for L'Akratique

Earlier, Mousavi declared himself "definitely the winner," based on "all indications from all over Iran," but offered no support of his victory claim at a news conference in Tehran. He alleged widespread irregularities at the polls.

Moments after Mousavi called the news conference, Iran's state news agency reported that Ahmadinejad was the victor. Both claims came shortly after polls closed but before any vote tallies were announced.

another cource

so, as you were saying...the proof becomes the burden of the original claimant.

Posted by: annie | Jun 19 2009 14:40 utc | 1

Cut & Paste for Annie.

Even before the count began, Mousavi declared himself “definitely the winner” based on “all indications from all over Iran.” He accused the government of “manipulating the people’s vote” to keep Ahmadinejad in power and suggested the reformist camp would stand up to challenge the results.

Political parties do polling (exit or otherwise) all the time, so there's no real problem with the first sentence. It's the claim of massive fraud *before* the count begins that seems to support your claim and disprove mine (i.e. the claim of fraud can only come after Ahmadinejad is announced as the probable winner). But there is no evidence that he made this claim *before* the count. That only applies to him claiming to be the winner. Read the sentence again.

Now, where's that official recount by a mutually acceptable third party? That would surely beat parsing AP stories.

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 14:46 utc | 2

@ The Paper, from the other thread.

And how was the official election results a 'close race'?
Close races are a different problem where very small changes, errors or manipulation can change the direction of the vote.

A close race is the standard minimum for a recount. Allegations of massive fraud are worse, so they would also command a recount.

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 15:05 utc | 3

L'Akratique@2
You commented: Political parties do polling (exit or otherwise) all the time

Well, where is the breakdown of the exit polls that you are speaking of that are vastly different than the vote? Why haven't they been made public if they are so damning to the so-far winner?

@ L'Akratique in the previous thread:
You mentioned that Canada has recounts all the time in local elections that are close. I would like to ask when was the last time Canada had a recount in a national election that was not close?

Back to the 646 election complaints, I do seem to remember there were lots of complaints that, with the unexpectedly large turnout, polling places were running out of ballots -- which would affect all candidates. How many of those 646 are simply about inadequate ballots? I wouldn't ask the question if there was some sort of breakdown by category and candidate of the hundreds of complaints.

It's these types of missing data, exit poll and complaint data, that leave the question of fraud unproven and subject to debate. If there is hard evidence of electoral fraud, how about it being shown publicly instead of just alluded to.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 19 2009 15:06 utc | 4

But there is no evidence that he made this claim *before* the count. That only applies to him claiming to be the winner.

ok, so we can establish you do agree Mousavi claimed to be the winner *before* the count. by you own earlier standards re Admadinejad you were requiring he prove his claim of winner, no? on the basis of him making the original claim?

you, #90

Clever, but it's the original claim that needs to be proven. In this case, Ahmadinejhad needs to prove that he won this fair and square..... What Mousavi said of the election results is of secondary importance.

since we have established Mousavi made the claim before the vote please produce your evidence Ahmadinejhad claimed to be the winner even earlier or apply your standards, ie Mousavi needs to prove that he won.

Posted by: annie | Jun 19 2009 15:10 utc | 5

@ ensley

In Canada, candidates are elected locally. The party that has a majority of winning candidates wins the national election (or the party with the most votes , but not a majority, in the case of the current federal government). So, any recount is strictly local.

As to exit poll data, geez, ask for the real thing ensley, the votes in the election!

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 15:12 utc | 6

@ Annie #5

Mousavi's claim isn't made with the help of official results. Ahmadinejhad's is the original official claim. That's the claim I was referring to. That's the claim that needs to be verified. It's the one that truly counts. Don't you agree?

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 15:19 utc | 7

hi outraged! good to see you around.

it does appear the cat dragged in a bunch of like minded whiners. what a coincidence they all found this place (just in time for the revolution!). here's my personal favorite (in the voice of 'no no mr bill')

Is there a problem with having a discussion without insulting the people you're disagreeing with?

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 15:24 utc | 8

The arguments by the Musavi critics are strange:

One says there could not be fraud because the margin of victory was so high (????????). Do you think the most brutal regime in Iran's history cares if it rigs 2 % or 100 % of the vote?

Another says 65 % victory margin cannot be manipulated. Well, Saddam and Communist officials got over 99 % regularly. I suppose Mubarak is also fairly elected because he has been in power as long as the Mullahs??????????

Another says Musavi was wrong to claim victory at the same time that the state agency declared an Ahmadinejad victory. Halloooooooooooo ......

Most people ignore the 7 million reduced votes of Karoubi as just a minor problem. SEVEN MILLION MISSING VOTES??? HALLOOOOOOOOOO. This was MASSIVE FRAUD with the aim to boost Ahmadinejad's numbers and prevent a run-off. By slightly reducing Musavi's numbers and destroying Karoubi's numbers the regime prevented a run-off.

annie, you can laugh but I ask you to comment on the titles or captions of these Iran election threads and tell me why not one single title gives any even tiny doubt in Musavi's favour. Mr. b. has followed the official regime propaganda like the Baseej. Congratulations, Mr. b.. I hope the uniform fits you well. By the way, in another thread you wrote that the Baseej killing students from rooftops (300 rounds) were not plainclothes. I have seen the videos many times and they WERE plainclothes. They were resting in the building, without riot gear, and then went onto the rooftops and started shooting with semi-automatic. I am ready to send you the video plus my spectacles. When they decide to go onto the street they ride 2 or 3 on motorbikes with full riot gear, but not when they are resting in their own buildings. They do not eat and pray in riot gear or uniform.

Mr. b. writes

"The best I can tink of now is to really follow the legal procedures but to do so very publicly and openly."

Well, FINALLY you accept what I have been demanding ALL DAY. But even now you forget one thing. The guardian council and secret service have had 6 days to place all LEGAL votes in Ahmadinejad's favor into the "sample" boxes and to remove all votes in favour of Karoubi and reduce the votes in favor of Musavi. In Iran 6 days is a long time. They have plenty of time to get rid of all the fraud IDs, destroy the other fraud evidence (more votes than actual people in some provinces) and simply present "cleaned up" ballot boxes.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 15:28 utc | 9

L'Akratique @6
As to exit poll data, geez, ask for the real thing ensley, the votes in the election!

You brought up the exit polls meme, alluding that there was a conflict between the exit polls and the actual vote. The numbers in the actual vote are public. Where are the 'conflicting' exit poll data?

So, any recount is strictly local (Canada).

Well, I suppose I will have to settle for the last local recount in a 'not-close' vote. Further, it appears that you are not talking about millions and millions of 'local' votes to be recounted either?

Posted by: ensley | Jun 19 2009 15:31 utc | 10

@L'Akratique
Not disagreeing or agreeing ... no insult or offence intended ... merely detached observations ... without the personal, targetted, invective and malicious attacks against specific posters, commonly observed of late ...

Pray, continue, I shall retire to my Guiness & nuts ;)

Peace, Salaam, Shalom.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 19 2009 15:33 utc | 11

@ Ensley.

The numbers being offered as official by the Iranian MoI are precisely what's contested. Have a recount by a mutually accepted third party and be done with it. Too simple eh?

The numbers supporting Mousavi's claim that he won are peripheral to the issue. At worst, it leads to a "Dewey defeats Truman" moment. But that can only be true if an objective recount of the people's vote can be done.

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 15:40 utc | 12

i'm just glad youtube has relaxed their rules on violent content so we can see video clips. the revolution has some good friends. i'm sure the palestinians wish they had friends like that.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 19 2009 15:41 utc | 13

Do you think the most brutal regime in Iran's history cares if it rigs 2 % or 100 % of the vote?

When you say regime, to who and what are you referring? If it's Ahmadinejad, what evidence do you have to support this claim? More brutal than the Savak, who were trained by Israelis and the CIA? More brutal than Moussavi as Prime Minister taking marching orders from the sinister and sadistic Khomeini? Come on, get off it. There's a pattern of abuse that goes well beyond any puppet prime minister. They are merely enforcers of a greater will.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 15:54 utc | 14

"the revolution has some good friends"

Yes, indeed ... hence 'Cui bono' from the round the clock coverage, the extensions of twitter and now Facebook and Google rolling out beta Farsi translators ... yes, just as the then administration was concerned for democracy and ordinary Iranians re the Mossadeq Coup d'etat ... no internet or 24hour CNN or BBC then though ...

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 19 2009 15:59 utc | 15

Get off the election fraud issue, please. As was noted on the other thread, it's a distraction from the much larger issue(s). Don't feed it.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 16:03 utc | 16

Yes, indeed ... hence 'Cui bono' from the round the clock coverage, the extensions of twitter and now Facebook and Google rolling out beta Farsi translators ... yes, just as the then administration was concerned for democracy and ordinary Iranians re the Mossadeq Coup d'etat ... no internet or 24hour CNN or BBC then though ...

It's like the Apple 1984 commercial but it's not totalitarianism that's being crushed....it's being tauted as Democracy. Orwell would be proud.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 16:06 utc | 17

@L'Akratique from the earlier thread:

It's the claim of massive fraud *before* the count begins that seems to support your claim and disprove mine (i.e. the claim of fraud can only come after Ahmadinejad is announced as the probable winner). But there is no evidence that he made this claim *before* the count.

False: Mousavi campaign warns of election fraud in Iran election

Washington, 12 June (WashingtonTV)—Pro-reform presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who appeared at the Great Ershad Mosque of Rayshahr in Tehran to cast his ballot, said today: “I have promised to safeguard the votes of the people.”

