Here’s an Iran election open thread so that wbb has somewhere to put his searing analysis.
Here’s the wiki entry where early results give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a handy lead.
Yesterday the ABC had segments on The World Today and PM.
Here’s another recent report.
Here’s the latest from the BBC, with links to other stories.
Here’s a view from Berlin reminding us that the election is at best for the second most powerful position in Iran.
Without dipping into the links provided, I am apprehensive at the prospect of violence resulting from this vote and the respective claims of the two leaders. I hope I’m wrong as I believe the west has been quite disparaging of Iran’s attempts at democratic government.
Difficult to have a well informed opinion when my main sources of info are MSM who are not known for their detailed, in-depth and unbiased coverage of Iran. However I think the recent media speculation that there maybe a change in president was misleading as Ahmadinejad is well supported by a vast rural and conservative populus. The interesting part of the reporting was a reflection of the dissatisfaction of the urban youth who will be an increasing part of Iranian demographic. The impression I got is that they are unhappy with life in a state which seems to have theocratic totalitarian tendencies. As this demographic increases, which I believe to be the trend, there is likely to be quite some friction in Iran, if history is any indicator it may be unable to be resolved amicably.
I’ve got no feel for the place really but heard quite a bit of commentary on the BBC. The economic situation (crook) and isolation in international affairs were cited as real issues as well as dissatisfaction with an oppressive regime. The ABC reporter said that you couldn’t get anyone to say what they thought into a microphone for fear of being put in the slammer and worse, but in the last week of the campaign people were starting to get a bit braver.
There was also said to be a very vibrant and extensive blogosphere.
Getting 66% of the vote (when it was expected to me quite tight) makes me very suspicious of vote rigging on a grand scale.
I have found it interesting to see western media reporting from inside Tehran in the past week. The ABC have a guy there and so does The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I’m not sure if this is just being done while the elections are on as part of media management by the Iranian government or western media deciding that this is the only time when it is worth sending someone into Iran. My guess would be the former.
There was also some interesting footage from the ABC reporter, he had a shot of a a guy dancing with a crowd and a boom box. They were very rapidly shut down by secret police types coming in to break it all up. The same reporter has also had shots of vibrant rallies for the non-dinner jacket candidate. It’s hard to know just what life is usually like but the footage in the city looks like any other city in the world, busy streets, big buildings and lots of people. I can’t help but think Iran doesn’t deserve being equated with countries like N Korea.
There’s nothing wrong with suspicion. But it is only the first step.
Is there any greater reason to be suspicious of the “official” results than the patently self-serving prognostications of all parties and of the poll predictions of the anti-Ahmadinejad western media?
For example, how does the Iranian electoral system stack up against Florida’s?
Just askin’.
This is were these suspicions were first sparked
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904314,00.html
But yes in democracies people can still vote for total asses, I remember that famous page-one in the Independent the day after Bush won the 2004 election.
I heard first about concern for the 14,000 mobile electoral voting facilities where there wouldn’t be any monitoring and where, according to SH’s link, a third of the votes would be cast.
That same link says that other candidates were allowed one person each to monitor each polling station. Last night on the BBC I heard complaints that such access was denied.
Ahmadinejad ’set for Iran victory’
@Katz
I find myself begrudgingly agreeing with you from my position of enormous ignorance. Given the total inadequacy of the MSM’s reporting of the election (almost no mention that the economic situation is a major issue), I would be quite happy to question the expectation of said media that the result would be quite tight.
Of course if someone well informed can tell us more, thenI would be very happy to stand corrected.
I had to admire the spin that the bunch of notorious lefties at Our ABC gave the story tonight. In essence it was:
- Mousavi claimed victory (about 20 minutes after the polls closed and before any official figures were available);
- Mousavi reckons he was robbed;
- There’s no way of finding out the truth because we superior Westerners aren’t allowed to send observers to make sure the Persians know what they’re doing;
- Draw your own conclusions.
The non-story was a neat juxtaposition to another item about North Korea being pissed off because they want to do what countries like USA and Russia and France and Israel did 50 years ago and develop nuclear weapons … which makes them utter bastards now of course and subject to sanctions … which the US representative cheerfully concedes will just encourage North Korea to be even more antagonistic to Teh West.
This is known as rational diplomacy, AKA feeling good about being macho, in preference to achieving anything that actually, like, does you any good. In negotiation classes we call it concentrating on positions instead of interests.
One day they will make a documentary about our era called ‘When children ruled the earth’.
“the election is at best for the second most powerful position in Iran.”
More like 18th most powerful. But the central thrust of the argument is important – when wing-nuts start raving about how “Iran is run by a psychopath” who wants to “wipe Israel off the map”, feel free to ask them to name the key decision makers in Iran, and when they start with Ahmadinejad, go straight for derisive laughter.
Notice Mousavi’s followers’ embrace of matching shades of “Color Revolution” green?
I came across this, a telephone opinion poll conducted in Iran by 2 US organizations about a month ago re intentions of voters in the election.
