BS: Election in Iran

Subject: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:27 AM

I haven't really kept up with the news, but it sure seems to me that something powerful is happening there..it could obviously go bad..or it could lead to all sorts of improvements for Iran/Persia and the world. It reminds me of what happens in Romania when they overthrew C... I happened to be in Austria right when it was happening..wasn't sure what was happening because I couldn't speak German..it was Christmas and when people say stuff shuts down at Christmas they sure mean it. I was sort of stuck in the Vienna train station, and thought..boy for Austrians these people do not look very prosperous or even well-fed, which is what my stereotype of Austrians would be...I am sure they were Romanians sort of camped out in the train station...but you could tell that something powerful was happening and I have that same feeling now...Good luck to them all...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:32 AM

Iranian elections: human rights briefing
Posted: 09 June 2009

Amnesty International UK Campaigns Director Tim Hancock said:

From Amnesty International's site.


'The elections in Iran are taking place against a disturbing backdrop that includes massive use of the death penalty, the detention of political activists and widespread discrimination against women and minority groups. Whoever wins the elections needs to set in a train a major programme of human rights reform.'

Unfair trials and detention

In the pre-election period Amnesty has received reports indicating arbitrary arrests and harassment targeting Iran's religious and ethnic minority communities, including Baha'is and converts from Islam, members of the Azerbaijani minority, lawyers, students, trade unionists and women's rights activists.

Death penalty

So far this year there have been at least 194 executions (including five women) in Iran, one of the highest rates anywhere in the world. In 2008 there were at least 346 executions (almost one per day on average), making it the second most prolific user of capital punishment in the world (behind only China). People are hanged, often in public, for crimes ranging from murder, rape, drug smuggling and corruption. Last year the Iranian parliament began discussing death penalty legislation for producing pornographic videos and for 'apostasy'. Numerous people in Iran are under sentence of death for the 'crime' of adultery, including seven women and three men known to Amnesty. Since 2002 at least five men and one woman have been stoned to death, most recently in March.

Iran also has the world's worst record in terms of executing those alleged to have committed crimes while aged below 18; such executions are expressly forbidden under international law. Since 1990 Iran has executed at least 44 people in these circumstances (including three this year) and at least 140 young people are on death row facing execution for such alleged crimes. Iran sparked international outrage last month when it abruptly hanged Delara Darabi, a 22-year-old painter who was alleged to have committed murder (which she always denied) while aged 17.

Women's rights

All 42 women who registered as candidates for the elections have, along with a large number of male candidates, been barred by Iran's Council of Guardians from standing in the elections on grounds of 'suitability'.

Jelveh Javaheri, a prominent member of the women's rights Campaign For Equality was arrested at her home on 1 May by security officials acting without an arrest warrant. She has been charged with "acting against national security through membership in the One Million Signatures Campaign and with the aim of disrupting public order and security." The CFE is collecting signatures on behalf of its campaign for women's rights. Last year dozens of women's rights campaigners were detained, interrogated and some tried for their peaceful activities, including up to 10 who were sentenced by lower courts to prison terms and, in at least two cases, flogging. Meanwhile, the influential women's magazine 'Zanan' was forcibly closed down during 2008, while women's rights websites are regularly blocked.

Harassment of human rights defenders

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirtin Ebadi's Centre for Human Rights Defenders was forced to close down at the end of last year.

Torture and cruel punishments

Torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Iran is common, with people in prolonged pre-charge detention particularly at risk. Detainees are often denied access to lawyers and family. Last year at least four deaths in custody were reported, while no independent investigations are known to have been held into these deaths.

Clampdown on free expression

Iranians have faced internet censorship during the election campaign. The authorities have, at various times in the run up to 12 June, blocked access to Facebook and Twitter.

Discrimination against minorities

Iran's Baluch minority, mainly Sunni Muslims in a predominantly Shi'a country and constituting some 2-3% of Iran's population, suffer entrenched discrimination at the hands of the authorities. Recent violent unrest in the Sistan-Baluchistan province in south-eastern Iran have led to dozens of people being killed in violent incidents including a major bomb attack. Three men were publicly hanged after allegedly 'confessing' to one lethal bomb attack; the executions took place very soon after the bombing and it is not clear whether the men had any kind of trial.

ENDS

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:45 AM

I will watch this election with interest. But it's my understanding that no "liberals" are seriously challenging President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election.

Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi would best be described as a political moderate, and his recent polling results show growing strength. His election may provide some breathing space for reform, and international rapprochement on the nuclear issues.

I do wish Mousavi well.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 12:25 PM

It would appear on the face of it that Mousavi should win, given the thousands of student activists calling for it.

However the current president is strongly backed by Khamenei, the real power of government, the Supreme Leader. What does that do to Ahmadinejad's chances?

And what about the army? Who do they support?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:37 PM

I think it would be great if Mousavi won. It would immediately deprive the West of their favorite demonic poster-boy-monster-under-the-bed and anti-Iran PR dream, Ahmadinejad, and that would be a good thing for everyone. It would open the door to a more reasonable political dialogue between the West and Iran and help to reduce the risk of an Israeli/American attack on Iran.

Go, Mousavi!

I would love to see Ahmadinejad retire, write his memoirs, and cease providing the political cartoonists in America with exactly what they desire.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 01:52 PM

it gives whole new meaning to the wearing of the green..

it's the most distressful country I ever yet have seen
they're hanging men and women there for the wearing of the green..

hope to high heavens it does not come to that...mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:05 PM

I bet you'd find North Korea even worse, not to mention Somalia and a few other places in Africa.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 02:18 PM

Somalia, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran...just off the top of my head, a list of countries which are NOT on my tourism list.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:20 PM

Legal killings by the state. Illegal killings by the state. Torture by the state. Detention without trial by the state. Things that could never been done by a civilised country with any pretensions to be a democratic state...

"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:30 PM

"In the final hours of the fierce contest, Mousavi got a sharp warning from the country's powerful Revolutionary Guard that authorities would crush any attempt at a popular "revolution" inspired by the huge rallies and street parties calling for more freedoms.

The threat Wednesday reflected the increasingly tense atmosphere surrounding the up-for-grabs election. It also marked a sharp escalation by the ruling clerics against Mousavi's youth-driven campaign and its hopes of an underdog victory.

The Revolutionary Guard is one of the pillars of the Islamic establishment and controls large military forces as well as a nationwide network of militia volunteers.

The message from the Guards' political chief, Yadollah Javani, appeared aimed at rattling Mousavi's backers just before the polls open Friday and to warn that it would not tolerate the formation of a post-election political force under the banner of Mousavi's "green movement" — the signature color of his campaign.

In a statement on the Guards' Web site, Javani drew parallels between Mousavi's campaign and the "velvet revolution" that led to the 1989 ouster of the communist government in then-Czechoslovakia, saying "some extremist (reformist) groups, have designed a colorful revolution ... using a specific color for the first time in an election."

Javani called it a "sign of kicking off a velvet revolution project in the presidential elections," and vowed any "attempt for velvet revolution will be nipped in the bud." It also accused the reformists of planning to claim vote rigging and provoke street violence if Mousavi loses.

On Thursday, Mousavi's official campaign Web site said the candidate asked Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to intervene to save the health of the election. In the letter, which the site said Mousavi sent on Wednesday, the candidate accused Ahmadinejad of using government facilities during his campaign and the country's Revolutionary Guards of intervening.

"There are some indications about intervention of some commanders and officials of the Revolutionary Guards and Basij in the election," the Web site quoted the letter as saying. It did not elaborate

There were no reports of reaction from Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters in Iran.

The all-night street rallies and the joyful campaign of Mousavi's supporters have rekindled the passions and hopes of reformists after Ahmadinejad's victory four years ago. Their calls are similar to the days of reformist President Mohammad Khatami — more social freedoms, media openness and outreach to the West. "

From http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090611/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election



"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone..."

Does that count for torture as well? No more criticsm by Brits???

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 03:40 PM

Watching the huge crowds supporting both sides in this election, and the lack of serious trouble, or bullying, or violence, linked to the obvious enthusiasm of the electorate, it occurred to me that Iran has a more democratic political system than we do!

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 05:52 PM

It certainly pisses off certain people in the West when the countries they most would like to attack demonstrate that they have a working democracy, doesn't it, Akenaton?

This has been true in the case of Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, and Venezuela, to name just four examples. USA-planned coups have been arranged from time to time to nip troublesome foreign democracies in the bud and replace them with corporate-friendly dictators. That was done in Iran in the 1950s through a CIA-backed coup. It was done in Chile in the 1970s. It was attempted in Venezuela a few years back, but it failed. In Nicaraugua the USA funded a lengthy and brutal guerilla war to bring down an elected government. The man they wanted out of office at that time (Daniel Ortega) has since lost a democractic election (to Violetta Chammoro?) and later been re-elected by the Nicaraguan people. Nicaraguan democracy has survived in spite of America, not because of America.

I hope Mousavi wins. When and if he does, I hope he can exercise much peaceful change.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:31 PM

I think this system has a few flaws...



Iran's election system
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A look at election rules in Iran:

WHO CAN RUN: Under the Iranian Constitution, candidates for president must be Muslim and between the ages of 25 to 75. There are differing interpretations about whether women are eligible for the presidency, but the ruling clerics have blocked all potential women candidates. Parliament permits women and members of religious minorities to run. People with criminal records or high-ranking officials of the toppled monarchy are banned from running for elected office.

REACHING THE BALLOT: All hopefuls for high elected office must be cleared by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body of clerics and scholars loyal to the ruling theocracy. The council often rejects potential candidates considered too liberal or critical of the Islamic system. For Friday's election, just four of more than 470 possible candidates were allowed.

WHO WINS: A simple majority - 50 percent plus one vote - is needed to win the presidency. If no candidate attains that Friday, a second round is held between the two top vote-getters on June 19.

WHO VOTES: Anyone at least 18 years old. There are more than 46.2 million eligible voters for Friday's election - with about a third of the voters under 30. The figure includes millions of Iranians living abroad. Iran's overall population is more than 70 million.

PRESIDENT'S ROLE: The president has control of some domestic policies and serves as the international face of the country. But the non-elected theocracy, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls all major decisions and directly oversees key government posts such as the foreign, intelligence and defense ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:33 PM

From Amnesty International's site:

'"All 42 women who registered as candidates for the elections have, along with a large number of male candidates, been barred by Iran's Council of Guardians from standing in the elections on grounds of 'suitability'.

Jelveh Javaheri, a prominent member of the women's rights Campaign For Equality was arrested at her home on 1 May by security officials acting without an arrest warrant. She has been charged with "acting against national security through membership in the One Million Signatures Campaign and with the aim of disrupting public order and security." The CFE is collecting signatures on behalf of its campaign for women's rights. Last year dozens of women's rights campaigners were detained, interrogated and some tried for their peaceful activities, including up to 10 who were sentenced by lower courts to prison terms and, in at least two cases, flogging. Meanwhile, the influential women's magazine 'Zanan' was forcibly closed down during 2008, while women's rights websites are regularly blocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:38 PM

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

MEDIA BRIEFING


MDE 13/053/2009
9 June 2009


Iran: Election amid repression of dissent and unrest


The Iranian presidential elections are to be held this month on 12 June. The candidates are: the incumbent President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; Former Prime Minister, Mir Hossein Mousavi (backed by former president, MohammadKhatami); and Mehdi Karroubi, a former parliamentary speaker.

While Amnesty International welcomes pledges from some of the candidates to address the prevailing discrimination against women in the country -- an issue which has been forced to the forefront of the debate by the efforts of women's rights activists - and ethnic minorities and to tackle economic issues to improve the welfare of the population, there are other serious human rights concerns which also need addressing. These include severe curtailments of freedom of expression, arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, unfair trials and a high recourse to the death penalty (including against juvenile offenders) as well as incidents of people being stoned to death.

At least 194 people have been executed so far this year in Iran, including five women and three juveniles convicted of crimes allegedly committed before they were 18, a practice strictly prohibited under international law.

At least 140 juveniles are known to be on death row in Iran.

At least one person has been stoned to death this year in Iran, despite a 2002 directive from the Head of the Judiciary ordering a moratorium on stonings. Amnesty International is aware of seven women and three men currently under sentence of death by stoning.

The election period has also seen increased repression, both of people expressing their opinions directly about the elections, or of those seen to be opposed to the system in some way, including students, women's rights activists, lawyers and unrecognized religious minorities, such as the Baha'is and the Ahl-e Haq.

Amnesty International is also concerned that all but four of the candidates have been excluded from standing, including all women, on the grounds of discriminatory criteria. The Council of Guardians is the body which screens all candidates for election to "ensure their suitability for the Presidency". Article 115 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran stipulates that candidates must be from "religious and political personalities" [Persian: rejal] and possess: "Iranian origin; Iranian nationality; administrative capacity and resourcefulness; a good past record; trustworthiness and piety; convinced belief in the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the official religion of the country." In previous elections, the majority of candidates registered were disqualified under these criteria, including all women. The exclusion of women appears to have been as a result of an interpretation of the word rejalas meaning "men".

Amnesty International is concerned about the increasing number of arrests in recent weeks leading up to the presidential elections, which indicates worsening repression of people who want to express their opinions:

In the pre-election period, Amnesty International has received reports suggesting increased waves of arbitrary arrests and harassment targeting in particular members of Iran's religious and ethnic minority communities, including Baha'is and converts from Islam, students, trade unionists and women's rights activists.

By imprisoning people for merely expressing dissenting views, the Iranian authorities are stifling the free debate which is a pre-requisite of elections. Citizens should be able to freely express their grievances and their demands so that candidates can address them.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE130532009&lang=e

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:49 PM

Oh, it definitely has a few flaws, no doubt about that, BB. Most systems do. We are much more socially progressive than Iran, and that's not surprising, given our past history and the fact that our society was built on the English example of parliamentary democracy.

Iran, however, would be a lot more socially progressive today if the USA had not overthrown their democratically elected government in the 1950's through a CIA coup, and the religious fanatics who arose against the Shah as a result of that would not now be in power there. Extreme situations result in extreme reactions.

You appear disturbed by the fact that Iran is less progressive a society than the USA or Canada. Are you equally disturbed about the Saudis? I don't hear you complaining much about Saudi Arabia for some reason...could it be because they are political and military allies with America?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 06:59 PM

No. it could be because the Saudis do not directly threaten the existance of Israel.

Or it could be that this thread is about Iran, NOT Saudi Arabia. Start one on it, and you might find out my opinion on the absolute monarchy of the Saudis.




Remember,

REACHING THE BALLOT: All hopefuls for high elected office must be cleared by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body of clerics and scholars loyal to the ruling theocracy. The council often rejects potential candidates considered too liberal or critical of the Islamic system. For Friday's election, just four of more than 470 possible candidates were allowed.

PRESIDENT'S ROLE: The president has control of some domestic policies and serves as the international face of the country. But the non-elected theocracy, headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls all major decisions and directly oversees key government posts such as the foreign, intelligence and defense ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:01 PM

Maybe it's an elaborate con by Ahmadenejad?
Maybe it's all set up for the cameras to to piss off the "liberals"
Crafty bastards these Iranians...:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM

Iran doesn't directly threaten the existence of Israel either.

I expect that all of this hand wringing about Iran is a part of the attempt of certain people to try to ensure that Ahmadinejad wins the election this time. Heaven forbid that they wouldn't have him as their excuse to attack Iran any more. Even if he loses, they will still try to make the case that Iran should be attacked because of the Iranian regime's human rights violations. The people who make that argument are doing so in spite of the fact that the People of Iran do not want such interference in their country, regardless of the behavior of the Iranian government. They want to be left alone to fix their problems themselves.

And once again, Iran has not directly threatened the existence of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:11 PM

But the USA and Israel keep on tacitly and quite obviously threatening the existence of Iran and they HAVE the means to destroy the Iranians. That is plainly clear. Yes, the people who want a war with Iran will be quite miffed if Ahmadinejad loses this election, because their favorite boogeyman and propaganda figure will be gone. They won't have Ahmadinejad to scare people with anymore.

Even worse than losing Osama!

Whatever will they do if Ahmadinejad loses? I really hope he does.

No sovereign nation directly threatens the existence of Israel at the present time. The only sovereign nations who genuinely have the capability to threaten Israel's existence are the USA and Russia, seems to me. They could certainly destroy Israel if they wanted to by using nuclear attack. The USA doesn't want to, obviously. The Russians don't have any stake serious enough about Israel that they would want to either...and anyway, it would start a Third World War if they did, which would ruin them.

Israel and the USA are the nations bent on directly threatening someone's existence and that someone is Iran. Last time it was Saddam and Iraq. Remember? WMDs!!! Bush was supposedly saving the world from Iraq's WMDs...but there weren't any WMDs. It was a lie. The same strategy is being used now to try to attack Iran. The very same game as last time. BB, you supported both of those phony games. You been tricked TWICE by a government which relies on people who can be tricked that way. Your own government is the criminal state with the WMDs and it's using you.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 09:36 PM

I disagree.

Care to tell me where the Syrians got the fuel for that reactor the Israelis blew up?

Care to tell me how many nuclear bombs it would take to destroy 85% of the industry and about 75% of the population of Israel?

One.



so you miss a few candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

Even if Syria had nuclear material, that does not constitute a direct threat to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 09 - 10:39 PM

Even if Israel has nuclear bombs, that does not constitute a direct threat to Iran- Though you keep saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 01:00 AM

Syria, Iran and Libya - why build, or attempt to build a nuclear weapon in secret?

By the bye, you only found out about those three programmes because GWB went into Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:17 AM

Looks like the wonderfully named After Dinner Jazz (that is his name isn't it?) is on the way out. May be a more amenable govt., especially once the Ayatollah goes to wherever devout hardline Moslems go.


RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:45 AM

Israel has many times made verbal threats to attack Iran. The presence of nuclear weapons, combined with the verbal threats and Israel's track record of attacking other countries (and twisting the arm of the US to attack countries on its behalf) does constitute a direct threat to Iran.

The reason Syria, Iran, and Lybia might attempt to build nuclear weapons in secret would be the same as Israel's reason for building nuclear weapons in secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:06 PM

"The reason Syria, Iran, and Lybia might attempt to build nuclear weapons in secret would be the same as Israel's reason for building nuclear weapons in secret. "

Except that Syria, Iran , and Lybia were signatories to the NPT, which prhibited such programns in return for aid in peaceful nuclear development.

Israel developed it's nuclear weapons BEFORE the NPT, and IF a signoatory woiuld have to be at the level of the US, Russia, France, China, and Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:19 PM

The question that was asked was what their motivations would be for trying to build nuclear weapons in secret. First of all, it is not proven that Syria or Iran is or was actually doing that, and secondly, whether or not doing so is legal under the NPT is irrelevant to the question of why they would do it. If they are trying to have nuclear weapons, it is because they perceive the only country in the region who does have them to be a direct threat to their sovereignty and national security (and with good reason, since Israel has been calling for the destruction of both of those countries for many years). Which, I guess makes their motivation somewhat different than Israel's since no countries in the region had any nuclear weapons back when Israel got theirs. So Israel wants to have an offensive capability, and Iran and Syria are trying to establish a defensive capability.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:23 PM

(and with good reason, since Israel has been calling for the destruction of both of those countries for many years).


False statement





So Israel wants to have an offensive capability, and Iran and Syria are trying to establish a defensive capability.


Oh, Jews wanting to live is offensive, and Arabs wanting to kill Jews is defensive???????

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

Offensive in this context means having the ability to make a first strike against another country (which I am sure the above poster is perfectly aware of). And my statement about Israel threatening the destruction of Iran and Syria is not at all false.

But the above mischaracterization is also incorrect on its own merits, since it's not at all about Jews wanting to live and Arabs wanting to kill Jews (a racist assertion if ever there was one), since Israel already has more defensive and offensive capabilities than any other country in the region, and also a history of invading, occupying, attacking, and carrying out covert and false flag operations in several countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 03:51 PM

Israel has never threatened the EXISTANCE of another country.

