Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 23, 2009
Conclusion

by Arnold Evans
lifted from comment 211

I want to say that I am in favor of change in Iran and think there
are policies of Iran's government that are wrong both morally in
respect to its citizens and also in practical terms as in they prevent
Iran from being as powerful as I'd like it to be.

I am not a regime supporter on the basis of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But it seems plausible to me that Ahmadinejad won. The reports of
the three million votes came with the explanation that they were the
result of people voting away from their home district, which seems
plausible in a very-high turnout election. I think it is possible that
Ahmadinejad won the debates, despite the effect they had of turning you
further against him, and Rafsanjani's letter against him may have made
the aftermath of the debates more favorable to him still.

So there are protesters against Ahmadinejad and in favor of Mousavi.
Mondale lost a landslide in 1984 and there was a large number of people
who supported Mondale, enough to cripple the country if they organized
together to do so. That did not mean they were the majority. I do not
believe Mousavi supporters or protesters are the majority of the
country.

The reports of Mousavi's claims of irregularities seem unconvincing
to me. In his public complaint to the Guardian Council he did not claim
that none of the votes were counted or that all local-based counting
was suspended and even if he doesn't trust the Guardian Council, that
was a place to give his best explanation of what exactly he believes
went wrong with the election, why he does not trust it.

I feel that Mousavi is acting very irresponsibly, and that Mondale,
in similar circumstances could have acted the same and gotten his
supporters, especially his core supporters worked up enough that they
would risk their lives, essentially for nothing, but Mondale could
claim it is for fundamental change in the government or society or
something.

If Mondale did that, I would wonder if he had some organized outside
backing, but in Mousavi's case it could well be that his only backing
is Rafsanjani and that faction, or it could well be that it is
Mousavi's own ego driving this. Or it is possible, I don't claim and
don't necessarily believe that it is driven by the CIA. But there are
signs that Mousavi's tactics are similar to tactics of previous
CIA-sponsored revolutions. But that could be coincidence. I don't think
there is necessarily the connection.

I thought Mondale's supporters were right, and Reagan was a bad guy.
I think Mousavi's supporters have a lot of valid criticisms of Iran's
government.

I think Iran's government takes enough input a wide enough swathe of
Iranian society that it is capable of change internally, and I do not
see indications that Mousavi is more committed to the democratic
process than Khomeini was. Khomeini could have transformed Iran into a
hereditary dictatorship with no restraints from an elected Assembly of
Experts and no input from Iran's people and did not because he felt it
would have been religiously wrong to do so. I don't know that I would
have trusted Khomeini to do that, but I don't trust Mousavi to do that.
I see a Musharraf scenario, of ad-hoc usurpations of power and an
indefinite suspension of any limitations on his office as just as
probably under Mousavi.

To Mondale and Mousavi supporters I say, the vote indicates that you
really do not have the popular support to win an election, much less
complete a revolution.

Does Iran have a consensus behind a "go west" strategy as opposed to
a "go east" strategy? No. If it did, Iran would go west. There is also
no national consensus around relaxing religious restrictions, which I
think is wrong but Iranians have to be convinced, and I'm sure the
pro-Mousavi protests are not the way to convince them.

There is a consensus around reducing corruption, but Ahmadinejad and
Mousavi both say they support that. Iran could easily believe
Ahmadinejad, the one who carries his lunch from home to work and who
named Rafsanjani by name, saying what a lot of people already knew but
wouldn't say in public, is the best candidate to fight corruption.

By my understanding a major motivation behind Rafsanjani's support
for a go west strategy is that he would benefit from it personally.

So those are my views on Iran's election and the situation today. I
don't see a point in further protests. I expect a general strike to
fizzle out, if it is really launched. I mourn all of the deaths. I wish
they had not happened and consider them naive sacrifices to either
Mousavi's ego or the forces behind Mousavi that I do not consider good,
if they are the CIA or Rafsanjani.