I didn’t read all of it but this little factoid stuck out:
Ahmadinejad 34%
Mousavi 14%
The rest nowhere.
http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2009/poll_shows_ahmadinejad_leading_irans_presidential_election_voice_america
Looks like that poll got it right, h’s dad.
My guess is that if Mousavi was allowed to run by the country’s rulers than he would have been allowed to win if that’s they way Iranians had voted.
(sorry, Brian!)
No probs, wbb. We’re here to serve (sometimes!)
“One day they will make a documentary about our era called ‘When children ruled the earth’.”
.
Oh the searing wit… I must add – ‘When children ruled the earth and grumpy old nobodies bored everyone unfortunate enough to read an obscure blog.’.
.
KL, just take cold showers and hit yourself on the back over and over with a bunch of sticks and you’ll be better than you can imagine.
Just wondering whether the violence being reported is maybe an expression of the “$75 million budgets [as per U.S. funding to destabilize the Iranian regime].”?
Seems a not unlikely proposition to me, given the “proud” record of the US in spreading democracy in the ME.
As against North Korea, exemplar of rational diplomacy, Ken?
Tell us about your ideas about what the United States, the United Nations, or anyone else for that matter, might do with North Korea (which they haven’t already tried and found to fail) which might achieve anything that actually, like, does any good.
Perhaps nice Mr Chamberlain can be your inspiration. That worked out so well in 1938, didn’t it?
Let your lodestar be (as it is) that moral agency lies only with the US, and South Korea, and Japan, and China and Russia, five parts of the Six Party talks, all supporting the latest UNSC resolution, and not in any way at all upon the sixth part, North Korea.
We await your insights.But don’t rush it. Take your time.
Petrosaur, if anyone began just wondering if the 2004 tsunami may have been an exppession of the millions of dollars that the United States spends on earthquake research and prevention they’d be thought stupid – except by you, of course. You’d probably think that they had a deep insight.
Would you like to go and find some evidence for your speculation, or would you just like to be considered as someone whose intelligence is judged by his willingness to take cheap unsupported shots at his convenient bete noire?
Iran’s govt elects a new people.
GregM – abusive and ignorant as always
“Would you like to go and find some evidence for your speculation, ”
Evidence for a speculation ? Pretty hard ask , I reckon,
but to comfort your small mind, this might help you a bit National Iranian American Council.
Which was the source of my quote – but then again I suppose like many of the intellectually impaired, you are indulging in a bit of projection of your own methods on to me.
Why is it necessary to ‘do anything’ with North Korea, GregM? I mean apart from the awful sin of not doing what they are told by their betters, and stubbornly insisting on being communists, just what behaviour have they engaged in that makes it necessary for somebody to do something?
Well, Ken, over time quite a bit. Like blowing up a fair proportion of the South Korean Cabinet in Burma and killing the South Korean President’s wife while trying to assassinate him, not to mention blowing airliners out of the sky and abducting the nationals of its neighbours and so on. That would tend to make the neighbours just a little bit nervous, don’t you think?
Gosh GregM lots of people get nervous about all kinds of things I guess without feeling the need to do anything about it. But it seems it’s only the loonie bedwetting right who live in such a state of permanent fear and trembling they spend their lives screeching for wars and sanctions and campaigns of shock n awe.
Have a nice Sunday.
Ken, it’s not me that’s screeching for wars and sanctions and so on. The latest round of sanctions were unanimously agreed by the UNSC. That includes China and Russia so I guess they’re part of your loonie bedwetting right along, of course, with the administration of Barack Obama which proposed the resolution for the sanctions.
Ken – I mean apart from the awful sin of not doing what they are told by their betters, and stubbornly insisting on being communists, just what behaviour have they engaged in that makes it necessary for somebody to do something?
.
I’m not sure if anyone can or even should ‘do something’. But NK is more than a racalcitrant polity.
.
I’ve read a little bit on NK; some based on scholarly work on the place that’s of course limited in scope. Two stories come to mind. One, gleaned from defectors, is that in NK’s regional areas beggars will habitually board trains and beg for a spoonfull of soup. There are people at train stations it is whose job is to clear away the bodies!
.
The second is from an American academic, of Korean descent, who was strolling along the Taedong river temporarily at a distance from her mandatory two minders. She stopped and started talking to a high-school girl. The girl was nervous the whole time and kept looking around to see if they were being watched. After a few minutes the academic decided that she was making the schoolgirl uncomfortable and moved on. The conversation had been totally innocuous. A little farther up the river she looked back and saw two dudes in the obligatory uniform questioning the girl!
.
That’s North Korea. It makes life in Soviet Russia look like fun.
.
I don’t know whether we should ‘do something’ that is go to war. We might have to sometime. The geopolitical reasons for the concern have nothing to do with the above and everything to do with the fact hat the government seems bent on using nukes to blackmail the world.
.
It’s seriously fubar in NK. One thing I’d agree with Neocons about is of the desirability for the nations of the world to become democratic. Of course where I disagree is that I know the Neocons to be on the other side of that battle.
