Previous copy replaced by APJ copy, better edit.

American Politics Journal
June 15, 2009
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2455&Itemid=2

Iranian Election Fraud 2009: Who Was the Real Target... and Why?
Written by Michael Collins
Monday, 15 June 2009

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/rafblog.png
Is this man – Hashemi Rafsanjani, former two-term Iranian
president and power-broker – the target of Iranian election fraud?

June 15, 2009 – Washington, DC (electionfraudnews.com) – There most certainly was election fraud in Iran in this election and every previous election under the current electoral system. The question is not, did fraud take place in this most recent election? Of course it did. You just need to study the Iranian Constitution and recent Iranian elections understand that, a step skipped by the major media and some nay-saying bloggers in the United States.

The real questions are who or what was the target of the fraud and why?

The 2009 presidential election produced a 75% turnout, an alleged landslide victory for incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and widespread protests by supporters of the losing candidates. It also produced a pervasive and violent crack down by Iranian authorities.

The reelection of Ahmadinejad is highly significant to Iranians and the rest of the world. Iran is a major oil supplier and a political actor of major proportions in the South Asia and the Middle East. Iran may join the list of nations with nuclear weapons soon, it appears.

The most pressing current problem with Iran is posed by the nation's president who happens to be certifiably insane. He is a holocaust denier; not just once but every time he's asked. Ahmadinejad even hosted a world conference for other deniers. The existence of the holocaust is not a required issue for discussion by Iranian politicians. Ahmadinejad actually goes out of his way to showcase his break with reality. He's also continues the repellent acts of the death penalty for homosexuality and the application of the death penalty for capital crimes by children.

Yet he was approved once again by Iran's Guardian Council as a candidate for the nation's highest office. The council consists of six Islamic jurists appointed by the Supreme Leader of Iran and six from the Majlis, Iran's popularly elected parliament. They screen presidential candidates through background checks and a detailed written examination. Very few pass the test. Since 2004, the counci hasl routinely rejected reform candidates.

That's the fraud. It couldn't be more obvious.

The outcome of every election is determined by 12 men through the selection process that they devise. The choice of Iranian voters is determined before they ever get to the polling place. Candidates represent a very narrow spectrum defined by the 12. This process is supposed to accommodate the various major factions in the country to preserve civil order but the balancing act is entirely under the control of the guardian council.

The 2004 selection process by the guardian's is referred to as the silent coup by many Iranians. The selection of candidates for parliament was so biased against Iran's reform parties, many ended up boycotting the election. The boycott and lower turnout resulted in Ahmadinejad's election as president and a parliament stacked with his supporters. (Note on the use of "reformer" in Iranian politics)

The result of the 2009 election was too much to bear for supporters of the approved reform candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former president of Iran during the Iran-Iraq War. They've taken to the streets.

Demonstrators Prevail over Riot Police
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/panel1.png
Iranian demonstrators take to the streets in Iran
BBC, June 13, 2009

The losing candidate, reformer Mir-Hossein Mousavi, is reported missing. He supposedly has an account on Twitter. An Iranian web site published a letter it reported was meant for his followers. That web site is down at this moment. In the letter, Mousavi said:


[size=1]The reported results of the 10th presidential Election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B (State run TV and Radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot. Dishonesty and corruption of officials as we have seen will only result in weakening the pillars of the Islamic Republic of Iran and empowers lies and dictatorships.

I am obliged, due to my religious and national duties, to expose this dangerous plot and to explain its devastating effects on the future of Iran. I am concerned that the continuation of the current situation will transform all key members of this regime into fabulists in confrontation with the nation and seriously jeopardize them in this world and the next.

— June 14, 2009 (Original web site not currently available)

There were reports of widespread voter intimidation at the polls by the police and ballot destruction. There were also reports that the bureaucracy that runs elections had been purged of those not loyal to the Ahmadinejad regime. Iran's elections are run by the same group that selects candidates, the Guardian Council. This may explain the suspicious nature of election reporting by government authorities.

An experienced reporter on Iranian politics, Laura Secor, was clear in her assessment:



[size=8pt]"There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much."

