it is getting a bit silly actually – he not only expresses deep concern, it seems he also reiterates concern
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17prexy.html?ref=politics
how many days is he going to keeps this up? I guess Iranians will be able to walk around Tehran for quite a while …

Posted by: outsider | Jun 16 2009 18:22 utc | 4

obama’s consistant lack of transparency & indeed the followinf of the cheney bush junta in torture, in detention, in tribunals, his actual choosing the psychopath mchrystal to go with the petulant petraeus make his concern something of little or no weight
he appears to be the banker president – & i worry that even the most minmal demand on him of health care will not be fulfilled

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 16 2009 18:53 utc | 6

@Alex_no – my interpretation is different
In my view Khamenei and others were surprised by the “color revolution” like attempt of Mousavi to skew the election to his side by asserting he had won absolut victory in a four horse race. They reacted by early publishing of trends in the available count and later by clumsy crack downs on communications perceived to be dangerous.
As of “Khamenai blinked”, a favored meme of the day, I am not so sure. A serious recount may well show Ahmadinejad did win. Then what?

Posted by: b | Jun 16 2009 19:35 utc | 8

Looks like the VofA editors (photo editor?) wanted to push an impression of angry strength on the part of the new president. He might be willing to negotiate, but he’ll brook no messing around with electoral politics. Or some such storyline. Stern and firm, with that soupcon of anger.
Still photos can be selected to show just about any “state of mind” given enough shots of someone just speaking in an ordinary manner.
This, however, is far from the usual “cool” and detached expression seen in photos of him selected for public viewing. He has far more nearly expressionless photos selected so far than any with actual discernable emotional content, and of those various stages of possible expression, smiles seem more predominant. Anger, as this shot might be interpreted, perhaps even firmness…seen less often.
Irritation, it seems to me, is selected for some stories about Obama “standing up” to the radical lefties* in the Democratic Party.
*Yeah, right. Lefty Dems!

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 16 2009 20:13 utc | 10

Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality

-Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity outside of large urban areas, among Iranians who care as much or more about faith and tradition as urbanites care about western-style freedom.
-As much as we see Ahmadinejad as a rogue character—his appearance reminds me of the bad guy in one of those Chick gospel tracts—Ahamadinejad is known in Iran as an anti-corruption figure and champion for the little guy. (Don’t laugh.)
-a margin of victory as wide as Ahmadinejad’s would be difficult to produce through fraud.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 16 2009 20:28 utc | 12

Glenn Greenwald doesn’t (yet) get into the who won what with how many votes, but does note the cognitive dissonance of many of those now cheering on the anti-Ahmadinejad Iranians — since many of these cheerleaders previously were unabashedly hoping for and calling for the US (or Israel) to bomb those same Iranians. Well, at least Iranians anywhere near target-rich areas. Recall McCain and his little “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” ditty/joke?
Greenwald also links to a good Daniel Laarison piece in American Conservative Magazine. Not my usual reading source, but I agree with Greenwald that this is “astute.”

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 16 2009 20:50 utc | 14

b@8
To reveal my colours, I don’t much care whether it is Mousavi or Ahmedinejad who has won, as long as it is the decision of the Iranian people.
Evidently there were many interests to cheat. Ahmedinejad to stay in power, which he did through his friendship with Khamenei. The US paid, to support a “color revolution”. A “color revolution”, however, is not going to succeed without popular support. That is why a US inspired “color revolution” is only peripheral to the real events.
A recount is rubbish, as a large number of vote cards have been thrown in the bin. A recount will certainly show that Ahmedinejad has won. The only way that one could have a true count would be to revote, under stricter control. As the opposition demands.
It would be useful also to research Mousavi’s connections with the US. I haven’t seen good evidence cited so far. I am open to correction. In order to prove the “color revolution”. Not having seen the evidence so far, I have my doubts. He is not an Ahmed Chalabi.