Mousavi, who appeared at the mosque with his wife Zahra Rahnavard, said that he and his supporters will remain awake until the last votes are counted and asked election officials to guard the people’s ballots as a “heavy deposit”.
...
At the same time, according to a report by Qalam News website, an independent ballot safeguard committee operated by the public and housed at Mousavi’s election headquarters, issued a statement of concern and warned of a fraudulent trend in the staging of the presidential election.

According to the statement, the committee has received information from “various forces of the people,” which is indicative of various types of fraud in the staging of the election.

The whole Mousavi campaign and the western media campaign (independently?) was build on an expected Mousavi win and rumors of fraud by the other side (i.e. expectation shaping)

Then he announced to have won before the votes were counted. When it turned out he didn't (officially) win, he alleged fraud and took to the streets.

To me that looks like a well prepared strategy taken straight out of the pages of Gene Sharp's manuals for color revolutions.

Posted by: b | Jun 19 2009 16:16 utc | 18

@b

Warning and claiming are the same thing?

Don't you agree that an objective recount is what is needed here?

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 16:19 utc | 19

annie, you can laugh but I ask you to comment on the titles or captions of these Iran election threads

you bore me ben. say something entertaining and perhaps i will perform for you.

L'Akratique

Mousavi's claim isn't made with the help of official results.

exactly. in fact his claim wasn't made w/the help of any results at all. him and his masters were certain to get his claim on record prior to any results that way the results would be tainted regardless which is the whole point of making the initial claim. the element of surprise you know, in combat it's a powerful first move.

That's the claim I was referring to.

no changing the goalposts in the middle of the stream. your original demand said nothing about officialdome.

That's the claim that needs to be verified.
It's the one that truly counts.

ah, so iow only the one you challenge needs to hold up to your standards. how very unclever of you.

Don't you agree?

no, i don't. i followed your dog and pony show to its logical end. now put up or shut up.

Posted by: annie | Jun 19 2009 16:19 utc | 20

@ Annie.

There's no need to be aggressive.

I was referring to the fact that the claim that the results were officially fraudulent couldn't come before the official results and the contested Ahmadinejad claim of victory. So Mousavi checks his exit polls and thinks he's the winner and publicly says so before the official results are in. You think it's all part of a master plan? I think it's at worse a "Dewey defeats Truman" embarrassment *if* the real tally can be verified.

in fact his claim wasn't made w/the help of any results at all. him and his masters were certain to get his claim on record prior to any results that way the results would be tainted regardless which is the whole point of making the initial claim. the element of surprise you know, in combat it's a powerful first move.

The results would be tainted regardless? Regardless of what exactly? If there's an objective recount using the original ballots, then *in regards to that*, Mousavi's claim is baseless, and it's "Mousavi defeats Ahmadinejad" shame for him.

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 16:33 utc | 21

I was referring to the fact that the claim that the results were officially fraudulent couldn't come before the official results and the contested Ahmadinejad claim of victory

nope, you were only referring to that after you moved the goalposts. your original reference (as i have already copy/pasted) was the original claimant carries the burden of proof.(it's the original claim that needs to be proven)

The results would be tainted regardless? Regardless of what exactly?

regardless of whether the results were tainted or not of course. when someone alledges fraud it places doubt on the table, regardless of whether fraud occurred or not.

btw, i'm not being aggressive with you because i need to be, but because i feel you deserve it after not putting yourself to the standards you require. it isn't me making declarations about who should and should not carry the burden of proof and why. don't be petty, this applies to your linguistic complaints as well.

Posted by: annie | Jun 19 2009 17:00 utc | 22

@ Annie.

I was referring to the original victory claim as per the official results. If you can't accept what I meant, then, surely, it's you who's moving the goal posts.

Posted by: L'Akratique | Jun 19 2009 17:04 utc | 23

The discussion of who "won" the election--by means of electoral tallies--is no longer relevant. No matter what is done at this stage, Mousavi's supporters will most likely no longer accept the election results--and moreover, if too much is conceded, Ahmedinejad's supporters, who, regardless of what the results were, number in the millions will rise up if Mousavi gets too much. The real question is what the principals involved will do to compromise their way out of the current mix, regardless of what the result is.

Some kind of coalition government, I think, is inevitable--and no reason not to let Mousavi and his men join the next government anyways, since they are already regime insiders and have strong patrons already influential in government--unlike, say, the southern Sudanese rebels or Sinn Fein, there is no "fundamental" barrier of distrust that keeps them separated from the current regime (yes, there is distrust, but not at a "fundamental" level.) But whether such a move will quiet down the crowds is a different question: Mousavi may be the symbolic leader of the dissidents, created through the electoral campaign--but he is not one of them. I doubt they'll listen even if Mousavi tells them to go home. More likely, perhaps, they'll disown Mousavi. Will that be the signal for a bloody crackdown? That may be where we will eventually be headed....

Posted by: kao_hsien_chih | Jun 19 2009 17:20 utc | 24

Regardless who has won, REAL people won't see any benefits.

From day one, I call this "election" - bourgeoisie revolution - fraction's struggle within capitalist theocrats. There is no difference between either candidates, each of them enter in the race with own reasons and motives.Behind each puppet is powerful broker from ruling establishment.

By now, it's obvious there is split within establishment.Not much ideological and certainly not class split.Rather, populist theocrats vs. theological pragmatists who are more "free market" oriented.Both:demagogues,out of touch with real life and deeply ani-labour. Arrests on Maj 1st, while celebrating that day is just one among many that can confirm that.

One excellent analysis:
Can't Keep a Good People Down

Posted by: balkanac | Jun 19 2009 17:20 utc | 25

Repost, as I posted on wrong thread--
From balkanac @ #5, under the links thread, this post by Paul Craig Roberts, in which he writes:

Amadinejad’s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role. So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.

Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad’s election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.

Any of our knowledgeable commenters have information about Grand Ayatollah Montazeri? I've read about Rafsanjani making a move against Khamenei, but not this Montazeri. Who wants to take Khamenei's job? Who's leading the removal group?

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 19 2009 19:32 utc | 26

The discussion of who "won" the election--by means of electoral tallies--is no longer relevant.

Absolute bullshit.

If 65% of the Iranian electorate really did vote for AhmadiNejad, then clearly 65% of the electorate will be mighty fucking pissed if the election is taken from him.

Not to mention, you -- and lysander, and quite a few others, here -- are arguing:

A) The election should not have been stolen, because Democracy is a sacrosanct right, and

B) But since we can't tell who won, it no longer matters whose vote went where and we might as well let the Media get away with recalibrating the results.

Anyone interested in forecasting what the Iranis are going to initiate over the next year or three should be very much innarestid in what the real vote was.

But i would agree with you and Lysander if you were to instead say something like:

"Arguing over what the real count was isn't going to help the Iranians resolve their problems, and it doesn't really matter to Pentagon intelligence."

That, i could agree with.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 19 2009 19:50 utc | 27

@Jawbone:
Who's leading the removal group?

Rafsanjani.

Who wants to take Khamenei's job?

Rafsanjani, but there's no way he'd ever accept it. If he ever gets the chance (which i doubt), he'll try and appoint a puppet.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 19 2009 19:53 utc | 28

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1067.html>Eyewitness History: Ayatollah Montazeri

After having spent a few days in Qom, I was able to interview Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's 'fruit of life', as he used to call him, and the once heir-apparent to the Islamic Republic's supreme leadership – namely the Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, once helped Khomeini (the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran) write the Islamic constitution of Iran. And as one of the Islamic Republic's main ideologues and a Shi'i Marja', Ayatollah Montazeri is considered one of the highest-ranking authorities in Shi'i Islam. Yet soon after the 1979 revolution, he became an outspoken critic of state corruption and human rights abuses -- abuses such as Iran's treatment of political dissidents, and the way in which the Islamic Republic has effectively succeeded in becoming one of the world's most repressive and authoritarian regimes. For this Ayatollah Montazeri was stripped from his right to succession as the Supreme Leader (Vali-e Faqih) by Khomeini personally and later in 1997 he was put under house arrest.

I was all too aware that I was going to meet the once heir to the Islamic Republic's throne, a man I had feared during my childhood in the 1980s, when my classmates and I lined-up military-style every morning at school and had to pay mandatory tributes to him after saluting Ayatollah Khomeini, the martyrs of the Iraq-Iran war and chanting death slogans to Khomeini's declared "axis of evil" foes at the time (Unites States, Britain, France, Israel etc). As I negotiated my way through the streets and alleys of Qom towards Ayatollah Montazeri's offices, I remembered Ayatollah Montazeri's colourful pictures plastered all over my mother's home-town (Shiraz) either next or beneath pictures of Khomeini, and how his pictures were all suddenly taken off. I never knew why we stopped saluting him, and why all of Khomeini's tributes to him where erased from the walls. The war with Iraq was all too consuming during those years, with food shortages (sugar, oil and rice were rationed and we were faced with regular electricity blackouts) and at school we were programmed to follow orders and not question anything relating to the state, or well, anything else for that matter. So, Montazeri had been erased from my memories until I became a student of Iranian Studies in the UK, and started digging information about Iran and its human rights violations.

While I was rushing to his base that November afternoon in 2003, I couldn't help feel excited as I had been told by many (including the BBC)[5] that Ayatollah Montazeri "Huquq-e Bashari-ye" i.e. a proponent of human rights. Yet, no one had ever pressed him on issues concerning women's human rights. So, I wanted to measure the metal of the Reformists' spiritual beacon when it came to human rights of women in particular. No one had ever questioned Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970s on his views about human rights and women, and thus his victory and subsequent halts on these rights took many people by surprise. I wanted to know for myself what the Reformists' spiritual leader, namely Ayatollah Montazeri, amounted to, to see if this new wave of Reformism, at least theoretically, had become progressive enough to compete with other contending calls for liberation.