Israel developed its armed forces in response to threats by the Arab League against its very existance, Your failure to understand this demonstrates that you have little interest in looking at the facts.

If Israel is so powerful, and so dedicated to the destruction of all those Arab nations, why are there any Arabs left alive in the world today, after 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 ( the later two years after Israel had those "Offensive" weapons that they have never used.

Any any nuclear weapon, unless one uses it to blow one's own country up, is "offensive". So calling an Iranian bomb "defensive" is mere propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:19 PM

Rivals in Iran both claim victory in election
         

Anna Johnson And Brian Murphy, Associated Press Writers – 18 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's state news agency reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election Friday, but his main reformist challenger also confidently claimed victory at a news conference moments earlier. The rival claims came even before the close of polls, which authorities permitted to stay open an extra six hours, until midnight (1930 GMT, 3:30 p.m. EDT), to allow long lines of voters to cast ballots. Official results were not expected until Saturday.

Neither the report in the IRNA news agency nor the competing announcement by Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi gave details on what their claims were based on.

Mousavi said only that he was "definitely the winner of the election" based on "all indications from all over Iran."

Iranians packed polling stations Friday from boutique-lined streets in north Tehran to conservative bastions in the countryside with a choice that's left the nation divided and on edge: keeping hard-line President Ahmadinejad in power or electing Mousavi, a reformist who favors greater freedoms and improved ties with the United States.

Turnout was massive and could break records. Crowds formed quickly at many voting sites in areas considered both strongholds for Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, who served as prime minister in the 1980s and has become the surprise hero of a powerful youth-driven movement. At several polling stations in Tehran, mothers held their young children in their arms as they waited in long lines.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:22 PM

"The outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway high-level decisions, such as possible talks with Washington. Those crucial policies are all directly controlled by the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

Israel's armed forces were formed for the purpose of taking more land than it was given in the partition plan, not because the Arab League was threatening its very existence. The Arab league did not fight the Israelis on land that had been given to the Jews in the partition plan. Almost all of the fighting happened on land that was given to the Palestinians in the partition plan. Since the Arabs were fighting on Arab land, by definition, the Arab fighting was defensive, and Israel's fighting was offensive.

If Iran gets a nuclear bomb, it will definitely be defensive in nature because it will be for the purpose of deterrence against an already nuclear armed state. Israel's bombs are the only ones in the region, so they have first strike capability, and the ability to use them for nuclear blackmail, and are therefore offensive in nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:45 PM

(Above was me)


"In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's launch facilities and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.



Read this carefully:

"to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war."

EVEN if Israel WERE to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability, you cannot show that

1. Israel would be able to survive the retaliation
2. Iran would be unable to continue the war


Thus Israel does not have a first-strike capability,

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

Iran will not be able to use nuclear blackmail on Israel because Israel already has nuclear weapons. Duh!

It has nothing whatever to do with killing Jews and everything to do with not wanting to be killed by an imperialist country with hegemonic ambitions. If all Iran cared about was killing Jews, they would have killed all of the Jews in their own country first.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:54 PM

"Iran will not be able to use nuclear blackmail on Israel because Israel already has nuclear weapons. Duh!"

If Iran is willing to threaten first use of nuclear weapons, and Israel is not, that is blackmail.


If you had a gun, are you claiming that noone else with a gun could blackmail you by force? They have it at your head, and you, being armed, 'can't be blackmailed'????

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 04:56 PM

Blackmail

"The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.

The term blackmail originally denoted a payment made by English persons residing along the border of Scotland to influential Scottish chieftains in exchange for protection from thieves and marauders.

In blackmail the threat might consist of physical injury to the threatened person or to someone loved by that person, or injury to a person's reputation. In some cases the victim is told that an illegal act he or she had previously committed will be exposed if the victim fails to comply with the demand."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

It's not really possible to use nuclear blackmail against someone who has the ability to utterly destroy the person doing the blackmailing. The only way a country can use nuclear blackmail is to either be the only one with nuclear weapons, or to have nuclear superiority. Both of which Israel has at this time. If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel would still have nuclear superiority because it's got the entire nuclear arsenal of the US pledged to defend it if necessary. Iran will never, ever have nuclear superiority over Israel.

The gun analogy is not appropriate to the argument I'm making. Here's a better one: if I was a human with a great big foot, an ant with a tiny little ant gun would not be able to blackmail me, because I could just squash it with my great big foot.

There is one way a country can use nuclear blackmail against a country that has nuclear superiority, and that's the way Israel uses it against both Iran and the US. Israel threatens to use nukes against a country like Iran in an effort to get the US to attack Iran first. This is because the government of Israel gambles on the idea that if Israel used nuclear weapons first, the US would be drawn into the nuclear conflict anyway, because the US is pledged to come to Israel's defense no matter what, and because they figure there are enough people in high levels of the US government who are joined at the hip with Israel that they would ensure that the US would come to Israel's defense no matter what. So far this ploy hasn't worked, but it's not for lack of trying on the part of the government of Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:31 PM

"a tiny little ant gun "

A single nuclear weapon could destroy 70+% of the population and 85% of the industry of Israel. How many would it take to do the same to Iran?


You have no idea of what you are talking about in regards nuclear weapons.

If there are ants in the region, it is Israel, given the territorial bounaries.


If Israel is attacked with a nuclear device, there will be NO Palestinian problem- they will ALL be killed by the fallout.

I guess that is one solution, but NOT one I advocate. Unfortunately, Iran does advocate it- after all, THEY are not Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:33 PM

last was mine

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM

Whether or not Israel could be destroyed with a single nuclear weapon is irrelevant. This is because Iran would be utterly destroyed by the US if it waged a nuclear attack on Israel. Israel is the human with the big foot in my scenario, with the US nuclear arsenal being the big foot.

Iran does not advocate, and has never advocated killing the Palestinians. They have never advocated killing the Jews in Israel either. Iran has no interest in killing Jews. If they did, they would have started with the Jewish population of their own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:47 PM

No, the are still busy with the Bah'ai.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:48 PM

That's deplorable, but it's got nothing to do with this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 07:55 PM

You are the one claiming it is not against Jews, but Zionists. Since the Jews in Iran are not Zionists ( although Iran claims all the Jews in the US are) why would Iran kill them?

Or is it really Jews and not Zionism that is the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:18 PM

Ah, so is the above post an admission that it's not about Jews, but about Zionists?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:20 PM

"You are the one claiming it is not against Jews, but Zionists."


No, YOU have made that claim, although the Iranians use the term interchangably.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:25 PM

ake and Little Hawk, hold your applause for a bit. Lauding Iran's election as a successful exercise is seriously premature. It appears that this day could lead to a bad, bad interim before this is resolved.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:28 PM

So if that claim is not accepted by the above poster, then my argument, that if Iran wanted to get rid of Jews (not just Zionists), it would start with the Jews in Iran, is perfectly legitimate according to that person's perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:30 PM

Not the above poster, but the one immediately after my second to last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,Beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 10:38 PM

So, if the claim is made that it is the zionists rather than the Jews, there is no reason for Iran to kill its Jews- according to what the poster has stated.

CarlC: "If all Iran cared about was killing Jews, they would have killed all of the Jews in their own country first. "

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jun 09 - 11:08 PM

Nope. That doesn't work either, because I never said Iran wants to kill Zionists. In fact I have said that Iran doesn't want to kill Zionists.

What was said by Ahmadinejad is that the Zionist regime in Israel will go the way of the Soviet government and the apartheid government in South Africa. Since we all know that both of those governments dissolved of their own accord, without their members being killed by any outside governments, what this means is that Iran has no interest in killing Jews, Zionist or otherwise, and that they are simply awaiting the day when the Zionist controlled government of Israel collapses under its own weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 01:48 AM

Looks like it's going to be Ahmadinijad (my favorite abuse of his name, I don't remember who posted it a long time ago - 'I'm in a dinner jacket') again. Ah well. On the bright side, even the person who posted right before my last post has admitted that whether or not he wins is largely irrelevant, since he's not the one who makes the big decisions in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:53 AM

It's kind of like America that way. You elect a president and the media makes the decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 09:52 AM

"....the media make the decision".   Now the author of this bon mot wouldn't be possibly implying that President Obama was not elected in a fair election, would he?   Not that the poster is bitter about the outcome of the US election, not him.   Perish the thought.

And the poster with his "$ystem" can return to his delightfully entertaining--yet slightly inaccurate, to say the least--pontifications on politics and economics.


And as for Mr. Ahmadinejad, this is definitely a contested election, and the state-run agency has released obviously false results, knowing that if Mr. A did not get over 50% there would have to be a runoff.

The youth and other supporters of Mr. Mousavi will not forget this, even if a runoff is not held--and that will restrict Mr. A's freedom of policy for the foreseeable future--if there is not in fact actual continuing unrest in Iran.    The thing for the West to do is keep out of this election--and not give Mr. A any chance to say the West was behind Mr. Mousavi with anything but moral encouragement.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:19 PM

Hmmm. Not the result I'd have hoped for. Yes, Ebbie, there are definitely some risks involved in the Iran election aftermath.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 03:21 PM

No shit!

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 05:27 PM

Well stuff is definitely happening. This is pivotal and maybe A. won legitimately, maybe he won legitimately and they skewed the results anyway, and maybe, just maybe, there is something fishy.

I am sure now the cruel laws have been passed against the wearing o the green..they can't. I can. Please to join me. I might get some green nail polish like the young woman in one of Andrew Sullivan's blogs..

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 05:28 PM

The "government" raid on an opposition newspaper office just after the election announces a landslide for the religious nuts has the smell of something going a bit Pete Tong...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:11 PM

There are a number of diaries about the Iranian election on dailykos.com. Here are links to some of them:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/13/742141/-Tehran-Street-Photos Tehran Street Photos
by Al Rodgers; Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM PDT

**
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/13/742004/-Updated-V:-Rioting-Grows-Ayatollas-Call-for-New-Elections,-Telephone-Cut-Off

Updated V: Rioting Grows Ayatollas Call for New Elections, Telephone Cut Off Teheran, Mousavi Arrest
by Clifflyon; Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 08:26:21 AM PDT

**
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/13/739200/-Getting-your-facts-straight-Trita-Parsi:-Ahmadinejads-Math-doesnt-add-up

Getting your facts straight/Trita Parsi: Ahmadinejad's Math "doesn't add up"
by Nulwee; Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 12:26:41 PM PDT

**
Here is an excerpt from the last diary that I hyperlinked:

"[commentator] Juan Cole lays out a clear case:

'It is claimed that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz with 57%. His main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is an Azeri from Azerbaijan province, of which Tabriz is the capital. Mousavi, according to such polls as exist in Iran and widespread anecdotal evidence, did better in cities and is popular in Azerbaijan. Certainly, his rallies there were very well attended. So for an Azeri urban center to go so heavily for Ahmadinejad just makes no sense. In past elections, Azeris voted disproportionately for even minor presidential candidates who hailed from that province.'
hyperlinked source: http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Juan Cole,(President of the Global Americana Institute)
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Stealing the Iranian Election

Btw, Tabriz is Iran's fourth largest city, (more on cities below) and has a very liberal history as a center of poetry, mysticism and art. As an ethnic city, a tolerant city, a moderate city, Ahmadinejad would have to take this city's vote into account before hand. Dr. Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, was just on CNN and said that the opposition is realizing it "didn't have a plan" for this kind of contested result, but Ahmadinejad's faction did.

'Ahmadinejad is claimed to have taken Tehran by over 50%. Again, he is not popular in the cities, even, as he claims, in the poor neighborhoods, in part because his policies have produced high inflation and high unemployment. That he should have won Tehran is so unlikely as to raise real questions about these numbers.'"
[Juan Cole source]

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:25 PM

Unless we want another Iraq on our hands the best situation for the US is to "chill"... Oh sure, we could go in there and kill another million people and further bankrupt our own country and for what???

Yeah, Iran has some problems with running clean elections... So does the USA...

Time to move on and do the best with what we have... If Iran's progressives should, per chance, overthrow the knotheads, fine... If not, we're going to have to deal with the righties in Iran...

But the righties in Iran have to know that there are one heck of their own folks who think they suck... So that oughtta moderate Ahmadinejad...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:38 PM

Constitutionally, I agree, it's no-one's problem but Iran's. It gets more murky if a hypothetically rightful but dispossessed "ruler" seeks help from his "allies".

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 08:55 PM

That sets up a rather comical image in my mind (seeking help from allies). I'm imagining Al Gore going to the... what... the United Nations perhaps? ...seeking help from our allies because he was the rightful but deposed ruler. Could have been very interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Azizi
Date: 13 Jun 09 - 09:18 PM

Here are some additional online resources about the current "situation" in Iran (Source: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/13/742162/-Crisis-In-Iran-Liveblogging-Mothership

Resources

Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish - has been all over the story and is an excellent resource
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

National Iranian American Committee's NIACBlog - providing translations from Farsi to English of Twitter and Facebook reports of what's happening in the country. Fantastic resource for on the ground reporting.
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/

Tehran Bureau - A project of the Harvard School of Journalism in an attempt to provide in-depth coverage of Iran. There spot reporting has been invaluable.
http://tehranbureau.com/

NYTimes The Lede - Have provided constant updates from NYTimes reporters on the ground in Tehran. They've also compiled other reports from around the internet.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/landslide-or-fraud-the-debate-online-over-irans-election-results/?hp

BBCNews - Another great resource for on the ground reports from the Western hemisphere's premier broadcast organization.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

**
Note the inclusion of "Twitter" reports. It's amazing how this new technology is changing how news is gathered and reported.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAAd1xUP64o click

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAAd1xUP64o click

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vGItG3Xznw&feature=related click

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjaDBYMdDFY&feature=related click

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yrtK4K-GMg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yrtK4K-GMg


Here are some inspirational clicks. What we are hearing is the bells of freedom ringing. It is easy enough to silence the bells, and tyrants do not go down easy (and I agree with whoever said this is a military coup and did not realize that A. had been a Republic Guard)..but you can not unring them once they have rung. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:34 AM

Well, I'm sorry to say that in some cases you can. The Chinese government unrang them at Tiananmen Square back in 1989.

Let's hope that others are not as successful in that regard as the old men running China were...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:06 AM

So where were the election monitors?

Calling Jimmy Carter . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:24 AM

Probably a better question is where are they now. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:49 AM

I read that Iran's constitution does not allow foreign monitors.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:08 AM

It is hard to establish the facts of what happened in the Iran election. However, just because "our" side lost, we are not entitled automatically to assume that the election was rigged. I have not seen much evidence of that yet. It is very hard for us to accept a fundamentalist Islamic regime, but it would appear to be what the Iranian people want, having fought and died for it very bravely thirty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 06:07 AM

What, alan, as the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

It's the combination of the wildly conflicted predictions, followed by government reports of a government "landslide" (remember Mugabe?) followed by government raids on opposition newspapers that stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:40 AM

"raids on opposition newspapers" is putting it mildly.

Reuters:   "....Authorities, too, pushed back with ominous messages apparently seeking to undercut liberal voices: jamming text messages, blocking pro-Mousavi Web sites and Facebook and cutting off mobile phones in Teheran."


And this sort of stuff happened BEFORE the election:   WSJ 13 June 2009:   "The Ministry of Telecommunications imposed a nation-wide block of text messaging from mobiles. Mr. Mousavi's supervisors were planning to report discrepancies by text messages"

"Thousands of Mr. Mousavi's volunteer supervivsors were not issued credentials by the Interior Ministry, which runs the elections, and were barred from polling stations."

(Saturday) Mousavi's campaign said that "a group of people who identified themselves as intelligence officers entered Mr. Mousavi's campaign headquarters in northern Teheran on Friday evening demanding that the young strategists at the campaign, responsible for much of deploying new media techniques, leave the premises"

Mousavi's campaign lawyer said "in an interview that Teheran's chief prosecutor informed (him) that security agents would arrive Saturday morning with a court order to shut down all their communication operations".




As I said earlier, the thing to do now for the West (including Israel) is to KEEP OUT of this--except by reporting. Don't give Mr. A any excuse to claim the West is funding or otherwise backing (except by words) Mr. Mousavi.   And stop all saber-rattling.   Mr. A has plenty of juices in Iran to stew in without any help from us.

And this reeking "election" will, as I said, restrict his freedom to carry out his policies for the foreseeable future.



Question::   final outcome: supposedly 62.5% for Mr. A and 33.75% for Mr. Mousavi.   But there were several other candidates:    altogether they got virtually no votes? Somehow, not likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:47 AM

The most suspicious element to the Iranian election story is how the votes could be tallied so quickly. Large electorate, large percentage of voters, HAND counted.

There is a well known Iranian movie which involves a female vote registrar going to an island to make sure the votes are counted there. It is a charming look at village ways and values.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:29 AM

Richard, I do not like the Taliban or the Revolutionary Guards any more than you do. However, I am sure that nothing will derail the development of liberal trends in Iran more swiftly than interference from the West. There I agree with Ron Davies. The mindset of the current rulers of Iran is that they have a God given right to be there, which has been resoundingly endorsed by a popular vote. If we have learned nothing else from the Taliban, we should at least know by now that everyone is safer if they live within their own law, rather than as outlaws from ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:30 AM

I should have added that not for a moment do I believe Richard is supporting any interference. I am just worried that there are enough lunatics out there who would!

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:39 AM

On Saturday, Mousavi, a 67-year-old former prime minister, released a Web message saying he would not "surrender to this manipulation." Authorities responded with targeted detentions, apparently designed to rattle the leadership of Mousavi's "green" movement — the trademark color of his campaign.

The detentions include the brother of former reformist President Mohammad Khatami and two top organizers of Iran's largest reformist party, the Islamic Iran Participation Front: the party's secretary-general and the head of Mousavi's youth cyber campaign. Mohammad Reza Khatami and the two party activists were released Sunday.

Several others linked to Mousavi's campaign remained in custody, but the full extent of the arrests were not known.

Tehran deputy prosecutor, Mahmoud Slarkia, told the semi-official ISNA news agency that fewer than 10 people were arrested on the charge of "disturbing public opinion" through their "false reports" on Web sites after the election. He did not mention any names.

Iran's deputy police chief, Ahmad Reza Radan, told the official Islamic Republic News Agency that about 170 people have been arrested for their involvement in Saturday's protests. He said 10 of those arrested were "main planners" and 50 were "rioters." The others were arrested for being at the site of the clashes, he said. Some of the detained were active in Mousavi's campaign headquarters or had relations with foreign media, he said.

"Police will not allow protesters to disturb the peace and calmness of the people under the influence of foreign media," Radan said on state television, which showed footage of the protests for the first time Sunday.

Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, did not appear on newsstands Sunday. An editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said the paper never left the printing house because authorities were upset with Mousavi's statements.

The paper's Web site reported that more than 10 million votes in Friday's election were missing national identification numbers similar to U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that information.

"Don't worry about freedom in Iran," Ahmadinejad said at the news conference after a question about the disputed election. "Newspapers come and go and reappear. Don't worry about it."

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, closed the door for possible compromise. He could have used his near-limitless powers to intervene in the election dispute. But, in a message on state TV on Saturday, he urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad, calling the result a "divine assessment."

The U.S. has refused to accept Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory said it was looking into allegations of election fraud. There are no independent election monitors in Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday she hoped the outcome reflects the "genuine will and desire" of Iranian voters.

The European Union also said it was "concerned about alleged irregularities" during Friday's vote.

In Beirut, Lebanon's militant Hezbollah group — which is aided by Iran — congratulated Ahmadinejad and said the vote was conducted in an atmosphere of "freedom."

from here

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 12:45 PM

Damon Runyon wrote a short story called "Blood Pressure" in which there's a crap game; a hoodlum rolls dice in his hat and tells the onlookers what numbers came up. I think it was used in the Broadway Musical "Guys and Dolls".