Comments

A reply to Dan post 215 in the other thread:
In many cases, Mousavi representatives were present when these votes were cast. The rumors of this election being a sharp departure from previous ones is not reflected in Mousavi’s list of issues with the election according to what I’ve read. I look forward to being corrected on that if I’m wrong. Iran does not do as extensive polling as the US, it is a smaller poorer country than the US and has a different cultural approach to that issue. Mousavi may be not 100% as unreasonable as Mondale would have been, but it’s close.
Rafsanjani – that is a lazy shorthand I use for a lot of Iranians in that faction, including other clerics and the entire faction of power. I personally think of Rafsanjani as the leader. He is the one who chairs the Assembly of Experts and he is the richest. I’d probably be more accurate to depersonalize my references to him in everything I write.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 23 2009 15:10 utc | 1

b, would you kindly transfer my lengthy post 217 which you kindly posted on the ‘c’ thread to this thread, because my post was a direct response to Arnold’s comments above. Thanks.
Arnold: Just briefly, your take on these events could not be more incorrect if they had been written by Ahmadinejad himself.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 15:12 utc | 2

Well said Arnold.

Posted by: a | Jun 23 2009 15:14 utc | 3

A reply to Parviz post 217 other thread:
I’m really not interested in “we didn’t expect this many people to vote for Ahmadinejad” that is not a question. Everyone was surprised by the degree of Ahmadinejad’s victory.
I read the Chatham report at closely as I could, but pointing to people you expected to vote for Mousavi and showing they voted for Ahmadinejad is not proof, or even evidence, of fraud.
If there was fraud, real people, some of whom have connections to the other major faction contesting this election, almost all of whom are believers that votes should count, have to know specific details about the fraud. It would have come out by now and it has not.
There were no three million extra votes. That is not what the Guardian Council said. The Guardian Council said three million votes were impacted by the fact that there were area with greater than 100% turnout. The Guardian Council said this was a normal occurrence because people vote in other places than they are registered.
It may not be a normal occurrence. Maybe the ballots were stuffed. But evidence means we need to hear from someone who stuffed the ballots, or we need to get some evidence of some sort that the numbers cannot be explained by people voting in different polling places. We have not. At this point it is because there is none.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 23 2009 15:16 utc | 4

Arnold, that’s reall cute:
If there was fraud, real people, some of whom have connections to the other major faction contesting this election, almost all of whom are believers that votes should count, have to know specific details about the fraud. It would have come out by now and it has not.
I suppose Saddam Hussein’s winning 99.8 % of the vote regularly in the old days was correct simply because there was no solid evidence to the contrary!
You don’t seem to understand: The country is run by Khamenei who supports the President who runs the Interior Ministry. It’s one huge religious despotic Mafia.
The truth WILL come out one day, but just not in time for you and others to have voiced your denial of massive fraud.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 15:22 utc | 5

There was no major opposing power center from Hussein.
Parviz. You agreed with me months ago that Iran is not comparable to dictatorships like the Saudi and Egyptian. I’m not saying Iran’s regime is perfect but you can’t be saying Khamenei is in the position to forge elections that Saddam Hussein was. You cannot believe that. You definitely didn’t believe that earlier.
The truth can come out today. If Khamenei ordered a spectacular fraud, the Assembly of Experts can find the fraud, protect the whistle-blower and remove Khamanei from office.
There is no plausible reason that every district that has been reported, there is nobody who has come forward yet and said Ahmadinejad didn’t win my district, Mousavi did, unless that is just not the case. It doesn’t have to be members of Mousavi’s campaign. A lot of people would be able to point to changes if they had been made and they would.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 23 2009 15:31 utc | 6

Guys, this is my first comment made into a full post which I consider an honor. Unfortunately I’m not going to be able to reply to more comments until later. When I get back I’ll try to address every issue that is brought up. I can be convinced that I’m wrong if a reasoned argument can be made, but I’ll get to it later.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 23 2009 15:39 utc | 7

So, let me see, now it’s Saddam Hussein Ahmadinejad resembles. So far we have Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Which play book is that? It’s on the shelf there somewhere…oh, wait, no it’s not…it appears the book has been checked out. Who’s the next comparison? I say Stalin, but it could be Pol Pot, one never knows with these things. Obama is Mother Theresa, by the way.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 15:40 utc | 8

Guys, this is my first comment made into a full post which I consider an honor.
Kudos. In celebration, I say we name a lane after you.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 15:41 utc | 9