Leaving Ayatollah Montazeri's office, I remained convinced that despite all the hopes invested in the Reformist movement at the time, the persistent realities of women in Iran indicated that they still have fewer rights in family and citizenship laws than their male counterparts. I remained convinced once again that the fundamental problem we face in Iran is in fact in the letter and the spirit of the Shi'i law - medieval in its jurisprudence, feudal in its tenets, patriarchal and undemocratic in the very fabric of its lexicon and written into the skeletal vertebra of Iranian culture (Imperial, Leftist, Nationalist or Islamist). According to international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Iranian women only have it better, legally, than women in Saudi Arabia and the former Taliban State of Afghanistan. Yet, we have some of the best mainstream feminist publications (produced under censorship, fear, intimidation and lack of resources), a remarkable and courageous women's movement inside Iran and Iranian women's trials and developments are a source of inspiration for other women in the region.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 20:14 utc | 29

An easy way to detect election fraud

I have mentioned this in another thread.

There is an easy way to see if the results of the election stand to scrutiny or not:

1. Go to the website of MOI and download their aggregate voting data that is organized by county. Here is the link for MOI aggregate data. This is the same link used by Walter Mebane of the University of Michigan whose analysis b cited before.

2. Go to the website of the Statistical Center of Iran and download the population figures for all the people who are 12 years of age and above in each county in Iran according to the 2006 census. The data for each province is here.

3. Compare the number reported by Mr. Ahmadinejad's MOI in with the census figures. This means that we are assuming no one has died in Iran in the past three years, which favors Mr. Ahmadinejad's numbers, but let's be lenient.

If you do this simple exercise you will find out that for more than half the 366 counties, Mr. Ahmadinejad's MOI has reported more than a 100% of all the population of the county as voters. This is simply impossible. Remember that death rate in Iran has hovered around 6% for the past three years. So the number of eligible voters in each county should be less than the number reported in the 2006 census. But even with these assumptions favoring Mr. Ahmadinejad, half of counties have reported simply impossible figures. Interestingly, if you correlate those counties that have above 100% participation rate with Mr. Ahmadinejad's vote in those counties you find a statistically significant positive relation. This means that Mr. Ahmadinejad did well in counties where there was fraud.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 19 2009 21:01 utc | 30

I'm really sad that you guys have ended up slagging off all the Iranians contributing to this blog, such that they have given up. OK, internet-aware Iranians will tend to have a certain point of view, but it is a valid one. I was particularly shocked by Annie's you bore me ben after her magnificent efforts in Gaza. The situations are not the same.

Iranians should be allowed to say what they have to say; they know more than we do, even if they have a particular point of view.

In the meantime, let's get back to trying to predict what's going to happen. Will Khamenei' speech calm the situation, or provoke a greater reaction?

Posted by: Alex_no | Jun 19 2009 21:03 utc | 31

I was particularly shocked by Annie's you bore me ben after her magnificent efforts in Gaza. The situations are not the same.

Oh, you are rich!

Not the same?

Let's see:

Was Buchenvald comparable to, say, 1950's Mexico?

I think not.

Take a guess which one falls which way.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 19 2009 21:29 utc | 32

alex

there is spirited argument & i'd agree there has been a hasbara campaign of sorts - with(as outraged pointed out)repeated posts covering the same territory - nearly always without facts - they have essentially controlled threads - & that is not so hard to do - we are a small community that already shares a multiplicity of views - i think that mostly we all share an idea of justice

why is it that some of the 'iranian' posters have often repeated verbatim the accounts alrady avaliable on the whoremedia -cnnbbcfixaljazeera - the same êmes are repeated there & here. & as in other color revolutions there is so much noise - the german industrialist hugenberg sd in the 20's that he wanted the entertainement:information industry to inculcate & when it could not do that it ought to confuse - & that lesson murdoch & his minions & copies have learned that to a t

& we have heard very detailed things in the last two days about you tube, twitter & google - & their collaboration & manipulation by foreign intellligence agencies - evidently the us & israel

& annie was correct to point out as ndahi had done before that these tools were not available to the palestinian people & even when press tv & aljazeera showed the horror happening before our eyes - the gutless jackanapes that drool on media screens were able to dominate the narrative with little & useless firerockets held by hamas

the comparison is necessary to expose how clearly white skin privilege functions

loyal, an iranian poster was accused of being an iraninan state agent when s/he tried to open up the discourse a little - parvis accused him of being the lowest of the low in iranian society

this is an open forum & we should be able to fight furiously without hurting feelings or without the fear of hurting feelings - as long as the person takes responsibility for their opinions

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 21:49 utc | 33

i am not offended by slothrop, for example

i am offended by his intellectual dishonesty

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 21:50 utc | 34

When Israeli Intelligence Chief Meir Dagan Prefers Ahmadinejad
and Daniel Pipes Would Vote for Him If He Could

From Jerusalem Post today:

[Mossad Chief] Dagan said Israel would in fact have an easier time explaining the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons to the world when the country is led by a hardline fanatic president [reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] than if Mir Hossein Mousavi, who is seen as a moderate, would win the election. "We mustn't forget Mousavi is the one who started the nuclear program.".

And then there is this gem by Daniel Pipes the arch-Zionist. The comment is made at the 1:29:00 mark:

I'm sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad, and that I would prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and blatant and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements than a slier version of that same policy as represented by say Rafsanjani or Khatami or now Mousavi.

So maybe there is a color revolution after all. A color revolution to have Ahmadinejad installed as the President of Iran. Who else would advance the interests of Israel so expeditiously?

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 19 2009 22:09 utc | 35

china_hand2 @ #28--Having learned of Montazeri's greatly advanced age, I find Paul Craig Roberts' assertions that Montazeri is angling for the Khamenei's position to be, uh, perhaps not quite on point.

Obamageddon @ #29--Thank you for the link to this interesting article. The author's excerpt of Falliaci's 1973 interview with the Shah was quite revealing. Oh, evil women!

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 19 2009 22:11 utc | 36

China Hand,

Iran faces a serious problem right now. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this is indeed a purely orchestrated color revolution and the June 12 vote accurately reflects the public will. The following facts are indisputable;

1) Serious doubt has been cast about the vote and very intelegent and knowledgeable people are now unsure of its integrity. Dan, Parviz and many others are not stupid and are not sympathetic to U.S. Israeli imperial ambitions. But they do not believe in the results and its a safe bet that they are not alone.

2) Large numbers of demonstrators are paralyzing Tehran and possibly other cities. Any violent crackdown could easily backfire.

3) Internationally Iran is paying a heavy price as the perceived legitimacy of the government declines rapidly.

These are facts. It may be they are all based on illusions but the facts themselves are entirely real. Iran has to confront them.

How do you suggest they go about it?

Keep in mind that what so many neoconservatives are saying even now; That they are better off with AN in power. Ask Daniel Pipes, ask Mossad chief Meyer Dagan.

Consider the possibility that we are fighting the wrong battle here.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 19 2009 22:42 utc | 37

@35 takes the Hook Line and Sinker prize of the month.

Lol!

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 19 2009 22:54 utc | 38

@ 35. I was writing my post when you were making yours. Thanx for the links.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 19 2009 23:05 utc | 39

lysander

what has not been placed in its proper context is the fact that iran has been genuinely menaced by u s imperialism & it has genuinely been destabilised. the levels of destabilisation are those that have been followed in every other color revolution. we do not have to stretch credulity to observe the many factors they have in common. the stories that are repeated ad infinitum - for example the dagan/piper opinions have already been placed all over the media - no matter what language you read or watch - exactly the same - it is not about limited access - it is about focused goals

i am a communist & i could mourn the absence of a vanguard party, leninist leadership & a mass movement - but in iran as is also the case in the arab world - political islam annexed that space incorporating ideas, formations & structures absorbed from the left

on slothrops bête noir, counterpunch - there have been apologist from the left for moussavi without having any idea of the history. nor the long history of the left in iran. there is no analysis of the conflict between certain elites & there has been no analysis of the conflict between certain institutions within the state - between that army & the clerical establishment. it is enough for them that that know-all robert fisk to say he saw a few workers in the demonstrations - to suggest all classes are participating in this conflict on one side. in fact nothing is as clear as that

sadly, it is a win win for imperialism - if there is a delegitimised state under ahmedinejad - all the better for the preparations for war at a future date, if it all collapses in the streets & it falls apart - you can be sure imperialism in alll its horrible forms will penetrate further in iran like a rat up a drainpipe - a weak itan is exactly what they want to confront the consolidation of its power in the larger middle east - in iraq, lebanon & the occupied territories

if there is blood in the streets of iran tommorrow or in the immediate future - there will be much celebration in the dining rooms of washington, tel aviv, & london because blood on the streets will not only signal the failure of the iranian state but it will indicate the success of the imperialist usurpers

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 23:15 utc | 40

lysander

what has not been placed in its proper context is the fact that iran has been genuinely menaced by u s imperialism & it has genuinely been destabilised. the levels of destabilisation are those that have been followed in every other color revolution. we do not have to stretch credulity to observe the many factors they have in common. the stories that are repeated ad infinitum - for example the dagan/piper opinions have already been placed all over the media - no matter what language you read or watch - exactly the same - it is not about limited access - it is about focused goals

i am a communist & i could mourn the absence of a vanguard party, leninist leadership & a mass movement - but in iran as is also the case in the arab world - political islam annexed that space incorporating ideas, formations & structures absorbed from the left

on slothrops bête noir, counterpunch - there have been apologist from the left for moussavi without having any idea of the history. nor the long history of the left in iran. there is no analysis of the conflict between certain elites & there has been no analysis of the conflict between certain institutions within the state - between that army & the clerical establishment. it is enough for them that that know-all robert fisk to say he saw a few workers in the demonstrations - to suggest all classes are participating in this conflict on one side. in fact nothing is as clear as that

sadly, it is a win win for imperialism - if there is a delegitimised state under ahmedinejad - all the better for the preparations for war at a future date, if it all collapses in the streets & it falls apart - you can be sure imperialism in alll its horrible forms will penetrate further in iran like a rat up a drainpipe - a weak itan is exactly what they want to confront the consolidation of its power in the larger middle east - in iraq, lebanon & the occupied territories

if there is blood in the streets of iran tommorrow or in the immediate future - there will be much celebration in the dining rooms of washington, tel aviv, & london because blood on the streets will not only signal the failure of the iranian state but it will indicate the success of the imperialist usurpers

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 23:15 utc | 41

Lieberman Injects $75 million for Iran Democracy into Appropriations Bill

http://tinyurl.com/lf6w79

At a late night session in the Senate on Friday, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-VT) submitted an amendment to provide $75 million for “democracy promotion in Iran." The amendment, which was cosponsored by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mel Martinez (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA), passed by voice vote in the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (HR 2764).

