Baer's take is similar...

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904953,00.html

Viewpoint
Don't Assume Ahmadinejad Really Lost
By Robert Baer Tuesday, Jun. 16, 2009

There is no denying that the news clips from Tehran are dramatic, unprecedented in violence and size since the mullahs came to power in 1979. They're possibly even augurs of real change. But can we trust them? Most of the demonstrations and rioting I've seen in the news are taking place in north Tehran, around Tehran University and in public places like Azadi Square. These are, for the most part, areas where the educated and well-off live — Iran's liberal middle class. These are also the same neighborhoods that little doubt voted for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rival, who now claims that the election was stolen. But I have yet to see any pictures from south Tehran, where the poor live. Or from other Iranian slums. (See TIME's covers from the 1979 Islamic revolution.)

Some facts about Iran's election will hopefully emerge in the coming weeks, with perhaps even credible evidence that the election was rigged. But until then, we need to add a caveat to everything we hear and see coming out of Tehran. For too many years now, the Western media have looked at Iran through the narrow prism of Iran's liberal middle class — an intelligentsia that is addicted to the Internet and American music and is more ready to talk to the Western press, including people with money to buy tickets to Paris or Los Angeles. Reading Lolita in Tehran is a terrific book, but does it represent the real Iran? (See pictures of Iran's presidential election and its turbulent aftermath.)

Before we settle on the narrative that there has been a hard-line takeover in Iran, an illegitimate coup d'état, we need to seriously consider the possibility that there has been a popular hard-line takeover, an electoral mandate for Ahmadinejad and his policies. One of the only reliable, Western polls conducted in the run-up to the vote gave the election to Ahmadinejad — by higher percentages than the 63% he actually received. The poll even predicted that Mousavi would lose in his hometown of Tabriz, a result that many skeptics have viewed as clear evidence of fraud. The poll was taken all across Iran, not just the well-heeled parts of Tehran. Still, the poll should be read with a caveat as well, since some 50% of the respondents were either undecided or wouldn't answer.

No doubt, Iran will come out of last Friday's election a different country. But it would serve us well to put aside our prism that has led us to misunderstand Iran for so many years, an anticipation that there would be a liberal counter-revolution in the country. Mousavi is far from the liberal democrat that many in the West would like to believe he is. The truth is, Ahmadinejad may be the President the Iranians want, and we may have to live with an Iran to Iranians' liking and not to ours. (See pictures of Ahmadinejad's supporters on LIFE.com.)

The absolute worst things we could do at this point would be to declare Iran's election fraudulent, refuse to talk to the regime and pile on more sanctions. Hostility will only strengthen Ahmadinejad and encourage the hard-liners and secret police. We should never forget that Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatullah Khameinei, along with Ahmadinejad, have the full, if undeclared, backing of both the Revolutionary Guards and the army, and they are not afraid to use those resources to back up their mandate.

Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.

[HughMoran]

56. Since when do the people not blame their leader for bad times?

I think there are several flawed arguments you got there, but I'm not going to even argue with someone who would take the side of a holocaust denier (even as devils advocate) - I just can't do it.

[JackRiddler]

60. That is untrue, unfair, and insulting.

To think that the Iranian election results might be genuine, or to admit that Ahmedinejad is popular with his people, is not the same as "taking his side."

Your introduction of "holocaust denier," as though I defended him for that, is particularly shameless defamation and an attack of the lowest order.

The sophistry and the leading question indeed indicate "you can't do it." So don't.

[Prometheus Bound]

93. I'm getting sick of this shit too.

You can't even call it sophistry because it isn't even clever.

Not that it matters, but I strongly doubt there is a single person on DU who supports Ahmadinejad. But when you try to plow through the propaganda to find out why tens of millions of Iranians voted for the man, a few people don't want it posted so they try to drown out the findings with the accusations of "your candidate", "you support a Holocaust denier", "apologist for a Holocaust denier", then the boards become little more than propaganda platforms.

It has nothing to do with support. It's about wanting to know why.

There's something very sinister about this approach to denying honest research.