But it seems it’s only the loonie bedwetting right who live in such a state of permanent fear and trembling they spend their lives screeching for wars and sanctions and campaigns of shock n awe.
.
Totally agree.
.
The problem in a democracy is the media must please the people. It will therefore indulge the people’s base desires if that is what is desired. And this can be manipulated by, say, a cluster of technocrats connected with a certain commerical lobby and eager to use state policy to enrich that lobby.
.
I wonder who that could be.
.
It can also be used to perpetuate a fool’s paradise. The Western media had everyone believing that Hitler could be appeased right up ’til the moment of truth.
.
On North Korea you may wish to have a look at this. It’s by an animator who spent a few months in Pyongyang. Nothing horrible happens. But it’s still a trip.
Juan Cole on Iran’s stolen elections
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html
Also earlier polling had Mousavi/Ahmadinejad neck and neck, I’ll see if I can find Anthony Bubalo’s address to the Lowy Institute but he thought the election would probably go to a run-off (that is Admadjinejad wouldn’t get 50% of the vote)
I found Bubalo’s address in MP3 format here:
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1058
A particularly tragic case of Godwin’s Law (by proxy).
Adrien I agree completely that North Korea appears to be an appalling society run by psychopaths. However I also recall that we were encouraged to believe that about the USSR when I was a boy and it turns out not to have been quite like that … and we didn’t really understand how bad places like Cambodia under Pol Pot were until after the event. So our perceptions are undoubtedly coloured by deliberate propaganda and I don’t think much of it is coming from Kim Jong Il.
Nevertheless that’s all a bit beside the point, except for zealots who think we have some kind of mission to sort out other countries by force to conform with our own values. As you say the point is whether their awfulness requires or legitimises ‘doing something’, if they pose no direct, substantial threat to us. GregM’s best effort at justifying action was to refer to things that happened 26 years ago; waiting 26 years to react to a bombing in Burma seems a bit extreme even to someone who believes revenge is a dish best served cold.
If anyone should have a motive to want someone to do something it should surely be the South Koreans. My impression is that they have been reluctant to support the yanks’ bellicosity, preferring perhaps to recognise that the eventual SOLUTION to the situation is a reunification of Korea and this is made more difficult by a bunch of other countries wanting to make one side the Epitome of Evil while the other is a proxy for Freedom and Democracy.
“… zealots who think we have some kind of mission to sort out other countries by force to conform with our own values.”
Force? Who’s talking about force? No one’s about to invade the DPRK, Ken.
What will happen is a range of sanctions and inspection measures — voted for unanimously by the UN Security Council, including Russia, China, Vietnam and even Libya — to try to get the DPRK to return to the NPT and give up nukes.
The entire world, including the remaining communist and socialist bits, agrees that North Korea should do this. Why do you have a problem with it?
‘Force? Who’s talking about force? No one’s about to invade the DPRK, Ken.’
The standard of argument on the intertubes continues its downward spiral. As if invasion was the only conceivable interpretation of using force.
I suppose Paulus you regard using warships to board vessels headed for North Korea as an act of peace and benevolence?
No, I regard it as a legal non-proliferation measure, reflecting the express will of the global community that this country disarm.
The warships that stop and board DPRK vessels, in order to inspect them, will not harm anyone and will not use force against those ships — unless the DPRK ships themselves start firing. (In which case, it’s their funeral.)
The forceful boarding option will never happen.
This UN resolution is a bunch of self-gratifying frottage.
Ken, when you were a boy Stalin was still alive and in power so the USSR was an appalling place being run by a psychopath. Khruschev said as much in his “secret” speech to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956.
Yes we did, Ken, if we cared to look and didn’t want to delude ourselves. Francois Ponchaud’s book, Cambodia: Year Zero was published in 1978, before the Vietnamese overthrew the Khmers Rouge. But probably you would have dismissed that as deliberate propaganda against nice misunderstood Mr Pol Pot.
You just have to look, Ken. The Pong Su case in 2003 (goodness that’s all of six years ago) might give you a clue that North Korea runs an unorthodox foreign trade policy as well as an unorthodox foreign policy.
Well there goes the collective security that the United Nations was meant to underwrite.
You hope.
I don’t hope. I expect.
Why do you say that, Katz? There is historical precedent for stopping and searching DPRK ships — it happened in 2002.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72685,00.html
I don’t think the US, ROK and Japan, which have all signalled that they would consider searching DPRK ships in line with this resolution, would want to seem weak by threatening something and then failing to carry through. It would be giving the North a crystal clear signal that no threat needs to be taken seriously.
‘No, I regard it as a legal non-proliferation measure, reflecting the express will of the global community that this country disarm.’
Oh I see, ‘legal measure’ and ‘force’ are mutually exclusive are they? Remarkable.
Just as an exercise in idle argumentation, can you propose any MORAL basis upon which ‘the global community’ (for the purposes of the argument let’s overlook the absurdity of such a conception) can demand that a sovereign nation disarm so that it is helpless to defend itself against those who have already stated their hostility towards it?