Won't be long now that Joe will declare Ahmedinejad much the preferred neocon alternative.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 19 2009 23:25 utc | 42

I am wondering this AM, where has Rafsanjani disappeared ? He hasn't really been in the news lately, despite being one of the main actors in the power struggle.

Posted by: Philippe | Jun 19 2009 23:37 utc | 43

phillippe

he is where you would be if you were preparing for a throne & about to take your kingdom

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 23:44 utc | 44

@ Dragonfly,

http://washingtonindependent.com/47146/neocons-house-gopers-demand-obama-take-mousavis-side

The neocons are all over the place supporting both sides. Even Pipes is quoted as supporting AN and the Iranian people at the same time. Michael Ledeen, another, neocon supports Moussavi.

Posted by: ndahi | Jun 19 2009 23:46 utc | 45

soft power

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 20 2009 0:23 utc | 46

seamus milne - iran

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 20 2009 0:35 utc | 47

seamus milne - iran

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 20 2009 0:35 utc | 48

weekend here - a little time at last.
Me I'm wondering why it is that when this site takes us places some don't wanna go and b gets subjected to all sorts of accusations which those of us who have hung out here for a while know to be untrue, rather than all the regulars piling in to support the proprietor, there is either silence or even some cheers of encouragement from regulars for the slanderers.

Solidarity that matters hardly ever comes in the form of sticking with a comrade who is saying or doing something that you wholeheartedly desire to see or approve of. That stuff is easy and doesn't require reminders. No the hard stuff is when someone you know to be trustworthy is being subjected to attack on an issue about which you are uncertain.

Unless humans can suspend judgement and support a comrade regardless, they end up stuck with the same assholes wreaking the same havoc on the world. Because sowing the seeds of dissension is an oldie but a goodie.

I don't believe at the moment that there is any way inside or outside Iran of proving the election result one way or the other, simply because everyone is operating with a shortage of evidence for which they are substituting their hopes and desires.
Nothing wrong with that as long as peeps are prepared to accept others doing the same and arriving at a contrary view.

It seems to me that many of the "Mousavi was robbed mob" are not prepared to do that and are instead attacking our friend and host B. I find that to be equally predictable and despicable, but emotions among Iranians are hot. b has worn the accusations against him with good grace but I have to say I find the lack of support from some regulars more ethically bereft than anything any Iranian has written in the heat of the moment.

As for those who have actually stepped in and joined the attack on b's credibility, if it were my site I would bar them forthwith, but it isn't, and b won't and that is part of what makes MoA a place to keep coming back to.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 20 2009 1:06 utc | 49

Youtube
Imam Khamenei(HA) - Friday Sermons - June 19, 2009
1:45:31

Posted by: balkanac | Jun 20 2009 1:12 utc | 50

ndahi @ 45

My post #35 was intended not as my position, but simply as a reminder that some neocons have a completely different reading of the situation than others. I have long learned to follow what people say and do together. So the central questions here are:

(a) Has Ahmadinejad's conduct of the Iranian foreign policy advanced the national interest of Iran vis-a-vis the U.S. and Israel or has it weakened Iran's position?

(b) Do the U.S. and Israeli decision makers think that Mr. Ahmadinejad at the helm is good for the U.S. and Israel?

(c) If the U.S. and Israeli decision makers really think Ahmadinejad is good for them; therefore, would not mind having him for four more years, would they let us know their true position?

My answers:
(a) Regardless of what Mr. Ahmadinejad and others claim, by some quasi-objective measure of success, his conduct of the Iranian foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. This we can debate.

(b) Some U.S. politicians in the executive branch and their counterparts in the Congress who are now in power think it is better to deal with Mr. Ahmadinejad for the unprecedented PR value he has provided them in the last four years; for the fact that most foreign policy decisions are at the end made by the Leader and most importantly because a weakened Ahmadinejad still represents the most "hardline" segments of the Islamic Republic, so if he accepts a deal on the nuclear issue or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under severe sanctions, he is bound to have the blessing and support of those who wield real power within the system.

Now suppose Mousavi had become the President. He is a polished bureaucrat with no record of corruption and immensely popular at home (Supposing the real voted were announced.). It would have been very difficult for the U.S. to press Russia and China for more sanctions; to give Israel the green-light for an aerial attack or to convince the EU-3 that Iran is "irrational". Mousavi could always buy time and bargain by invoking the I-need-to-make-the-IRGC-happy clause. The negotiations would have been far more difficult than those with Ahmadinejad. I am sure some people at the Foggy Bottom and Dulles are now sighing with relief, since they will be dealing with an unpopular President who has not been able to garner a congratulations note even from a senior Ayatollah in Qom.

Seen from this perspective, if the U.S. or Israel staged any information warfare, it was to convince the Leader that Ahmadinejad is his only choice by depicting genuinely aggrieved people as "color revolutionaries". You guys have joined this train of potentially playing pansies in a con too late. The counter-intelligence section of the IRGC has adopted this position a long time ago and has shaped the Leader's opinion of what is happening in Iran exactly as a color revolution. Of course they have other motivations than yours, but the result is the same.

(c) Once we know that at least the foreign policy bureaucracy in the U.S., that is, the State, the IC, the DOD and the NSC principals favor dealing with whoever comes to power in Iran, if not outright welcoming an Ahmadinejad victory, what Senator Lieberman proposes becomes largely irrelevant. He is not in the driver's seat.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 1:43 utc | 51

Anyway I came in here about something else I'll try and keep it simple and short. So far every time I write about this I get sidetracked in a rant about perfidious albion.
From the guardian writing about how awful it is that religious leader Khamenei described the brits as "the most evil of them":

Iran has been especially angry with the UK in recent months because of the launch of the BBC Persian TV channel, which was set up to provide impartial news and analysis, in Farsi, to an audience that is squeezed between state-controlled TV and US-based stations which lack weight or credibility.

impartial news and analysis I can think of a great many descriptors for BBC advertorial journalism "impartial news and analysis" isn't even close, it is a brazen lie.

More like a major feedback channel to crank up the locals.
I haven't seen this Farsi station but I have seen enough of the BBC world take on Iran to know that they regularly use journalists (either expats or the sons and daughters of Iranian expats) who believe that an armed invasion of Iran or a bombing campaign to unseat the current administration would be a good thing.

There is one particularly psychopathic young journalist featured on the dire 'meet the foreign press' tvshow on BBC world saturdays who believe that Iran was at it's best during the Pahlavi era, not that she is old enough to have witnessed it, presumably Ma and Pa "Divine Right of Kings" did before they scuttled outta Tehran.

This piece from the guardian article also proved 'interesting':

BBC Persian has been broadcasting five extra hours a day since the election crisis began, and today ran live coverage of Khamenei's speech and instant analysis that was broadcast back to Iran, including critical comments that could never be made by domestic broadcasters.

Khamenei's speech and instant analysis what more can one say. The station is new which means few Iranians will have sufficient insight into it's workings to be able to judge it's trustworthiness and it will have the frisson of novelty and slight outlawness that young people have always enjoyed.

As for not having heard from Rafsanji, BBC world has attached the execrable John Simpson their ME editor or some such equally nonsensical title to give an egomaniac with a one man show, who always on point when blood must be spilt for empire, to following Rafsanjani's daughter around like a puppy dog.
"Simmo" tells us that Rafsanjani's thoughts are spouting from his daughter (whose name I don't remember simmo uttering).

While there is not enough evidence thus far to prove this whole thing is a put up job, BBC world has become a much favoured tool of manipulation for USuk since the 'sexed up dossier inquiry which followed the death of David Kelly.
If Iranians really want to know what is going on and are relying on the BBC for information they would be wise to study the canges to editorial policy which were instituted by bliar and continued by brown after the old style BBC which was far from impartial itself got into trouble for ran a which revealed how the Iraq WMD scam was pulled.

The BBC currently toes the empire's line on most issues but none more so than "the war on terror", "all muslims are dangerous" and "Israel is a victim" memes so beloved by amerikan policy makers.

As I said above one of their favorite farsi speaking journos has repeatedly made statements along the lines of " USuk must destroy Iran to save it".

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 20 2009 1:57 utc | 52

I don't think the neocons have any real convictions about who should be the next Iranian president. They are likely favoring chaos and confusion.

