The Iranian Election

[tstv_lover]

Extract from Stratfor's commentary on the Iranian election

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

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_misconceptions_meet_iranian_reali ty

I've no idea whether any type of fraud was involved, and I really haven't seen or heard anything of substance. It does strike me as bizarre that we're fed TV images of groups shouting "We want freedom" - not in Farsi but in English. Makes for good TV pictures but it is really representative of the Iranian people?

What's your take on the election and media coverage?

[hippifried]

Iran is not a small country, & this was a nationwide election. Just like here, rural areas tend to be more conservative. All I've seen is what's happening in Tehran. Iran can be dealt with, regardless of who the President is. We talked to the Soviets. We talked to the red Chinese. There's no reason we can't talk to the Iranians. How long are we supposed to hold a grudge?

As for the protests: That's their affair. I can't think of another country in the Muslim world where this could be going on. It kind of flies in the face of the story we've been told about Iran being a totalitarian dictatorship. This might turn into something, but my gut feeling is that it'll blow over. Ahmadinejad has a 2 term limit, so this is it for him. We'll see what happens over the next 4 years.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Extract from Stratfor's commentary on the Iranian election

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

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_misconceptions_meet_iranian_reali ty

I've no idea whether any type of fraud was involved, and I really haven't seen or heard anything of substance. It does strike me as bizarre that we're fed TV images of groups shouting "We want freedom" - not in Farsi but in English. Makes for good TV pictures but it is really representative of the Iranian people?

What's your take on the election and media coverage?

They're doing that for the international media.

I agree with Stratfor's interpretation. We're seeing these huge demonstrations in Tehran which were he had overwhelming support. The rural areas and the poor voted for Ahmedinejad. I do find it strange that Mousavi lost the Azeri vote though. One commentator said it would be like Obama losing the black vote. Not quite, but significant.

[TommyFoxtrot]

Iran is not a small country, & this was a nationwide election. Just like here, rural areas tend to be more conservative. All I've seen is what's happening in Tehran. Iran can be dealt with, regardless of who the President is. We talked to the Soviets. We talked to the red Chinese. There's no reason we can't talk to the Iranians. How long are we supposed to hold a grudge?

As for the protests: That's their affair. I can't think of another country in the Muslim world where this could be going on. It kind of flies in the face of the story we've been told about Iran being a totalitarian dictatorship. This might turn into something, but my gut feeling is that it'll blow over. Ahmadinejad has a 2 term limit, so this is it for him. We'll see what happens over the next 4 years.

I think you're correct about this, we can and should talk with the Iranians. But one of the difficulties with all this is that we talked with the Russians from a position of strength. The USSR was on a long road to decline and China opened up to us after the border dispute and split with Russia.

Iran at least temporarily seems to be gaining traction. I think Obama MAY be undermining Ahmedinejad, but really what do the Mullahs get out of dealing with the U.S.? Perhaps they need the U.S. as a threat in order to fight reforms. I also think the U.S. hurts reformers in Iran when it gets out that we put a lot of money into it's opposition groups. Folks there say "You're just an agent of the Americans" and I'm sure that silences many reform minded folks.

It's all a pity. But also, I think Obama is wrong when he puts all the blame on the U.S. It appears that Muslims never want to accept any wrongdoing. I've seen a bunch of these discussions take place, and it always boils down to the U.S. being wrong, and the Muslim world being agrieved.

[BrendaQG]

Iran is not a small country, & this was a nationwide election. Just like here, rural areas tend to be more conservative. All I've seen is what's happening in Tehran. Iran can be dealt with, regardless of who the President is. We talked to the Soviets. We talked to the red Chinese. There's no reason we can't talk to the Iranians. How long are we supposed to hold a grudge?

As for the protests: That's their affair. I can't think of another country in the Muslim world where this could be going on. It kind of flies in the face of the story we've been told about Iran being a totalitarian dictatorship. This might turn into something, but my gut feeling is that it'll blow over. Ahmadinejad has a 2 term limit, so this is it for him. We'll see what happens over the next 4 years.

I think you're correct about this, we can and should talk with the Iranians. But one of the difficulties with all this is that we talked with the Russians from a position of strength. The USSR was on a long road to decline and China opened up to us after the border dispute and split with Russia.