This 'election' reminds me of that, only it's not as 'ha-ha' funny.

And the centrifugal separators keep on a-turnin'

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:26 PM

My only input at this time about the lack of democracy in Iran is to say that we should get no more worked up about the election in Iran than we should about the lack of democracy in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The main difference between these two and Iran, strictly in terms of our concern for democracy or the lack of it, is that the US (and some other Western countries) is helping to prop up the dictatorial regimes in those other countries, and those regimes are willing to do our bidding. Although I think it could be argued that Iran is more democratic than Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:35 PM

Yes, Iran probably is more democratic than Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Funny how politics works, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 01:48 PM

"All their rights respected
Till someone we like can be elected."

(Tom Lehrer - Send The Marines")

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:02 PM

Western Primer on elections in developing countries

Click

Some Western principles in assessing elections in developing countries:

1) When the favored candidates win, the elections are free and fair. And when they lose, elections are certainly unfree and stolen.

2) Violent protests against elections that produce winners favored by the west, are to be strictly condemned and protesters are to be called terrorists, hooligans and mobs (can you imagine if Lebanese opposition supporters were to engage in violent protests against the election results in Lebanon), while violent protests against enemies of the US when they win elections (like in Moldova) are to be admired (and the protesters in those cases are called "democracy activists".

3) It is not against free elections to have Western governments interfere in elections and in funding candidates through Western groups for the promotion of democracy.

4) Candidates (or even dictators) who serve Western interests are automatically labeled as "reform candidates" (even the Saudi tyrant is referred to as "reform-minded"), while candidates who oppose Western economic and political interests are to be labeled enemies of reform.

5) Candidates who are not strident in their language about Israel are always favored.

6) Western observers of elections are always on hand to declare an election unfair and rigged if the favored candidates lose.

7) The corruption of pro-US candidates (like the March 14 bunch) is preferred to the non-corruption of, say, Mugabe.

8) The democratic credentials of dictators immediately improve if they change their policies toward the US and if they express willingness to serve US economic and political interests.

9) Countries where dictators do a good job in serving US economic and political interests need not hold elections.

10) If favored candidates can't guarantee electoral victory (like the PA tool, Abu Mazen whose term has expired months ago), they don't need to hold elections and will be treated as if they won an election anyway.

11) It is just not logical to assume that people in developing countries can freely ever decide to make choices that are not consistent with political and economic interests of the US.

12) Elections that are held under American and Israeli occupations are free and fair if the preferred candidates win.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:21 PM

"Yet Khamenei has now done something extraordinary to the regime's democratic apparatus. Even though Iran's Electoral Commission allows three days to hear challenges before presenting results to Khamenei for approval, the Supreme Leader rushed to put his seal of approval on the outcome, and warned all political factions to refrain from challenging it. His imposition of the result, just hours after the polls closed, stunned the country as doubts about the legitimacy of vote were voiced widely both inside and outside Iran. "


http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090614/wl_time/08599190458900

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 02:31 PM

more from above...

"The democratic element of Iran's system has functioned as an important safety valve for clerical rule by creating a managed channel for the release of popular frustrations. But now the Supreme Leader appears to have thrown his weight solidly behind what many are charging is a carefully staged putsch by Ahmadinejad. "The willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran's Islamic revolution," Columbia University Iran expert and former National Security Council official Gary Sick wrote in a web posting. "All previous leaders at least paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that Iran's leaders are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of many (most?) of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:04 PM

Thanks Carol and alanabit for your presumptive backing of election stealing in countries with democratic pretensions. Next time you attempt to justify violence in the name of Islam on the part of Palestinians or Al Qaeda or the Taliban, I'll feel free to drag in Darfur, Nigerian riots over references to Mohammed, and the calculated misrepresentation of Danish cartoons in order to stimulate man-killing riots the world over.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:33 PM

Thanks for putting words in my mouth (yet another dishonest tactic from this poster).

I have not backed election stealing in any form. What I support is non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. This means not propping up dictators who are willing to do our bidding, and not trying to use issues like the election in Iran as a pretext for attacking that country, even despite the fact that the people of that country do not want us to attack them for any reason.

It's this cynical abuse of the cause of human rights as a justification for violating human rights that I have a big problem with. Most of the people using this issue as a way to agitate for violating the human rights of Iranians by attacking their country really don't give a shit about Iranian human rights. They have a different agenda and reason for their faux concern for the results of this election. Their agenda is imperialism. We know this because they only care about supporting democracy when doing so helps them further their own agendas, and they don't give a shit about the people suffering under dictatorial regimes when those regimes support their agendas.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:41 PM

Thanks for putting motives in mine, a standard practise of yourself, CarolC.

I merely observed your frequent tactic of muddying an issue or blunting the point of a thread by introducing your pre-arranged array of societal grievances, thus distracting from the original point.

Your frequent accusations of others' cynicism is actually a display of your own. It is far easier to make a blanket appeal to human rights in general than to address the denail of human rights to one group of poeple in particular, in this case the people who wish to exercise their rights to democracy in Iran. In other forums you have defended the words of Ahmadinajad, and the fairness of the voting process in Iran, ignoring the fact that Iranian elections are overseen by an unelected board of religious judges, in essence a power elite.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:42 PM

The above poster is making an assumption about whose motives I was commenting on in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 03:46 PM

Anyone who really cares about the human right of the people of Iran will honor their desire to not be attacked by either the US or Israel, and their desire to handle their problems themselves. Anyone who is advocating an attack on Iran using human rights as their pretext is doing so for reasons other than human rights. If they cared at all about the rights of Iranians, they would honor their right to decide for themselves whether or not they welcome intervention from other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: mg
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:18 PM

I am trying to follow the logic here but fail miserably...seeing that many people risk their lives, jobs, and us being sympathetic to their universal desire for freedom, in a part of the world where the more freedoms are peacefully and velvetly achieved, the greater our our national security...that sympathy toward them makes us want to find an excuse to attack them? I fail to see any connection whatsoever. And people living under tyranny basically, by definition, can not handle their problems by themselves. If they could, there would be no tyranny.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:31 PM

No, just having sympathy for them doesn't indicate a desire to attack them. Some people are just expressing sympathy. It's the use of peoples' natural sympathies as a pretext for whipping up support among the US voters for an attack on Iran that I am talking about, and there are a lot of people who are doing this. We saw the same sort of thing with the big lie about Saddam's "incubator babies" while people were whipping up support for the things we did to Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:46 PM

However, the Iranians themselves have said that they need to be allowed to solve their problems themselves. They have said that every time the US has tried to interfere, that interference has strengthened the hardliners and weakened the moderates. So if people really care about the human rights of the Iranians, they need to honor what the people of Iran have said they want and need, which is to be left alone to deal with their problems themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:48 PM

I say again: regime change in a country is a matter for that country. A possible exception is if a legitimate ruler seeks support from allies - but at the moment that is a circular argument for Iran.

It is however becoming clear that the present Iranian regime is using illegitimate tactics to prevent peaceful and constitutional regime change. That legitimates otherwise illegitimate tactics by those being targeted - so long, of course as those tactics do not involve collateral damage to non-aligned people.

Simples.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: alanabit
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 04:51 PM

I do not trust the Iranian authorities any further than I can spit. I would like to know however, why we are not all equally interested in human rights and free and fair elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and a host of other countries - including China? In fact, it looks most unlikely that conclusive proof will ever emerge that the Iranian election was stolen. (I will gladly concede that it is even less likely that proof will emerge to show that it was free and fair). I simply remarked upon the unseemly haste to condemn it as unfair, simply because "our side" lost.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 05:50 PM

The messy part after transparency has been impeded is trying to determine (within and outside of Iran), who "speaks for the Iranians themselves." The power base has weakened itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 06:08 PM

I don't think many Americans would have welcomed outside countries attempting to rectify the results of the 2000 election - even if they thought Dubya did steal it.

And I suspect that's how people in Iran will generally see it.

I'd not be surprised if there has been massive election fraud in this latest election. But on the other hand I'd not be the least surprised either if the result does actually reflect how people did actually vote.

My impression is that an awful lot of people do tend to vote to re-elect populist leaders who are demonised abroad. And when people feel their countries are under siege, they do tend to vote for extreme nationalists (cf Israel).

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 06:12 PM

Well, I would say that people who don't live in Iran certainly don't speak for the Iranians. The people whose words I've been reading are pro-reform Iranians who live in Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 07:05 PM

Forgot to mention I also have an Iranian/American friend (US born of Iranian born parents) and her husband is Iranian born, who lived in Iran for several years herself, who is absolutely horrified at the thought of any country attacking Iran for any reason. And she makes it pretty clear that while there are some Iranian expats (like her father, for instance) who would like to see the current regime deposed by any means, the people who are actually living in Iran do not share their opinion on that subject. My friend, by the way, is Sufi, which is one of the persecuted minorities in Iran, but even with that, she says that an attack on Iran would be very bad for Iranians.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:12 PM

I don't even see why there should be a dispute about the situation at all.   I thought we all agreed that Mr. A should be left to deal with the huge numbers of his own citizens he has just alienated--with no input from the West except reporting, and expressing dismay at the shoddy "election" just past.


Anybody who advocates any sort of "regime change" in Iran orchestrated by or even advocated by the West (including Israel) needs his or her head examined.

Mr. A has just weakened himself more than anything the West could have done. And any interference by the West will just give him the chance to raise the "patriotism" issue he has just thrown away.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jun 09 - 09:19 PM

Well, some of the members of the US govenment, and probably all of the members of the Israeli government are trying to trick us into supporting an attack on Iran (just like they did with Iraq). Hopefully people won't fall for it this time. I posted this in another thread, but I think it should be in this one, too...


http://pulsemedia.org/2009/06/12/talking-to-iran-will-make-it-easier-to-sell-war/

As Iranians go to the polls to repudiate (it seems) some of the most pernicious aspects of Ahmadinejad's rule, America's Iran point man continues to make Ahmadinejad look like a reasonable peacenik.

The newly released book by Dennis Ross, President Obama's special adviser on Iran, reads like a how-to manual for launching a war on Iran, marketing the war successfully, and making sure the Iranians cop all the blame for it. Ross will have none of Bush's incompetent warmongering on flimsy pretenses of democracy and WMD's; when Ross launches his illegal war on Iran, it will be stage-managed to within an inch of its life.

"Tougher policies - either militarily or meaningful containment - will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion," writes Ross.

Note that there is no way to read this sentence but to see that the goal is to attack Iran. America trying to diplomatically resolve its differences with Iran is not a goal in itself; it is merely a means to more easily sell war and sanctions.

And, then, of course, we get the special Dennis Ross brand of peacemaking-as-warmongering--Ross's signature dish: derailing negotiations while making it appear to be the other party's fault.

"Such an approach may build pressures within Iran not to forgo the opportunity that has been presented, while also ensuring that the onus is put on Iran for creating a crisis and also for making conflict more likely."

The goal, of course, is not just to bring about a military conflict, but also to make sure that it appears that it was the Iranians who brought about this conflict.

This is exactly what Ross did as "mediator" of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, where he used diplomacy to further the aims of Israeli colonialism, as a cover for Israeli colonialism. As Norman Finkelstein shows in his meticulous destruction of Ross' previous book, it was Ross himself who derailed the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

Ross simply used his position as "mediator" to push for terms that were even more favorable to Israel than what the Israelis themselves wanted. During the negotiations, he became "furious" at Israelis for considering annexing less land in Palestine, and even said "if [Ehud] Barak offers anything more, I'll be against this agreement." The result was a "generous offer" on which then Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami himself commented: "if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David".

But when the Palestinians rejected this offer, of course, it was a green light for "Israel's Lawyer" to spend the last nine years blaming the Palestinians for rejecting his magnanimous offer. The result is a global green light for the Israeli regime to destroy the Palestinian people and their chances of ever attaining freedom�while placing the blame entirely on the Palestinians.

America can now look forward to seeing this mendacious brand of evil shaping their policy towards Iran over the coming years. Expect to continue to hear Ross talking about the failures of his heroic efforts at diplomacy, and then going on a WINEP-sponsored world tour blaming the Iranians for the conflict he worked so hard to precipitate.

This should leave no doubt that though the Obama Administration is mainly made up of sane humans who do not particularly want to nuke Iran, unreconstructed neocon fanatics like Ross will do all they can to bring about as bad an outcome as possible. Watch this space.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:48 AM

Carol - The American public was tricked into supporting an escalation of the war in Vietnam, and forty years later a similar thing happened in Iraq. I don't think it's probable that they'll support a war in Iran only 7 or 8 years later. A generation or two needs to go under the bridge first. Fool me once...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 12:50 AM

I hope that's right, but I have to admit, from what I'm hearing and seeing, it looks like a lot of people don't even remember the last eight years.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 01:40 AM

Some very interesting discussion here, including the comments section...

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/06/some-dots-you-may-connect.html

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 02:45 AM

Tonight I saw just the tail end of a interview. The Arab was asked why he was so sure that the electoin was fraudulent and he said that for one thing, the government announced the landslide victory before even 20% of the votes had been counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 03:06 AM

More interesting commentary here (fingers crossed that it fits into the one screen limit)...

Dashing Fabricated Hopes: The Meaning of Ahmadinejad's Victory

It's been a little weird, if not embarrassing, to witness the reactions of the American press to the Iranian election in the last 24 hours.

There was the initial rush of expectation--that "change" was as much in the Iranian air as it had been in the American last fall, an equivalence so wrong on so many fronts that it managed to obscure the essential truth of the Iranian election: there never was a significant ideological difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi. Only a tonal one. But the Los Angeles Times was content to blare this headline: "Iranians ready to decide presidency -- and maybe much more."

There was the added irony of the LATimes' sub-headline: "The winner will play a key role in possible talks over Iran's nuclear program and support for militant groups," the implication being that if Mousavi were the winner, maybe he'd rein back the militants. But it was Mousavi who, as Iran's prime minister in the 1980s, helped build those militant groups into international terrorist forces, sending money, weapons and manpower to Lebanon to beef up Hezbollah and telegraphing their targets, including that string of American and European hostages Hezbollah held for most of the decade---and Mousavi traded for, haggling over anti-tank missiles and money with Oliver North and Bud McFarlane, in the infamous Iran-contra affairs.

Still, the paper in Los Angeles, not to mention the New York Times and the Washington Post, have blithely referred to Mousavi as a "moderate" throughout the election campaign, accepting at face value his apparent conversion, if only because he kept his antipathy for the United States relatively silent.

But Slate's Samuel Rosner was closer to reality: The Iranian president isn't the one who decides Iran's fate, or foreign policy, or domestic policy, for that matter. It's Ali Khamenei, the "supreme leader," who does. But the big papers kept up the charade ("As Iran Votes, Talk of a Sea Change," went The New York Times), as if willing the fantasy.

The Times' executive editor, Bill Keller an old hand at foreign correspondence (he won a Pulitzer for somewhat blandish reporting from South Africa, if I'm remembering correctly) even sent himself to Tehran for a bit of trench writing (or to escape the fallout of his embarrassing performance in a Daily Show bit).

"[F]or those who dreamed of a gentler Iran," Keller wrote from Tehran, "Saturday was a day of smoldering anger, crushed hopes and punctured illusions, from the streets of Tehran to the policy centers of Western capitals. Iranians who hoped for a bit more freedom, a better managed economy and a less reviled image in the world wavered between protest and despair on Saturday."

All I can say is that they, and the amnesiac Western press, did it to themselves. A quarter of Iran's population is under 15, the median age is 26 (which means half the population is 26 or younger), which means the overwhelming majority of voters in Saturday's election have no memory of the 1980s when Mousavi was in charge of a country that was free neither economically nor in any other way. When others spoke of ending the Iran-Iraq war that had ravaged the country, Mousavi wailed, charging quitters that they were abandoning the ideals of the revolution.

This is the man the Kellers of the world so blindly put their hopes in.

So why was the West so self-deluded, both about Mousavi and the outcome of a foregone conclusion? I wish it was about misplaced hopes. No. It's something less honorable than that. It's about misplaced projections. It's about presuming that the West's agenda for Iran can somehow muscle its way over the agenda Iran reserves for itself. It's about reverting to pre-1979 assumptions that Iran would be as the West would want it to be. Which is to say that 30 years of history have taught the West next to nothing about Iran. That ignorance, those attitudes, those presumptions, are precisely why Iranians are still ready to vote for a man like Ahmadinejad, because for all his anti-Semitism, his belligerence, even his apparent stupidity on more than a few matters of state, he is the embodiment of an Iranian identity that brooks no imports, that needs no one else, certainly nothing western, not even (and above all not) Barack Obama, to define it. Mousavi would likely have been no different ideologically, but why chuck off a known quantity?

Reactionary editorial pages (what pages are left, anyway) will fold all over each other to claim that Iranians have embraced hate, that they've endorsed the destruction of Israel, that they've made their hostility clear. Stupid judgments, as I see them, if excusably America-centric: they're meant well. But they miss the point.

The point never has been for Iran to get a leadership the United States can deal with. That's the American perspective that's led nowhere for 30 years. The point is to get a leadership in the West willing to deal with whatever leadership Iran chooses for itself, on its own terms.

So here's where Obama's Norwuz message will prove its worth (or not). Here's where Obama gets to show the Iranian people that he meant what he said. That he wants a dialogue, not just with the Iranian people, but with the Iranian leadership. Especially one chosen by the Iranian people. (At some point all those allegations of fraud are going to have to make way for the reality: if the United States could survive the fraud of 2000, so can Iran in 2009, though chances are Iran's fraud is less obvious than that of Bush v. Gore).

Obama can, of course, punt. Decide that he now has an excuse not to deal with Iran. But he doesn't. He has even less of an excuse today than he did yesterday. Unless he wants to play the fraudulent-election card and go down that slink to perdition. Somehow I can't imagine him doing that. I can't imagine him thinking that he would be dealing with anyone but Ahmadinejad after the election anyway: he knew that bumping off Ahmadinejad was a long shot. He knew, or should have known, that even if Mousavi would have replaced him, the policy differences would have been nil. At least Ahmadinejad gives Obama, as Ahmadinejad does Khamenei, a foil, if things go wrong. And Ahmadinejad, freed of a elections' burden, could maybe find his inner Nixon and make the leap across ideologies.

Who knows. This could be as big or bigger (because more authentic) a chance for a breakthrough than either side imagined. If both sides are willing to seize it. Here's how Obama could start: send a congratulations message to Ahmadinejad. Then get to work.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 04:27 AM

More interesting commentary...

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/8020


Here's an excerpt...

A big issue in Iran - virtually never discussed in the U.S. media - is how to interpret Article 44 of the country's constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that "all large-scale and mother industries" are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country's poor to live much better lives than they did under the U.S.-installed Shah.

In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much, and how swiftly that process should proceed, is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an "alms-based" economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad's policies of providing services and benefits to the poor.

In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the U.S. government. This is a source of great national pride, and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the U.S. that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.

The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change U.S. policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran's sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran's political role in the Middle East, and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man?

Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a "robust" debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police.

Is it possible that the U.S. government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70-90 million to fund "dissident" organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has U.S. military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government?

The point has been made that U.S. neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a "pragmatic" administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control.

I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a "reform" candidate to win the election - it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi?

What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington - whose preference for "democracy" is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits - so sympathetic to the "reform" movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources?

Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, "Look, there's no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?" That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier - and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad's statements.

But it wouldn't be enough. The U.S. government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government.

The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:46 PM

Mr. A a peacenik---you have to have your head buried pretty far down to swallow that one.

Separate point:   I saw an interesting theory about the "election" and aftermath: WSJ columnist of Arab background says he thinks Khamenei's praise of Mr. A is so over the top, it sounds like it was written by Mr. A himself.    This indicates that Mr. A is no longer deferring to Khamenei, who is supposedly the supreme leader. So the question is how long Khamenei will put up with this--before making common cause with the dissidents.   If he does, Mr. A has big problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 09:57 PM

CarolC-

You've certainly expanded on my gut feelings as reflected in my very brief initial post to this thread.