I saw Khamenei's speech on press-tv. The waving of arms in unison, the mawkish weeping at the end, the whole suffocating atmosphere of conformity; Khamenei's inclusion of candidates who had been at each other's throat was intended to summon them back into the fold, and reminded them that they are the salt of the earth, and all firm members of the ruling class, onboard the Great Mothership of the Islamic Republic.

We have heard theme's about outside manipulation during our discussions, but Khamenei's long intricate, carefully worded speech, was an affirmation of carefully guarded power, a manipulation on behalf of a status quo that would undoubtedly drive even patient activists to distraction. But every person in that congregation was nodding approval for a never-changing political world without end.

I hope everyone has learned something from this. I should preface these remarks by saying that the IRI is not simply paranoid, but has an outside enemy funding covert war against it. But the hound and hare have similarities as well as differences. Countries that are under the thumb of an exclusive ruling class where the people have to be reminded constantly of all the enemies that are pressing in at all sides, and how important it is to trust the ones who are keeping them safe, even if the guardians are quite frequently fucking them over, with all due respect for public piety and the profit motive.

Will the opponents in this Iranian contest end up standing on the poop deck and saluting the revolution, patting each other on the back and nodding with approval? I wonder if among any of the deals that are to be cut, there will be something that awards the voters, by reaching to their aspirations for fairness, legal and transparent voting process, and the greater cultural tolerance and personal liberty that the masses who are protesting seem to desire?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 20 2009 2:26 utc | 53

debs is dead @52
To add to what you are saying about the BBC from today's news:

BBC enlisting new satellites to broadcast in Iran

Posted by: ensley | Jun 20 2009 2:42 utc | 54

Thanks Debs is dead for the post on BBC Persian.

It's been a classic color revolution, with U.S. government (Bush actually set aside $300 million to destablize Iran in 2007) giving $ to ngos giving information to Iranians how to do a color revolution, with a division within the Iranian elites, with even a broadcast of Peter Ackerman's how to do a color revolution on Iran television on Farsi. In Georgia the opposition also played endlessly a movie on how-to-do-a color revolution in the days leading up to their color revolution. Instead of a quickie change of government like in Georgia or Ukraine it looks like a nasty civil war in Iran.

Oh, another thing the censored news media in the U.S. seems to be missing is the potatoes. Ahmadinejad gave out potatoes to his followers who are poor. The pro-Mousavi people went around before the election denouncing "government by potoates" alleging Admadinejad was buying votes with potatoes.

Another thing people are missing in this country is that, despite the mullahs many flaws (a long long list) Ahmadinejad actually put in place policies like insurance for poor women carpet makers that made Iran more equal. Rasfanjani is a corrupt billionare the poor hate. So do you think that Ahmadinejad's poor followers are just going to give up their potatoes from the government, give up their food subsidies, give up their insurance without a fight. Nope, they'll fight. The poor fought in Venezuela against a phony color revolution and defended Chavez. The poor will fight in Iran to defend Ahmadinejad.

The middle class students and women who wanted more rights--of course they should have more rights--and have thought Mousavi will get it for them will also fight. Civil wars are the most tragic of wars. What a bloody mess those Bushites have wrought in Iran. The Bush people brought "democracy" to Iraq and now 1,300,000 people are head and 5,000,000 refugees. Here's hoping the two sides can peacefully resolve their differences but it looks bad real bad.

Posted by: Molly | Jun 20 2009 2:53 utc | 55

Debs: "Unless humans can suspend judgement and support a comrade regardless, they end up stuck with the same assholes wreaking the same havoc on the world. Because sowing the seeds of dissension is an oldie but a goodie."

Like Debs, Friday night gives me a little time to comment also. First off, I hope no one here supports a comrade's position if he/she believe it to be untrue. Of course, defending against personal insults is another matter.

I wish to thank b for being such a gracious host, but more importantly, I wish to thank him for presenting us, as usual, with a different point of view than that which we find in the major media outlets, whether liberal or conservative, left or right. And I agree with b, rgiap, annie et al. Not because I consider them to be my friends, although I do, but because they make sense. Heaven knows I will argue to the point of being insulting, as I have in the past with each of these friends, so anyone here can be certain I speak what I believe to be true or in this case, highly possible, regardless of defending a friend or fighting an enemy. And for those who desire this "revolution", all I can say is they should be careful what they wish for. I repeat here what rgiap said in a most recent post:

sadly, it is a win win for imperialism - if there is a delegitimised state under ahmedinejad - all the better for the preparations for war at a future date, if it all collapses in the streets & it falls apart - you can be sure imperialism in all its horrible forms will penetrate further in iran like a rat up a drainpipe - a weak iran is exactly what they want to confront the consolidation of its power in the larger middle east - in iraq, lebanon & the occupied territories

if there is blood in the streets of iran tomorrow or in the immediate future - there will be much celebration in the dining rooms of washington, tel aviv, & london because blood on the streets will not only signal the failure of the iranian state but it will indicate the success of the imperialist usurpers

Those who have read my previous posts on other threads also know that I try to be pro-American where possible, though such a position has always been difficult and becomes harder and harder with each passing day. My personal life and upbringing could not be more different than rgiap's, annie's or even b's. Yet, I usually agree with them even though I approach things from the right-political perspective, and they from the left. It only takes an arsonist with a few matches to start a fire that becomes out of control. In a not totally dissimilar manner, I am sure that an even greater effort for disruption has been made by U.S./U.K./Israel interests in Iran.

In that respect, it is interesting that U.S. Congress person Ron Paul was the lone dissenter on the U.S. vote today:

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives

Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009

Ron Paul: I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

Posted by: Rick | Jun 20 2009 2:54 utc | 56

@Dragonfly

Now suppose Mousavi had become the President. He is a polished bureaucrat with no record of corruption and immensely popular at home (Supposing the real voted were announced.

Are you sure in this?

Hossein Mousavi has interesting closed friends, one is Adnan Khashoggi and second is Manucher Ghorbanifar. Both arms dealers and later alleged agent for MOSSAD, and French DGSE, and who khows what not. Key men in Iran-Konta his contact was Oliver North. Report is here:FINAL REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL FOR IRAN/CONTRA MATTERS

His interview for Newsweek which is removed for theirs archive: Exclusive:Regime Change in Iran? One Man's Secret Plan.

Mir Hussein Mousavi is still uncorrupted?

Posted by: balkanac | Jun 20 2009 3:42 utc | 57

Cover Stories: The Murky World of Weapons Dealers

Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels

Former adviser to the Pentagon on counterterrorism Michael Ledeen at that time he worked for Douglas Faith who oversaw Office of Special Plans, organized meeting with Defense Intelligence Agency with Merchant of Death.

Posted by: balkanac | Jun 20 2009 3:49 utc | 58

balkanac @ 57

I know who Manouchehr Ghorbanifar is and I have read the Walsh Report. Regardless of how good any of the sources you mention is, none of them shows that either Mr. Khashoggi or Mr. Ghorbanifar is "closed friends" with Mir Hossein Mousavi.

If you have other evidence for this, please let me know.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 3:58 utc | 59

@Dragonfly, 30:

If you do this simple exercise you will find out that for more than half the 366 counties, Mr. Ahmadinejad's MOI has reported more than a 100% of all the population of the county as voters.

While this is certainly suspicious, it is not ipso-facto proof of fraud. In Iran, a person can vote at any precinct, anywhere, simply by showing an ID card.

In other words, someone could be living in Teheran, then go home for the weekend to visit relatives and watch the election there, and while there vote in a precinct where they are not registered as a resident.

On a long weekend with a hotly contested election coming up, it's probably many urbanites would do just that.

@Lysander:
Serious doubt has been cast about the vote and very intelegent and knowledgeable people are now unsure of its integrity.

Sure, but the real issue is: do 65% of Iran's population doubt it, or are 65% sure that they voted for AN?

If it is the latter, then the doubters are in the extreme minority and it really doesn't matter what they think.

2) Large numbers of demonstrators are paralyzing Tehran and possibly other cities. Any violent crackdown could easily backfire.

True. But I think Rafsanjani and the clerics would not be so stupid as to allow this to break out into full-scale revolt. If push comes to shove, they will flinch first -- and the riots will stop.

3) Internationally Iran is paying a heavy price as the perceived legitimacy of the government declines rapidly.

Absolutely true.

Basically, we agree on all three of those things.

Iran has to confront [these facts].
How do you suggest they go about it?

A recount with observers from every candidate present. It would be simple, effective, and would be very hard for any of them to argue away. From there, the Ayatollah could either go with a run-off, or support the original decision -- and if 65% of Iran really did vote for AhmadiNejad and the agitation continued, then after a recount proved it you can bet there'd be buses upon buses of country folk moving into the cities to shut the students up.

It may not look good on TV, but after following through the process there'd not be much the world could say.

Simply moving to a runoff from here, though, would be a dire mistake: it would validate the entire Western narrative.

Ideally, what would happen is a recount held, the decision judged accurate, but a runoff get held anyway.

But it is imperative there be a recount, first.

Keep in mind that what so many neoconservatives are saying even now; That they are better off with AN in power. Ask Daniel Pipes, ask Mossad chief Meyer Dagan.

Sure; the Israeli right wing would prefer to have AN in power, b/c it makes their job easier.

However, dictating to the Iranis who their next president must be simply because we aren't determined enough to rein in our own disgusting fascists isn't really a very humane solution, is it? It's their country.

Consider the possibility that we are fighting the wrong battle here.

Short of forming our own Minutemen Internationale, there isn't much else we can do, is there?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 4:31 utc | 60

debs is dead @ 49

I don't believe at the moment that there is any way inside or outside Iran of proving the election result one way or the other, simply because everyone is operating with a shortage of evidence for which they are substituting their hopes and desires.