[NeedleCast]

58. Is this sort of like how Republicans are wildly popular in rural areas?

[JI7]

78. yes, all over the world rural areas tend to be more conservative than cities

but i still don't believe he won. if the vote was closer maybe i might have. but my feeling is that the change happened so fast and they didn't have enough time to make up a more convincing win. they got nervous and scared and just started saying he won by this huge margin.

[Turborama]

59. Iran's Military Coup by Reza Aslan

The Iranian election was bald-faced election fraud, writes The Daily Beast’s Reza Aslan, perpetrated by a powerful intelligence unit known as the Pasdaran.

Reza Aslan, a contributor to the Daily Beast, is assistant professor of creative writing at the University of California, Riverside and senior fellow at the Orfalea Center on Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara. He is the author of the bestseller No god but God and How to Win a Cosmic War.

So let’s get this straight. We are supposed to believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected in Iran’s presidential election last week by a 2 to 1 margin against his reformist rival Mir Hossein Mousavi. That this deeply unpopular president, whose gross mismanagement of the state budget is widely blamed for Iran’s economy hovering on the edge of total collapse, received approximately the same percentage of votes as Mohammad Khatami, by far Iran’s most popular past president, received in both 1997 and 2001? That Mousavi, whom all independent polls predicted would at the very least take Ahmadinejad into a runoff election, lost not only his main base of support, Tehran, but also his own hometown of Khameneh in East Azerbaijan (which, as any Azeri will tell you, never votes for anyone but its own native sons)…and by a landslide. That we should all take the word of the Interior Ministry, led by a man put in his position by Ahmadinejad himself, a man who called the election for the incumbent before the polls were even officially closed, that the election was a fair representation of the will of the Iranian people.

Bullshit.

Such bald-faced election fraud is a totally new phenomenon in Iran, which takes its election process very seriously. This is, after all, the only expression of popular sovereignty that Iranians enjoy. Over and over again, the electorate has defied the will of the clerical regime when it comes to choosing the country’s president: in 1997 and 2001, when 70% of the population rejected the establishment candidate, Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, in favor of a completely unknown cleric, Khatami, whose greatest political contribution was as head of Iran’s National Library; and again in 2005 when Iranians rejected Hashemi Rafsanjani—the billionaire former president and the quintessential establishment candidate—to vote instead for a little-known mayor of Tehran named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who until that time had never run for any political office (Ahmadinejad was appointed mayor of Tehran after his predecessor was charged with corruption).

"There is a genuine fear among these groups that Iran is beginning to resemble Egypt or Pakistan, countries in which the military controls the apparatus of government."

Indeed, despite what most Americans think, Iran boasts among of the freest and fairest presidential elections in the whole of the Middle East (a pathetic statement, but nevertheless true). Have there been examples of corruption and graft in previous elections? Yes, but not any more so than, say, in American elections. Are Iran’s presidential candidates vetted by an unelected Council of Guardians that filters out anyone it deems “unqualified” for the office? Yes, but this has partly to do with Iran’s strange elections laws, which allow practically anyone with a pulse to run for the office of president. This year, nearly 500 people ran for the post, some of them homeless, a few of them living in insane asylums. (It should be noted that a great many of these 500 candidates were women. The constitution of Iran uses a gender-neutral term to describe those who can run for the office of president, though in a blatantly unconstitutional act, the Council of Guardians, made up exclusively of men, automatically disqualifies all women from the post.) And while the Council’s decisions are obviously politically motivated, the truth is that the four candidates who qualified to run for president this year offered Iranian voters a greater diversity of political views than one sees in most American presidential elections.