However, there are more players involved than Mudcat posters, including the several hundred thousand who jammed the streets in Tehran today.

Oh, and evidently Khamenei is calling for an investigation into the tallying of the voting results, not something that Ahmadinejad wants to have done.

Which raises the question of what counts?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:16 PM

From BBC News:

POST-POLL CRACKDOWN
*More than 100 opposition figures arrested, including the brother of ex-reformist President Khatami
*Local and international phone and text message services interrupted
*Social networking and newspaper websites blocked
*"Heavy electronic jamming" from inside Iran disrupts BBC Persian TV service
*International journalists arrested and asked to leave
*Iranian newspapers do not carry reports of the violence
Source: Various reports

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:34 PM

I don't think Ahmadinejad was being described as a peacenik in that article. I think that was a device the writer was using to show how much of a warmonger Dennis Ross is.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:42 PM

Very interesting post, Carol! I think you raise a great many valid points.

When elections are held in Pakistan there is usually a lot of violence too, and much worse violence than is seen now in Iran, but Pakistan is still a USA ally for some reason...

America's allies are not chosen for their commitment to democracy. They are chosen for their willingness to sell their countries out to western corporate control...and for strategic reasons as well, in terms of planning future wars or maintaining existing wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 10:54 PM

Speed of Iran vote count called suspicious
         

Jason Keyser, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 16 mins ago

CAIRO – How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? That's a key question in Iran's disputed presidential election. International polling experts and Iran analysts said the speed of the vote count, coupled with a lack of detailed election data normally released by officials, was fueling suspicion around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory.

Iran's supreme leader endorsed the hard-line president's re-election the morning after Friday's vote, calling it a "divine assessment" and appearing to close the door on challenges from Iran's reformist camp. But on Monday, after two days of rioting in the streets, he ordered an investigation into the allegations of fraud.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's reformist challenger, claims he was robbed of the presidency and has called for the results to be canceled.

Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, reported on its Web site that more than 10 million votes were missing national identification numbers similar to U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that information.

Mousavi said some polling stations closed early with voters still in line, and he charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location. He has not provided evidence to support the accusations.

His supporters have reported intimidation by security forces who maintained a strong presence around polling stations.

Observers who questioned the vote said that at each stage of the counting, results released by the Interior Ministry showed Ahmadinejad ahead of Mousavi by about a 2-1 margin.

That could be unusual, polling experts noted, because results reported first from Iran's cities would likely reflect a different ratio from those reported later from the countryside, where the populist Ahmadinejad has more support among the poor.

Mousavi said the results also may have been affected by a shortage of ballot papers in the provinces of Fars and East Azerbaijan, where he had been expected to do well because he is among the country's Azeri minority. He said the shortage was despite the fact that officials had 17 million extra ballots ready.

Interior Ministry results show that Ahmadinejad won in East Azerbaijan.

The final tally was 62.6 percent of the vote for Ahmadinejad and 33.75 for Mousavi — a landslide victory in a race that was perceived to be much closer. Such a huge margin also went against the expectation that a high turnout — a record 85 percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters — would boost Mousavi, whose campaign energized young people to vote. About a third of the eligible voters were under 30.

Ahmadinejad, who has significant support among the poor and in the countryside, said Sunday that the vote was "real and free" and insisted the results were fair and legitimate.

"Personally, I think that it is entirely possible that Ahmadinejad received more than 50 percent of the vote," said Konstantin Kosten, an expert on Iran with the Berlin-based German Council of Foreign Relations who spent a year from 2005-06 in Iran.

Still, he said, "there must be an examination of the allegations of irregularities, as the German government has called for."

But Iran's electoral system lacks the transparency needed to ensure a fair election, observers said. International monitors are barred from observing Iranian elections and there are no clear mechanisms to accredit domestic observers, said Michael Meyer-Resende, coordinator of the Berlin-based Democracy Reporting International, which tracked developments in the Iranian vote from outside the country.

He noted that the election was organized and overseen by two institutions that are not independent, the government's Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council, a 12-member body made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law who are closely allied to the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Meyer-Resende said that to be sure of the results announced by the Interior Ministry, it must release data all the way down to the level of each polling station.

One of the central questions was how 39.2 million paper ballots could be counted by hand and final results announced by authorities in Tehran in just over 12 hours. Past elections took at least twice as long.

A new computerized system might have helped speed the process in urban centers, where most Iranians live, though it is unclear if that system was extended to every small town and village. And each ballot — on which a candidate's name was written in — would still have to be counted by hand before any data could be entered into a computer, aggregated and transmitted to the Interior Ministry in Tehran.

"I wouldn't say it's completely impossible," Meyer-Resende said. "In the case of Iran, of course, you wonder with logistical challenges whether they could do it so fast."

Susan Hyde, an assistant political science professor at Yale University who has taken part in election monitoring missions in developing countries for the Carter Center, agreed that would be uncharacteristically fast.

"If they're still using hand counting, that would be very speedy, unusually speedy," she said.

The Interior Ministry released results from a first batch of 5 million votes just an hour and a half after polling stations closed.

Over the next four hours, it released vote totals almost hourly in huge chunks of about 5 million votes — plowing through more than half of all ballots cast.

Arshin Adib-Moghaddam, a professor of Middle East politics at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, said a major rigging process would require the involvement of powerful advisory bodies, including those in which one of the other candidates and a key Mousavi backer are prominent figures.

"Given that Mohsen Rezaei, one of the other presidential candidates, is the head of the powerful Expediency Council, for instance, it is highly unlikely that he wouldn't have received any information of such a strategic plan to hijack the election," Adib-Moghaddam said.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:46 PM

If he'd received such information, what could he have done about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jun 09 - 11:51 PM

He could have told people about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 07:56 AM

Like some times before, civil servants from the ministry of internal affairs in Iran have given information to journalists bypassing the upper management of the ministry who are loyal to Ahmadinejad. The official result was fixed long before the counting.

Ahmadinejad, according to that information, got about the same number of votes as Mousavi in the villages, but lost dismally in the towns. The real overall result was 28% for A. and 57 % for M.

That looks likely to me.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 08:04 AM

How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner?

Well, that regularly happens in UK elections. You just need to have lots of people doing the counting in lots of places all over the country. In itself the speed of the count isn't a knockdown argument for cheating.

Which isn't to say it may not have been a fix - none of us (including the people writing comments columns in the media and online) have enough information to make it possible to reach any firm conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 10:48 AM

I am following #Mousavi and @NextRevolution on Twitter, live, now. The latter is a TUMS medical student, trying to treat people. Harrowing stuff. Trying to stay one step ahead of the authorities who are blocking internet sites, twitter and facebook accounts...

You can help: If you have a Twitter acct, change the timezone to GMT+3:30 - tehran, and your location also to Tehran. By flooding it you can help confuse the censors...

This reminds me of Greece in 1974 - we did come out of that black tunnel eventually, and better than before, but it took lives to achieve it. And it looks like Iran is going through the same kind of catharsis. My heart goes out to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

This is interesting...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/ali-gharib-writesthe-regime-is-not-going-to-collapse-and-thats-not-the-goal-of-any-of-those-marching-tehrans-streetsthis-i.html

(There's video of people shouting from windows in the above link.)


Ali Gharib writes:

The regime is NOT going to collapse. And that's not the goal of any of those marching Tehran's streets.

This is not about ending the Islamic Revolution, it's about getting back to it. For all his talk of returning it to its roots, Ahmadinejad's slow crawl from a defacto dictatorship to a dejure one is a shift away from the Revolution, which was, let's not forget, first and foremost about getting rid of the dictatorial and tyrannical Shah, not about Islam and that state.

Moussavi has made clear that the people are behind him not for his sake, but for the sake of the Republic that they love. Likewise, the emerging ritual of standing at windows, balconies, and rooftops at around 10pm and shouting "Allah-o-akbar" is a call of hope for the idealism of 1979 -- hardly a time an anti-IRI movement would look to. I think it's the most moving thing to come out of the whole ordeal so far:

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: C. Ham
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 02:24 PM

I would say that people who don't live in Iran certainly don't speak for the Iranians.

I love that line. It makes me wonder how someone in North Carolina, or whereever, thinks she speaks for Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 08:31 PM

Ali Gharib has it right. Which is why some are shouting: "Death to the dictator" (meaning Mr. A).

As I noted earlier, the main question now are:

1)   Has Mr. A seized some power which used to belong to Khamenei?

2)   If so, how long will Khamenei put up with this?

I understand Mr A has already said he would appropriate some some land now held by various religious figures and give that land "to the poor".

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 08:32 PM

"main questions..."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 09:09 PM

Well, it does look as if the election is still in play.

At the same time there is little in Moussavi's record that would lead one to believe that he is a progressive candidate, or potential friend to the West. This is Iranian politics and at best the Iranians will get a result that confirms the "will of the people" rather than a dictatorship's wishes.

However, I wish them well.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jun 09 - 11:40 PM

I don't speak for the Palestinians. I speak for myself. I am paying for what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and what my government is doing to help what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. That gives me not only a right to speak up about the wrongs that are being done with my money, but a responsibility to do so.

When I read or hear Palestinians expressing their thoughts, feelings, and opinions, I do pass them along, because their voices are effectively silenced by the US media's complicity in these things by not giving what the Palestinians have to say equal coverage with what the Israeli government and the Israel first lobby in the US have to say. But that's not me speaking for them, its me passing their words along to others.

For instance, I do not try to speak for the Palestinians and try to promote either a one-state solution or a two-state solution to the problems they face. It's not my place to tell them which solution is the better one for them. But when they express a preference one way or another, I will definitely pass that along.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 01:34 AM

Easy enough to fix the problem. Simply ask for three neutral countries to send observers and re-count the ballots.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 02:44 AM

They'll have to find them first, Peace - 14 million ballot papers reportedly missing. And they'll have to get permission for the independent observers to enter the country - that could be a toughie. And then to get the Council of the 12 Wise Men to accept the results...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:15 AM

...a progressive candidate, or potential friend to the West...

Is the suggestion that those are the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:51 AM

With the "or" in it, it can be read as being two quite different things.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:28 AM

I think the suggestion is that he is neither. And that's what the "or" would be doing in that sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 10:39 AM

Carol-

You are correct with regard to "or."

And Obama's public statements yesterday also make the same point.

In general the expectations as broadcast by the mainline media prior to the election were amazingly overblown.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 07:12 PM

Obama, Siding With the Regime

By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The turmoil in Iran since last week's election has confused the foreign policy debate here in the United States in interesting ways. Supporters of President Obama, who until very recently had railed against the Bush administration's "freedom agenda" and who insisted on a new "realism," have suddenly found themselves rooting for freedom and democracy in Iran. And in their desire to attribute all good things to the work of President Obama, they have even suggested that the ferment in Iran is due to Obama's public appeals to Iranians and Muslims.

If so, this will be one of those great ironies of history. For, in fact, Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets. That they are doing so is not good news for the president but, rather, an unwelcome complication in his strategy of engaging and seeking rapprochement with the Iranian government on nuclear issues.

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't. His extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American "moralizing." (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn't want the United States to appear to be "meddling.")

But Obama's calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

It's not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He probably would have been happy to do business with Mir Hossein Mousavi, even if there was little reason to believe Mousavi would have pursued a different approach to the nuclear issue. But once Mousavi lost, however fairly or unfairly, Obama objectively had no use for him or his followers. If Obama appears to lend support to the Iranian opposition in any way, he will appear hostile to the regime, which is precisely what he hoped to avoid.


Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats -- though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jun 09 - 09:52 PM

Interesting the way people swing wildly from overenthusiasm about Mousavi to a dismissal of him as Ahmadinejad Lite.

It seems that if he were in charge he would certainly pursue nuclear power for Iran--but he has also been quoted as saying, that as for the nuclear question: "The second issue is related to concerns about the diversion of this program towards weaponization. Personally I view this second part, which is both technical and political, negotiable." (interview with Time magazine this past Friday, as reported in WSJ 17 June 2009 (today).

And I don't think he has denied the Holocaust.

Since one of the main goals here, perhaps the main one, is to convince Israel it need not attack Iran to deal with a perceived nuclear threat, Mousavi would be progress over Mr A. Especially if Mr. A is now trying to accumulate more power.

Perhaps the most significant question in all this, as I noted earlier, is Khamenei's views on these issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:12 AM

Commentary from an Iranian-Canadian on the subject of the election...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/tehran-is-burning-but-who-is-fuelling-the-fires----based-on-opinion-polls-conducted-a-few-weeks-before-the-election-by-terr.html

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 02:59 AM

"Robert Tait reports that a centrist website has found that voter turnout in at least 30 towns exceeded 100%.

In the most specific allegations of rigging yet to emerge, the centrist Ayandeh website – which stayed neutral during the campaign – reported that 26 provinces across the country showed participation figures so high they were either hitherto unheard of in democratic elections or in excess of the number of registered electors.

Taft, a town in the central province of Yazd, had a turnout of 141%, the site said, quoting an unnamed "political expert". Kouhrang, in Chahar Mahaal Bakhtiari province, recorded a 132% turnout while Chadegan, in Isfahan province, had 120%."

from the www.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 10:23 AM

There clearly has been an organized effort to inflate the election returns in favor of Ahmadinejad. National protest of this apparent stealing of the election may in fact void the results. There even seems division within the Ruling Council on this question.

Kagan's opinion while interesting for discussion seems too cynical an assessment of what Obama is saying and doing. As "outsiders" our role needs to be circumspect, while monitoring what both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi's supporters are saying and doing.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 12:14 PM

Your Regime Is Finished (Afshin Ellian in an open letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei)

...every response you have given in the face of non-violent protest has been one of more oppression and more violence. ...Iran's semi-official anti-Semitism and tyrannical rule towards its own people reveals the moral failure of the regime that you lead. Millions of people in Teheran and other Iranian cities have condemned this moral bankruptcy by demonstrating and by voting for Mir Hossein Mousavi. Your regime is finished. Surely you realize that too, Excellency? And if you have not realized it yet, then surely you, just like the Shah some 30 years ago, must have heard the hundreds of thousands in Teheran shouting "Allahu Akabar, down with the dictatorship!...The truth is that the people despise the ruling elite. Your puppet Ahmadinejad is reviled. If you continue to use violence against your people, then you have obviously learned nothing from the tragic fate of the last Shah of Persia.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 01:18 PM

here is a petition to get Google to go green for one day

http://www.whereistheirvote.x10hosting.com/

click

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 04:27 PM

I was disappointed in the Robert Kagan piece as rather a shallow view of Obama's intentions and practise. The Bush attempt to address the 'people of Iran' over the heads of its leaders was likely to impinge on neither, meaning its true purpose was to address the American electorate. Obama supposedly pitching his address at the rulers of Iran was more likely aimed at the people of Iran.

I've likewise not been impressed by the reaction of McCain, also Lieberman, who want to see a stronger public stance on the part of the Obama administration. Obama has pitched his viewpoint precisely correct: the Administration has no intent to interfere, but wishes the Iranian people's democratic choices to be clear. The Ahmadinajad administration has tried to blame his problems on American interference once again. Obama has defused this in advance.

The people of Iran have thirsted for democratic freedoms for a long time. It was thwarted in '53 by Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA. Last week it was thwarted by the Iranian Council. It is not a delicate distinction, it is barely ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 09:27 PM

Kagan co-founded "Project for New American Century", advised Kemp, then in 2008 advised McCain.

I'm not in the least disappointed in or surprised by Kagan's column--but it's painfully obvious how much weight to assign it.

Obama's desire to negotiate with Mr. A is all in the head of the columnist--and possibly also that of the illustrious poster who favored us with this column.

You'll have to do better, BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 09 - 09:34 PM

"Obama's policy now requires getting past the election controversies quickly so that he can soon begin negotiations with the reelected Ahmadinejad government. This will be difficult as long as opposition protests continue and the government appears to be either unsettled or too brutal to do business with. What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment. His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.

If you find all this disturbing, you should. The worst thing is that this approach will probably not prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. But this is what "realism" is all about. It is what sent Brent Scowcroft to raise a champagne toast to China's leaders in the wake of Tiananmen Square. It is what convinced Gerald Ford not to meet with Alexander Solzhenitsyn at the height of detente. Republicans have traditionally been better at it than Democrats -- though they have rarely been rewarded by the American people at the ballot box, as Ford and George H.W. Bush can attest. We'll see whether President Obama can be just as cold-blooded in pursuit of better relations with an ugly regime, without suffering the same political fate. "






Ron,

You'll have to do better than attacking the person. Try looking and commenting on what he said, instead of who is saying it.

Unless you can't find anything to disagree with, of course. Then continue to put the person talking down.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:19 AM

Anybody who really thinks that Obama would rather negotiate with Mr. A than with Mousavi should give his or her head a shake and actually start thinking.   If the shoe fits.....

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:36 AM

Well, Obama is in a damed-if-you-do-damed-if-you-don't situation with Iran... Whomever wins (selected) will be the one with whom Obama will have to negotiate...

This is not a time for rah-rah, let's go to war, mentality... We had 8 years of cowboy foriegn policy...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:22 AM

I have no idea why this story still has legs.   In terms of US and regional interests there is very little difference between candidates A and M.    The idiot US press has managed to convince lots of Americans that this was a contest between a hard-liner and a moderate, but they are both hard-liners!   And people are acting "shocked, shocked" that Iran might manipulate an election. The most amazing example of this idiocy is the Persian-American population, many of who were supporters of the Shah, so should certainly know the score.

One can only hope that Allatolah Khamenei's comments today will disabuse even the uninformed of any doubts about who's in charge in Iran.

The GOP has been calling on Obama to take a stronger position on the matter, but there's nothing useful that can come of that. Iran, like many of the countries in that region, including Iraq and Afghanistan, has no real cultural understanding of democracy and it's naive to think that we can change that by banging our shoe on the table.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 12:15 PM

Iran was in the process of establishing itself as a democracy when the US, in a CIA backed coupe, crushed Iran's fledgling democracy and installed the Shah in its place. It's not that Iranians aren't capable of understanding democracy - but they understand the geopolitical realities that countries in the Middle East face with regards to Western powers. They understand that it's very difficult to establish a free and open democracy in the face of the efforts by Western governments to control all of the resource rich and militarily strategic regions of the world at the expense of the local populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: number 6
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 12:20 PM

banging your shoe on the table

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 01:39 PM

Khomeini has never seen a crisis like this, says Iran expert in der Spiegel.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:22 PM

This is truly scary. I do NOT want the US to unilaterally step in but remember Hungary 1956? We don't want to experience that again.

The Leader Speaks

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 03:53 PM

Khomeini has never seen a crisis like this

Well, he wouldn't have, since he's been dead a good few years. You mean 'Khamenei Has Never Seen a Crisis Like This' Not the same man at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:41 PM

I'm suspicious of any articles in the mainstream US press that include calls for outside intervention from people within Iran. I've seen reports (can't remember where just now) that a lot of reports that appear to be coming out of Iran are actually coming from other places, including some countries that have an agenda of their own for wanting to attack Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 06:42 PM

This ain't Hungary, Eb... It's a siutaion where there are alot of folks who are liberal or moderate and even more who aren't... I don't see Russia or any other power coming in and comitting genocide... This will blow over in some regards and Iran's power base will have to make some consessions to get that to happen...

If it does become genocide then Khomeine has one heck of alot of folks in the world watching... That is why I think that it won't get out of hand...

But if it does, its gonna be one heck of a mess to clean up...

Right now, Obama is doing the only thing he can do... Congress, of course, will do the woff-woff... That is fine... It sends one message and Obama is sending another and that other message is that he realizes, as a pragmatist, that invading Iran ain't all that smart...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM

Khomeini - died in 1989.