Look at comment #30. There I have outlined a simple way to see if the election results are fraudulent or not. Am wondering why none of you guys took it up. I've done it and it doesn't take much time. I'm sure b or someone else here can enlist the help of an Iranian for a couple of hours to add up some numbers in Excel.

Or perhaps "hopes and desires" are just too powerful....

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 4:36 utc | 61

@Dragonfly

Cover Stories: The Murky World of Weapons Dealers

In any ordinary business, Manucher Ghorbanifar would cut an implausibly mysterious figure. Officially, he has been a shipping executive in Tehran and a commodities trader in France. By his own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government.

Posted by: balkanac | Jun 20 2009 5:09 utc | 62

@ China Hand, you may be right about the count, but quite frankly the government has to resolve this crisis in a non-violent way. By all means, recount the vote in an open way with all parties represented. I don't know why they haven't done that already, if they are confident of their count. They should be eager to do it. If the count 'proves' AN won but the demonstrations continue, then what? I suggest a re-vote. If AN won by 62% last week, why not again this week? Keep an inordinate number of observers and it will be hard to maintain that they were cheated twice.

And if Musavi turns out to be the winner? Then that is that. I can't decide that for Iran. They will be in a position to know if he is a puppet of foreign powers or not. My guess is not.

At Balkanac. That is an interesting link, but Musavi could argue he was the PM in war time when Iran was under sanctions and had to get whatever weapons he could from whomever was selling. Failure to obtain weapons would mean more dead Iranians. That doesn't make it insignificant. It certainly opens the possibility that lasting contacts were established.

Of course, there may be other ways. Perhaps the government could wait it out and people will get protest fatigue. As many as 1 million people attended Khamenei's sermon, so clearly the government has ample supporters.

All I'm saying is that Iran has to find a non-violent solution at almost any cost...including sacrificing AN and even Khamenei. The Republic can survive without them. Of course, arrest vandals. But peaceful demonstrators must be left alone.

As to the color revolution, again I don't know. It has been done many times before so it is certainly reasonable to be suspicious. Even if the demos were spontaneous, foreign agents are sure to step in now if they can.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 20 2009 5:39 utc | 63

I don't know why they haven't done that already, if they are confident of their count.

I think the main reason is because there has been massive rioting in the cities, and the opposition is skipping over the recount and demanding a new election.

If the opposition refuses to attend the recount -- as Rezai has been doing -- then they can't really proceed, can they?

If the count 'proves' AN won but the demonstrations continue, then what? I suggest a re-vote. If AN won by 62% last week,

I agree with this, too. But surely Rafsanjani has thought of this, already? And Khamenei realizes it; that's almost certainly why he has been making so many public appeals, and dragging his feet.

My biggest worry is that the opposition is going to lose control of the mobs; but Rafsanjani is a very clever, very powerful man. I think it won't happen, but who knows?

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 6:10 utc | 64

Good old Bhadrakumar, in a very interesting article has totally reversed the tables on the Mousvi camp.

Beijing cautions US over Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar

...

Mousavi is the affable front man for the mullahs, who fear that another four years of Ahmadinejad would hurt their vested interests. Ahmadinejad has already begun marginalizing the clergy from the sinecures of power and the honey pots of the Iranian economy, especially the oil industry.

The struggle between the worldly mullahs (in alliance with the bazaar) and the republicans is as old as the 1979 Iranian revolution, where the fedayeen of the proscribed Tudeh party (communist cadres) were the original foot soldiers of the revolution, but the clerics usurped the leadership. The highly contrived political passions let loose by the 444-day hostage crisis with the US helped the wily Shi'ite clerics to stage the Thermidorian reaction and isolate the progressive revolutionary leadership. Ironically, the US once again figures as a key protagonist in Iran's dialectics - not as a hostage, though.

Imam Khomeini was wary of the Iranian mullahs and he created the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as an independent force to ensure the mullahs didn't hijack the revolution. Equally, his preference was that the government should be headed by non-clerics. In the early years of the revolution, the conspiracies hatched by the triumvirate of Beheshti-Rafsanjani-Rajai who engineered the ouster of the secularist leftist president Bani Sadr (who was Khomeini's protege), had the agenda to establish a one-party theocratic state. These are vignettes of Iran's revolutionary history that might have eluded the intellectual grasp of George W Bush, but Obama must be au fait with the deviousness of Rafsanjani's politics.

If Rafsanjani's putsch succeeds, Iran would at best bear resemblance to a decadent outpost of the "pro-West" Persian Gulf. Would a dubious regime be durable? More important, is it what Obama wishes to see as the destiny of the Iranian people? The Arab street is also watching. Iran is an exception in the Muslim world where people have been empowered. Iran's multitudes of poor, who form Ahmadinejad's support base, detest the corrupt, venal clerical establishment. They don't even hide their visceral hatred of the Rafsanjani family.

Alas, the political class in Washington is clueless about the Byzantine world of Iranian clergy. Egged on by the Israeli lobby, it is obsessed with "regime change". The temptation will be to engineer a "color revolution". But the consequence will be far worse than what obtains in Ukraine. Iran is a regional power and the debris will fall all over. The US today has neither the clout nor the stamina to stem the lava flow of a volcanic eruption triggered by a color revolution that may spill over Iran's borders.

Posted by: a | Jun 20 2009 6:46 utc | 65

Basiji Hunting

2:53 PM ET (Friday 6/19) --
Steve Clemons posts from Tehran describing a new trend:

"two nights ago I went out to see a few things . . . as the general crowds spread into their homes, militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'."

"Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they are hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised, and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected."

"The Basiji's are not."

"These are not the students in the dorms; they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on."

"Also, with $10K every local police station lock can be broken and guns taken out . . . the police, too, are crowd friendly . . . for sure, put a gun in their hands and these young become a serious counterbalance to the Basij . . . call them 10% of 18-22 year olds - that makes circa 10 million around the country versus max 4 million Basijis."

+

Dictionary.com: Civil War -- noun -- a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

This hunting down and killing of the Basiji street thugs who are hunting down protesters is organized killing by warring political factions, the very definition of civil war. How big, and how widespread it becomes depends entirely on how soon Khameni and Friends realize they have screwed the pooch by denying justice to the people.

Justice for the people is the true and sole root of the Grand Ayatollah's authority in the Islamic Republic, and his abandoning of justice for the people has permanently turned a huge portion of the populace against him and his. He failed to compromise. No compromise will be forthcoming from them, either.

The police and Army are not going to back the Basij, and fire on protestors. The Basij, and Khameni, have already lost this one. It is only a matter now of and eye for an eye.

Tragic, avoidable, foolish, heartbreaking, but because neither side will back down, here it comes.

+

Dictionary.com: DOA -- abbr. -- Dead On Arrival.

The election tally is DOA. It is moot. It has shuffled off this mortal coil and joined the choir eternal. Khameni and Friends could produce every fucking ballot box in the country at this point, strewn with flowers and perfume, and it would not -- could not -- be believed or accepted. The chain of evidence was utterly broken when the ballots were seized and privatized. No court or judge in the world would accept anything offered up at this point.

Commenters here or anywhere else who insist on trying to reanimate this corpse are merely practicing necrophilia for their own pleasure, purposes, or profit.

It's bad enough to see Khameni screwing the pooch harder day by day. To have to watch his admirers sticking it to a stiff long after any hope of romance is gone is beyond obscene.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 20 2009 10:56 utc | 66

The chain of evidence was utterly broken when the ballots were seized and privatized.

"The Ass" responds:

Until you show us proof to back up this assertion, antifa, we can only assume that it is a lie invented by you to back up your opinion.

And according to Bhadrakumar up there, it's Rafsanjani and the Mullahs who represent the forces of oppression and elite privilege at work, here -- not Khamenei. With no evidence of vote-tampering, and no evidence of any election-stealing going on except for your fervent advocation of Mousavi's whining, it does indeed look as if Bhadrakumar is correct in saying that it's the Mullahs behind Rafsanjani who are trying to steal the election in order to maintain their religious hold over the Iranian government. Certainly, as i and others have pointed out a few times, AhmadiNejad has been a force for expanding the powers of the presidency and easing the hold of the religious councils over Irani society.

Got any evidence to back up those outrageous claims of yours, or is this just another temper-tantrum by little miss "I don't need any proof because I just know it!"

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 11:40 utc | 67

@66
The chain of evidence was utterly broken when the ballots were seized and privatized. No court or judge in the world would accept anything offered up at this point.

I understand the sentiment but on the contrary, a vote-theft of the magnitude alleged should be quite provable before an unbiased judge (or panel of judges). At every step along the way, turnout/collation abd other official documents are signed by electoral officers and candidate-representatives and each gets a copy. Theres the voting register. Also witness accounts can be useful. Also, each ballot should have a serial number.

again, its very important to note that Mousavi's guys are entrenched insiders too and it would be very surprising if they do'nt already have a pretty good picture of what actually happened.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 20 2009 12:49 utc | 68

I too would like to better understand the voting system, someone had mentioned a system of stubs and ballots that had to be cross checked. a talking head on MSM this morning said he suspected that the ballot boxes arrived at the polling stations already stuffed with ballots. with the system of stubs that should not be possible.

it seems to me that in order for such large scale fraud to be successful, everyone would have to be in on it as it is in the US with the electronic machines without paper trails. If that were the case why would they now speak out of turn and throw the whole system into turmoil? that is definitely bad for business.

lastly, what is there to gain by having a new election with the current system? If it is possible to cheat once and nothing is changed, why can't they cheat again. or do the losers merely want to keep voting until they win?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 20 2009 13:07 utc | 69

@DoS - or do the losers merely want to keep voting until they win?

