Iranian “Elections”

[Maggie]

This is very, very interesting:

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/10/the-iranian-circus-cont/

[SubGod22]

Interesting indeed. But whoever Khamenei wants to win will win. And he will continue to be the one who calls the shots from behind the scenes.

[Maggie]

Interesting indeed. But whoever Khamenei wants to win will win. And he will continue to be the one who calls the shots from behind the scenes.

True. Here is a bit more analysis, this time from Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2NzFmYzQ0NTM2YWI2ZDNkNWZmOTNiMTI3YWE3N2I=

[SubGod22]

Didn't see this coming......

Iran Supreme Leader Orders Vote Fraud Probe

[1979Shocker]

Looks like it's getting a little more violent. I wonder how that's going to affect oil prices?

Shots fired at huge election protest in Tehran

[1979Shocker]

Here is fivethirtyeight.com's take on the Iranian election.

Iran Does Have Some Fishy Numbers

One thing of interest is this paragraph.

However, given the absolutely bizarre figures that have been given for several provinces, given qualitative knowledge - for example, that Mahdi Karroubi earned almost negligible vote totals in his native Lorestan and neighboring Khuzestan, which he won in 2005 with 55.5% and 36.7% respectively - there is room for a much closer look.

[Maggie]

Interesting read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/the_scene_in_tehran.asp#more

I really wish President Obama would do a little more. Words do matter.

While the President has expressed “deep concerns” about the “election” he also said he believes the decision to order an investigation into the results demonstrates that the Ayatollah understands the Iranian people have deep concerns too. But at the same time, President Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue. Which I find interesting and completely off the mark – President Obama has a habit of projecting his own beliefs onto others – this makes for bad foreign policy.

Besides, how is it “meddling” when what we are really talking about is saying something substantive? The French president, to date, has been stronger on this than President Obama —and that is a shame. People strangely discuss whether President Obama should follow suit, which I fail to understand because the events of the past few days have made it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already): on one side is brutal tyranny; on the other is a people asking for democracy.

Why doesn’t our government stand with those who are asking for nothing more than what we fought for over 200 years ago? At the very least it would give the Iranian government something to think about but it could also have a much greater impact: After speaking to several of my Iranian friends, I don’t believe the Iranian people protesting in the streets desire military help from the United States or overt assistance of any kind. But they do seek verbal support for their protests – they want to know they are not alone. Despite the terrible rhetoric that continually spews forth from the Iranian government – the United States is very popular in the streets of Iran – they want America to stand by, and stand up for, its promise. It is the least we could do.

In my judgment, that kind of “meddling” should be a moral imperative.

[SubGod22]

Interesting read:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/the_scene_in_tehran.asp#more

I really wish President Obama would do a little more. Words do matter.

While the President has expressed “deep concerns” about the “election” he also said he believes the decision to order an investigation into the results demonstrates that the Ayatollah understands the Iranian people have deep concerns too. But at the same time, President Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue. Which I find interesting and completely off the mark – President Obama has a habit of projecting his own beliefs onto others – this makes for bad foreign policy.

Besides, how is it “meddling” when what we are really talking about is saying something substantive? The French president, to date, has been stronger on this than President Obama —and that is a shame. People strangely discuss whether President Obama should follow suit, which I fail to understand because the events of the past few days have made it crystal clear (if it wasn’t already): on one side is brutal tyranny; on the other is a people asking for democracy.

Why doesn’t our government stand with those who are asking for nothing more than what we fought for over 200 years ago? At the very least it would give the Iranian government something to think about but it could also have a much greater impact: After speaking to several of my Iranian friends, I don’t believe the Iranian people protesting in the streets desire military help from the United States or overt assistance of any kind. But they do seek verbal support for their protests – they want to know they are not alone. Despite the terrible rhetoric that continually spews forth from the Iranian government – the United States is very popular in the streets of Iran – they want America to stand by, and stand up for, its promise. It is the least we could do.

In my judgment, that kind of “meddling” should be a moral imperative.

:yes:

[Maggie]

Suggestions for President Obama, should he be so inclined, from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124520276223621661.html

From the Washington Post (and I agree with most of this article):

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

If so, this will be one of those great ironies of history. For, in fact, Obama never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets....

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

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html

[Maggie]

From a recent interview with the President:

HARWOOD: Couple things, quickly, before we run out of time. You took your time reacting to the protests in Iran after the election. What are you watching for in the handling of those protests and in the investigation of the results to–and how will that influence the dialogue that you seek to have with Iran?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think first of all, it’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election. The second thing that I think’s important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I’ve said is, `Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you’ve got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they’re having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it’s important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have–nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That’s not going to go away, and I think it’s important for us to make sure that we’ve reached out.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/70171

The first statement I bolded I would probably agree with, especially before the election – Mousavi, like the other candidates allowed to run, was handpicked by the government in Iran. This was never a "democracy." It was a farce. The problem was President Obama seemed to indicate the election, in some way, legitimized the Iranian government. Which is absurd, the elections never meant anything in terms of legitimacy. The mullahs control the outcome of every “election” in Iran. Until now, it has been enough to exercise veto power over who could stand for election — but the fact that they were doing that was confirmation that, if the vote went bad and they needed to take the next logical step of fixing the vote count, they would fix the vote count. The fact that the bank robbery occurs at high-noon for all to see doesn't make it more of a robbery than one conducted in stealth.

However, it is becoming increasing apparent that the civil unrest in Iran, and indeed the movement that formed around Mousavi (not necessarily because of him), has less to do with the way the election was handled and more to do with Iranian’s dissatisfaction with the totality of their government. Otherwise, why rig the election to begin with? The Iranian government obviously believes the movement is a threat to its power and it is doing what all despotic regimes do (and what it has done in the past) – brutally and ruthlessly fight for its survival.

That some people seem surprised by all of this is shocking. The fact that our government appears to be ambivalent, about this issue, is depressing.

As for the second part I bolded: What planet is the President on? I thought he was tech savvy.

I share his concern about a nuclear Iran, of course, but wouldn’t a regime change in Iran (and I am not saying that is likely to happen) to a more democratic system help alleviate those concerns?

[1979Shocker]

Iran election turnouts exceeded 100% in 30 towns, website reports

Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.

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

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

[shoxlax]

Iran election turnouts exceeded 100% in 30 towns, website reports

Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.

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

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

Damn, ACORN is everywhere.

[Maggie]

Iran election turnouts exceeded 100% in 30 towns, website reports

Turnouts of more than 100% were recorded in at least 30 Iranian towns in last week's disputed presidential election, opposition sources have claimed.

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

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

1979Shocker, the question of whether there was election fraud has already been answered and is largely irrelevant – a point I was trying to make in prior posts. The election fraud issue has simply become moot.

Here is a opinion piece by Charles Krauthammer which I think is spot on:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803495.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. (emphasis added) They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. (emphasis added) Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

[Maggie]

A very interesting, given our Administrations relative silence regarding the events in Iran, with Mohsen Makhmalbaf who is, apparently, the official spokesman for Mir Hossein Mousavi outside Iran.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=5018

And an opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTdmYWNiOTgwMjIxY2MxYTU0ZmIzZTY3YjVlNGZmMTg=

[SubGod22]

Iran's Khamenei: Election Over, No More Protests!

Sounds like he's ready to crack down if there are more protests.