BS: Election in Iran

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 01:09 PM

Thru China Link

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:11 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: 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: 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: 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: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 10:40 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: DannyC
Date: 20 Jun 09 - 08:41 AM

Real Time:

http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/

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: 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: 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 - 12:07 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: 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: DannyC
Date: 19 Jun 09 - 09:57 PM

Murmurs ran along the valley

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:23 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: 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.