I’m going to split my reply into 2 or 3 transmissions so as not to keep bothering b.
(6) Let me ask you a simple question:
Why did Chatham House only report over-reporting of votes and no under-reporting? I mean, 2 plus 2 = 4, which means that should have resulted in a corresponding lack of votes elsewhwre. This proves that the ballots were stuffed with 3 million ‘extra votes’ (the Guardian Council’s own phrase), probably even more which would have nullified the election..
Please bear in mind that the fraud reported by Chatham House did not constitute a precise examination of the actual ballot boxes (nobody has been allowed to inspect them yet (which is itself highly suspicious) but merely extreme skepticism based on computer trends and demography. Chatham House did not have access directly to the ballot boxes that would have revealed instances of :
— duplicate IDs
— IDs of deceased
— IDs of non-existent persons
— suspiciously ‘soiled’ (and therefore negated) ballots
— wrongly counted ballots
etc.,.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 15:49 utc | 10

Your ‘CONCLUSION’ is highly premature in such circumstances and very unscholarly.
Also, you write:
“The truth can come out today. If Khamenei ordered a spectacular fraud, the Assembly of Experts can find the fraud, protect the whistle-blower and remove Khamanei from office.”
Sorry, but the above is just plain naive. There is an enormous ongoing power struggle at this very minute regarding precisely this point, and to all intents and purposes the Assembly of Experts is split 3 ways about removing the post of Spiritual Leader:
1/3 wants to maintain the status quo
1/3 wants to remove Khamenei
1/3 is sitting on the sidelines
How can the “truth be revealed today”?
I’m sorry, but you have not the slightest idea how things are run down here. It isn’t the E.U..

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 15:49 utc | 11

Finally, no matter what the provinces reported, the final result had to be digested, analysed and announced by the Interior Ministry whose IT chief Mahmood Asgari has disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Rumours are rife that he was intercepted trying to deliver the true data to Moussavi.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 15:53 utc | 12

parviz is doing a disservice to his countrymen with his conduct here. from the get go, based on his words from the June 14th post, ANYONE who doubted the claim of fraud was either ideologically driven, or just plain stupid. there is not a lot of room for a reasoned discussion when those who doubt claims of fraud are immediately considered either ideologues or idiots.
i would like to apologize for my part in degrading the conversation. for those, like arnold, who are keeping the conversation civil and informative, thank you. i will try and refrain from commenting further with this particular discussion, because i’m afraid i cannot do so without letting my anger contaminate my words. i take extreme offense to the insinuations parviz made in his last few comments in -c’s thread.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 23 2009 15:56 utc | 13

Was this “death” of a demostrator staged.
According to YNet:
In reference to the falsified photographs depicting Neda wearing a green headband that were distributed on the Internet, apparently by Mousavi supporters, Makan said that she was not politically affiliated with either side of the current struggle.
(…) she was not affiliated with any political camp. “Neda’s goal was not Mousavi or Ahmadinejad, but her homeland. It was important to her that the homeland advance a step forward.”
Neda Sultani was shot by a Besij snipers, who were apparently riding on motorcycles, on Amir Abad Street in Tehran on Saturday. The video that has been circulating on the Internet, making the young woman into a symbol of the Iranian reformist opposition, shows her last moments before being shot in the company of her father (…)

Was she not killed by a snipper?

Posted by: hans | Jun 23 2009 16:06 utc | 14

Lizard, you don’t degrade the discussion, but I would advise just to stick with the facts as presented, and attack them rather than respond to Parviz’ attacks. I have challenged myself to do so, as well. I attacked the comparison to Saddam above, not the poster, personally. Such a comparison is ludicrous on the face of it, and when coupled with a previous comparison to Hitler, a pattern emerges….one that deserves satirical ridicule.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 16:11 utc | 15