Iran at least temporarily seems to be gaining traction. I think Obama MAY be undermining Ahmedinejad, but really what do the Mullahs get out of dealing with the U.S.? Perhaps they need the U.S. as a threat in order to fight reforms. I also think the U.S. hurts reformers in Iran when it gets out that we put a lot of money into it's opposition groups. Folks there say "You're just an agent of the Americans" and I'm sure that silences many reform minded folks.

It's all a pity. But also, I think Obama is wrong when he puts all the blame on the U.S. It appears that Muslims never want to accept any wrongdoing. I've seen a bunch of these discussions take place, and it always boils down to the U.S. being wrong, and the Muslim world being agrieved.

+1

There are just some people who can't take loosing an election.

[hippifried]

Strength hell. We talked to the Soviets from a position of M.A.D., from the time they tested their first atomic bomb to their collapse. The cold war lasted for 40 years, but we always had an embassy in Moscow, We fought proxy wars against each other all over the world, but we still traded.

We haven't officially talked to Iran since the loonies took over the embassy in '79. 30 years. They released the hostages in January '81, & we still haven't released the Iranian assets that were frozen in '79. Rudullah Khomeini is long dead. There's been almost an entire turnover of the population. Nearly 3/4 of the 70+ million people who live there weren't born till after the Shah was deposed. Who the hell are we pissed off at?

We just don't have enough information onthe political dynamics in Iran. We've been fed a line of bullshit for decades. Their government might be all screwed up, but it's their's. It wasn't imposed on them by foreign powers. Protesters have been marching in the streets for days. Where's the big crackdown? The hard violence & gunfire in the one march was between factions. From what I see, the police are just keeping them separated. We do that here. I don't think we're getting a true story here. Everybody seems to have an agenda, including the press. There's something wrong with the picture I'm seeing. I just can't quite put my finger on it yet.

[tstv_lover]

Strength hell. We talked to the Soviets from a position of M.A.D., from the time they tested their first atomic bomb to their collapse. The cold war lasted for 40 years, but we always had an embassy in Moscow, We fought proxy wars against each other all over the world, but we still traded.

We haven't officially talked to Iran since the loonies took over the embassy in '79. 30 years. They released the hostages in January '81, & we still haven't released the Iranian assets that were frozen in '79. Rudullah Khomeini is long dead. There's been almost an entire turnover of the population. Nearly 3/4 of the 70+ million people who live there weren't born till after the Shah was deposed. Who the hell are we pissed off at?

We just don't have enough information onthe political dynamics in Iran. We've been fed a line of bullshit for decades. Their government might be all screwed up, but it's their's. It wasn't imposed on them by foreign powers. Protesters have been marching in the streets for days. Where's the big crackdown? The hard violence & gunfire in the one march was between factions. From what I see, the police are just keeping them separated. We do that here. I don't think we're getting a true story here. Everybody seems to have an agenda, including the press. There's something wrong with the picture I'm seeing. I just can't quite put my finger on it yet.

Yep, I agree. Credit to Obama though - he's saying exactly the right thing for a US president to say at this time: great concern about violence but not getting involved in siding with Iranian political factions.

So a partial recount will take place - we'll see what happens then.

[2009AD]

Iran's pro-democracy Twitter: http://twitter.com/persiankiwi

[tstv_lover]

Looks like the $400 million approved last year for destabilizing the religious leaders in Iran might be paying dividends.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/29/seymour-hersh-exposes-new_n_109818.html

Of course, might just be a coincidence.

[BrendaQG]

So far theis is the only sceptical and balanced news report I have seen. (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3884&updaterx=2009-06-18+15%3A18%3A36)

[tstv_lover]

So far theis is the only sceptical and balanced news report I have seen. (http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=3884&updaterx=2009-06-18+15%3A18%3A36)

Thanks Brenda, I hadn't come across this site before.

[BrendaQG]

No problem.

I find it disappointing that more news agencies aren't lerry of this set up.

A "stolen" election in Iran. A color coded revolution, like so many other we know now CIA planned revolutions, key government cites bombed.... It's just all soo convenient.

Then there is the Illusory freedom and democracy that the people are protesting for. Freedom and democracy signified by voting for their candidate who like Amdenijad was approved by the Guardian Council as "acceptable".... the same people who could have the power to falsify some vote totals. But then we are told that the chairman of the Guardian Council is a supporter of Mousavi? So why would he falsify a vote out of Mousavi's favor? It makes no sense.