— New Yorker, June 13, 2009

Her doubts are widely held in Iran, according to a just published story by Reuters:
INSTANT VIEW: Iran's election result staggers analysts

Maziar Bahari of Newsweek erroneously reported that, "Less than a month before balloting starts, all the polls give a healthy edge to the hardline incumbent." That statement is simply wrong. Pre election polls varied greatly. The last national poll of 7,900 citizens showed a 57% to 24% Mousavi lead. Checking the validity of any Iranian pre election poll is difficult due to limited to no access to data and methodology. The momentum of the campaign measured by crowd size showed a wave of enthusiasm for Mousavi and his "Green" reform movement.

There were troubling patterns in the announced vote totals that indicated a rigged contest. A statistical analysis from The Tehran Bureau (or pdf of site if it's down) showed nearly the same difference in votes from the first through sixth phase of reporting by government authorities. The poster, Muhammad Sahimi, concluded:
<b

r />
[size=1]"Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election — and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own."

—The Teheran Bureau, Muhammad Sahimi, June 13, 2009 (or pdf of site)

This type of precision ignored factors like variable vote totals by region, ethnic group, and locality, e.g., city, town, and so forth. Juan Cole outlined several of the glaring inconsistencies in the election results that support this analysis.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com took a look at this data, called it "dubious," and concluded that it did not prove election fraud. He compared the actual reports of Iran election results to special model he built for the 2008 United States presidential election. His model presumed that states reported a) results in six phases (which they do not), as the Iranian results were reported, and b) by alphabetical groupings, e.g. Alabama through Illinois, etc. (which is not the case in real world U.S. election reporting). Jumping through these self created hoops, Silver was able to fit the 2006 U.S. presidential election into the statistical pattern of the Iranian election.

In addition to a flawed comparison to U.S. election reporting, Silver ignored the electoral success of reform movement candidate Mohammad Khatami in 1997 (70% share/80% turnout) and 2001 (78% share/70% turnout). Reform movement ally Rafsanjani won the two presidential elections before that in 1989 and 1993. Ahmadinejad's 2005 victory was a fluke due to a boycott by reformers after their candidates were by the guardian's council. Turnout was only 48%. Clearly, reformers are the dominant vote getters in open Iranian elections

With a history of reform candidate dominance in high turnout elections, we're supposed to believe that a 75% to 80% turnout in 2009 produced a lopsided victory for the radical Islamic candidate with failed economic policies.

Then there are the striking similarities between the Iranian election and the 2006 Mexican presidential election. There was massive evidence of fraud from the destruction of ballots to phased election reports that were so perfect statistically that it appeared to be the product of computer generated program.

Ironically, Silver concluded that, "To properly analyze Iran's election results is probably something best left to Middle East experts, rather than experts on U.S. electoral politics."

Maybe he should check the Tehran Bureau's web site to see people with American sounding names telling Iranians who've just risked their lives to protest election fraud that it was all a waste of their time.


Posted at the Tehran Bureau, Faulty Election Data (or pdf of site)

Mike Thomas says:
June 13, 2009 at 16:55

As much as I’m sure the Iranian elections are bullshit rigged. The mathematical analysis in this post is flawed. For a very neat explanation of why this is the case, visit http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ where Nate Silver links to this post and explains the problem."

The "problem" is the impertinence of the poster's "neat explanation" and his reference to Silver's flawed and historically vacant critique of a fraud analysis that is just one part of a much larger picture of election fraud in Iran. It is a life and death struggle faced by the Iranian people not an online fantasy game.

"People of Iran"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/iranpeople-1.jpg
"Media, we are not opposition, we are people of Iran" reads sign left.
Iranians in Great Britain demonstrate at Iran's Embassy. Image

Why was this particular election fixed in the way that it was?

What were the high stakes that required a blatant cramdown of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's choice, the deranged Ahmadinejad?

The 1979 Iranian Revolution was not monolithic. It consisted of leftist nationalists, represented by students and others, primarily in urban areas, a right wing based on Islamic law, and other distinct factions. Iran's first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, is said to have balanced these constituencies to prevent the domination of one or the other opposed factions. The complex counterbalancing powers are assigned to various groups to perpetuate the ruling Mullahs and while giving the appearance of a degree of political freedom. The Iranian Constitution reflects this goal.