Khamenei - succeeded Khomeini as ayatollah.

I suppose there might conceivably be some Iranians who have the same kind of misunderstanding about the two Bushes, and think they were teh same bloke.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:23 PM

As for the largest countries in the world, Iran ranks 17th in square miles and 19th in population.

Nobody is talking about invading Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:29 PM

No, pdq???

There has been plenty of talk about airstrikes over the last couple of years... All of those suggestions coming from the right wing...

How quickly folks forget when it suits their purposes...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:34 PM

Please look up the words "invasion" and "airstrike" and see if they mean the same thing.

Bombing the Iranian nuclear bomb factory would be "trespassing" but not an "invasion".

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

Carrying out air raids on a country does constitute an invasion of that country. Even if it might be politic, or even correct, to call it "trespassing", that would still count as an invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 07:51 PM

No, but it would certainly be a very messy situation, pdq, and an act of war... And if the Repubs had their way today, based on what they said on the news tonight, they would have Obama woff-woff-woffin' 24/7 'cause that is exactly what Bush would have done... That is one of the reasons that the Repubs are out of power... The American people have had enough sabre-rattlin' as the first repsonse...

Hey, I'm not sayin' that it won't come to that... The ball is in Iran's court... But to sabre rattle as the first move hasn't served the US too well over the last 8 years... There is a point where level headedness trumps testesterone...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:02 PM

The Shah was no more brutal to his enemies than were Castro, Allende and many other darlings of the Left.

The Shah succeeded his father in 1941. He was not "installed by the CIA" in 1953 as is commonly said here on Mudcat.

Fact is, The Shah of Iran had real Communist Idealogues, Stalinist Russia, organized crime, student Liberals, and Islamic fundamentalist fanatics, and a large number of personal enemies to fight, all at the same time. When you combine that with his terminal prostate cancer and Jimmy Carter's demand that Khomeini be installed a Iran's official religious leader, The Shah had no chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:11 PM

Iran was in the process of establishing itself as a democracy when the US, in a CIA backed coupe, crushed Iran's fledgling democracy

It's pure speculation that Iran ever would have established anything that resembled a true pluralistic democracy regardless of the CIA's actions.   

Iran, and for that matter Iraq and Afghanistan, have no cultural history of democracy and have never gone thorough an historical period resembling the Enlightenment that created the philosophical foundations for individual human rights and led ultimately to the idea that "governments that derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" as we did in the US. But that philsophical process took centuries. If the CIA hadn't underwritten an Iranian coup, someone else would have, IMO.   

I'm a gardener and one thing I know is that you need the right conditions - soil chemistry, sun, water, etc, - for something to grow.   I don't see the evidence that any of the above three countries have the right conditions to grow democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 08:36 PM

Like you, plnelson, I too am a gardener... Gardeners understand the natural timing of things... Non-gardners tend to over water and smother their plants... And then wonder why they are dead???

Me thinks that gardening should be a requirement for any national leader...

It's no secret that the US was involved in installing the Shah and it's also ne secret that Iran wasn't ready yet... Actually, Iran may never be "ready yet"... That is a reality that we cannot change...

Yeah, we can rattle sabres and threaten... We can bomb... We can invade... But like that plant in our garden, if we don't allow it the luxary of time, we will fail... This is one concept that folks here in the US just can't seem to internalize... Seems we have been at war with someone ever since the "War to End All Wars"...

In the words of the late Waylon Jennings, "We need a change..."

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 09:42 PM

Poem From A Few Hours Ago


Tomorrow is Saturday. Tomorrow is a day of destiny.

Tonight, the cries of Allah-o Akbar are heard louder and louder than the nights before.

Where is this place? Where is this place where every door is closed? Where is this place where people are simply calling God? Where is this place where the sound of Allah-o Akbar gets louder and louder?

I wait every night to see if the sounds will get louder and whether the number increases. It shakes me. I wonder if God is shaken.

Where is this place that where so many innocent people are entrapped? Where is this place where no one comes to our aid? Where is this place that only with our silence we are sending our voices to the world? Where is this place that the young shed blood and then people go and pray -- standing on that same blood and pray. Where is this place where the citizens are called vagrants?

Where is this place? You want me to tell you? This place is Iran. The homeland of you and me.
This place is Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 09:57 PM

Murmurs ran along the valley

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 10:13 PM

"... both hard-liners". If you think there is no difference between Mr. A and Mousavi, you need to read a bit more.

Among other things, as I've already noted more than once, it is a question of expectations---and specifically what Israel expects from each--since an attack by Israel in order to deal with a perceived nuclear threat is probably the most likely event to start a conflagration in that part of the world.    Mr. A has made it clear what his intentions are. Mousavi has talked of negotiation on the crucial point. And since Israel is a rational actor, as long as there is a good chance to avoid the necessity of attacking Iran, it will act accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:07 AM

They may not be talking about invading Iran, but they're sure as hell talking about attacking it, and bombing the shit out of it. Which would, of course, kill a lot of Iranians.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:20 AM

Mossadegh was turning Iran into a constitutional democracy when the CIA arranged a coup against him. After the coup, the Shah, who had fled the country twice, was put back in power, and with the help of the US, solidified his hold on power and became a dictator who is reviled by Iranians, and as brutal and repressive as Saddam Hussein.


I know it's Wikipedia, but it's sourced...

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

In the early 1950s, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence agencies. In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy, and to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry, which was controlled by the British. From the start he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. However, during these events, the Americans supported the British, and, fearing that the Communists with the help of the Soviets were poised to overthrow the government, they decided to remove Mossadegh. Shortly before the 1952 presidential election in the US, the British government invited Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., of the CIA to London and proposed they cooperate under the code name �Operation Ajax� to bring down Mossadegh from office.[3]

In 1951, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout in the region. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran.

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[4] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, then Rome. After a brief exile in Italy, the Shah returned to Iran, this time through a successful second attempt at the coup. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and sentenced to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.[5]

The American Embassy in Tehran reported that Mossadegh had near total support from the nation and was unlikely to fall. The Prime Minister asked the Majles to give him direct control of the army. Given the situation, alongside the strong personal support of Eden and Churchill for covert action, the American government gave the go ahead to a committee, attended by the Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, Ambassador Henderson, and Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson. Kermit Roosevelt returned to Iran on 13 July and on 1 August in his first meeting with the Shah. A car picked him up at midnight and drove him to the palace. He lay down on the seat and covered himself with a blanket as guards waved his driver through the gates. The Shah got into the car and Roosevelt explained the mission. The CIA provided $1 million in Iranian currency, which Roosevelt had stored in a large safe, a bulky cache given the exchange rate of 1000 rial = 15 dollars at the time.[6]

The Communists staged massive demonstrations to hijack the Prime Minister�s initiatives. The United States had announced its total lack of confidence in him; and his followers were drifting into indifference. On 16 August 1953, the right wing of the Army reacted. Armed with an order by the Shah, it appointed General Fazlollah Zahedi as prime minister. A coalition of mobs and retired officers close to the Palace, attempted what could be described as a coup d�etat. They failed dismally. The Shah fled the country in humiliating haste. Even Ettelaat, the nation�s largest daily newspaper, and its pro-Shah publisher, Abbas Masudi, published negative commentaries on him.[7]

During the following two days, the Communists turned against Mossadeq. They roamed Tehran raising red flags and pulling down statues of Reza Shah. This frightened the conservative clergies like Kashani and National Front leaders like Makki, who sided with the Shah. On August 18, Mossadeq hit back. Tudeh Partisans were clubbed and dispersed.[8]

Tudeh had no choice but to accept defeat. In the meantime, according to the CIA plot, Zahedi appealed to the military, and claimed to be the legitimate prime minister and charged Mossadegh with staging a coup by ignoring the Shah�s decree. Zahedi�s son Ardeshir acted as the contact between the CIA and his father. On 19 August pro-Shah partisans, organized with $100,000 in CIA funds, finally appeared, marched out of south Tehran into the city center, where others joined in. Gangs with clubs, knives, and rocks controlled the streets, overturning Tudeh trucks and beating up anti-Shah activists. As Roosevelt was congratulating Zahedi in the basement of his hiding place, the new Prime Minister�s mobs burst in and carried him upstairs on their shoulders. That evening, Ambassador Henderson suggested to Ardashir that Mossadegh not be harmed. Roosevelt gave Zahedi $900,000 left from Operation Ajax funds.

The Shah returned to power, but never extended the elite status of the court to the technocrats and intellectuals who emerged from Iranian and Western universities. Indeed, his system irritated the new classes, for they were barred from partaking in real power.[9]

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:26 AM

Excuse me, I meant to say "constitutional monarchy" in my last post, not constitutional democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peter T.
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 07:07 AM

Today's the day. We can talk all we like, but they're going out on the street today, and it isn't going to be pretty.

Allah protect them.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 08:41 AM

Real Time:

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 08:42 AM

http://tazahorate-ma.blogspot.com/2009/06/teheran-6202009.html

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:52 AM

It's no secret that the US was involved in installing the Shah

Everyone knows that, but what's your point?

MY point is that there's no reason to think that Iran would not have been ruled by some tyrant or strongman even if the CIA hadn't meddled.   As I said earlier, the people in that region have been ruled by force forever and they've never had any equivalent of The Enlightenment to establish in their culture a philosophical foundation for democracy and human rights.

The seeds of the Enlightenment were planted in the 1600's and the US didn't become a democracy until the late 1700's and it took another century or so to give legal representation to all its citizens. Many European nations didn't democratize until the 20th century!   It takes a long time.

It's like building a house - you need to start with a foundation. Blair and Bush couldn't get that through their thick heads when they invaded Iraq and naively thought they could establish democracy. Iraq is unlikely to be a functioning democracy for generations, and neither is Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 10:14 AM

Many of the stabile countries in the Middle East are monarchies.

There are more than just two choices in how countries are governed.

In 1900, approximately 90% of the World''s people lived in monarchies.

By 2000 that was down to approximately 10%.

The process producing that change cost over 100 million lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 10:39 AM

CNN has been disgraceful and pathetic in its coverage today.

(1) Taking live propoganda feed from Gov't media.

(2) Detailed commentary from ex-Shah operative...   ufb!!

(3) Show edited clips of running protestors, but not show culmination of clip which shows line of police motercade rolling down street.

CNN disgraced...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 10:40 AM

hJune 20th
ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGcSU7FcgQw

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Neil D
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:15 AM

MSNBC is reporting significantly smaller numbers of protesters in the streets today. In the thousands, not tens of thousands. Looks like the crackdown is going to work and the protests are winding down, unless there is stuff going on that just isn't getting out right now. It's currently Saturday evening in Tehran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:21 AM

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (1919-1980) was king of Iran and second in the Pahlavi dynasty. A revolution, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, forced him into exile.

Mohammad Reza was born on Oct. 27, 1919. His father, who was then an officer in the Persian Cossack regiment, later became shah of Iran as Reza Shah Pahlavi. Upon his coronation in April 1926, his 6-year-old son, Mohammad Reza, was proclaimed crown prince. While at home he was carefully educated for his future role by his imposing and stern father. In 1931 he was sent to Switzerland and attended LeRosey school for boys. He returned to Iran in 1936 and entered the military school. He was married to Princess Fawzia of Egypt. He developed into a sportsman, enjoying soccer and skiing, and later became a licensed pilot.

World War II

In the fall of 1941 Mohammad Reza's father was forced to abdicate the throne by the British and Russian forces who had occupied the country after a short struggle. On Sept. 27, 1941, he succeeded his father as Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. This was a most confused and perilous period for Iran. Not only was there a global war, but Iran was squeezed between the traditionally bitter rivalry of Russia and Britain... Furthermore, the Soviet pressure on Iran had an ideological dimension which sought revolutionary change in the country. The young Shah was caught in the midst of this struggle between the pro-Soviet Tudeh party, which wanted social revolution without the Shah, and the pro-British National Will party, which wanted the Shah but no social change. The Shah himself was not happy with either.

The Soviet Union refused to evacuate Iran after World War II as it had promised and instead stayed to help a branch of the Persian Communist party set up a separate government in the northwest province of Azarbayjan. Iran complained to the fledgling United Nations organization. After much negotiations the Soviet Union evacuated Azarbayjan on May 9, 1946, and the Shah entered the province in the midst of popular jubilation.

Internal Unrest

But this did not bring tranquility, for the oil problem had not been solved. The new National Front party, formed under the leadership of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq, followed a philosophy of "negative neutralism." This stated that, since Iran had refused to give oil concessions to the Soviet Union, it should take them away from the British.

The country was plunged into such a crisis that by 1953 communication broke down between the Shah and Prime Minister Mosaddeq and also among the prime minister, his cabinet, and the parliament. The crisis, in which the Tudeh party was daily gaining the upper hand, forced the Shah and Sorayya (his second wife) to leave the country. Nine days later Mosaddeq was overthrown {by loyal general Zahedi, not the CIA}, and the Shah returned in triumph.

Mohammad Reza Shah returned with a new resolve. Whereas he had tried to reign as a constitutional monarch, he decided to rule under the constitution. He had distributed his land among the peasants, hoping that other landlords would follow his example, but they ignored the hint and dubbed him the "Bolshevik Shah." It was then that he started what later was called the "White Revolution." After distributing the land among the peasants, he nationalized forests and water, established profit-sharing plans for the workers, emancipated women, and established literacy, sanitation, and development corps, in which educated men spent 2 years of their time in lieu of military service. New industries were created, and Iran became one of the most stable countries in the Middle East.

{shortened to fit space requirements}

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 11:47 AM

Yes, Israel is talking about attacking Iran.   But my point, which as usual certain posters seem to miss, is that, being a rational actor, Israel does not in fact want to attack Iran, since it is obvious the consequences would be severe.   If there is any other way to avoid Iran's obtaining a nuclear weapon, Israel will take that other way.   Mr A, of course offers no other way.   Mousavi at least offers the possibility of one.   Therefore it is totally nonsensical to describe both Mr A and Mousavi as equally "hardliners"--on the issue that matters most to peace in that part of the world. Mousavi is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:11 PM

There's no reason to think Iran wouldn't have had a real democracy had the US not intervened. They were well on their way to having that when we did intervene. And it's not true that Islam never went through an equivalent of the West's "Enlightenment". That phrase, that I see often repeated by people who don't know the history of Islam, is an Orientalist (and essentially racist) construction that has no meaning or purpose other than to promote the idea that Islam and Muslims are inferior to the West and to Christians and Jews. Islam did pass through a period of enlightenment (the Islamic Golden Age), which began several centuries before the European enlightenment. The Islamic enlightenment was a contributor to the enlightenment period Europe.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:15 PM

Israel was talking about the desirability of the destruction of Iran before the Iranians started their nuclear program. Their reason (rational or not) is that they want regional hegemony and they don't want any strong or powerful independent countries in the region that can compete with their hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:27 PM

In the early 1950s, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence agencies. In 1951 Dr. Mossadegh came to office, committed to re-establishing democracy and constitutional monarchy, and to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry, which was controlled by the British. From the start he erroneously believed that the Americans, who had no interest in the Anglo-Iranian Oil company, would support his nationalization plan. He was buoyed by the American Ambassador, Henry Grady. However, during these events, the Americans supported the British, and, fearing that the Communists with the help of the Soviets were poised to overthrow the government, they decided to remove Mossadegh. Shortly before the 1952 presidential election in the US, the British government invited Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., of the CIA to London and proposed they cooperate under the code name 'Operation Ajax' to bring down Mossadegh from office.[3]

________________

a 1953 period of political disagreements with Mohammad Mossadegh, eventually leading to Mossadegh's ousting, caused an increasingly autocratic rule. In 2000, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright stated:

    "In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."[1]

________________


In 1951, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout in the region. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was named Prime Minister of Iran.

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossadegh with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah. This plan was known as Operation Ajax.[4] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup initially failed, causing the Shah to flee to Baghdad, then Rome. After a brief exile in Italy, the Shah returned to Iran, this time through a successful second attempt at the coup. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and sentenced to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh.[5]

The American Embassy in Tehran reported that Mossadegh had near total support from the nation and was unlikely to fall.

Various controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the Tudeh Party and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:32 PM

Direct quotes please, with source, for the concept that Israel was advocating the destruction of Iran before the Iranian nuclear program started. Exactly who, and in what position of power was the speaker?   Not that we don't totally believe the poster--it's just somewhat better, somehow, with actual sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 12:38 PM

The information issuing from this blog http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/ indicates that there is a major uprising unfolding in Iran, sounds like there may be another Tiananmin Square massacre in the making.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:05 PM

plnelson, I think as you do, and have said as much regarding the issue that the Islamic world is somewhat tardier than the western world in the development of modern political structures and methods. Islam is 500 years more or less younger than Christianity, and I often allude to where the Christian world was 500 years ago.

Nevertheless, I think what the United States did in Iran in 1953 was stupid and inexcusable. I feel humliated that I didn't even KNOW about it until 2003 when "All The Shah's Men" came out. And I'd gone to university where there scores of Iranian students.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:09 PM

Thru China Link

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:33 PM

Well, robo... Alot of folks didn't know about it even though it wasn't some dark secret... It's just that it happened a long time ago and for the Baby Boomer generation Vietnam was the war we cut our teeth on (for lack of a better term)... Yeah, one can study history and know what went on but there is that special focus on the one that current one that is streming into yer home on television...

But it is important to remember and understand the US's role un Iran in installing the Shah and there are lessons that should be learned from that era...

Seems that the US is always ready and willing to pounce on the next new and shiney war... That what concerns me here... I mean, with the exception of Ron Paul, the entire House of Representatives voted a resolution in support of minority in Iran... I don't think that was a wise thing to do...

All these US wars seem to start with the righteous indignation and demonization of one side or another in another country and next thing ya' know we're up to our necks in yet another war... Hey, I ain't callin' for the US to isolate itself but it shouldn't be taking sides in other folks civil conflicts unless what we are seeing is genocide... If it is armed conflictthen there are better things that the US can do thru mediation, negotiation, diplomacy... Think Sweden here...

Oh, I'm sure I have opened myself up to a ramption of righteous indignation and demonization but, hey, I have exerience in that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:48 PM

A poster with a flair for the dramatic posted:
Israel was talking about the desirability of the destruction of Iran before the Iranians started their nuclear program. Their reason (rational or not) is that they want regional hegemony and they don't want any strong or powerful independent countries in the region that can compete with their hegemony.

This is beyond hogwash. It's actually BS, because the poster posts it purely for effect, regardless of whether it can be proved or disproved.

As the poster is aware, pretty much anything can be alleged, as is the nonsense above.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:57 PM

Tehran - Student protesters shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuXfBGFGopQ&feature=player_embedded

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:03 PM


In 1900, approximately 90% of the World''s people lived in monarchies.

By 2000 that was down to approximately 10%.

But N.B. that the 10% who don't live in monarchies don't necessarily live in democracies, either.   The PRC and North Korea and Burma (etc, etc) are not monarchies OR democracies.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:07 PM

"...beyond hogwash".   Well, let's see what the poster comes up with. We know she has a vivid imagination.   But she's been challenged to come up with some actual evidence, with source---though that might be an unnatural act for her.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:19 PM

The Devil Is in the Digits

By Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco
Saturday, June 20, 2009; 12:02 AM

Since the declaration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory in Iran's presidential election, accusations of fraud have swelled. Against expectations from pollsters and pundits alike, Ahmadinejad did surprisingly well in urban areas, including Tehran -- where he is thought to be highly unpopular -- and even Tabriz, the capital city of opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi's native East Azarbaijan province.

Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. Eyebrows have been raised further by the relative consistency in Ahmadinejad's vote share across Iran's provinces, in spite of wide provincial variation in past elections.

These pieces of the story point in the direction of fraud, to be sure. They have led experts to speculate that the election results released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior had been altered behind closed doors. But we don't have to rely on suggestive evidence alone. We can use statistics more systematically to show that this is likely what happened. Here's how.