Moral arguments, I mean, not rationalisations based on opportunism or legalism.
In 2002 the DPRK didn’t have nukes.
Ken, the morality resides in the agreement which the DPRK voluntarily signed — the NPT — and then unilaterally walked away from when it was convenient for them. The world, and particularly its regional neighbours, do not want them to do so.
In other words, if you sign a contract and then break it, you may be held by the other party — as a matter of morality as much as legality — to the terms of the contract.
Perhaps you are a sort of international libertarian, Ken, who believes that any nation can do whatever it feels like at all times? You must really be a firm supporter of George W, who famously declared that there is no such thing as international law.
And by the way, Ken, what do you have against the UN? It may have many flaws in the way it is currently instituted, but do you not believe the UN represents the international community of nations? Do you believe that any country can just choose to ignore UNSC resolutions?
Ken, the ‘global community’ isn’t asking North Korea to disarm so that it helpless to defend itself. It will still have its million member army and its thousands of artillery pieces, many within easy range of Seoul, and its navy and airforce.
North Korea is essentially being asked to give up it’s nukes by countries that have no intention of giving up theirs. There is no way of dressing it up as otherwise.
This result is hard to interpret. At some stage Obama and the rest of the West are going to have to take firm positions on the escalating imperial ambitions of the Sunni Arab vs. Persian Shia.
Obama’s stated and globally understood readiness to talk to Iran could have been far more influential in how this Sunni Arab vs. Persian Shia conflicts evolves. The US role is especially vital given that one of the consequences of the unexpected success of The Surge has been the gravitation of Iraqi Shia towards a national Iraqi identity and away from a sectarian Shia identity.
This reelection of Admadjinejad really frustrates the possibility of clean slate diplomacy.
19 – 45 (with a couple of outliers): WTF? I thought this was about Persia.
Well derailed!
The ability to incinerate Seoul is not a bargaining chip that a psychopathic regime of a starving state is likely to relinquish in the current situation.
WTF? I thought this was about Persia… Well derailed!
.
As NK is part of the famed axis of evil perhaps the tangent is relevant. Brian may disagree. Thus far he doesn’t appear to’ve made a fuss.
.
One thing that might be useful is to compare and contrast these ‘evil’ regimes. In Iran most of the people were born after he overthrow of the Shah and the subsequent imposition of the Jihadists with the inevitable results of authoritarian theocracy.
.
But there are signs of a counter-culture against this. The films in Iraq have the devastating urgency of Italian Neo-Realism. In North Korea no such apparent counter culture appears to be in evidence. And, as far as we know, such a thing would be impossible.
.
I expect a reckoning in both countries in the near future. In NK the reckoning will be between an upstart member of the elite and the Kim dynasty. In ran between the traditionalists and the modernists, that is those who desire secular liberalism. Which way it’ll go I cannot say.
.
If it comes to that should we take action? And, if so, what?
Ken – North Korea appears to be an appalling society run by psychopaths. However I also recall that we were encouraged to believe that about the USSR when I was a boy and it turns out not to have been quite like that
.
Well it was like that from 1933 to 1953. After that it was just a society run by people like Adolf Eichmann. Not psychopathic, just boring, unimaginative buffoons who care not the morality of what’s going on just so long as all the appropriate forms have been filled in correctly and the rubber stamps are up to date.
.
… and we didn’t really understand how bad places like Cambodia under Pol Pot were until after the event.
.
Well as Greg said we could if we wanted to. But after being lied to about Vietnam I’d wager that we were wary of the truth of Cambodia. An analogy that could be drawn perhaps between NK and Iraq? Greg might’ve mentioned the documentary Cambodia: Year Zero. Often people don’t because John Pilger is a Trot and that’s outré in the industry that manufactures consent.
.
So our perceptions are undoubtedly coloured by deliberate propaganda and I don’t think much of it is coming from Kim Jong Il.
.
Which is why I really on primary sources and scholarship for my information. Doubtless these views are also skewed by political demarcations of acceptable discourse and the illusion that one’s own value system is objectively correct. Still it’s not out and out propaganda. It must needs be tempered with actual data.
.
except for zealots who think we have some kind of mission to sort out other countries by force to conform with our own values.
.
Indeed except for the zealots. We should remind ourselves here that Bill Clinton was arguably as much of a zealot as George W Bush. He sent the US army more places in a shorter time than any president. The mission to free the world (to civilize it as the Brits and Romans said) is a cover-story for imperium. However it also bears long-term historical fruit.
.
That said I don’t believe you can actually impose democracy on people. They need to struggle for it, at least a little. It’s part of the ethos. You mentioned Burma. Burma basts apart the moral claims of Neocons and the like. If we were really concerned about freedom we would’ve invaded Burma. They have a tinpot isolated military elite. A democratically elected leader who is demonstrably wise, moderate, liberal and widely supported.
.