Iran's reformers favor a more open society, openings to the West, and a more capitalist economy. Ahmadinejad's faction has a radical interpretation of Islamic law that's highly restrictive. This restrictiveness includes criminal acts like executing those convicted of homosexual behavior. Ahmadinejad is also pushing a hard for a redistribution of wealth.

Rafsanjani is opposed to this for several reasons. According to Forbes he's one of thee wealthiest men in the world. He wants more openings to the West. In this campaign, he has also been the target of highly personal attacks by Ahmadinejad who accused him of fraud in a presidential debate.

Rafsanjani fired back with an open and very public letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reminding him that he, not Ahmadinejad, was a true follower of the balance of power initiated by Khomeini. The letter was also a preemptive notice to the current government to avoid stealing the election according to Hossein Bastini, an Iranian foreign policy analyst.

Of note, Rafsanjani is head of both the Expediency Discernment Council and the Assembly of Experts. While both are powerful positions under Iran's Constitution, the Assembly of Experts has fundamental power. It selects Iran's maximum leader, the supreme leader, and it has the power to remove that leader if it determines the he has strayed from Islamic principles.

Structuring the 2005 elections to take legislative power from Iran's reform faction was the first step in moving on the reformers and their most powerful ally, Hashemi Rafsanjani. Stealing the 2009 Presidential election was the second of four steps to secure total control of Iran. The allegiance of the armed forces and the Supreme leader are the final two acts, it would appear, in Ahmadinejad's drama.

The delusional president (s)elect seems to have forgotten the expressed will of the Iranian people. Reformers won the parliamentary and presidential elections for the last two cycles until the guardian council shut down reform candidates for parliament and stole the presidential election a few days ago. Election fraud creates false majorities and a much larger group of dissatisfied citizens.

Ultimately this ongoing conflict may be resolved by the long term political power broker Rafsanjani. Hardly a figure of real reform, Rafsanjani has the most to lose in the short term. As president, he knows the options of that office to confine dissidents, assassinate opponents abroad, and worse. He'll not likely volunteer for the role of victim without a fight. He controls the council of experts that has power over the selection and tenure of the supreme leader. He has already asked Khamenei to reject the results of the presidential election.

Rafsanjani's and candidate Mousavi's ability to maneuver and the presence and strength

of ongoing protests are the real indicators of the winner of this round of the Iranian power struggle.

The Associated Press said that, "The outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway major decisions, such as possible talks with Washington or nuclear policies. Those crucial issues rest with the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Khamenei." June 12, 2009

AP ignores the balancing act of Iranian politics and the fact that the supreme leader is appointed and can be removed as well. It seems that AP sees no difference in dealing with a holocaust denier who steals elections, thwarts the will of citizens, and routinely executes homosexual versus, Mousavi, the leader of the "Green" revolution who promised a more open society and productive relationships with Iran's neighbors. Positive contact with the United States is also part of his plan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/green.png
Freedom
[size=1]
May the Iranian people have the right to express their will through elections open to all factions with voting, vote counting, and reporting that is transparent, verifiable, and accurate. Of all the elements in Iranian politics, the three that offer the most hope are citizens as indicated by earlier voting patterns, candidate Mousavi for his resistance to fraud, and those true reformers excluded from election system by the so called guardians of Iran's election process.

END

Reprinted with permission of the author. The author gives permission to reproduce in part or whole with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

American Politics Journal
http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2455&Itemid=2

How different is the pre-election selection process in Iran compared to the 'vetting' process in the US?

Different actors, same effect.

How different is the pre-election selection process in Iran compared to the 'vetting' process in the US?

Different actors, same effect.


You're right. I said this just a few minutes ago:


I agree

When I wrote this, I decided not to mention the obvious - the similarities to our system. For example, in 2006, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wouldn't look at House candidates in Florida unless they had $200,000 on hand for the campaign. They were also picky about no primary opposition. That locked out 8 progressive Democratic candidates in the general -- no funding from the DCCC, except $1500 to one of the eight and nothing from the Florida Democrats. It would seem, given the number of candidates funded nationally by DCCC, that there was an ideological test that excluded anti war candidates or solid progressives.