Posted by: Alex_no | Jun 16 2009 20:59 utc | 16

People who criticise others for only commenting on the reaction in the west puzzle me. The vast majority of us are not in Iran and can only get information from friends who have family there. Communications between Iran and expats or the sons and daughters of expats is flowing thick and fast both ways and the consequence of that may not be the ‘perfect democracy’ which so many have been trained to believe is a natural consequence of enhanced communication. The information is coloured by the filters of the Iranian friends own beliefs and prejudices, which makes objective comment from outside Iran impossible. Therefore we concentrate on what has become an area of expertise for many of us. The perfidy of western media. Why not?
The two way flow of information means that Iranians know the world has them under the lens of CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera et al, but how many Iranians fully understand that what the western media writes about and how it presents it’s news is a subjectively distorted lens which considers the ultimate fate of ordinary Iranians right down the list, towards the bottom, of its priorities?
Yet expats tell their friends and family about some rumour presented as fact which a western talking head picked up off a Tehran taxi driver and the rumour which probably started life that morning as one of thousands of whispers, nuggets of reality, exaggerations or outright lies, now becomes fact because it was on the BBC by the time Iranians get it back from their expat friends. Even in that short path of maybe 2 or 3 degrees of communication the story will be awfully distorted to suit the point of view of those telling it.
So I for one prefer to concentrate on what we do now from what we have seen happen in countries as diverse as Kenya and the Ukraine. Whatever the demonstrators care passionately about doesn’t mean a damn to those outside Iran who are pushing this barrow, and if Iranian politicians resemble their counterparts in amerika england russia or france the concerns of the demonstrators will mean little to them also, apart from needing to know them to better pervert them.
In fact I would have thought that Iranians would know better that most others how it is that a ‘revolution’ left in the hands of self appointed ‘leaders’ becomes perverted for those megalomaniacs own ends, but there you go.
Iranians do feel isolated though and I have no doubt that urban Iranians in particular would like to become part of the ‘global’ continuum which appears so sleek and shiny from a distance. So that is undoubtedly where a self interested ‘revolutionary’ leader would take them since he is going to be able to guarantee delivery of that much vaunted outcome in return for the sort of outside support likely to make his position unassailable.
This is where we will really strike cognitive dissonance IMO, because just as the supporters of recent populist movements have claimed in other nations, the supporters in Iran will claim their leaders are different they won’t do what every other movement leader has done. Then a sort of racist “we are different in …” is stated as if the people of that particular nation aren’t normal human beings able to be manipulated by simple attention to their hierarchy of needs by wily pollsters and pols.
So if Mousavi is manipulated into power and goes for the easy option as everything I can discern about this opportunist suggests he is likely to do, Iranians are going to find themselves in a worse situation than they are now in about five years. Sure some will be better off but as far as oligarchies go the names at the top will change but much else will remain the same and you can be sure that steps will be put in place to ensure that Iran cannot return to it’s previous stance on issues as diverse as their support for Palestine to their redistribution of a tiny portion of oil royalties to rural peasants.
The new world eschews even tiny concessions to the less fortunate – it is welfarism and breeds weakness is the ideology, the reality is that it reduces the available wealth to be sequestered to the already rich, and in doing so dilutes their absolute power even if only fractionally.
Don’t think it can’t happen, it can, in fact the current mob probably only give away the little they do because Kohemeni and co needed to accommodate a few of the leftie promises even as they were executing the leftie leaders.
While the people on the streets are thinking of how life will be New York after they get their way if western influence comes into play, an outcome more likely than not, Islamabad is a more realistic model of what life will be like in the future.
These USuk assholes will take every opportunity to spread misery and dissension, so as to ensure that Iran cannot threaten their hegemony ever again.
You want to have a revolution in Iran do it, but don’t climb on the shirt-tails of a corrupt and greedy professional politician, and don’t even consider what is going on outside Iran. A revolution requires attention to the tiniest detail by the people if it is to succeed in the way the people want. The mere fact that so many angry posts about B’s comments have appeared here shows me that this movement is likely doomed, insofar as getting the outcome people imagine, since energies are being expended in the wrong areas.
Don’t be watching the BBC, much less MoA, be watching Mousavi and his band of careerists because that is where betrayal will come from. One of the links here tried to compare Mousavi to Mandela, as a positive! Now there is a man more popular outside his country than in it, excepting of course, those who once claimed him as an enemy.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 16 2009 21:14 utc | 18