Yet the brazenness with which this presidential election was stolen by Ahmadinejad’s supporters has caught everyone in Iran, even the clerical establishment, by surprise. Indeed, I am convinced that what we are witnessing in Iran is nothing less than a slow moving military coup against the clerical regime itself, led by Iran’s dreaded Revolutionary Guard, or Pasdaran, as the organization is called in Iran. The Pasdaran is a military-intelligence unit that acts independently from the official armed forces. Originally created by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to be the supreme leader’s personal militia, the Pasdaran has been increasingly acting like an independent agent over the last decade, one that appears to no longer answer to the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In 2005, the Pasdaran threw its support behind Ahmadinejad, a former member of the organization, and Ahmadinejad returned the favor by placing high-ranking Pasdaran members in important ministerial and ambassadorial posts in his administration. This was a complete departure from previous presidents—both conservatives and reformists—who went out of their way to keep the military out of the political realm. Today more than one-third of Iran’s parliament, or Majlis, are Pasdaran members, while the organization itself is thought to control nearly 30% of Iran’s economy through its oil, gas, real estate, and construction subsidiaries (the Pasdaran’s net worth is estimated to be between $12 billion and $15 billion).

It is the Pasdaran that controls Ahmadinejad, not the mullahs. Indeed, it was precisely fear of the Pasdaran’s rising political and economic influence that led to the “anybody but Ahmadinejad” coalition we saw in this election, wherein young, leftist students and popular reformists like Mohammad Khatami joined together with conservative mullahs and "centrists" like Rafsanjani to push back against what they consider to be the rampant militarization of Iranian politics. There is a genuine fear among these groups that Iran is beginning to resemble Egypt or Pakistan, countries in which the military controls the apparatus of government.

It is difficult to know how this coalition will react to Ahmadinejad’s “victory.” Thus far, their appeals to Ayatollah Khamenei to treat this stolen election as “an act of treason against the state,” which is how both Mousavi and Rafsanjani have described it, have fallen on deaf ears. What is abundantly clear, however, is that the days in which power in Iran rested in the hands of a single individual (the supreme leader) or a single group (the mullahs) are over. For better or worse, the new power base in Iran is the Pasdaran.

From: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-15/irans-military-coup/full/

[MADem]

69. In Iran the "election process" always used to be "free and fair," however, the selection of the

candidates that appeared on the ballot was always tightly controlled--no matter what the party, Khameini has the final say.

I agree with most of what Reza says here. However, the fact that candidates who are "too reform," or even "slightly secular" are excluded from the ballot, and aren't even allowed to compete, makes Iran's process, when looking at the big picture (from candidate selection to vote counting) a bit less "free and fair." The bottom line, no matter what your party--if the Supreme Leader doesn't want you on the ballot, you're not on the ballot.

I hope the Pasaradan doesn't prevail. They were assholes thirty years ago, and they are assholes today. They never were afraid to shoot someone from a rooftop, though, then OR now--the chickenshits.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

72. Sounds familiar

Except here in The Homeland our supreme leaders are mega-corporations whose only allegiance is to global capital.

[MADem]

81. And if you are rich, you can be your own Supreme Leader.

Look at how many millionaires are able to become governors and senators--even when it's unlikely and improbable that they would be "The Most Agreeable" candidates. Money is the Supreme Leader in USA. There are the odd exceptions (Wellstone, Kucinich, Sanders, for example) but it does take money--even if you get it in small donations-- to be heard.

Where people find the money is another story--many do turn to the corporations, and find their funding there.

[starroute]

73. Here's an article that appears to explain a lot -- if it's correct

To me the question of whether Rafsanjani is enormously corrupt or if it's all lies by Almadinejad is still unresolved. But this is, at the least, a very coherent statement of the anti-Almadinejad position. It's a long article, and this is just a sample.

http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/16/the-leaders-of-iran%E2%80%99s-election-coup/

After the war with Iraq ended in 1988, thousands of political prisoners were executed in the summer of 1988. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini passed away in June 1989, and Iran began to gradually recover from casualties, both economically and politically. The economic reconstruction was led by Mr. Rafsanjani, then president.

The young revolutionaries then broke off into two camps, generally speaking. In one camp were those who believed that the country needed a political opening and a relaxation from the extreme repression that existed in the 1980s. This group included not only those who had fought the war with Iraq, but had also carried out the fight with the MKO. Many of them were members of the intelligence apparatus, which gave them a realistic assessment of what the country’s needs politically. Members of this group were mostly Islamic leftists, and were instrumental in the birth of the reform movement in the 1990s. They are still active in the reformist camp, and include such prominent reformists as Dr. Saeed Hajjarian, Mohsen Armin, and Dr. Ali Reza Alavi Tabar, all leading reformist strategists.