So, yes, it is the same system, much closer than people might like to think. Our "Guardian Council" consists of the two parties. The Supreme Leader consists of the major money sources for campaign funding and the ever present benefits that flow outside the campaign like nepotism for relatives of of "the elect" and the "Tauzin effect" - major positions at a handsome income for loyal service. Beats a gold watch any day.

We beheld the electoral system for a made member of the "Axis of Evil" and it was us. Go figure;)

Note: All 8 Florida progressive candidates for the House lost in 2006. Those who complained and tried again in 2008 earned primary opposition. I think that's what they call "setting an example."
Michael Collins June 17, 2009 - 1:10am

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Someday, maybe, nah, not likely.

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Not so sure about that, the possibilities of media manipulation and distortion being as they are. It occurs to me that might be whats going on, along with some classic Nixonian over-reach on the part of the other side.

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Not so sure about that, the possibilities of media manipulation and distortion being as they are. It occurs to me that might be whats going on, along with some classic Nixonian over-reach on the part of the other side.



And a lot of cash.

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Not so sure about that, the possibilities of media manipulation and distortion being as they are. It occurs to me that might be whats going on, along with some classic Nixonian over-reach on the part of the other side.



And a lot of cash.




From whom exactly, Zionists? CIA? Oil? and is there a specific "desired" end result or just a wish for disruption/propaganda?

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Not so sure about that, the possibilities of media manipulation and distortion being as they are. It occurs to me that might be whats going on, along with some classic Nixonian over-reach on the part of the other side.



And a lot of cash.




From whom exactly, Zionists? CIA? Oil? and is there a specific "desired" end result or just a wish for disruption/propaganda?


All of the above plus there is a significant amount of cash sloshing around among the Irani reactionaries themselves, both inside the country and among the expatriates in America and Europe.

Introducing Gene Sharp:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html

What an asshole.

Edit: Oops, just realized that Tin posted this link on the other Iran thread. Oh well, just in case ya missed it.

Introducing Gene Sharp:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30032.html

What an asshole.

Edit: Oops, just realized that Tin posted this link on the other Iran thread. Oh well, just in case ya missed it.



Was thinkin' on the same lines and was going to post a thread in honor of Gene. What an asshole.

HOWEVER, this in no way negates the will of the people, those in the streets and elsewhere. Those are the folk who deserve a break. At least they're out there. Very impressive, just like Mexico 2006.

Not so sure about that, the possibilities of media manipulation and distortion being as they are. It occurs to me that might be whats going on, along with some classic Nixonian over-reach on the part of the other side.



And a lot of cash.




From whom exactly, Zionists? CIA? Oil? and is there a specific "desired" end result or just a wish for disruption/propaganda?


All of the above plus there is a significant amount of cash sloshing around among the Irani reactionaries themselves, both inside the country and among the expatriates in America and Europe.




thanks, kinda figured...I assume everyone with their own ends in mind as well, a mess as you said in the other thread...

Tons of links, and info at this site, still plowing, excerpt of one article here

http://pakalert.wordpr
ess.com/2009/06/16/plot-to-destabilise-iran/ (http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/plot-to-destabilise-iran/)

According to Xymphora (Iran election wrap):

“Mousavi, a politician who had been out of power for twenty years, entered the race at almost the last moment. The poll showed he didn’t even come close to Ahmadinejad amongst his own ethnic group.

“Ahmadinejad is considered to be personally completely non-corrupt, while a major supporter of Mousavei, Hashemi Rafsanjani, is infamous in Iran for his corruption.

“Mousavi is also good pals with Manucher Ghorbanifar!

“Remember the meeting in Rome with Ledeen in which they cooked up the trickery which led to the disastrous American attack on Iraq?

“Remember the Niger documents?

“The connections to corruption and to the neocons make Mousavi’s recent actions quite understandable.

“He never thought he was going to win.

“He was in the election from the get go as part of a neocon/Zionist plot to destabilize Iran and make the election ‘illegitimate’, thus making it easier for the Jews to claim that the United States ‘had no negotiating partner’.”

New York City – photo by John Catolinatto

People Power only works when supported by the elite?