We'll concentrate on vote counts -- the number of votes received by different candidates in different provinces -- and in particular the last and second-to-last digits of these numbers. For example, if a candidate received 14,579 votes in a province (Mr. Karroubi's actual vote count in Isfahan), we'll focus on digits 7 and 9.

This may seem strange, because these digits usually don't change who wins. In fact, last digits in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election. They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud. For example, an election in which a majority of provincial vote counts ended in 5 would surely raise red flags.


Why would fraudulent numbers look any different? The reason is that humans are bad at making up numbers. Cognitive psychologists have found that study participants in lab experiments asked to write sequences of random digits will tend to select some digits more frequently than others.

So what can we make of Iran's election results? We used the results released by the Ministry of the Interior and published on the web site of Press TV, a news channel funded by Iran's government. The ministry provided data for 29 provinces, and we examined the number of votes each of the four main candidates -- Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai -- is reported to have received in each of the provinces -- a total of 116 numbers.

The numbers look suspicious. We find too many 7s and not enough 5s in the last digit. We expect each digit (0, 1, 2, and so on) to appear at the end of 10 percent of the vote counts. But in Iran's provincial results, the digit 7 appears 17 percent of the time, and only 4 percent of the results end in the number 5. Two such departures from the average -- a spike of 17 percent or more in one digit and a drop to 4 percent or less in another -- are extremely unlikely. Fewer than four in a hundred non-fraudulent elections would produce such numbers.

As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections.

But that's not all. Psychologists have also found that humans have trouble generating non-adjacent digits (such as 64 or 17, as opposed to 23) as frequently as one would expect in a sequence of random numbers. To check for deviations of this type, we examined the pairs of last and second-to-last digits in Iran's vote counts. On average, if the results had not been manipulated, 70 percent of these pairs should consist of distinct, non-adjacent digits.

Not so in the data from Iran: Only 62 percent of the pairs contain non-adjacent digits. This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent. And while our first test -- variation in last-digit frequencies -- suggests that Rezai's vote counts are the most irregular, the lack of non-adjacent digits is most striking in the results reported for Ahmadinejad.

Each of these two tests provides strong evidence that the numbers released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior were manipulated. But taken together, they leave very little room for reasonable doubt. The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:26 PM

And it's not true that Islam never went through an equivalent of the West's "Enlightenment". That phrase, that I see often repeated by people who don't know the history of Islam, is an Orientalist (and essentially racist) construction that has no meaning or purpose other than to promote the idea that Islam and Muslims are inferior to the West and to Christians and Jews. Islam did pass through a period of enlightenment (the Islamic Golden Age), which began several centuries before the European enlightenment. The Islamic enlightenment was a contributor to the enlightenment period Europe.

This is factually incorrect, and shows a lack of understanding of western AND Persian history.

One of the key features of the western Enlightenment was that it questioned the Medieval assumption that God was above all things. The Enlightenment brought forth the idea that reason was above all things, including religion. (this is why a synonym for the Enlightenment is "The Age of Reason") Enlightenment thinkers (for the most part) did not reject religion, but demanded that it be subservient to reason.   Islamic culture has never embraced (or even accepted) that idea.   Who would you regard the David Hume of the Islamic Enlightenment to be?

The other concept that the western Enlightenment brought forth was about where government's power flows from. Prior to the Enlightenment it was said to flow from God - kings ruled by "divine right".   But the American Declaration of Independence (an archetypal Enlightenment document) says that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed".    Islamic culture has no importatnt foundation documents that embrace such an idea. This is probably why democracies have struggled to establish themselves in Islamic societies.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 02:43 PM

Regarding Golden Ages and Englightenments.

It is also possible for regressions to occur. Some cultures have had golden ages and then sunk into torpor, such as the Islamic and Chinese.

Also, some enlightenments have been quashed by successor regimes which instituted autocracies which subsume all power.

There are no guarantees. It is much easier to lose freedoms than to gain them. The founding fathers of the United States were well aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 03:58 PM

Saying that I posted what I did about Israel's desire to prevent any other major powers in the region from emerging was stated purely for effect was itself stated purely for effect (their desired effect being to try to discredit any documentation I provide regardless of how factual it is - more mind games from this poster). I posted what I did to correct something that was said by another poster. Documentation will be produced later tonight or tomorrow.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 06:46 PM

It occurs me that there is a face-saving manouevre that could be used if the power-that-be decided that some kind of accomodation was needed to avoid trouble.

No need to declare the poll invalid or anything like that - they just need to decide that, in view of a need to avoid divisiveness, the two leading candidates should go on to a runoff election, as would have been the case if the one who cane first had not crossed the 50% level. A maganimous gesture rather than a climb-down...
...................

Interesting that Khameini has focussed his anger on the British rather than on the USA. I would be inclined to read that as being in the nature of a coded conciliatory gesture to "the Great Satan", as the USA has been generally described for the last few decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 07:15 PM

Good idea. I am off to church in a moment and will pray for the policemen and soldiers caught in this as well as the protestors. Their lives will not be pretty in the next few days either. They are caught up in something and will be paying with their lives. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 09:38 PM

plnelson, there was indeed a time when the Muslim world was recognized to be much more socially advanced and progressive than Europe was...and they were also more tolerant of other faiths living among them than the Christians of the time were. Progressive forces in Europe had much admiration for the Muslim world during that era.

These things always change as time goes by. They ebb and flow with the tides of history. One part of the world is ahead at one period, and it falls back at another period. One should not try to reshape all of past history in such a way as merely to blow the trumpet for one's own civilization and push present day political causes, because most civilizations have had their periods of great advancement and their periods of sharp decline...the Muslims included.

*****

CarolC is 100% correct that Israel (and the USA and Great Britain in concert with their agent Israel) have a definite policy set in place to prevent any nation other than Israel from assuming the position of a major regional military/political power in the Middle East.   They intend to crush any such emerging regime by any means possible, and they will use a variety of excuses toward that end. One of the favorite excuses they use is that the nation in question is "attempting to build a nuclear weapon"...something that Israel did themselves many times already, and without saying a word about it.

The intention is that Britain, the USA, and Israel should hold the whiphand in the Middle East and effectively run the place...and control the oil...and control the political process. This requires killing, dominating, bribing, and terrorizing a whole lot of Arabs, Palestinians, and Persians, needless to say...

In this case I'll quote from Star Trek, commander Data, as he said once to the Borg: "Resistance is not futile." Oh, it's dangerous all right. Damned dangerous. But it's not futile.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:03 AM

Reason was also a key feature of the Islamic golden age. Ibn al-Haytham, would be a prime example as someone who pioneered the use of the scientific method. He said, "Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things". This is someone who is interested in truth independent of any religious or spiritual considerations.

And another, a Muslim jurist and theologian named Abu Hamid al-Ghazzali, said this, "Mathematics comprises the knowledge of calculation, geometry, and cosmography: it has no connection with the religious sciences, and proves nothing for or against religion...It is therefore a great injury to religion to suppose that the defense of Islam involves the condemnation of the exact sciences." (from here)

Islamic scholars and philosophers also embraced the concept of democracy, both during the middle ages as well as more recently...

"The early Islamic philosopher, Al-Farabi (c. 872-950), in one of his most notable works Al-Madina al-Fadila, theorized an ideal Islamic state which he compared to Plato's The Republic.[15] Al-Farabi departed from the Platonic view in that he regarded the ideal state to be ruled by the prophet-imam, instead of the philosopher king envisaged by Plato. Al-Farabi argued that the ideal state was the city-state of Medina when it was governed by Muhammad as its head of state, as he was in direct communion with God whose law was revealed to him. In the absence of the prophet-imam, Al-Farabi considered democracy as the closest to the ideal state, regarding the republican order of the Rashidun Caliphate as an example within early Muslim history. However, he also maintained that it was from democracy that imperfect states emerged, noting how the republican order of the early Islamic Caliphate of the Rashidun caliphs was later replaced by a form of government resembling a monarchy under the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties.[16]

A thousand years later, the modern Islamic philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938), also viewed the early Islamic Caliphate as being compatible with democracy. He 'welcomed the formation of popularly elected legislative assemblies' in the Muslim world as a 'return to the original purity of Islam.' He argued that Islam had the "germs of an economic and democratic organization of society', but that this growth was stunted by the expansive Muslim conquests, which established the Caliphate as a great Islamic empire but led to political Islamic ideals being 'repaganized' and the early Muslims losing sight of the "most important potentialities of their faith."[17]


There is absolutely no basis to the assertion that democracy would never have arisen on its own in Iran, or that it is incompatible with Muslim thought and philosophy. As we can see, in Islam, there is a history of democratic thought, and in the 1900s Iran was in the process of establishing it's own democracy until the US crushed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:07 AM

That last quoted portion of my last post came from here.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:05 AM

The scope of the Muslim contribution to civilization and knowledge is remarkable. This site is worth more than a few clicks on the blue links. FYI.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Charley Noble
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:56 AM

"he Devil Is in the Digits"

Bearded Bruce-

Thanks for posting this mathematical analysis.

Saturday's demonstrations seem to have been successfully suppressed by the powers that be, for better or worse.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 12:55 PM

Carol--

You were going to provide the evidence that Israel intended to destroy Iran even before Iran's recent push for nuclear power--and possibly nuclear weapons.

We're still waiting patiently.   Good thing we have patience. Not that anybody would want to imply your recent posts are an attempt to dodge the question. Perish the thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:13 PM

Iran Requiring Badges for Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians

The National Post (Canada) May 19, 2006

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims....

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth....

The new law was drafted two years ago, but was stuck in the Iranian parliament until recently when it was revived at the behest of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa refused to comment on the measures.

[Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad has repeatedly described the Holocaust as a myth and earlier this year announced Iran would host a conference to re-examine the history of the Nazis' "Final Solution."

He has caused international outrage by publicly calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:28 PM

I believe I said last night or today. The day is not over yet. So please try to be patient. I know that's difficult for some people, but it is possible for grown-ups to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 01:30 PM

Still no 'evidence' regarding Israel's intentions to dominate the Middle East and Iran (which is not quite in the Middle East). Just folks' 'pinions. And it's off topic of the thread, just the standard attempt to vilify at each and every opportunity.

Also, no one is out to denigrate the many and long contributions of the Islamic world toward original science, maths, arts, and the preservation of great classical works. That was not the point being asserted about the lack of and Enlightenment period in the Islamic world, of a toppling of the religious authoritarian modes of leadership which did happen in the West, over a long period of time.

Again, either some posters are unaware of the distinction or seeking to obfuscate.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:15 PM

Of course Iran is in "the Middle East", in the same sense that Germany is in Europe and Kansas is in the USA,

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:21 PM

pdq - Ahmadinejad has never called for Israel "to be wiped off the map". That is a misquote of something quite different that Ahmadinejad said in a speech a long time ago (and he was quoting a previous statement by Ayatollah Kohmeini which ALSO did not call for Israel to be wiped off the map by Iran or anyone else, it merely stated that the present political regime that is now running Israel would one day "pass from the Earth". In other words, it's a political regime that is not going to last forever. Well, no kidding! NO political regime lasts forever! They are all eventually replaced by something else.).

The Iranian government has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Iran has invaded no other country in the modern era. But it has BEEN invaded...by Iraq. And it is being threatened repeatedly...in various aggressive rhetoric by the USA and Israel...and the USA forces have Iran effectively surrounded by their forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. They don't talk about "wiping Iran off the map", however, they talk about "regime change". How would you like it if a foreign power talked about accomplishing regime change in YOUR country through force of arms? You wouldn't like it one bit.

You are repeating a myth which has already been repeated 50,000 times or more by the western media and by people such as yourself who have no trouble repeating and believing a myth that they have heard, because it suits what they wish to believe.

Ahmadinejad did NOT make any statement about wiping Israel off the map.

It doesn't matter how many times you say he did, you cannot make that falsehood true. Nor does it matter how many times your media repeats the lie.

I know you wish it WAS true. You probably believe it IS true. Well, too bad. It isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 03:53 PM

I sit corrected, of course Iran is in the Middle East, but it's not at the center.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peter T.
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:01 PM

Also worth adding that in the Iran-Iraq War (which everyone has forgotten about except Iran and Iraq) the Americans (blessed Ronald Reagan, he who is in Heaven at the right hand of God the Father Almighty) supported the Iraqis.

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peter T.
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:16 PM

not sure what would constitute evidence of Israeli intentions, but here is an interesting piece on the history of Israel vis-a-vis Iran. Earliest citation of strategic interest in Iran becoming enemy no. 1: 1993.

http://mondediplo.com/2009/02/05iran


Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 04:30 PM

interesting piece. Reminds me of my literary college classes where some of the kids could go on at length on social realism in the works of Charles Dickens as a precursor to Marxism and even the professor couldn't tell the sh*t from the shinola. In this case Crooke has it all so well defined but is it a case of his deep background or is he simply painting targets around random arrows in the wall?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:06 PM

Carol C: If Israel wanted to destroy Iran, it could have done so quite easily already.

Your statement that Iran has not threatened to destroy Israel is laughable. Iran's president has so stated that Israel should be wiped from the face of the map many times.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:21 PM

The USSR has been wiped from the face of the map, but the people are still there. The same is true for Czechoslovakia and many other countries. There's a very real likelihood that the same will happen sooner or later to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 07:28 PM

The videos coming out of there are ghastly.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Azizi
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 08:01 PM

This poem recently written by an Iranian was posted in the comment section of
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/regrouping-against-repression-iran#comments Regrouping Against Repression in Iran; Posted by Al Giordano - June 21, 2009

Khosrow Golshiri: What will you do with the roots?
Submitted June 21, 2009 - 1:59 pm by Iraj Omidvar

Let's say you think I have been felled!

And my young branches are hacked with your axes!

What will you do with the roots?

Let's say you sit on the walls of this garden in hunt of birds!

You have planted no-fly signs!

What will you do with the chicks in the nests?

Let's say you kill!

Let's say you cut!

Let's say you beat!

What will you do with the unavoidable shoots?

Posted on Jebhe Melli Iran-US (Jebhe.org)


-snip-

It seems to me that it has the seeds (pardon the pun) of a great song.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 08:03 PM

DougR - "If Israel wanted to destroy Iran, it could have done so quite easily already."

Yes. By launching a couple of hundred Israeli nukes at Iran...and then dealing with the rest of the world's reaction to the greatest mass murder in history.

It's not so easy as you think, Doug! There are consequences. Do I have to explain to you why they have not done it, even though they would clearly very much like to?

A child could understand why they have not done it. No, I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, Doug...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:36 PM

Someone in the thread said that Israel wasn't concerned with attacking Iran until it started working on its nuclear program. That is factually incorrect. It's not an attempt to vilify anyone to say so if it's true. However, making the accusation that I attempt to vilify at every opportunity is an attempt to vilify, and the person who said it never passes up an opportunity to do that to me, explicitly for the purpose of silencing people who bring to light truths that person would prefer to keep secret.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:43 PM

Someone said that democracy is an alien concept in the Islamic parts of the world, and they tried to use the commonly repeated (racist) canard that Islam has never experienced an enlightenment as the reason democracy is not compatible with Islam, and not something that Iran could have established on their own. I pointed out the falsity of that suggestion. This was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the context of the discussion. Again, someone with rather dark motives of their own has gotten into the habit of following me around trying to project motives onto me that are not mine, specifically for the purpose of trying to silence me (because they don't like people bringing to light truths that they would rather remain hidden). This hasbara tactic will not work. It's a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:54 PM

Once again, Ahmadinejad has not ever threatened to wipe Israel off the map. He has never said he even wants Israel wiped off the map. This has not ever, ever happened. It is not just a myth, it is a BIG LIE. It never happened.

Ahmadinejad said that one day the ZIONIST REGIME IN ISRAEL would be wiped from the pages of time, like the Soviet regime and the South African regime under apartheid. This is NOT in any way a threat of harm to Israel on the part of Iran, and it is impossible to make what was said mean that it is a threat of harm or a statement of an intention to harm Israel in any way.

Anyone who chooses to believe the commonly repeated lie about Ahmadinejad threatening to wipe Israel off the map is someone who wants to attack Iran for reasons of their own that have absolutely nothing whatever to do with Israel's security.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 09:56 PM

Israel has not already attacked Iran because the US government has told them in no uncertain terms that they must not attack Iran. This is the only reason they have not done so, as of yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:00 PM

"dark motives"   "bringing to light truths...".....we don't want to admit.

OK, fine.   Your purple prose is quite impressive--and very entertaining.   Perhaps there's a future for you in Harlequin or another publisher of that sort.

However, according to your own statement you now have about 2 hours to come up with the evidence that Israel wanted to destroy Iran before Iran started its nuclear program.

You can consider we're just eager to hear this news--which in fact you may be able to sell to the National Enquirer. It's quite an honor that Mudcatters would be the first to hear it before the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 10:39 PM

Hour and a half now. That's enough for me. Someone else seems to need to grow up a little, if that person can't wait that long before sniping and badgering. Or maybe get some depends so they don't wet themself.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:13 PM

That Depends.    How do you know so much about them?   You must have had a lot of experience; in fact it must be somewhat of an obsession with you.   It doesn't really seem to have much to do with the election in Iran--except possibly in your charming imagination.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:53 PM

It's not a problem for me, because I am not so impatient that I can't contain myself.


This is a report written by Oded Yinon. Oded Yinon served as an official in the Israeli foreign ministry. I've seen some people argue that his plan is not the Israeli government's plan, but much of this plan has been implemented. People can feel free to ignore the commentary that accompanies the actual plan. The important part is the plan that was written by Yinon...

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html#contents


This report from Yinon shows that Israel will not tolerate any powerful countries in the Middle East that are not client states.


Tzipi Livni and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy have said that any nuclear ambitions Iran has do not pose an existential threat to Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916758.html

They're right. Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, with our without nukes. But it does pose an obvious obstacle to Israeli hegemony both with and without nukes. The only way to remove Iran as an obstacle to Israeli regional hegemony is to turn into a client state of the US and Israel, or to break it up as it has been trying to do to other countries in the region, and in keeping with the agenda as outlined in Yinon's plan. We know that Israel has been applying many of the same methods in Iran as is has applied in the other countries it has weakened and destabilized or turned into client states, like funding and supporting terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 09 - 11:55 PM

I posted the wrong link for the piece by Oded Yinon. This one's better...

http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/zionist_plan.html#top

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:22 AM

Hate to get involved in this, but this page sets out an apparently good list of reasons to believe that Mr. A and his superiors have expressed a desire for violence against the people of Israel, and to erase Israel under any government:

Click here

What the bluster ultimately means is uncertain, but it's there.

-----------link fixed. Mudelf-----------------

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:24 AM

The link doesn't work.

-----------link fixed. Mudelf-----------

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:38 AM

I was able to read it using a special Firefox extention that does magic things to non-live links.

That article is being very dishonest. For one thing, they even admit that Ahmadinejad said, "this Jerusalem occupying regime", but they decide that Jerusalem occupying regime means the state of Israel itself and all of its people rather than its actual meaning, which is the regime in Israel (the government). They also allude to the existence of missiles with the saying wipe Israel off the map, but they offer no evidence of it nor the actual words in Iranian pre-translation (assuming such things exist, which we so far have no evidence of). I am inclined to view this particular source as a propaganda source.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 12:39 AM

I should have said in Persian rather than in Iranian. Oops.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:12 AM

"I am inclined to view this particular source as a propaganda source. "



I have to remember this...

If it presents a view not supported by someone, it is propaganda and can be ignored.

If it presents the view supported, it is assumed to be official policy.


Got it now.



"But on May 15, 1948 with the termination of the Mandate, the declaration of the State of Israel, and the British departure, the states of the Arab League (armies from Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, and a token force from Saudi Arabia) invaded the new country with the declared intent of destroying it.