The young revolutionaries in the second camp remained within the ranks of IRGC. By the early 1990s, they had risen up to command important positions within the Guard. People such as Major General Mohammad Ali (Aziz) Jafari, the top IRGC commander; Brigadier General Yadollah Javani, the head of the IRGC’s political directorate; and Brigadier General Ali Reza Afshar, the deputy Interior Minister, belonged to this group. Some of the second-generation revolutionaries of this camp joined the government, including Ezatollah Zarghami, who runs the Islamic Republic National Radio and Television, and Mr. Ahmadinejad. These were the right-wing revolutionaries.

The death of Ayatollah Khomeini had another long-term consequence whose effect is felt today. His death allowed the ultra-right reactionary clerics to gradually make a comeback in Iran’s political scene. Such clerics belonged to the Hojjatiyeh Society. Founded in 1954 by Sheikh Mahmoud Halabi as an Islamic organization opposed to the Bahai faith and the Sunni sect of Islam, the Hojjatiyeh was penetrated by SAVAK, the Shah’s dreaded security agency in the 1960s and 70s, which used it as a buffer against the spread of Communism in Iran.

[steelmania75]

76. Kinda like how Democrats are popular in big cities, and the GOP is popular with the rednecks

here in the US

[steelmania75]

77. Kinda like how Democrats are popular in big cities, and the GOP is popular with the rednecks

here in the US

[4lbs]

94. He's so popular that he's been able to do something that no other politician in modern times

has been able to do (in a supposed Democratic style election):

Beat his challengers by a ridiculously overwhelming margin in each of their home cities.

Reagan demolished Mondale in 1984, yet Mondale won his home state of Minnesota.

Bush beat Kerry (*), yet Kerry won his home state of Massachussetts.

Obama beat McCain handily, yet McCain won his home state of Arizona.

However, Ahmedinejad has the awesome ability to wipe out his opponents by at least 90% to 10% in their home areas.





(*) just for the sake of argument.

[JI7]

95. and they knew he won by such a huge amount so early on

even though people vote by handwriting the name of the candidate which people then must read and count.

they don't do it by machines or even something simpler like check box 1 or 2 with each number corresponding to a candidate.

[Prometheus Bound]

96. No, not 90:10. Ahmadinejad got 56.75% in East Azerbaijan vs 42% for Mousavi.

The poll one month before the election had 16% of Azeri Iranians saying they would vote for Mousavi, against 31% of Azeris who claimed they would vote for Ahmadinejad.

So this result was predictable. And there are reasons for Ahmadinejad being popular there.

[JackRiddler]

98. Khamenei's an Azeri too.

The home advantage is not a natural law.

(Did George McGovern win South Dakota? Nope. Only MA and DC. And need I point out that Gore lost Tennessee, and this in one of the closest elections in US history when he had blowouts in places like NY and CA?)

Vote outcome still depends on many factors, whether or not it's in a candidate's home area. The Azeri vote in itself is not an indicator of fraud. In fact, the official numbers for Mousavi in Azerbaijan are well above his national share. And Khamenei himself is an Azeri.

But people have their set of claims set up now, and these will not be shaken by factual corrections.

"The government announced the winner too soon" - except, as is usually left out, Mousavi declared himself the winner hours before the government had announced anything, when even fewer ballots had been counted. Could the two events be related?!

"The ballots were counted in three hours" - except, given different poll closing times in many areas it was more like eight hours, and even the next morning (12-15 hours after closing!) the government only claimed to have counted 66 percent.

None of which is to say it was or wasn't a fraud - only that one shouldn't repeat untrue or exaggerated claims.

[JackRiddler]

99. All too true cartoon

[bertman]

100. Too late to recommend. This is a breathtakingly informative post. Thanks to all who

have contributed.

International politics are never simple. The situation in Iran is, of course, no different. But here in America it's presented as black and white with very little nuanced coverage by any media. Makes me wonder how much input our intelligence folks have.