1. lets look at the UKRAINE.The Orange Revolution looks like a CIA operation to replace a set of pro-Russian oligarchs with a set of pro-American oligarchs.

Ian Traynor, in The Guardian 26 November 2004 (US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev Special reports …), described the Ukraine’s Orange Revolution as ‘an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing…

‘The Democratic party’s National Democratic Institute, the Republican party’s International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros’s open society institute. ‘

After the Orange Revolution, Mr Yushchenko personal popularity rating soon slumped to 20% as people realised they had been conned. ( Yushchenko scorned as Ukraine turns its back on the orange … )

What happened in Serbia was also planned, apparently, by the USA. (US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev Special reports …)

2. Now let us look at revolts in Eastern Europe, including Hungary and Romania.

In 1956 there was revolt in Hungary against the communist regime. There was no serious support for the rebels from the CIA and its friends and the revolt was crushed.

The 1989 revolt in Romania was successful.

An article apparently written by former Securitate officers (‘Was This Your Revolution? This is How It Was!’ Democratia, No. 36, 24-30 Sept. 1990) describes how the CIA and KGB organised the fall of Ceausescu.

Reportedly, key figures in the revolt were working for the CIA and KGB, including Militaru (allegedly a KGB-CIA double agent) and the former Securitate officer and adviser to Ceausescu, Dumitru Mazilu (allegedly a CIA agent), and Silviu Brucan (allegedly both a CIA and KGB agent).

Reportedly, just before the revolt, there were ‘massive arrivals of so-called Hungarian tourists in Timisoara and Soviet tourists in Cluj’.

3. What about the Philippines?

By the mid 1980s, the CIA had decided that Marcos was no longer the person to run the Philippines. The CIA wanted someone more ‘popular’. So a People Power movement was used to replace Marcos with Aquino.

4. Indonesia provides the best example of CIA-organised People Power.

At some point in the 1990s Suharto was seen by some Americans as having become too powerful and too independent minded.

Suharto was giving too many business contracts to his family and Chinese-Indonesian cronies, rather than to American companies like Ford.

Some people in the Pentagon considered the possibility of having a general such as Prabowo or Wiranto or Yuhhoyono take over.

In order to topple Suharto there would need to be riots.

In Indonesia, in the years 1997- 1998, there were riots in various parts of Indonesia. Some riots looked spontaneous and some looked as if they had been planned. (http://www.insideindonesia.org/edit50/riots.htm)

People Power only works when supported by the elite?

More links, some may be dupes, still plowing, friend just keeps sending em...

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/geo-tv-cnn-cia/
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/mossad-cia-western-media-biggest-losers-i
n-iranian-election/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo&feature=player_embedded

BBC captions the photo of a rally in Tehran as "pro-Moussavi". Too bad the wider view shown in the LA Times shows it is actually a rally for Ahmadinejad.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/iranprop.php

I understand the references above and have a few comments to make.

1) You can't pay that many people to go out in the streets. They're going up against an array of Iranian para military groups, armed heavily. How much do you pay someone to do that.

2) The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

3) The same logic, a certain "binary fallacy," is used vis a vis the usual suspects - the triple timing power brokers, BCCI types, and nation-for-sale sell outs who are, no doubt, trying to play in this game. Is that surprising? No, they're in it for the money and favors. Because of their "parallel play" in this peoples event, the people risking their safety, at the very least, are, once again, tarred with the brush of some smelly fish. Unfair and not logical.

4) This is not a <fill in the color> revolution like those in the Ukraine, Republic of Georgia, etc. Those are originated and funded by outside sources. Those outside sources may be playing again but the "Green" revolution refers to the color of Islalm not a George Soros NGO. Iran has an 82% literacy rate, a lot of bright people, and many of then under 30, about 60%. There are 700,000 blogs in Iran. They know what the score is around the world and they also know that Iran has no friends in the region and has a lousy economy based on crony capitalism. These people have no opportunity for anything to speak of. They're pissed off, they've had it. They're reacting as we should have in 2004 (not because of Kerry but because we were massively screwed with).