But our corporations have no dramas gettin’ access to Burma’s resources so forget it.
If anyone should have a motive to want someone to do something it should surely be the South Koreans.
.
I’m afraid I disagree with isolationism in principle and pragmatically as well. That is what this statement amounts to. Doubtless when a regional conflict obtains most of the time the region should deal with it.
.
But here’s the rub: we are part of the region.
.
One of the unspoken and unaddressed phenomena of contemporary geopolitics is the rise of an Australiasian NATO type alliance. The United States encourages this as a bulwark against any conflict with China. Japan supports this for its own survival. And South Korea supports it for the same reason but also because it is still suspicious of Japan, it is weary and suspicious of the US, it appreciates the rise of China but doesn’t wanted to be relegated to its traditional little brother status.
.
Solution: An alliance of middle powers, Makes sense to me. When such an alliance crystalizes NK will be our problem as well. But the truth is it already is.
.
Interestingly enough the Asian press is also proceeding much further than ours currently viz the desirability of an Asia-Pacific Community like the EC. Kevvie’s visions are, it seems, more interesting to Indonesians then they are to us. It’s best to be quite about it tho’. We don’t want people to actually know that Australia is becoming a significant military power now do we.
Blimey, what a windbag.
Or even a bad editor would be better than nothing. Try The Australian.
Sorry FB.
.
But I think geopolitics is important and don’t often get much opportunity to discuss it. I broke up the commentary because of the protocols. Maybe what I’ve written above is hot air. Sorry. But I do try my best.
Adrian – I am a good editor. There is substance in #49-51. Do you agree, disagree or just hate me?
Adrien, it went too far the other day when I was out, so I just thought, bugger it, and pretended I didn’t notice.
Just out of curiosity I copied your comments 49-51 into Word to do a word count. You’ve got 867 words there. Most of our posts are shorter than that. The relevant bit of the comments policy is:
So maybe you should think about reviving your own blog. I think reader resistance should not surprise.
Anyhow, I’ll leave you to meditate upon that, and if people want to continue to talk about N Korea, so be it, but I’d welcome another comment or two about Iran. I’m still hearing new commentary on the airwaves.
Brian – That’s a little under 300 words a post. I’m not trying to break up the discourse and I do have something to say. And I’m only logged on for a little while at a time. So I leave it there for those who wish to respond.
.
Altho’ I think I should’ve left out #51 which goes too far off the rails. Sorry. Would like to see a post on those issues somewhere sometime.
.
No more from me today okay?
Sorry Adrien, I was more having a go at a certain News Ltd editor, rather than you, but I’m not sure it came out that way. Of course I don’t hate you – I don’t even know you!
According to BBC News despite rorting it looks like the game of chicken is one between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi’s supporters. The protests have not subsided and so far the police have been cautious, Mousavi though has warned his supporters that he can’t guarantee the safety of his supporters (he has been told that the police might use “live rounds” if there are any “unathorised” marches). Yet if you see this BBC report, there seems to the sort of open dissent in Iran that I would have thought impossible, its either crazy-brave or it could indicate a tipping point in which the people no longer recognise the legitimacy of the old authorities. Even the journo was shocked when a young Iranian following his car and staring into the camera declared “down with Khomeini” (not just down with Ahmadinejad). Apparently from the rooftops last night all the supporters were yelling “down with the dictatorship”. The farce of an election would seem to suggest the impregnable power of the clerics is on the wane, whether it will be enough to bring down the whole house of cards (or offer some riggle-room in the way of liberalisation) we’ll have to see. Also I think it was Afshin Molavi on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS in a panel discussion who suggested there is also a bit split in the clerics – between the hard-liners and the conservative-pragmatists that is going to impact on Ahmadinejad.
The worry is that Ahmadinejad’s power resides in the militias.
I just saw some live footage of a public gathering
To repeat questions I often get asked, are references and direct quotes part of the word count? What about headings?
There’s nothing worth saying about Iran given nobody has a clue WTF is happening. I second Adrien’s point that since North Korea is part of the same axis of evil we might as well talk about it instead.
‘… unimaginative buffoons who care not the morality of what’s going on just so long as all the appropriate forms have been filled in correctly and the rubber stamps are up to date.’ Surely that could describe many governments in many different countries (and contrary to GregM’s provocative assertion, I was not a boy capable of understanding anything about the USSR during Stalin’s lifetime). Actually it’s a pretty good description of a lot of Australian government agencies over the decades.
BTW I don’t understand why privileging the opinions of the other half of the Korean nation is a statement of isolationism. It’s asserting that if the party most directly affected wants to pursue a certain policy, the onus is on others to establish that the policy is mistaken.
Correction, the repellant Michael Ledeen knows what’s going on in Iran.
‘Rumors that Venezuelan security personnel are also participating, although this is unconfirmed.’
I bet there are North Koreans there too if they look closely.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmY3ODMwMzIyNThhOGJmZDAzNDc3OWE5MGY0YjVkNzY=
A bad day for a theocrat is a good day for the world.