I assume that is the plan.

@jbc - Also, each ballot should have a serial number.

I am not aware of any election where ballots have a serial number and for obvious reasons I would not vote in an election where that is the case.

How the Iranian elections are done: Iran’s Presidential Election Day Primer

The polling stations will be open Friday, June 12, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli announced, however, that if the polling stations are busy, the hours allocated to vote could be extended. There are 45,713 voting centers, including 3,200 in Tehran and vicinity alone. There are an additional 162 polling stations for Iranians living outside the country, including 32 in the United States.

Every polling station will have at least six people administering the election including a chief, a deputy, three secretaries and a member assigned by the governor. These administrators will ensure voters are eligible to vote and that election procedures are followed. To cast a ballot, voters must be over 18 years of age, be mentally sane and provide national identification cards that certify the voter is an Iranian citizen. Once the voter’s ballot is cast and sealed, the election administration stamps the voter’s identity card to eliminate the possibility of voting twice.

The elections will be monitored by the Central Supervisory Committee, established by the Guardian Council and made up of two members of the Guardian Council and five individuals chosen by consensus by the council. They will monitor their local supervisory boards appointed at the local district level. The Guardian Council, in addition to monitoring the election, reviews candidate nominations and approves the final slate of candidates.

The candidates can personally or collectively introduce supervising representative(s) at the polling stations. Candidate representatives can be present at all polling stations for the balloting, counting and transfer process. Those monitors can report any violations to the Supervisory Committee in writing.

The Judiciary also gave Iran's General Inspection Organization, a government oversight body, the authorization to observe the election, despite opposition by incumbent Ahmadinejad.

Once a polling station is closed, the counting process begins. Polling station officials first count the ballot stubs, followed by the ballots. Ballots will be considered null and void with the verification of the local district Supervisory Board if the ballot is illegible, contains names other than the approved candidates, lacks election seals or is a nonstandard ballot. If the number of stubs and ballots are equal, then the actual vote count begins. If there are more votes than ballots, then the difference is randomly selected from the ballot box and the votes cancelled, then the ballots are counted. In cases where there are more stubs than ballots, the discrepancy is reported and the votes are counted.

Once the votes are counted and results tallied, the official results are certified, and all ballots are returned to the ballot box, which is then sealed and officially transferred to the Executive Committee. Results will be announced within 24 hours.

Think of it 45,000 polling stations with 6 officials each - how come nor witness of voting fraud came from these? Also the number explains a relative fast count. 1,000 votes per station is easy to count and recount with 6 people.

A Primer on Iran’s Presidential Election System

Voting in Iran

In Iran, there is no voter registration or roll. Iranians can vote anywhere as long as they present their national identification book, or Shenasnameh. The system is set up to prevent fraud at a number of levels, starting with voting procedures.

Iran has a two-part ballot – the ballot itself and a stub portion. When a voter enters the polling station, there is a check of their shenasnameh for authenticity to ensure the voter is eligible to vote (the voting age in Iran is 16) and that the voter has not already voted in the election. For every election in Iran, there is a unique ink stamp which is stamped into a voter’s shenasnameh. This latter check is based on an examination of the shenasnameh to ensure there is not already a stamp from the current election in the booklet.

The voter’s information, consisting of basic biographical data, is then entered onto the stub portion of the ballot. It is important to note that the stub, once detached from the ballot, cannot be matched to the ballot. There are no serial numbers or any other markings that tie the two parts together. Thus, it is realistically impossible to know for whom a voter cast a ballot.

Once the stub portion of the ballot is completed and the shenasnameh stamped, the stub is separated from the ballot and deposited into a box where all the stubs are collected. The voter then proceeds to the voting station, fills in the name of their desired candidate, folds the ballot in half and casts their ballot in a ballot box.
The Count

Polling stations in Iran are typically open from 8am to 8pm. These hours can be extended by the MoI if the turnout warrants it.

Once the polling station is closed, the counting process begins. Polling station officials first count the ballot stubs, followed by the ballots. If the number of stubs and ballots are equal, then the actual vote count begins. If there are more votes than ballots, then the difference is randomly selected from the ballot box and the votes cancelled, then the ballots are counted. In cases where there are more stubs than ballots, the discrepancy is reported and the votes are counted.

Once the votes are counted and results tallied, the official results are certified, all ballots are returned to the ballot box, which is then sealed and officially transferred to the Executive Committee.

It is important to note that neither the general public nor outside entities are permitted to officially monitor the elections. However, candidate agents may be present at every polling station during the voting hours and during the vote count. Additionally, they may attend every Election Executive Committee meeting during the election period.

Posted by: b | Jun 20 2009 13:53 utc | 70

@jbc - Also, each ballot should have a serial number.

to clarify, if the serial-number (for tracking purposes) is on the ballot-stub only, voter privacy is not compromised at all.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jun 20 2009 14:20 utc | 71

@jony_b_cool #71
Our ballots (optical scan) here in Florida are numbered along with the stub and assigned to your registered name. They are not 'secret.' If you make a mistake, you have to go through a complicated process of getting another numbered ballot assigned to you by the election workers.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 20 2009 14:42 utc | 72

What the corpse-fuckers on this thread do not realize is the import of their own statements -- that the opposition wants to keep voting until they get their way.

'Their way" is an election where the ballots are left in place for everyone to count right in the precinct, the way the law lays it out. No trucking everything off to the MoI for unseen persons to count until they like the count they get.

Since that kind of election is not being offered, 'their way' is to undo the theft of this recent election. They are going to fight until the regime falls, even if the streets run with blood.

The protesters know that if they acquiesce, and go home, they will all be hunted, investigated, arrested, and in all ways suffer the rage of the hardliners. That would be dumb.

Far better, they feel, to all hang together than hang separately.

A very American sentiment.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 20 2009 14:48 utc | 73

balkanac @ 62

Two problems with your comments:

1. I'm afraid you either do not understand the word evidence as I understand it or have simply chosen to repeat claims in the hope that somehow they become true.

2. It sounds like you have very little idea of the players of the Iran-Contra affair on the Iranian side and have no access or interest in Persian sources documenting the story. It is understandable, because any old hand in analyzing Iranian affairs would realize the absurdity of blowing up Mousavi's involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. Mr. Ahmadinejad's campaign that could go so low as to advise him to stage the disgraceful "begam, begam" episode on TV, could not dig dirt on Mousavi in the Iran-Contra affair. Even Sobh-e Sadegh, the fanciful conspiratorial publication of the IRGC J2 designed to hold their cadre in line did not go there. Best of them all Nime Penhan, the column of dirt that has been used to muddy anyone deemed not good enough for the Islamic Republic has not ventured into this claim. Wonder why?

Let's take a look the claim in the 1987 Time article:

By his own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government.

This simply says that Mr. Ghorbanifar claimed that he was an adviser to Mousavi. Claims are a dime a dozen. Mr. Ghorbanifar has a long record of, shall we say, bending the truth. You could read some of his shenanigans in the Walsh Report whose Chapter 8 you posted here. Both Iranian and American sources, except for his longtime guardian angel Michael Ledeen, discount Ghorbanifar as a liar. I have no reason to believe this man. If you have other sources who corroborate him or another piece of evidence that shows what he says is right, please let me know.

On the other hand, suppose he was really an adviser to Mousavi. This is mid 80s, the height of the tanker war and heightened Iranian anxiety over the prospect of losing the war. The MOIS has been operating in for a few years; even the lowest ranking employee of Ministry of Housing gets vetted by the MOIS and OGA, yet Mr. Ghorbanifar has become and adviser to the PM. So even if this is true, there is a simple explanation for it: The Iranians knew who Ghorbanifar was; they needed him for weapons, so they gave him a nominal post to inflate his ego while keeping him on leash.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 14:51 utc | 74

The Regime will not fall and be replaced by something that resembles what the protesters want. Blood will be spilled, a lot of it. Antifa, you are right about what will happen to the protesters, they will be hunted down and persecuted, so they, if they're smart and have the means, hopefully have a contingency plan for getting the hell out when their campaign proves unsuccessful. Wherever they go, if they do go, they can watch as the Imperialists, in the aftermath, swarm in and pick the carcass that was once Iran, clean.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 20 2009 15:32 utc | 75

Sorry to see you so angry Antifa, there is one thing you should consider and it is bound to be unpleasant.

back in 04 we were all convinced that bush the younger would be voted out of office, he was despicable having lied us into a war and had taken away so many basic rights. anybody but bush had become an acronym. yet despite how strongly all of us felt about him, he was re-elected handily and even though there is a good chance the vote was stolen in Ohio it most likely was not in other states and there were more than just a few bumperstickers with bush/cheney proudly displayed.

you are taking an apparent lack of support for your dog in the fight on the part of many posters here for an endorsement of AN and the status quo. I don't think that is the case. our host here rarely tips his hand and what you perceive as an endorsement is more of a contrarian view to the "serious" corporate media. They have an agenda, I really don't think b does.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 20 2009 15:39 utc | 76

This simply says that Mr. Ghorbanifar claimed that he was an adviser to Mousavi.

?

not the way i read it.