I wrote about those color revolutions:


The leader of Georgia responsible for initiating the conflict, President Mikheil Saakashvili, is a U.S. trained lawyer who took power in Georgia in 2004 through the "Rose Revolution." The Bush administration and private groups helped advance the claim that Georgia's government had committed election fraud and lacked legitimacy.

George Soros, the activist billionaire, provided $42 million to oust the former government with the help of Freedom House, headed at that time by former CIA Director James Woolsey. Other private foundation "democracy" groups helped as well. Saakashvili also had the foresight to hire Sen. John McCain's current foreign policy adviser as his DC lobbyist, Randy Scheunemann.

There were well organized public protests in the capitol, a chorus of international pressure for change, and Saakashvili was swept into power.

Not One Dime for Georgia
Saturday, 6 September 2008, 6:26 pm
Column: Michael Collins http://tinyurl.com/l3p5wk

5) More nonlinear thinking

Robert Parry, whom I like, wrote a column specifically for the SmirkingChimp.Com in which he posed the question "What if Ahmadinejad Really Won?"
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22341

What was his evidence? A Poll from the New America Foundation. Who are they? Well, their board chair is Francis Fukiyama. Fahred Zakaria is a key member of the board. Those two knew the Iraq was was based on lies and supported it. The board has Cristie Todd Whitman on it too, the EPA commissioner who failed to warn 911 first responders that there were toxic pollutants in the air at ground zero. Parry didn't mention this because it would have questioned his use of a poll that showed that, guess who, Ahmadinejad, won.

I responded to Parry but he didn't deign to stoop to my level, mere rabble rouser that I am. He didn't' because he couldn't. He'd planted a poll for the gullible form a think tank that, in the past at least, he'd have known better than to trust. Score one for "the little people." http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22341#comment-161567

The poll flies in the face of the electoral history I present. The logic of my argument, the facts, easily prevails over this poll from a neocon lite think tank conveniently released to coincide with Obama saying it really doesn't make much difference who wins over there (unless you care about millions of people demonstrating in the streets on their own, regardless of the candidate's affiliations). Of course, Parry left out a poll a month before the election, 7,900 people, that had Mousavi winning 58% to 32%. He was entranced by the binary fallacy.

-----------------

What about the people?

They're dismissed because there's a heavy aura of intrigue around the higher ups in Iran. I think that there is a strong case that this all started out as a blood feud, battle to the death, between Rafsanjani and the Kahmeini (Supreme Leader) faction. That's irrelevant to what's happening in the streets. People are risking their lives, just like they did in Mexico in 2006, to let the power structure know they're tired of being messed with.

I truly hope that the citizens there prevail. Even if they don't they've nixed the neocon prejudice that Iranians are a bunch of lunes who deserved to be bombed.

It's the people who count. They could care less about a bunch of manipulators. They just want a chance to live a decent life.

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


One must consider that the 'movement' seems isolated in the capitol, which undoubtedly has he greatest consentration of educated urban sophisticates. What of the smaller burgs and the countryside? Is this a 'yuppy revolution'? Are they really demonstrating for Blackberries and discos?

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


One must consider that the 'movement' seems isolated in the capitol, which undoubtedly has he greatest consentration of educated urban sophisticates. What of the smaller burgs and the countryside? Is this a 'yuppy revolution'? Are they really demonstrating for Blackberries and discos?


Funny thing..I know some academics who were actively communicating with the Tienenman protestors in 1989..over the internet. Thats some kinda commentary in and of itself, in addition to be an odd sort of psuedo-deja vu.

I don't think the lesson to be taken from the Iranian election involves the demonstrators directly at all. Its the antagonism between forces and relations of production..sure it gets distorted through the equivalent of a fun house mirror, but the fault lines being exposed are no less valid as a result.

http://www.howlingpictures.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/fun-house-mirror.jpeg

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


So what? People always "desire a better life". It's not enough - not for Obama supporters and not for Mousavi supporters. Both better get their heads straight. The alternative is the peasant wars of feudalism, with each succeeding revolt undermining the program of the last and a confused to and fro with nothing assured but a continuation of the same.

Hard news: The Islamic government of Iran is full of shit. They fight on the side of reaction as often as they do on the side of anyone else. Ali Khamenei is reported to be the richest guy in Iran. The whole has sabotaged as many movements for national independence as they have helped.