Ken L, the word count did include the quotes.
Adrien, I’m not saying you shouldn’t post, mainly suggesting you should think about reviving your own blog.
VP Joe Biden says the US is ready to engage, as before, but no nukes and no supporting terror, as before.
Amin Saikal thinks the Iran will have to engage with the US and the West, and the Ayatollah has basically given the nod.
It seems to me that given the shut-out of observers there is little doubt that the vote was fiddled to some extent and everyone knows it. But Ahmadinejad and presumably the Ayatollah would know how much the election was fiddled. Saikal reckons:
If you are going to fix an election you need a lot of planning to make it credible. In tonight’s PM report the suggestion is that the results came out before a physical count was possible. So maybe there never was one. And the margin, two to one between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, was uniform irrespective of demographics.
Also the protests are going into the third day and see, to be getting more organised. So we wait to see how it all works out.
Look at how the liberal democracies behave when they feel threatened, a la 11/9. How would you expect authoritarian states to act in the same situation?
From memory, authoritarian regimes throughout history respond well to internal pressures for liberalisation once they no longer feel threatened by extrenal factors.
Though not true in every case, of course, it’s worth considering that threatening more will only make it worse – both in Iran and North Korea.
Ken Lovell @61,
Venezuelans – That soiunds like something GWB or Dick Cheney would dream up. More likely the CIA I’d say. As you say repellent RWDB garbage.
Back on Iran.
.
Looks like it’s seriously fubar.
“If we were really concerned about freedom we would’ve invaded Burma. They have a tinpot isolated military elite.”
Only if you ignore China. They would not take kindly to such action.
They would not take kindly to such action.
.
Good point.
.
Amd further on the digression, please forgive me, there’s a thorny situation developing in ASEAN in which the line between non-democracies and democracies is being embossed. Gulp!
Question: What’s the biggest difference between the Iranian presidential election and the Australian federal election following the sacking of Whitlam in 1975?
Answer: A reputable and independent electoral commission and opinion polling.
Election rally crowds for Gough were huge and suggesting an upset. It didn’t happen. Kerr might have been our Khameni but at least we knew the AEC were incorruptible. We might have even had mobile voting booths then too.
From an Iranian Blogger Saeed Valadbaygi:
Lots of pictures. Mr Valadbaygi is an engineer and a goddam Commie. I must say he’s both very artsy and sexy considering.
A reputable and independent electoral commission and opinion polling.
.
And a culture that supports it. In fact the job of scrutineers is not to scrutineer but to provide data for the analysts.
.
We should be proud of our electoral innovations and political culture. It really isn’t bad y’know.
And try this at home. Cyberwar For Beginners. As said in the link the Iranian authorities are monitoring the traffic. So people are cagey. Just think it could happen here.
.
Thank you Senator Conroy.
pablo,
I can’t remember the exact figures, but at the time (Nov 1975) a friend in Melbourne pointed out the arithmetic. “How many people were at Gough’s rally? 40,000? And how many electors are there in Melbourne? 2 million? Well the rally crowd is 40/2000 = 2% then. You can’t win a Federal election with a 2% swing on the current figures. Take a cold shower!”
Hard to estimate the crowd in Teheran. A 9km long group? How many abreast? What spacing between rows? Hundreds of thousands? The Ayatollah Khomeini (from exile)commanded millions.
Just wait for the funerals and see how they are handled. That was the end of the Shah. Every time there was a killing there was a funeral with a crowd and from it more killings then more funerals and more crowds. And so it went until the Shah went.
A 9km long group? How many abreast? What spacing between rows? Hundreds of thousands? The Ayatollah Khomeini (from exile)commanded millions.
.
If the current protest is hard to count how can you be sure about the Jihadists’ support.
.
9 klicks. That’s a lot of people. I’m gonna see if I can find places to send support etc.
Yes GregM, I remember those long months as the numbers steadily grew and grew: a slow drumbeat (not the sudden outbreak of Gdansk).
And I recall reading an interview with the Shah, where he predicted a Black Dictatorship of the theocrats, if he were to be removed. Plenty to criticise in his secular rule, but he got that about right.
From Ben Knight, the ABC’s man in Tehran:
Fisk on Radio National this morning opined (on what basis I don’t know) that Ahmadinejad won the election by a narrow margin. However, according to Fisk, Ahmadinejad’s forces wanted to humiliate the opposition by padding the winning margin.
If Fisk is correct, then Ahmadinejad’s primitive understanding of the volatile dynamics of his own country could prove to be fatal.
Adrien, belated thanks for the link. And while I’ve seen you commenting for a while and you do indeed rant on at times, I understand your need to release the geopolitical urges from time to time.
I don’t know what to make of the events currently being reported in Iran.
However, I am old enough to remember the murder of protesters at Kent State University in the US (by the National Guard), and the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention, which involved wholesale and brutal attacks against US citizens by both the police and the National Guard.