To reveal my colours, I don’t much care whether it is Mousavi or Ahmedinejad who has won, as long as it is the decision of the Iranian people.
It’s still a farce, even then. If the Mullahs determine who can run and who can’t, it’s not democracy, period. It’s a charade at Democracy, just as the USA elections are a charade at Democracy.
The Mullahs have chosen various versions of shit and offered said versions to the public and said “see, Democracy, you have a choice.” As if choosing between The Runs and Diarrhea is any kind of choice.
If the Iranians want a true revolution, they need to pick up where they left off 30 years prior, and this time don’t make the same mistakes. The Mullahs, which are the equivalent of the Plutocracy in the West, must be put in their rightful place, once and for all. They have always sided against The People in favor of those in rule…..and now they’ve been in rule for 30 years.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 16 2009 21:25 utc | 20

Looks like the Jews have hit the jackpot again. An Ahmadinejad victory.
Better still, an Ahmadinejad victory that is being hotly contested.
So how about a bit of “regime change” in the interests of democracy?
When are we going to bomb Iran so that the Iranians can have the man
they “really” voted for, i.e., American puppet Mousavi?
(Sorry if I sound a bit naive. Make allowances. This is my first post on this site.)

Posted by: Madame Butterfly | Jun 16 2009 21:56 utc | 22

Wow, Obama spoketh the truth. It’s says nothing of his actions, though. Words are just words until they become actionable.
He asserted that there wasn’t much difference between Ahmathingamabob and Mousaka as is advertized. What he didn’t say was that the plans to bomb are still on, and either candidate winning wouldn’t alter that decision…..a decision that was never his.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 16 2009 23:31 utc | 24

@22,
Yes, naive. Learn the difference between Jews and Zionists, for starters.

Posted by: biklett | Jun 17 2009 3:03 utc | 26

Another excellent post, again over on SST:

Why would we step in on the side of a minority movement? They would be completely unable to form a government that could stand any election. Any government formed from the current opposition would certainly have to be a dictatorship as popular opinion would not support it.
More to the point, US support for such a minority movement would actually SHRINK their electoral support.

Much as i love MoA, i’ve gotta say that the debate over on SST seems to really be cutting to the chase.
Personally, i couldn’t disagree more strongly with the Colonel’s position; but he does an excellent job of outlining how the U.S. military and intelligence services must be viewing what’s going on, over there.
More to the point: the Colonel, himself, says that he “doesn’t know” what is really going on over there. I remain suspicious that he knows more than he’s letting on, but i take it as a powerful sign that anyone who is claiming to be certain that the election was indeed stolen is really just pissing in the wind. If Col. Lang — who speaks several dialects of Arabic, has extensive intelligence contacts throughout the region, helped lead Iraq in its war against Iran back in the first Gulf War, and understands the intricacies and conspiracies of that region as well as or better than any other American alive —
if Col. Lang — who clearly has every reason to support regime change in Iran and is willing to use even the weakest of excuses to encourage it — won’t say he knowswhat exactly is going on over there, then i think we can all pretty much rest assured that anyone claiming to be certain of it is really not to be trusted.
Apologies to Parviz on that one, but so far the people who have come out in support of his take on things haven’t yet given much in the way of convincing or reliable facts.
I remain ready to have my mind changed again, but for the moment i’m still solidly in the “manufactured crisis” mode. Perhaps this was never planned as a “color revolution”, but it’s clear that there are some powerful international agencies at work that are trying to turn it into one.
Since i resent cynical public manipulation and bullying of any sort, that puts me solidly in the “fuck them” mindset.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 17 2009 6:21 utc | 28

Eh. Did i mis-post my first entry, or did b delete it?
Here it is again, as a test:
I found this, over on SST, a great relief from the collective, online, Western-chauvinist swoon over the tech-crowd portion of the Iran situation (a la BoingBoing, among others):