The invasion was hardly surprising. Mufti el-Husseini, one of the worst Nazi collaborators, called for Jihad against Jews in a 1943 broadcast from Radio Berlin during the height of the Holocaust:

Kill the Jews wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah.

Prior to the 1948 war against Israel, the Iraqi Prime Minister said all the Arabs would need would be "a few brooms" to drive the Jews into the sea. All they were waiting for was the British and said, "once we get the green light from the British we can easily throw out the Jews." [Quote from Sir Geoffrey Furlonge, "Palestine Is My Country: The Story of Musa Alami (Praeger Press, 1969)]

On the day that Israel declared its independence (May 15, 1948), Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, at Cairo press conference, (reported in the New York Times, May 16, 1948) declared "jihad", a holy war. He said that the Arab states rejected partition and intended to set up a "United State of Palestine." He then stated:

This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades".
In a letter to the United Nations, the Transjordanian Prime Minister was quoted:

Our position is clear, and has been proclaimed on every occasion. It is never to allow the creation of a Jewish State in Palestine and to exclude partition. And our object is to cooperate with the other Arab States in her deliverance. Once this aim is attained, the determination of her future status is the right and concern of her own people. Theirs alone is the last word. We have no other object or aim in view.

The Muslim view is that Israel is a Naqbah (catastrophe), an affront to their religious faith. As such, Israel must be resisted by all available means and eradicated as soon as possible. This view is the basis for not only the events of 1947-1948, but continues to drive Middle East events to this day.

One result of the Arab attacks on the State of Israel and its Jewish population was the flight of Arabs from their homes in Israel. Even though they were encouraged to stay by the new Israeli government, and those who did remain became citizens, many fled at the urging of their Arab leaders who expected a quick victory over the Jews. "

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: plnelson
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 09:18 AM

Someone said that democracy is an alien concept in the Islamic parts of the world, and they tried to use the commonly repeated (racist) canard that Islam has never experienced an enlightenment as the reason democracy is not compatible with Islam

I gave you specific details about the European Enlightenment for which there are no parallels in the "Islamic Enlightenment". (Primacy of reason over religion, autonomy of the individual) These were radical ideas at the time, and in many parts of the world, including most of the Islamic world, they are still radical. I asked you a specific question ("Who would you regard the David Hume of Islam to be?")

You've offered no response to any of this!

And on that theme- who was the Islamic John Stuart Mill? What is the Islamic Enlightenment's equivalent to Locke's Social Contract theory? Who provides the Islamic Enlightenment's contributions to epistemology, a la Kant?

The whole concept of "consent of the governed" (which democracy is based on) depends on a well-developed philosophy of reason and the idea that reason trumps mere belief a la religion.   This is an idea that western philosophers managed to wrap their heads around centuries ago, and Islam is yet to accept.    If you think this is racist, please provide your facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 04:49 PM

I noticed where that document heric linked us to said "After all, it is hard to wipe a country off the map without destroying its population as well." A comment which doesn't really inspire much confidence, in the light of all the countries which have vanished from the map in the past half century or so...

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 05:12 PM

Hey, ya'll... Let's keep Iran's interest in developing a nuclear weapon in some perspective...

Iran was invaded by it's neighbor... Iraq, right???

The US backed Iraq and provided them weapons and intellegence during that war... Right???

The US later lumped Iran into the "Axis of Evil"... Right???

Now lets just boil this down to human nature... If you provide weapons to folks who have killed my people and now you are say I am this evil entity and I know that you have one shit load of nasty weapons then guess what??? Well, I'll tell you what... It would be irresponsible on Iran's leader's parts if they weren't trying to develope a nuclean weapon... Like yesterday!!!

I think the US should just give them a couple and all this crap would cease tomorrow...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:18 PM

"The US backed Iraq and provided them weapons and intellegence during that war... Right???"

Essentially, wrong.

The weapons Saddam Hussein used against Iran in the 1980s came primarily from the USSR and some from France, China and Germany. Remember, Iraq broke-off all diplomatic relations with the US after we were seen as preventing the destruction of Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

US-made weapons were less than 2% of the total and most were sold to Iraq against US policy (see illegal weapons dealers).

The US was neutral but gave Iraq arial photographs of Iranian excursions into Iraqi terrirtory late in the war. Crossing into Iraqi made Iran the aggressor at that point. We did not really help, just allerted them to the problem.

As far as chemical and biological weapons go, we give them to no country. We gave one or two briefcases with samples so that Iraqi scientists could tell which agents the Iranians were using on the Iraqi troops. What we gave them could not be used to start production of any of the agents.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 06:24 PM

It's as well to remember that it wasn't just a matter of providing help to Saddam in his war against Iran. In July 1988 the USS Vincennes shot down a civilian airbus, Iran Air Flight 655 which was making a scheduled journey, and killed everyone on board, 290 passengers, 66 of them children.

And there wasn't even a gesture of apology such as flying a flag at half-mast the next day, which was 4th July.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Amos
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:17 PM

Stratfor offers an intelligent analysis and concludes that while there was fraud, Ahmedinajad would have carried the day without, and explains carefully why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:26 PM

You missed a few days of school, pdq... The Americans gave Iraq all that stuff that 20 some years later Bush thought they still had... Like lots of chemicals... Where did Saddam get the gas that he used on the Kurds??? From the Iragi/Iran War, that's where... If you recall the Iraqis weren't doing well in that war until the US chipped in weapons and intellegence... To deny that is to deny history... That is the way it went down... I can't believe that anyone would argue differently... Way too much stuff out there to deny the US's role... Way too much!!!

Yo, bb...

I finally got around to me "hard copy" of the Post and reread E.J."s column and I think he hit it on the head... Yeah, there was a time when progressives were the ones who wanted to go off and support every insurgent movement... We older progressives have seen what that has brought US... 56,000 of our brothers and sisters dead in Vietnam... 5,000 in Iraq... Yeah, Obama is trying very hard to change the way we deal with conflict abroad and whereas the ol' progressive in me supports the moderates in Iran, I'm not up for yet another new and shiney war... The shine wears off 'um way to quick and they are real hard to end... So, yeah, patience and handshakes and all that stuff is more apt to help the Iranian insurgents than saber rattling, bluss and blunder... And perhaps yet another war, or act of war (bombing)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

That seems likely enough - and I see that it's in line with official statements saying that there were "irregularities" but that they wouldn't have changed the result.

The face-saving way out for everyone would be the suggestion I made - in the light of such admitted irregularities, and to calm things down, have a second round run-off between the "winner" and the "runner-up". Which would quite likely in fact be won by Ahmedinajad, even with a fair vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:49 PM

Oh, I just remembered those MK-84's that were US built and sold to Saudi Arabia and then the Dod leaned on the Saudis to "share" them with the Iraqis... remember them, pdq... Or do you remember that we had Dod folks in Iraq providing intellegence and actually directing the Iraqi Air Force's daily bombing of Iranian targets???

I mean, lets get real here... The US didn't want Iran to win... They perhaps were willing to accept a draw but they weren't gonna let Iran win that war...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 07:52 PM

I agree, McG.... Time to move along... The minorities in Iran can best be served if we can get some things sorted out with the Iranian governemnt... Supporting folks to get their asses blown up ain't really all the great an idea... Take what we can get...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jun 09 - 11:31 PM

So the poster who was, with her usual flair for the histrionic, waxing eloquent about Israel's intention to destroy Iran--before Iran's current push for nuclear power--has not come up with any evidence to support her imaginative theory. I can't tell you what a shock it is that she has nothing to back up her hot air.

Another idol shattered--we had relied so heavily on her to provide objective, fact-based reporting on controversial topics, rather than the blatantly partisan postings of other commentators. Ah, well.

Of course, if in the future she wants to avoid eating quite so many words, she could always try actually thinking before hitting "send".   Now there's a concept.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 09:58 AM

Except that I did. Someone must have missed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 10:22 AM

That article from the supremacist hate site, Palestine Facts dot org, about Arabs attacking Israel after it declared itself a state is a huge libelous pack of lies. Almost none of the fighting occurred on land that was designated for the Jewish state in the partition plan. Almost all of it occurred on land that was designated for the Palestinians in the partition plan. The reason the Arabs needed to fight in those areas was because the Jews were in the process of trying to take all of the land designated for the Palestinians, and had already taken quite a lot of it in the several months prior to Israel declaring itself a state. It's also a lie that the Palestinians fled as a side effect of Arab attacks on the state of Israel. Several hundred thousand Palestinians had already been expelled from their homes and villages, and forced to flee for their lives (and many had already been massacred) in the several months before Israel declared itself a state, and before Arab armies responded by trying to defend the rest of the land that was given to the Palestinians in the partition plan. This is historical fact, and there is more than ample proof of it.

And if anyone has a problem with Haj Amin al Husseini having been in a position of power in Palestine during the mandate period, they can thank the Zionist, Herbert Samuel, for that. I guess that would make Mr. Samuel a Nazi collaborator.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 10:24 AM

I most certainly have responded to the charge that there are no parallels to the European enlightenment in the Islamic enlightenment. If someone can't be bothered to read my posts, that's their problem, not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:45 PM

This musical video was posted a few minutes ago on a young Iranian's site. I wonder if it names the names of this past week. If I get a translation I will post it.

Folk Song

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:46 PM

Sorry, my comments are incorrect... it had been added last week.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 07:48 PM

I asked about the meaning and was told "we are going to have a beautiful Spring" - lovely song.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 11:42 PM

The poster alleges she did provide evidence that Israel pushed for the destruction of Iran even before Iran's recent push for nuclear power.

Sorry, that's total drivel.   She tried to bury the topic in extraneous postings--one of her favorite tactics, rather than admit she was completely off base.

And of course the reason she did not provide such evidence is fairly straightforward--since it does not exist, except in her wonderfully fertile imagination.

If this is not so, let's have the direct quote:   exactly who in Israel said what, when?   Without copious cut and paste, which only serve to muddy the water--much as she delights in such a waste of bandwidth.   And of course bearing in mind that the person must represent Israel.   Somewhat more than, for instance, David Duke represents the US.

And she need not bother to refer us to some amorphous, endless, and close to meaningless posting she made earlier. Let's try the "Dragnet" school--just the facts, ma'am.

One direct quote will be sufficient.   Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 11:50 PM

Perhaps she thinks the Yinon plan meets her assignment. Nowhere does it advocate the destruction of Iran. Nice try.

If she thinks it does, the exact quote please.

I wonder if this was a favorite tactic of hers--alleging that the answer was buried somewhere in a pile of verbiage-- in flim-flamming teachers.   And how successful she was in this maneuver.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 09 - 11:57 PM

From the poster's own words:   "20 June 2009 12:15 PM:   "Israel was talking about the desirability of the destruction of Iran before the Iranians started their nuclear program".

Not just rivalry between the two nations but "destruction".   That is the assignment--and it's the assignment she set out for herself.   Nobody put those words in her mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:45 AM

Speak truth to power. Speak truth to small powers. There's nothing wrong with speaking the truth. Evasion is weakness.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 01:32 AM

Thank you, LH, I'm not in the mood for a lecture anyway. Otherwise, how are you?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:33 AM

Just heard of (supposedly)confirmed reports that the militia in Iran are hacking protesters up with axes.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:53 AM

Update from an on-site blogger:

"the military plain clothes have entered the crowd with high speed on bikes, they are beating people with cable and batons, almost everyone in the crowd is injured, there is blood everywhere,,,"

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:01 PM

"Vanak, tajrish and enghelab square are in very bad situations, the basij and riot police are paced every 10 feet and they react quickly to any stoppage and arrest right on the spot> Fighting in Vanak Sq, Tajrish sq, Azadi Sq - now>In Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping people like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher>About 10 special forces vans are manoeuvring in Sharak-e-Gharb"

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:03 PM

Charlie, no liberals are actively challenging any election these days. If so, we would all
be in the streets.

There are those in congress (a minority) that reflect a liberal or progressive point-of-view
but they are not being heard on the media with exception of Amy Goodman, Rachel Madow and Keith Olbermann.

The election in Iran is patently corrupt. The people have spoken about this.
At the least, there may be some change although I don't know if it's the kind you can
believe in.

The US needs to stay out of it. We did enough damage with the Shah.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:19 PM

I just hope the institutions of due process in Iran can sort this out, other than having to put credence in a theoretical reconstitution after what, after all, was a hard debated and actual election with real paper ballots and everything. I'm sure the election officials who created the ballots, and the judicial officials to whom these matters are appealled, can review the circumstances and apply the laws of the land.

After all, it worked for US.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:19 PM

CNN just interviewed someone who was at Baharestan Square. She tells of a massacre and a massive assault by policemen. The witness was hysterical and speaking very fast.

    "I was going towards Baharestan with my friend. This was everyone, not just supporters of one candidate or another. All of my friends, they were going to Baharestan to express our opposition to these killings and demanding freedom. The black-clad police stopped everyone. They emptied the buses that were taking people there and let the private cars go on. We went on until Ferdowsi then all of a sudden some 500 people with clubs came out of [undecipherable] mosque and they started beating everyone. They tried to beat everyone on [undecipherable] bridge and throwing them off of the bridge. And everyone also on the sidewalks. They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood and her husband, he fainted. They were beating people like hell. It was a massacre. They were trying to beat people so they would die. they were cursing and saying very bad words to everyone. This was exactly a massacre... I don't know how to describe it."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:32 PM

From The Guardian Live blog:

An account from a medical student inside Iran. I am trying to find out where the medical student is.

    I only want to speak about what I have witnessed. I am a medical student. There was chaos at the trauma section in one of our main
    hospitals. Although by decree, all riot-related injuries were supposed
    to be sent to military hospitals, all other hospitals were filled to
    the rim. Last night, nine people died at our hospital and another 28
    had gunshot wounds. All hospital employees were crying till dawn. They
    (government) removed the dead bodies on back of trucks, before we were
    even able to get their names or other information. What can you even
    say to the people who don't even respect the dead. No one was allowed
    to speak to the wounded or get any information from them. This morning
    the faculty and the students protested by gathering at the lobby of
    the hospital where they were confronted by plain cloths anti-riot
    militia, who in turn closed off the hospital and imprisoned the staff.

    The extent of injuries are so grave, that despite being one of the most staffed emergency rooms, they've asked everyone to stay and help--I'm sure it will even be worst tonight. What can anyone say in face of all these atrocities? What can you say to the family of the 13 year-old boy who
    died from gunshots and whose dead body then disappeared?

    This issue is not about cheating (election) anymore. This is not about stealing votes anymore. The issue is about a vast injustice inflected on the people. They've put a baton in the hand of every 13-14 year old to smash the faces of "the bunches who are less than dirt" (government is calling the people who are uprising dried-up torn and weeds). This is what sickens me from dealing with these issues. And from those who shut their eyes and close their ears and claim the riots are in opposition of the government and presidency!! No! The people's complaint is against the egregious injustices committed against the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 12:47 PM

Doug - I'm doing great, thanks. ;-) Very glad to be in Canada and not in Iran. How about you?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:43 PM

Iran has crossed the threshold. Revolution is imminent.

Remember that the Shah did similar things.

The US has no moral credentials, now, with which to involve itself.

The British did this in India before they were deposed. The echoes of 1968...
"The whole world is watching".

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Peace
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 02:44 PM

"Iran has crossed the threshold. Revolution is imminent."

Unfortunately, so is slaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:05 PM

:( Some captured ringleaders and other activists are on Iranian television recanting their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 03:56 PM

n.b. read up on Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (Ayatollah Mesbah)

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 04:36 PM

Looking for any signs of hope, not because I feel hopeful, but because it's as well to do so - I see that Khamenei has given the "Guardian Council" an extra five days to come up with a ruling on how far the admitted "irregularities" should be taken into account. I can still envisage a run-off election (as opposed to a re-run of the election) as an way out of the corner. (But it may be too late for that...)

And picking out the British as the target for denunciation and expulsions strikes me as possibly being a way of avoiding tangling with the new US administration. Denouncing the monkey rather than the organ-grinder, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 04:51 PM

Salon.com has made available an E Mail from Iran with claims of police (or beseej?) interrogation and torture of a teenager who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:23 PM

Anyone who has ever been nonchalent about freedom, take a good look. This is how it has been achieved for you/us. One head bashed in at a time.

And don't think the only problem is huge WMDs etc.   All it takes is a few people with axes. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:32 PM

Lyrics (for song from link I posted @ 7:45PM June 23rd, '09) were provided on youtube as follows:

Translation:

The winter has come to an end, the spring has blossomed.
The red flower of the sun has risen once again, the night has escaped.
The mountains are covered with tulips, the tulips are awake.
They are planting sunshine in the mountains, flower by flower by flower.

In the mountains, his heart is awake, he is bringing flowers and bread and will defend
In his heart, he has a forest of stars.
His lips wear a smile of light.
His heart is filled with the flames of emotion.
His voice is like a spring.
His memory is like a deer in the forest of light

***********************************************

Another youtube contributor says the song is adapted from an Armenian song... Don't know what else to say about the ongoing killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: DannyC
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 06:44 PM

This must be the Armenian original:

sari siroun yar

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Jun 09 - 11:14 PM

Re: the poster who alleged that Israel, before the recent Iranian push for nuclear power, intended to destroy Iran:   still no evidence.   Not exactly surprising, since there is no such evidence.

Not only is the idea that Israel intended--before the recent push for nuclear power--to destroy Iran 100% pure drivel, but it is pernicious, i.e. anti-Semitic drivel, by implying that Israel is the ultimate warmonger of that area of the world, a belief that though fondly held by some on the Left, is nonetheless a libelous canard.

And I'm not the only one who recognizes this:   another description, as I recall was "beyond hogwash".





Now, having disposed of that absurd allegation regarding Israel, on to the actual topic of the thread:

It's truly amazing how many theories there area about what is likely to happen as a result of the Iranian election.

WSJ today 24 June 20009:   According to the head of the Moslem Brotherhood's political wing in Egypt (of all people):   "The Iranians have failed in their attempts to export the Islamic revolution for the past 30 years, but now maybe they can export their model of peaceful protests.   This would be very dangerous to the Arab regimes."

Again WSJ: The images of "beating and killing unarmed protesters, including women....have punctured the Islamic Republic's carefully constructed image as a champion of the oppressed masses".

A columnist states, without much support as far as I can tell, that since Mr. A's election has been called "divine" by Khameinei, and Mr. A has accused Rafsanjani and his children of corruption, that Rafsanjani and his children would have to leave Iran. But instead, according to the columnist, he is "reportedly trying to recruit a majority of the Assembly of Experts to remove Khameinei or at least force him to order new elections".

This columnist predicts that "even if he remains in office, Ahmadinejad cannot really function as president. For one thing the parliament is unlikely to confirm his ministerial appointments and he cannot govern without them. If Khamenei is not removed by the Assembly of Experts and Ahmadinejad is not removed by Khamenei, the government will continue to be paralyzed."

I think he has his rose-colored glasses on too tight.

In fact, elsewhere in the WSJ it's noted that there is "a concern in Washington that Moscow and Beijing could cite Iran's political instability as reasons not to enforce new economic sanctions on Iran."

No way anybody can predict with any certainty what the outcome will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:51 AM

The Sounds of Silence on Iran


By Mona Eltahawy
Thursday, June 25, 2009

Do you hear the silence from the Arab world over events in Iran?

Let's start with Arab leaders, who are experts at vote rigging -- if they hold elections at all. What could they possibly say about the Iranian election, or the allegations of vote fraud, without sounding hypocritical? Nor would they rush to congratulate longtime nemesis Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the leader of a regional rival with nuclear ambitions.

The Arabs are quiet, but their silence is surely tempered with discomfort. The demographics of most Arab nations mirror those of Iran: The majority of Arabs are young. It's likely that many young Arabs watching thousands of Iranians demanding to be heard, Arabs who are suffocating under dictators of their own, thought, "That's me."