The point being that brutal repression of dissent is not a feature unique to totalitarian theocracies, but can happen in any society where the power elite feels sufficiently threatened, and this has happened in the US in particular, and on more than one occasion.
Why single out the US ? Well, apparently the US has been spending significant money, (at least US$175 million) since 2007 in Iran as “U.S. funding to destabilize the Iranian regime” – as reported here , by the National Iranian American Council.
This does not inspire any confidence in me that what is happening is in fact a “grassroots” revolt against cruel oppressors.
Katz@78, Fisk appears to be fishing around trying to figure out whether the election result was phony, like everybody else. You will note from his first report, below, that he was inclined to believe his friend, “who has never lied to me”, that it had not been rigged.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-iran-erupts-as-voters-back-the-democrator-1704810.html
It’s starting to appear that Ahmadinejad should have looked to the the USA and the Republicans for tips on successfully organising an election in your favour.
The result seemed to come down too quickly; best to keep the punters waiting and give them a chance to get back to work. And never, never, win with such a very obvious and consistent landslide.
“who has never lied to me”!! can’t say fairer than that, Fisky. Just like “usually reliable sources”, but with an implied promise of personal upset if it was a lie. Ho hum.
The result seemed to come down too quickly; best to keep the punters waiting and give them a chance to get back to work. And never, never, win with such a very obvious and consistent landslide.
.
Indeed.
.
Tyranny is much better served by democracy than the old school tyrant understands. I think that the beginning of the end of the Soviet system came about when a bunch of Brezhnev-era Pravda hacks visited the States and exclaimed:
The secret is to let peope say what they want as long as they understand that deviating from the Press Release of the govt is either insanity or Utopian or both.
.
I’m not sure why but the joke about the grad student who, when asked by a professor on her thesis topic, replied: “It’s entitled The Success of the American Class System”
.
“I didn’t think there was a class system in America”, replied the astonished scholar.
.
“Of course not. No-one does.” said the student, “That’s why it’s so successful.”
Huffington Post has links and updates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
As mentioned earlier Robert Fisk talked to Fran KElly
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/17/2600571.htm
“There were about 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the streets, with approximately 500 Iranian special forces, trying to keep them apart.
It was interesting that the special forces – who normally take the side of Ahmadinejad’s Basij militia – were there with clubs and sticks in their camouflage trousers and their purity white shirts and on this occasion the Iranian military kept them away from Mousavi’s men and women.
In fact at one point, Mousavi’s supporters were shouting ‘thank you, thank you’ to the soldiers.
One woman went up to the special forces men, who normally are very brutal with Mr Mousavi’s supporters, and said ‘can you protect us from the Basij?’ He said ‘with God’s help’.
It was quite extraordinary because it looked as if the military authorities in Tehran have either taken a decision not to go on supporting the very brutal militia – which is always associated with the presidency here – or individual soldiers have made up their own mind that they’re tired of being associated with the kind of brutality that left seven dead yesterday – buried, by the way secretly by the police – and indeed the seven or eight students who were killed on the university campus 24 hours earlier.
Quite a lot of policeman are beginning to smile towards the demonstrators of Mr Mousavi, who are insisting there must be a new election because Mr Ahmadinejad wasn’t really elected. Quite an extraordinary scene.
There were a lot of stones thrown and quite a lot of bitter fighting, hand-to-hand but at the end of the day the special forces did keep them apart.
I haven’t ever seen the Iranian security authorities behaving fairly before and it’s quite impressive.”
Interesting scene on the ABC news tonight.
Covering the Twitter-ing, a scrolling screen of messages appeared, with one name catching the eye – Fuckdinejad. Perhaps they thought it was Farsi, or that no one would notice.
There was a fascinating interview on PM tonight with Anthony Bubalo who is Director of the West Asia Program at the Lowy Institute. It seems that there is some potential division between the senior people in the country.
Bubalo explains that Montazeri is on the outer, but is a very respected cleric.
But Rafsanjani is the one that is keeping everyone guessing because he hasn’t been heard from since the election. He did write to Khamenei even before the election expressing concern. There is a thought that he may have gone to consult the Assembly of Experts which is “the one body that could actually remove Supreme Leader Khamenei from his position.”
But he is potentially under threat. If the hardliners win out with Ahmadinejad at their head, they might come after him.
Here’s an interesting article from the Christian Science Monitor:
There were 11 million new voters and we are meant to believe that Ahmadinejad won the vast majority of them.
In other words, the hard liners wanted the perception that the election was stolen to send the message that voting was pointless.
Read the whole article.
Interesting quick interview with a political scientist in Teheran on ABC-TV last night. He pointed out that results reported from polling stations were practically identical (64:30 or whatever) and that this just cannot happen with genuine vote counting. There’s always some variation between polling stations (I’d add – regardless of the nation: Iran, Australia, Canada, USA).
So the uniformity of the reported results is prima facie evidence of fraud.
Producing results seemingly before there was physically time to count ballot papers is another.
cheers.
Brian #88 – Cheers for the article.
.