The "opposition" is full of shit. They demand the right to sell out the country to the U.S. in the middle of a larger contest in the Middle East that has killed as many as 1 million in Iraq and hundreds of thousands in Afghanistan. In the face of that, the cold-blooded killer, Mousavi, has allied himself with every reactionary in America, and his "program" is not all that different from that of the Shah - look around.

Intentions and desires are not enough... not, even close to enough.

That is as true for Obama supporters as it is for Mousavi supporters.

As far as America goes, democracy is highly selective here. They like Orange revolutions and hate Allende. But... that doesn't mean they don't understand "democracy" better than anyone else on earth. It's a tool. They just elected a tool to wield that tool. The Army tool wasn't working all that well.

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


Right! There a lot of "tools" in the shed. They spread themselves across the spectrum as assigned. Particularly these dreadful "think tanks." When I saw that Zakaria, Fukuyama, and Whitman were on the board that controls the New America Foundation I thought ... hmmm. They're all flawed in judgment and endorsed the biggest foreign policy fiasco of all time for the U.S. and now their group (which specializes in "ethics in journalism" and analysis) is touting a fascist regime.

The disinformation is rampant. Remember 'Pakistan about to fall to Taliban' hysteria? We're bombing people with drones without formal permission from Pakistan. The people there resent the hell out of us. Then the story stops. The Pakistan Army is doing what it does when sufficiently motivated, slaughtering resistance, in this case, the Taliban. It had nothing to do with our high level meddling. It was despite that. Holbrooke, who said that these Taliban did 911, and Mullen, Chief of the Joints went there. It was described as the worst ever U.S. visit to Pakistan. On their own, the Pakistanis took the action, after collecting beau coup dollars to do what they'd do anyway. The story disappears but when the Taliban are largely reduced, it will arise again here - U.S. influence spurs Pakistan etc. etc.

Same with Iran. But just because the government here takes credit does not mean it did the job.

Quite frankly, I think Obama's reaction indicates he doesn't want change there. He's very careful with words and said that it didn't matter who won in terms of policy, read - "I don't care about the results."

Who knows what Obama and the spooks are up to. It's ultimately irrelevant when the people get geared up.

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


One must consider that the 'movement' seems isolated in the capitol, which undoubtedly has he greatest consentration of educated urban sophisticates. What of the smaller burgs and the countryside? Is this a 'yuppy revolution'? Are they really demonstrating for Blackberries and discos?


Here's what I found. A post from an Iranian student in the NYT.


To our great dismay, what we find is that in important sectors of the American press a disturbing counternarrative is emerging: That perhaps this election wasn’t a fraud after all. That the United States shouldn’t rush in with complaints of democracy denied, and that perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president the Iranian people truly want (and, by extension, deserve).

Do not believe it. Those so-called experts warning Americans to be leery of claims of fraud by the opposition are basing their arguments on an outdated understanding of Iran that has little to do with the reality of what we here are experiencing during these singular days.

For instance, some American analysts assert that the demonstrations are taking place only in the sections of Tehran — in the north, around the university and Azadi Square — where the educated and well-off reside. Of course, those neighborhoods were home to the well-to-do ... 30 years ago. The notion that these areas represent “the nice part of town” will come as a surprise to their residents, who endure the noise, congestion and pollution of living in the center of a megalopolis.

People who haven’t visited a city in decades are bound to give out bad directions. But their descriptions of where the protests are taking place, and why, also draw on pernicious myths of an iron correlation between religion and class, between location and voting tendency, in Iran.

This false geography imagines South Tehran and the countryside as home only to the poor, those natural allies of political Islam, while North Tehran embodies unbridled gharbzadegi (translated as “Weststruckness” or “Westernitis”) and is populated by people addicted to the Internet and vacations in Paris. It is as if political Islam withers north of Vanak Square and the only residents to be found are “liberals” who voted for the opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19shane.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

Given the no bull shit nature of the repression in Iran, I doubt that it's yuppies wanting blackberries. Besides, those are readily available there.

This thing continues. The best result is that the protests of the people results in programs that benefit the people, not the elites in Iran. Until I researched this, I had no idea that Rafsanjani was one of the wealthiest people in the world.