I’ve been watching the tweets. A group of Iranian kids identified as being incountry were available Saturday. Then half of them made their accounts private on Sunday, no doubt to protect themselves.
Then the Twitter world became enamored with two of them who seemed to be able to tweet non-stop 24 hours a day in emotional English idioms that jarred my ears. One created his account June 11, the other June 12. The accounts that went private had long-standing accounts. I checked. I went right back to their first tweets. Other tweeps urged everyone to follow them. Their followers swelled, and they became the ‘voices of Iran’ non-stop, as if a cadre was using the same name.
One of these two wrote on Saturday: “Now that every comm. network is down in #Iran, I announce the #REVOLUTION!” Hunh? And this same guy before the election: “Mohsen Makhmalbaf: Ahmadinejad’s election video was a copy of #Hitler’s.” The Iranians dont use Hitler as a symbol of evil the way we do; they have their own SAVAK monsters to refer to, and that would make sense to Iranians in Farsi. Here’s the page the last tweet linked to: http://www.mowj.ir/ShowNews.php?7120

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 17 2009 6:40 utc | 30

(Sorry if this post doubles, hiccups posting atm.)
It’s not only politicians or elites stirring from outside of Iran but thousands of expats. Of my Iranian friends/family it is the ones living here in Australia who are screaming bloody murder the loudest – possibly because they have little to lose but much to gain.
Along that line I’m sure the satellite television channels beamed from California would be doing double time to urge their fellow Iranians into the streets, as they have been for the past 30 years, pushing for the people to rise up against their corrupt regime. Easy to say when you’re sitting in your luxury home in Silicon Valley.
As I think Debs @ 18 is saying, the Iranians don’t know exactly what they want, only what they don’t want, which makes it easier for those with agendas which don’t particularly serve the people to lead them down the road to a new post-“Shock Doctrine”-like nation. I really hope things don’t go that way, though I admit the current situation (pre-election) in Iran is reaching breaking point for many people, and for some it has already passed – as others eluded to, it’s not hard to find heroin addicts on the streets of Tehran.

Posted by: Ash | Jun 17 2009 7:13 utc | 32

I doubt Rafsanjani is really ready to use the equivalent of a preemptive nuclear attack on Khatami. That would be a double or nothing kind of bet. If at the end the Revolutionary Guard and a significative percentage of the population is really completely tired of the corrupt rich clerics (Rafsanjani and his friends) that could backfire pretty fast and he could end his days not as the new Supreme Leader or shadow figure behind a ‘new era’ government but talking about his days of glory with the Shah era nobility. If the clerics divide each group will just follow the clerics of their choice. And the radical clerics and ayatollahs are and would be firmly behind Ahmadinejad and Khatami. That’s one of the main elements of the shiite believings, freedom to choose which clerics to follow.
In the worst scenario is if it could become an open civil war between the Revolutionary Guard and supporters of the islamic revolution and the middle classes backed with all or part of the military (but I don’t how the current iranian army is related with the Islamic Republic main powers, after 30 years there is no way it could still be that influenced by secularism or western powers and not fully filled with pro-islamist ranks). Something that wouldn’t help Rafsanjani a single bit. And I doubt he is into suicide or martyrdom one way or another.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 17 2009 8:04 utc | 34

@26
Yes, naive. Learn the difference between Jews and Zionists, for starters.
Posted by: biklett | Jun 16, 2009 11:03:38 PM | 26
When I use the word “Jews”, … [antisemitic nonsense deleted and writer banned – b]

Posted by: Madame Butterfly | Jun 17 2009 12:01 utc | 36

If you are going to rig an election, why would you tell a big whopping lie (as in ‘landslide’) when a small lie (a reasonable percentage of the vote) is far more believeable and less likely to be checked? Why make it obvious where it will be challenged if you are committing fraud?
I am not saying that the election was rigged or not rigged. I have no way of knowing that. But this has disturbed me.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 17 2009 15:44 utc | 38

I don’t disagree, China, but what does have to do with quoting them and linking to them as an authoritative source of support for an argument?

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 18 2009 1:28 utc | 40

No, I don’t have to go back to your argument. My point still holds. You are using him as an authoritative source, whether you agree with him, or not. It’s the use of him as an authoritative source that is at issue here, not whether you agree with him, or not. If you want to point to what he and others say in an argument that suuports a conclusion that these people are imposters who seek to misdirect inquiry and dissent, then that’s one thing, but you only offer them legitimacy by using them as a source, negative or positive, in an argument on other issues besides the one I indicated.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 18 2009 14:27 utc | 42