It’s pretty obvious that the Iranian establishment did a job on its people, on its young people in particular. We may be headed for a Tiananmen Square type deal.
.
I wonder at the assertion that the unsubtlety of the scam was intentional. The United States presidential elections of 2000 had some dodgy business but it was executed well below the rader of ‘we don’t care: change the channel’. Still certain events glared and it’s obvious to anyone who cares, and allows themselves to look at the facts, that the election didn’t the required standards of fairness and freedom.
.
The Iranians aren’t as well practiced as they are in America. Maybe they just didn’t think about it hard enough.
latest from New York Times
The problem now is trying to work out where to go from here, as the political scientist from Tehran alluded to in the NYT piece. ie. how both sides can win or rather not lose face.
The regime so overcooked the results in every single district, whether due to stupidity, hubris or as a show a force and who knows how detailed was the planning for the response.
I can’t see the regime honourably committing hari-kiri having been caught out…so maybe the old “Govt of National Unity” can be formed in the interim and another election called in a time period which won’t show the regime has rigged this one etc.
I could be very wrong and hope I am, but you just get the feeling the regime will lose its cool if nothing is resolved. And another few years of dickhead isn’t worth getting your head blown off for, is it?
The stolen election however has shown that the regime is both vulnerable and fraudulent, so unless the Ayatollahs want some nasty ongoing civil disturbances undermining the whole operation, they should be consulting the manual for the page headed ’stabbing our buddies in the back’.
I’m so hoping for a peaceful negotiated outcome.
For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically- elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
there are suggestions that the Ayatollah Khameni “isn’t a real ayatollah” and is vulnerable…. so as with every dictator, feet of clay can emerge in a crisis…. this mess is making earlier decades in Persia look a bit better by contrast
Were Obama’s words heard in Teheran? – a bit like the inspiration some Solidarnosc members drew from “the Polish Pope”?
Ambi, Black Prez fesses up to US backed coup..would have thought it was a ’stars are all aligning’ moment for many Opposition supporters.
Unfortunately, the credits are rolling with not quite the ending they wanted.
The Govt. so far seems keen to keep this “we’re all a happy family” thang going for the mo, which is good, imo.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=196999
oops, meant to say, they’re saying “we’re all one big happy family except for a few black sheep”.
On PM tonight Khamenei was about to speak the inquiry into the election is about to begin and allegations that the militia are engaging in indiscriminate violence.
Also an Iranian filmmaker based in Australia tells of her experience of the marches. Bigger than 1979, for starters.
Khamenei came out hard in favour of the regime and declared the election fair, just ahead of the official inquiry commencing.
The demos had to stop, he said, otherwise there would be bloodshed and the demonstrators would be to blame for getting themselves shot.
Sounds like he’s right out on a limb. The question is can anyone (Rafsanjani?) saw it off.
If demonstrators defy his wishes in large numbers, the limb may wither on the tree without a saw being applied. Let’s hope he bullets don’t fly.
Interesting footage on tonight’s ABC-TV news from a BBC journalist. Large crowds, seemed calm. Stone-banging, shouting, some stone-throwing. Evidently the threats didn’t keep thousands off the streets.
Other footage showed tear gas being thrown at crowds & some shooting (?)
Doesn’t sound good Ambi at all, in terms of the crackdown…
Bastards.
‘One big happy family’ lasted half a day until Friday’s prayers as per Brian’s post @ 97. Now hundreds injured, possibly scores dead and what next? It’s a high stakes game. The announcements from the regime are not subtle – the Tehran Times:
Deputy police chief Ahmadreza Radan announced on Saturday that security forces will deal sternly with illegal gatherings.
Supporters of defeated candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi have been holding protest rallies since June 13.
Radan said daily rallies have robbed people of a calm life and police have so far received 10,000 complaints. During such illegal gatherings “a number of opportunists” have created chaos across the society, he noted.
“At a request of people and based on law from today (Saturday) police will deal forcefully with any illegal and unauthorized gatherings,” he told reporters.
He warned that those who encourage people to take to the streets will be “arrested” and “prosecuted”. He also said that those who ask people to attend rallies will be held “accountable” for consequences.
some thoughts from a dude at FP Foreign Policy:
Via Mark Colvin on twitter, this is worth a read to understand some of the broader context:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/21/peter-beaumont-iran-crisis-ahmadinejad
thewetmale, thanks, but the guardian piece is sorta aimed at people who have no idea in the first place.
well FP dude was right. From the NYT:
And Moussavi isn’t backing down or taking supporters off the streets for a while, just the opposite. Faarrk.
And another few years of dickhead isn’t worth getting your head blown off for, is it?
.
Dickhead? Dick. Head. Dumb and dumber?
.
I’ve said it before. They could be brothers. They’re a new breed. They’re breeding them.
.
Not here in Australia. Here we don’t hire the MEGA DH MAX 1123 model. We use the Round-Faced Dork robot instead.
The New York Times reports a “split” in the religious leadership
More on the internal pressures inside Iran
Stratfor