For some, the silence is the sound of despair, for in Iran we are seeing the implosion of the politics of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Let's look at the Arab world's legacy: A succession of Arab leaders were known simply for standing up to America and Israel. It did not matter what they did to their own people, the human rights violations, the mass graves, the stifling of the media and most forms of expression. Standing up to the United States and Israel was enough.

In that sense, Ahmadinejad is a familiar figure. And Saddam Hussein is gone. Libya's Moammar Gaddafi has gone from U.S. foe to friend. The region is full of U.S.-supported dictators, from President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt to the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia.


Standing up to America and Israel fell to non-state entities such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and their money trail leads to Iran. Ahmadinejad is simply the latest leader whom Arabs have lionized and forgiven for cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Little did the repressions visited upon Iranians matter, even though the hardships they endured were often mirrored in Arab cities cheering on Ahmadinejad. Iran supported the Palestinians, and Ahmadinejad regularly railed at the United States and threatened Israel.

But with thousands in Ahmadinejad's own country filling the streets, effectively saying that it's not enough to simply stand up to America and Israel, what now for those Arabs who lionize Ahmadinejad? Especially now that George W. Bush is gone? Where is the sympathy or support for the plight of the Iranians?

Silence.

That silence is the sound of hearts breaking over the dream of political Islam. When the 1979 revolution swept away the U.S.-backed shah and his injustices, Iran held out the tantalizing mirage of rule by Islam, even for countries that were not majority Shiite. Thirty years later, Iranians are protesting not a secular, U.S.-backed dictator but a system run by clerics who claim to uphold democracy as long as its candidates are given the regime's stamp of approval.

What's happening in Iran is not about the United States or Israel. It's not about Ahmadinejad or Mir Hossein Mousavi. It's not even about the poor or the rich in Iran. The demonstrations are about people who feel their will and voice have been disregarded. In Egypt, it's our secular dictator, in power for almost 28 years, who disregards our will. In Iran, it's a clerical regime in power for 30 years, hiding behind God.

Dictatorship by clerics is not more acceptable because its torture and beatings are committed in the name of God.

This must be especially difficult for political Islamic organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, which congratulated Ahmadinejad on his "victory" and yet whose generational disagreements and divisions mirror those in Iran: A young generation of Muslim brothers and sisters has over the past few years challenged the Brotherhood's aging leadership on issues such as prohibiting female and Christian leaders.

That aging leadership gave the young Muslims the very undemocratic choice of shutting up or leaving.

How do we know? The same way we've known about much of Iran's strife -- through blogs and social networking Web sites such as Facebook and Twitter. These days, most of the noise in the Arab world is online.

Online, you will hear bloggers connecting repression in Iran and Arab countries. Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas, known for exposing police brutality on YouTube, was quick to send Twitter alerts that Iran's clerics, like the Mubarak regime, used plainclothes thugs to terrorize demonstrators. Online, you will hear young Arabs express envy over the huge Iranian demonstrations in the face of government crackdowns. Online, Arabs will expose U.S. hypocrisy and ask what happened to U.S. support for peaceful demonstrators when they were beaten and dragged off Cairo streets in 2005 and 2006.

Online, Arabs argue over the politics of cutting off our nose to spite our face, challenging each other to support Iranian democrats despite Ahmadinejad's taunts at America and Israel.


Tired of the Arab world's embarrassing silence over Iran? Go online. Iranian blogs are older and more established than many in the Arab world, but the Web is giving voice to the voiceless and shattering the silence.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 06:53 AM

"Dictatorship by clerics is not more acceptable because its torture and beatings are committed in the name of God. "

My understanding is that there were more killed by the ruling clerics in the first year after the Revoulution than in the entire reign of the Shah.

But I hear a lot of silence on that, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:36 AM

Let's be realistic.   The amazing thing is not that many Moslems are silent on the outrages happening in Iran, but that after 30 years the anti-West (and therefore anti-Israel also) Moslem wall is cracking.   Educated and intelligent Moslems are starting to realize, in large numbers--as the column ( please cite the exact source from now on) just posted points out--that being anti-West and anti-Israel is not the alpha and omega of political consciousness.

It is in fact patently absurd to expect mea culpas from the Moslem world for excesses committed by the Iranian revolution 30 years ago.   After all, consider what happened to courageous statesmen like Sadat when he dared to make peace with Israel. And consider what is now happening in Iran to those who do question just one diktat of the theological state.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:45 AM

Date: Wednesday 24th June 2009

The following email in Farsi we received today (Wednesday 24th june). It is written by a doctor from �Rasul Akram� hospital in Tehran who says that some people were killed not only by one bullet as they found two or three bullets in some bodies, close to one another, showing that shooters used barrage shooting against people and not only a single shot. A 68 year old man had 3 bullets inhis body, two on his left shoulder and one in the left side of his stomach. The doctors of the �Rasul Akram�hospital say they had been faced with 38 people killed during last week�s protests. Apparently, police took the corpse of the dead bodies out from the hospital and carried them away by truck. Most of their families still do not know if their children have been killed. Besides, among the corpse there were some 15, 16 years old kids.

According to the email, the crew of the hospital protested in the street next to the hospital giving out the information about the violence to the people. The photos attached are from this demonstration which appears to have taken place earlier this week.

Regards
-Where s my vote?

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/letter-from-tehran-hospital.html

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:47 AM

I've read that in checking hospitals someone has come up with a figure of 150 people killed in the course of the protests over the election--so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 07:48 AM

No, I don't have a source for this--but if anybody is interested, I can find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 25 Jun 09 - 12:29 PM

Iran's Mousavi defies crackdown

Iran protest leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he holds those behind alleged "rigged" elections responsible for bloodshed during recent protests.

In a defiant statement on his website, he called for future protests to be in a way which would not "create tension."

He complained of "complete" restrictions on his access to people and a crackdown on his media group.

A BBC correspondent in Tehran says the statement is a direct challenge to Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118783.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 10:39 AM

Saeed Valadbaygi "Families are charged 5-14 thousand dollars to receive the bodies of their loved ones.They also need to sign a waver that they won't sue the police or other attackers.In a written undertaking, they need to say Mousavi is the reason & we have no complaints against police."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 10:58 AM

Thanks for that blog bobad, which led me to this list of other recommended blogs:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1028777/Coverage-of-Iran-protests-goes-online

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 11:31 AM

One should think they (Iranians and all others) are getting better at election fraud with time, but they aren't or they just don't care because they don't expect anyone to believe them anyway.

The numbers for Ahmadinejad violate Benford's law just as one can expect if they are made up without the help of a computer and a sound knowledge of the distributions of the digits involved.

Benford's law anomalies in the 2009 Iranian presidential elections

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Jun 09 - 02:27 PM

Iran is a long way away from a nuclear bomb. Israel has one. The question I have is would Israel use it? At this point, Iran is in chaos. They are not about to declare war on anyone.

Stats on how many are killed during different periods of history are unverifiable.
There are for example no reliable stats on how many Iraqis have been killed since the Occupation.

The clerics and the Shah both offered brutal dictatorships. One was an American puppet,
the other a religious fanatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Neil D
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:12 PM

Despite a heavy police presence, hundreds of people on Thursday lit candles at the burial site of Neda Agha Soltan in her memory and in remembrance of all the martyrs.
The Islamic Republic is preventing people from burying their loved ones in the family section of Behesht-e Zahra. It forces them to bury their relatives in a separate field.

From
Revolutionary Road

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 09 - 12:51 PM

charged to receive a body--it's been called a "bullet fee"-- for the bullet used to kill your son or daughter--iand definitely confirmed.   This news was in the WSJ, among other places.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:07 AM

Seems that this subject has been driven off the front pages by Michael Jackson's death!

That must be pretty annoying for the guys at US State Department, I guess, and also for those people protesting government crackdowns and election fraud in Iran, but it's a dramatic demonstration of the ephemeral and basically moronic nature of our mass media, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: bobad
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 08:40 AM

A powerful interview with the doctor who attended to Neda as she lay dying: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8119713.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: pdq
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 03:32 PM

"Seems that this subject has been driven off the front pages by Michael Jackson's death!

... it's a dramatic demonstration of the ephemeral and basically moronic nature of our mass media, isn't it?"

This abuse of the airwaves simply makes it clear how bad our Western news media are.

They are this bad all the time but it takes a special event like this to make the shortcomings obvious.

It is also painfully obvious when a reporter is trying to deal with anything in science.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 04:29 PM

Wolfgang Thanks for that posting about Benford's law. I had heard about that over the radio but I hadn't read it. It does suggest to me that if we believe the old saw:

Figures Don't Lie, but Liars Can Figure

we can only expect future vote rigging to be more sophisticated.

I am thinking that we have witnessed dangerous stupidity, or else, as is very likely, there are a lot of internal facts we are not yet aware of: primarilly, on one level the Iranian officials very stupidly gave themselves away because they simply had not patience for putting up a front of due process: They rushed the election results into the mediasphere before voting was done in all time zones, they put out a patently unbelievable set of voting figures.

But the chief stupidity is: They didn't have to do any of it. Ahmadinejad is not the main power, he is mostly a front for the religious clerics who get to call the real shots in the Iranian system. And most importantly, Moussavei is no gladsome liberal in favor of major reform. He is an experienced Iranian pol with job experience and more than a few bodies behind his resume. What was in Iran's interest was a democratic succession, a display within the country and for all the world that the people had a voice and were behind their government. By their own foolishness they have lost this.

And, Obama's policy of 'less is more' is perfect to these events. He is not drawing attention from the self-exposure of the Iranian government, despite being invited to do so by McCain and some of the leading Republicans, (and Joe Lieberman).

This ain't over.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 28 Jun 09 - 04:39 PM

Yes you did. You read it 20 Jun 09 @ 02:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 07:11 AM

Iran: Desperately Seeking Yeltsin

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 26, 2009

Iran today is a revolution in search of its Yeltsin. Without leadership, demonstrators will take to the street only so many times to face tear gas, batons and bullets. They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable -- the abolition of the old political order.

Right now the Iranian revolution has no leader. As this is written, opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has not appeared in public since June 18. And the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime has shown the requisite efficiency and ruthlessness at suppressing widespread unrest. Its brutality has been deployed intelligently. The key is to atomize the opposition. Start with the most sophisticated methods to block Internet and cellphone traffic, thanks to technology provided by Nokia Siemens Networks. Allow the more massive demonstrations to largely come and go -- avoiding Tiananmen-style wholesale bloodshed -- but disrupt the smaller ones with street-side violence and rooftop snipers, the perfect instrument of terror. Death instant and unseen, the kind that only the most reckless and courageous will brave.

Terror visited by invisible men. From rooftops by day. And by night, swift and sudden raids that pull students out of dormitories, the wounded out of hospitals, for beatings and disappearances.

For all our sentimental belief in the ultimate triumph of those on the "right side of history," nothing is inevitable. This second Iranian revolution is on the defensive, even in retreat. To recover, it needs mass, because every dictatorship fears the moment when it gives the order to the gunmen to shoot at the crowd. If they do (Tiananmen), the regime survives; if they don't (Romania's Ceausescu), the dictators die like dogs. The opposition needs a general strike and major rallies in the major cities -- but this time with someone who stands up and points out the road ahead.

Desperately seeking Yeltsin. Does this revolution have one? Or to put it another way, can Mousavi become Yeltsin?

President Obama's worst misstep during the Iranian upheaval occurred early on when he publicly discounted the policy differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.

True, but that overlooked two extremely important points. First, while Mousavi himself was originally only a few inches to Ahmadinejad's left on the political spectrum -- being hand-picked by the ruling establishment precisely for his ideological reliability -- Mousavi's support was not restricted to those whose views matched his. He would have been the electoral choice of everyone to his left, a massive national constituency -- liberals, liberalizers, secularists, monarchists, radicals and visceral opponents of the entire regime -- that dwarfs those who shared his positions, as originally held.

Moreover, Mousavi's positions have changed, just as he has. He is far different today from the Mousavi who began this electoral campaign.

Revolutions are dynamic, fluid. It is true that two months ago there was little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But that day is long gone. Revolutions outrun their origins. And they transform their leaders.

Mikhail Gorbachev and Yeltsin both began as orthodox party regulars. They subsequently evolved together into reformers. Then came the revolution. Gorbachev could not shake himself from the system. Yeltsin rose up and engineered its destruction.

In the 1980s, Mousavi was Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister, a brutal enforcer of orthodox Islamism. Twenty years later, he started out running for president advocating little more than cosmetic moderation. But then the revolutionary dynamic began: The millions who rallied to his cause -- millions far to his left -- began to radicalize him. The stolen election radicalized him even more. Finally, the bloody suppression of his followers led him to make statements just short of challenging the legitimacy of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the very foundations of the regime. The dynamic continues: The regime is preparing the basis for Mousavi's indictment (for sedition), arrest, even possible execution. The prospect of hanging radicalizes further.

As Mousavi hovers between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between reformer and revolutionary, between figurehead and leader, the revolution hangs in the balance. The regime may neutralize him by arrest or even murder. It may buy him off with offers of safety and a sinecure. He may well prefer to let this cup pass from his lips.

But choose he must, and choose quickly. This is his moment, and it is fading rapidly. Unless Mousavi rises to it, or another rises in his place, Iran's democratic uprising will end not as Russia 1991, but as China 1989.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 01:38 PM

Yeltsin also was a crazy drunk. I just don't think Mousavi has it in him.

Maybe he can do an angry Stalin, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jun 09 - 10:11 PM

Proposal I've seen several places is that the US (and West in general) start an embargo on gasoline against Iran. Iran has lots of oil but very few refineries--vulnerable to such an embargo.

1)   Would that hurt the general population but not the ruling theocracy?

2)   Would it be effective?--obviously Russia, China, and some other non-Western powers would not participate.

3) Would it enable the regime to play the "patriotism" card--close ranks against the evil West?

Thoughts?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 11:43 AM

If you really really really want to hurt the perpetrators of this election nonsense in Iran, how about translating the Magna Carta and the US Constitution into Farsi and making it available. (pauses to think over possibly eliminating that bit where slaves are counted as 3/5ths of a freeman)

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: heric
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 12:23 PM

Which caused me to go read the Magna Carta and now wonder - did they dismantle all weirs throughout England as promised, so that all of the existing ones (no less than six on the River Lee) post-dated 1297 and were therefore acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 01:08 PM

Yeah, you can't let your weirs get out of date!

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jul 09 - 10:23 PM

Any thoughts on the proposed gasoline embargo, especially the factors I've mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jul 09 - 05:43 PM

I think the prospects of 'teaching' Iran anything are as dim as teaching someone who cuts you off in traffic to drive better by giving them the finger.

The Iranians seem to care deeply about Democracy, and I think they are well aware that they have been poorly served by their existing constitution (meaning that in the British sense).

I have no idea what an attempt by the West to withhold gasoline will do to make anything or anyone better.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 12:52 AM

I think it won't help matters one bit for the rest of the world to persecute Iran over this, it will only encourage its government to play the "patriotic defence of Iran against foreign attack" card, and crack down harder on those Iranians who dared protest the election results.

Iran's government would be as little swayed by our criticism of their electoral practices as we would be by their criticism of our political practices. Not at all, in other words.

They don't give a damn what we think about their system. We don't give a damn what they think about our system either, so why expect it to be any different when it's going in the opposite direction?

It is the Iranians themselves who must initiate change in Iran, and in time they will. They have before. They will again.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:15 AM

Problem is that there is a time element here. If nothing is done about Iran's getting a nuclear weapon, it's likely that Israel will attack Iran--and as you know, that would start a horrendous conflagration in that part of the world.

Having said that, I do recognize, as I've already noted, that any overt campaign against Iran will give the regime the excuse to play the "patriotism" card. I gather then from the comments that you feel the risk of this--and the resulting ability of Mr. A etc. to claim his opposition are traitors-- outweigh the risks of an attack by Israel.

My gut feeling is that we should try to find out what Mousavi and the rest of Mr. A's opposition would like the West to do--and be guided by that.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:32 AM

Some of the arrested (local) Brit embassy staff are to be put on trial.
They are said to have made confessions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8132397.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Jul 09 - 07:04 PM

NPR had some in depth interviews with reporters and people from the region. Mousavi is lower key but has not given up or withheld comment. Specifically he attacked the legitimacy of the election.

The folks being interviewed have mentioned talk of a national strike.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Jul 09 - 05:11 PM

Rafsanjani called for national unity and relaxation of the government imprisonment of protestors and sequestration of reporters. Mousavi has appeared in public and street protests have returned to Tehran.

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Jul 09 - 09:16 AM

"Ahmadinejad's vice president choice rejected
      

Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 20 mins ago

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran's supreme leader ordered the president, a close ally, to dismiss his controversial choice of a top deputy for making pro-Israeli remarks, the semiofficial media reported Wednesday. The move marked a rare split among the country's top conservatives.

The order is a humiliating setback for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has strongly defended his decision to appoint Esfandiar Rahim Mashai, his son's father-in-law, as his first vice president.

Mashai angered hard-liners in 2008 when he said Iranians were "friends of all people in the world — even Israelis." Mashai was serving as vice president in charge of tourism and cultural heritage at the time. Iran has 12 vice presidents, but the first vice president is the most important because he leads Cabinet meetings in the absence of the president.

Ahmadinejad is already in a crisis over opposition claims he stole last month's presidential election from the pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei strongly backed Ahmadinejad, who is seen as his protege, in that dispute.

"The view of the exalted leader on the removal of Mashai from the post of vice president has been notified to Ahmadinejad in writing," the semiofficial Fars news agency reported Wednesday."

Subject: RE: BS: Election in Iran
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Aug 09 - 08:53 AM

from the Washington Post:

"The Spectacle in Tehran

Show trials in the Stalinist tradition for those who would challenge the regime's legitimacy

BORROWING A PAGE from Stalin's Russia, Iran's increasingly wobbly regime has embarked on a contemptible spectacle of show trials as a means of punishing opponents who dared question the disputed June 12 elections. The idea is not only to humiliate the more than 100 figures -- including prominent former politicians and high-ranking government officials -- who were herded into court Saturday on trumped-up accusations of threatening national security, a charge that potentially carries the death sentence. It is also to send a chilling message to others who would challenge the regime's already shaky authority. As the chief prosecutor warned, anyone who questions the legitimacy of the trials may be arrested.

Like the Moscow show trials of the 1930s, the mullahs' sham display of "justice" in Tehran over the weekend featured disoriented-looking defendants using stilted language to "confess" to seeking to destabilize the regime at the behest of Western powers. As in the Moscow show trials, incredulous colleagues, relatives and allies of the accused have watched, stunned, as people they know well have made public pronouncements in words that are clearly not their own. And as in the Moscow show trials, no one is immune: Among those accused in the rambling, manifesto-like indictment is Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, a reformist former vice president; Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel laureate; and Maziar Bahari, a Newsweek journalist who, brought out to speak to reporters covering the trial, asked forgiveness from the Iranian people for what he described as the media's supposed role in promoting a "velvet revolution."

The "confessions," almost certainly produced under duress, are meant to frighten the community of Iranian reformers, up to and including top-ranking figures such as former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, as well as Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate whose official defeat at the polls in June triggered street protests that left at least 20 dead.


Having miscalculated the mood of at least a segment of the public by prematurely pronouncing seemingly lopsided electoral results in June, the regime now may compound its error by moving directly against those opposition leaders. The fundamentalist media loyal to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is calling for their prosecution on charges of treason; a defiant Khatami, for his part, is publicly condemning the trials as a "show."

The trials have reinforced the image of a regime whose extremely modest tolerance for public dissent has shriveled as its own grip on power has weakened. Opposition protests continue in the streets of Tehran despite a crackdown by hard-line militias loyal to the regime. Public spats are reported between Mr. Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president who was sworn in Monday. These are dangerous days in Tehran, which only underscores the dilemma the Obama administration faces as it clings to a strategy of engaging Iran to contain its nuclear ambitions: Who is there to talk to? "