Here's Paul Craig Roberts, echoing Robert Parry, defending the Iranian election.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Waning-Power-of-Truth-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-090618-235.html

I replied to this although I won't be any more likely to get an answer from him than I did from Parry. Must be my superior logic and nothing to do with the fact that they routinely ignore reader comments;)

Auto you're all over the frickin' place here

Worth responding to this however:


To our great dismay, what we find is that in important sectors of the American press a disturbing counternarrative is emerging: That perhaps this election wasn’t a fraud after all. That the United States shouldn’t rush in with complaints of democracy denied, and that perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the president the Iranian people truly want (and, by extension, deserve).

Do not believe it. Those so-called experts warning Americans to be leery of claims of fraud by the opposition are basing their arguments on an outdated understanding of Iran that has little to do with the reality of what we here are experiencing during these singular days.

For instance, some American analysts assert that the demonstrations are taking place only in the sections of Tehran — in the north, around the university and Azadi Square — where the educated and well-off reside. Of course, those neighborhoods were home to the well-to-do ... 30 years ago. The notion that these areas represent “the nice part of town” will come as a surprise to their residents, who endure the noise, congestion and pollution of living in the center of a megalopolis.

People who haven’t visited a city in decades are bound to give out bad directions. But their descriptions of where the protests are taking place, and why, also draw on pernicious myths of an iron correlation between religion and class, between location and voting tendency, in Iran.

This false geography imagines South Tehran and the countryside as home only to the poor, those natural allies of political Islam, while North Tehran embodies unbridled gharbzadegi (translated as “Weststruckness” or “Westernitis”) and is populated by people addicted to the Internet and vacations in Paris. It is as if political Islam withers north of Vanak Square and the only residents to be found are “liberals” who voted for the opposition leader, Mir Hussein Moussavi.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/opinion/19shane.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em


He has a point but not really. All hes really done is point out that there are caricatures abounding that overstate the case in some respects. The problem is, there IS a solid foundation that sparks those caricatures and part of that foundation is the kernel of truth.

I mean heck, he might as well point out that it wasn't only yuppies who supported Obama.

Issue here is hes not trying to dispel the myth but rather use the myth as a wedge to try and deny/discredit the sordid truth underneath

Very interesting comment here:


The only place you find any real leftists in Iran is in the reform movement. There are some on the streets no doubt. The different movements stat down and decided what to do with the election. Unlike 2005, the groups decided to vote, not boycott and they voted for Mousavi. Is he a saint. No, he's a symbol. But there's a bait and switch here - people vote for Mousavi as a symbol of opposition to fascist rulers then the people get tarred with the Mousavi brush. Not fair and not logical.

Kind of like what happened here with the last election to some degree. To be sure we see the craziest of the brainwashed Obama supporters on sites like DU, but there are a whole lot of people who voted for him as the opposition to Bush and their repressive policies. Mousavi may be just as much a tool as Obama, but that doesn't mean the people don't desire a better life and that their opposition is not genuine.


WELL, thank you. Not voting is a legitimate form of political expression. Helps when you stand up and shout about it. Active boycotting by the "voto nulo" movement is Mexico is even better - you go in and trash your ballot - an in your face boycott. But there are those, like me, who will vote just to make a statement. The statement I made was , NO MORE BUSH! No more Bushismo! etc. The next statement will be No More Bush-lite. I may not vote as well.

But linking Mousavi to the demonstrators is not correct and devalues the heroics of standing up to brute force. Mousavi was the only alternative on the ballot to the madness. The Guardian Council (clerics and lawyers) chooses who can run. Not like the people had anything to say about it.

There is such a thing as ***the people*** . That rare phenomenon doesn't occur often but when it does, we need to recognize it. Speculation on who likes whom and so forth immediately devalues the agency and importance of this mass movement. Like I said, people don't go out and get beaten and killed because some intel agency tells their "symbol" to start a demonstration. This was real and it will return.

A friend sent me this link to a site with so many links on Iran its not funny, I haven't started to plow through them, not sure how they are, fyi, maybe something useful here!

http://dprogram.net/2009/07/05/complete-coverage-of-us-propaganda-against-iran/