Chapter 1 of Walsh Iran/Contra Report:

"On or about November 25, 1985, Ledeen received a frantic phone call from Ghorbanifar, asking him to relay a message from [Mir-Hossein Mousavi] the prime minister of Iran to President Reagan regarding the shipment of the wrong type of HAWKs. Ledeen said the message essentially was "we've been holding up our part of the bargain, and here you people are now cheating us and tricking us and deceiving us and you had better correct this situation right

more from time

Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian who has close ties to his country's Prime Minister, Hussein Mousavi. Ghorbanifar told the Israelis that the leaders of his country's armed forces belonged to a moderate faction that would be vying for control of Iran after Khomeini died. By helping the Iranian army obtain U.S. weapons, Ghorbanifar said, Israel could open a line of communication with the moderates and help them win the battle for succession.

where are you going w/this? 'they needed him for weapons, so they gave him a nominal post to inflate his ego while keeping him on leash. '

sounds like a guessing game. Ghorbanifar's involvement w/iran contra is hardly what one would consider 'nominal'.

Posted by: annie | Jun 20 2009 15:51 utc | 77

you are taking an apparent lack of support for your dog in the fight on the part of many posters here for an endorsement of AN

amir alludes to the same thing. i simply resent the outside (foreign) involvement. millions of my tax dollars to be specific. i'm not even convinced it is for opposition, more likely for overall instability leading to regime change. i don't know either of the candidates well enough to make a call on who would be better for iran.

he was re-elected handily and even though there is a good chance the vote was stolen in Ohio it most likely was not in other states

there were numerous states the results were reversed from the exit poll results. same numbers, but flipped results. enough for him to claim a 'mandate'. google NM 04, or nevada. the media was silent even thru individual state trials and conyers congressional hearings.

Posted by: annie | Jun 20 2009 16:02 utc | 78

Ok, china_hand2, who are you to accuse Antifa of lying? Where is your proof? Why don't you just dial back the bullshit. It's getting old. I've been reading Antifa for years and I really don't know who you are; so why don't you just stick to the points of this discussion?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 20 2009 16:55 utc | 79

who are you to accuse Antifa of lying? Where is your proof?

This is at least the fifth time i have seen her make a claim like this:

The chain of evidence was utterly broken when the ballots were seized and privatized.

I have called her on this each time (as have several other people here, too) -- and yet she continues to re-post the claim as if there exists some sort of evidence to back it up.

When one re-iterates something and insists it is truth even though one knows for a fact it is, at best, a weak rumour, then one is lying.

The first one or two times, i simply asked where the proof was. In response, i got a lecture about being a "mule" and such, a lot of exaggerated glad-handing went on with Amir, and now it has all blossomed into "corpse fucker".

So really, if you're going to jump up and play the hero for this person, i couldn't care less what you think about me.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 17:07 utc | 80

@Antifa . Their way" is an election where the ballots are left in place for everyone to count right in the precinct, the way the law lays it out. No trucking everything off to the MoI for unseen persons to count until they like the count they get.

I do not know where you got the idea that the votes were NOT counted in the precincts. Not even Mousavi alleges that they were not counted there.

The votes were indeed counted in the precincts with the officials and party representatives there. The forms were filled out and the numbers telephoned and mailed up the chain. The ballot boxes were resealed and eventually trucked of the interior ministry just as the procedures say.
(btw - this is the same process than in Germany).

Can you please show me some piece of news that asserts believable that something different happened? Where are the witnesses form 45,000 voting locations with at least six officials plus party representatives in each of them that say the votes were not counted there?

Posted by: b | Jun 20 2009 17:10 utc | 81

@Copeland:

See post #81 there?

Believe it or not, i'm not b.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 17:14 utc | 82

After Khamenei's speech the other day, that had seemed like a declaration of the unchangeable state of the nation, we see that there could be real trouble. I think it's fair to say that no one is playacting or posing on the streets of Tehran. It would be wise to take the pulse of this rebellion and ask yourself why young Iranian women are among the brave in these demonstrations. Why are protesters carrying images of Mossadegh? And why are the Basiji goons so goonish?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 20 2009 17:25 utc | 83

"Until you show us proof to back up this assertion, antifa, we can only assume that it is a lie invented by you to back up your opinion."

This is your post #67, china_hand2. Any further comments?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 20 2009 17:39 utc | 84

What more explanation does a comment like that need?

She's made the assertion repeatedly; she has never shown any proof; many people have asked for proof, evidence, reference -- anything -- to back up her claim; and yet, her one response is always "Oh, you're being a stubborn poopy-head!"

And then she re-iterates it all over again.

There are only two possible conclusions one can draw from such behavior, and frankly, i think lying is the more generous of the pair.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 17:44 utc | 85

Annie @ 77

I am afraid your hurling accusations and obscenities on the other thread leaves very little incentive for me to respond to your post. However, I will respond this one time, hoping we can discuss things rather than exhibiting our frustration on these pages.

Please answer these questions. They are painless and require only yes and no as answers:

1. Do you speak or read Persian?
2. Have you lived, worked or studied in Iran?
3. Except for the Internet and news sources, is there any other way you consistently collect and analyze news on Iranian affairs?

It is befuddling to me that you, b, china_hand2 and a bunch of other posters here simply tend not to do your homework before opining on things. b misrepresents economic analysis, but does not answer for his gross misrepresentations; you hurl accusations without qualms; when you are told to examine actual data you simply pretend you didn't see it. These are all symptoms of ideological armchair analysts whose aim is perhaps not enlightening others, but to advance a political or some other agenda. I hope I am wrong. But so far your behavior does not indicate otherwise.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 17:53 utc | 86

Copeland

The extraordinary thing is that if you analyse the numbers for the first rounds of Iranian elections since 1997, there really should be NO young people protesting on the streets at all.

Let me explain: In 1997 Khatami won 20 million votes in the first round, and did a near-repeat performance 4 years later - in both instances the reformist ticket achieved 75-80% landslide victories.

In the first round in 2005, if you look at the results you see that, on a reduced turnout, both percentage-wise and absolute, the Rafsanjani/ 3 Reform candidates got some 16.5 million votes to the 11.5 million votes by the conservatives ( Ahmadinejad, Qalibaf, Larijani ).

This time round, Ahmadinejad has got nearly 24 million votes, whilst the 2 reformist candidates have polled WORSE than in any of the 3 prior elections, with only 14 million or so votes.

Now, go to the demographics, and each electoral cycle is producing roughly 6 million new youth voters, with some 2 million older voters "retiring".

In fact, it seem that Ahmadinejad has captured nearly 100% of the youth vote in the 16-24 age range.

Obviously I'm not being entirely serious here - but a little levity isn't the worst of sins.

Posted by: dan | Jun 20 2009 18:06 utc | 87

completely OT but curious, china_hand2 refers to Antifa as a female and I am assuming it is because of the name. I read antifa as antifascist and have always assumed him to be male. for the record, Debs is dead refers to Eugene Debs and was, at least the first time I saw him post, Debs in 04. once that election in the US went to the boy king he changed his screen name to what it is now.

oh, one other thing, go stifle yourself slothrop.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 20 2009 18:10 utc | 88

@DoS:

It's partly because of the name; but also, something about antifa's writing strikes me as peculiarly feminine. It's very hard for me to put my finger upon, but virtually from the first few posts of anti's that i came across, i've just always thought them "female".

anna missed strikes me as male, though. Go figure.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 20 2009 18:19 utc | 89

you are right about anna missed, he was first anna mist and believe it is simply a play on animist

at our MoA meeting in Hamburg I too was very surprised at the gender of some of the regular posters. I am probably wrong about Antifa and it really is not important. I still find his/her viewpoints fascinating though I am taken aback at the level of passion in this particular subject.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 20 2009 18:28 utc | 90

Annie @ 77...I will respond this one time.....Please answer these questions.

i fail to see how this 'response' even relates to my 77 post.

Posted by: annie | Jun 20 2009 22:39 utc | 91

Annie @ 91

Quite simple. I want to know if I can direct you to Persian sources and if you are given those sources if you are able to read, understand and appraise them. Also, I want to know if your background fits the bill. In my experience, dealing with Jack of all trades who have opinions about everything without the requisite knowledge and skills is plain useless.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 20 2009 23:10 utc | 92

you need a persian source to back this ('they needed him for weapons, so they gave him a nominal post to inflate his ego while keeping him on leash. ' up?

you are asserting Ghorbanifar wasn't close to Mousavi and you want me to answer questions for you to determine if i am worthy. evidence (Walsh) suggests they were close affiliates. evidence (Walsh) suggests he was tasked w/more than nominal tasks. you can either back up your assertions or you can't.

Posted by: annie | Jun 21 2009 2:58 utc | 93

So even if this is true, there is a simple explanation for it: The Iranians knew who Ghorbanifar was; they needed him for weapons, so they gave him a nominal post to inflate his ego while keeping him on leash.

You would do yourself a great service if you read the above quote diligently and stop pouncing as if you are a cat in a cage: Even if this is true, ....

Capisce?

Now back to your question about Ghorbanifar. Congressional reports, especially the Walsh report are hodgepodges of he-said, she-said. Who corroborates Mr. Ledeen but Mr. Ledeen or some other political hack like Olie North? For example, Chapter 1 of the Walsh Report says:

Among the officials Ghorbanifar said would meet with an American delegation were the president and prime minister of Iran and the speaker of the Iranian parliament.

Mr. Khamenei the current Leader was the President then, FYI. So if Mr. Ghorbanifar is to be believed, perhaps Mr. Khamenei too is an American stooge.

So, no. Mr. Ghorbanifar's claims are not to be trusted.

I know of no Persian source and no credible English studies of this affair that emphasizes Mousavi's role in this affair.

Alternative public sources that might have helped you if you could access them:

1. M. Mohammadi Reishahri, Political Memoirs, vol. 1.
2. H. A. Montazeri, Memoirs.
3. A. A. Hashemi Rafsanjani, Weathering a Crisis, vols. 2, 3.
4. M. R. Golzar, Surveillance of Ghosts.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 21 2009 5:05 utc | 94