[TommyFoxtrot]

No problem.

I find it disappointing that more news agencies aren't lerry of this set up.

A "stolen" election in Iran. A color coded revolution, like so many other we know now CIA planned revolutions, key government cites bombed.... It's just all soo convenient.

Then there is the Illusory freedom and democracy that the people are protesting for. Freedom and democracy signified by voting for their candidate who like Amdenijad was approved by the Guardian Council as "acceptable".... the same people who could have the power to falsify some vote totals. But then we are told that the chairman of the Guardian Council is a supporter of Mousavi? So why would he falsify a vote out of Mousavi's favor? It makes no sense.

I think we've overblown this. Apparently this is only occuring in Tehran and one or two other cities. It's mostly the elite and college students protesting who see Ahmedinjehad as dangerous but also an embarassment, a Sarah Palin figure. Now we have all this hubbub and CNN's coverage being followed by a group called United Against Iran saying we need more economic sanctions.


Even the Mossad chief has said the protests are overblown and will be done soon.

[tstv_lover]

No problem.

I find it disappointing that more news agencies aren't lerry of this set up.

A "stolen" election in Iran. A color coded revolution, like so many other we know now CIA planned revolutions, key government cites bombed.... It's just all soo convenient.

Then there is the Illusory freedom and democracy that the people are protesting for. Freedom and democracy signified by voting for their candidate who like Amdenijad was approved by the Guardian Council as "acceptable".... the same people who could have the power to falsify some vote totals. But then we are told that the chairman of the Guardian Council is a supporter of Mousavi? So why would he falsify a vote out of Mousavi's favor? It makes no sense.

Well, I don't think it's really an electoral crisis - it's been rapidly escalated to a constitutional crisis. Let's be real, the 3 main participants in this whole electoral debate (Armadinejad, Mousavi and Rafsanjani) have all had their crack at being president. It certainly seems to be an external influence causing the current situation.

[hippifried]

I don't think there's ever been enough accurate information about Iran to develop any conclusions as to what's really going on. That's always the problem with creating enemies & cutting off ties. I don't think the Iranians know what's happening, really. Everybody's just winging it.

This looks like the '79 revolution, but I don't know how illusory that is. I don't remember '79 being this factional. The Basij has added a whole new dimension. Seems like they're the ones doing the killing. They're not military or police. They're amateurs. Giving them carte blanche to "help" with crowd control reminds me of Altemont. I'm sure the Angels would laugh at their bikes though. It seems as though this militia is fast becoming the target themselves. They're being tracked to their homes the same way they were tracking the protesters, but I'm not sure where it's going from there. This is liable to get a lot uglier.

Gonna be a long hot summer in Iran.

[techi]

I don't think we're getting a true story here. Everybody seems to have an agenda, including the press. There's something wrong with the picture I'm seeing. I just can't quite put my finger on it yet.

Yeah, the sudden spike in Iran coverage is spooky. US media coverage of the 3rd world is usually non-existant unless we are preparing to drop bombs on the given country.

Kissinger recently stated that we should seek regime change in Iran if it's leadership doesn't represent the will of the people. The statement is in a BBC interview on youtube. Parse that however you want, I think it means that if Iran doesn't play ball on Iraq and energy policy then we are going to overthrow thier political system.

As for our media getting the details wrong on Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini was Time's man of the year for 1979 if that's any indication.

[tstv_lover]

The issue has never really been about the election, just using that as a means to position Rafsanjani. I understand that there's a saying in Iran: "Rafsanjani's is only interested in Rafsanjani". One of the richest men in the world (accoring to Forbes) he's creamed the Iranian economy for many years. Certainly, this article in the UK Telegraph describes the character of the person who is apparently promoting democracyhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/5570184/Iran-elections-Rafsanjani-is-central-to-struggle-within-the-regime.html. Yeah, right!

This http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090720_video_rethinking_iran highlights the increased tensions vis-a-vis Iran and Israel/USA.

[techi]

Iran's pro-democracy Twitter: http://twitter.com/persiankiwi

Perfect example of why I can't take the western media hype seriously. How can you have a twitter revolution in a country where 90% of the public are dirt poor(hint: no phone to tweet).

As far as I can tell both candidates are sane men. There's no reason to interfere in Iran's internal affairs.
.