You’re beatin’ your head against a wall, Parviz. ANY evidence you supply can be swiftly dispatched by the pro-thecratic fascists here. They are playing the same game the recount apologists for Bush played: there is always a response to an allegation of fraud…the infinite “but”…
As for Asgari, this evidence is easily dismissed as conspiracy mongering. About the Chatham House Report, the likelihood of a much greater overvote/overcount is disarmed by one simple admonition: there is no credible whistleblower. And when there is, MoA will do the same with your whistleblower as we do with our whistleblowers: too low-level to be believed (Sybil Edmunds), ax to grind (Joe Wilson), just trying to save his own skin/reputation (Richard Pearle).
They will play games with you until the end of time.
The train left the station.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 16:16 utc | 16

Can someone with a statistics background comment on this analysis
The Devil is in the Digits
Thanks

Posted by: ndahi | Jun 23 2009 16:20 utc | 17

To Arnold Evans
for the record:
Musavi election representatives: 40,676
Ajejad election representatives: 33,058
Karoub election representatives: 13,506
Rezaei election representatives: 5,421
total of 92,661
Musavi had more representatives than any candidates in last 30 years of election in Iran(a record).

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 23 2009 16:24 utc | 18

“The hottest circles in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
— Dante

Posted by: Bob Morris | Jun 23 2009 16:25 utc | 19

Things are escalating. From the Huffington Post:
Mousavi – do NOT wear green – dress normally – bring your children – if stopped u are ONLY going shopping
Mousavi – the objective is to bring Tehran to standstill – millions of people go shopping but NOBODY SHOPPING
Mousavi – There is nothing to fear – if asked – YOU ARE ONLY GOING SHOPPING
Mousavi – no matter what the reaction of the Gov – the Bazaar will close or be at standstill

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 23 2009 16:26 utc | 20

Benford’s seconmd digit is nonsense, here you go, arnold, whack-a-mole.
With the internet, I’m a math genius.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 16:31 utc | 21

I read here that the iranian government is going to release the detailed result from all ballot boxes. The same article said that this kind of information had never been released before (meaning in any other election) because it was considered confidential information.
In any case after the 3 million confusion, which is reproduced again in this report, I’m not sure where or how does the english PressTV website get those news. They may be using international news agency sources rather than translating from local sources.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 23 2009 16:31 utc | 22

@Parviz – again you write with 3 million ‘extra votes’ (the Guardian Council’s own phrase)
That is a proven lie and makes your argument very weak.
Again the quote:

In response to the complaints that the number of votes in some provinces exceeded the number of eligible voters, Kadkhodaii explained that this occurred because there is no law requiring people to vote in their place of residence and people can vote anywhere in the country.
“It was decided that a number inspectors should go to the Statistics Organization (to examine the issue). However, the total of the votes in these constituencies amounts to three million votes, which cannot change the results of the election,” he stated.

Reuters:

The authorities reject charges of fraud but a spokesman for Iran’s top legislative body, which is looking into complaints by the defeated election candidates, conceded that the number of votes had surpassed eligible voters in some constituencies.
But he said the total votes in these constituencies did not exceed 3 million and consequently would not have any impact on the election,” he said.

Why do you feel that you need to lie about this, several times. Even after it has already been exposed as a lie.
There are no 3 million “extra votes”.

I checked the Chatham House study and like Flynt Leverett find it flawed.
It is based on a comparison of the 2009 election with the first round of the 2005 election which had multiple candidates. Chatham House simply ignores the second round 2005 election pitting Ahmadinejad against Rafsanjani which Ahmadinejad won in a landslide.
This election was, after the TV debates, pretty much like a runoff and Ahmadinejad’s main electoral strategy was to portray Moussavi as a puppet of Rafsanjani, a corrupt clerical big businessmen plus he tried to achie a high turnout.
Chatham House also ignores the large pool of non-voters in the 2005 election.

Posted by: b | Jun 23 2009 16:32 utc | 23

Thrasyboulus
Indeed, a general strike?
b: You call that a general strike? They said themselves they were going shopping!

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 16:33 utc | 24

Lol!

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 23 2009 16:34 utc | 25

I’m not sure where or how does the english PressTV website get those news
Oh, Parviz. I’m sorry, I forgot that one.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 16:34 utc | 26

“The hottest circles in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.”
According to Dante, do Unwitting Dupes go to heaven?

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 16:39 utc | 27

Imperialism will try to turn ANY event to their advantage. It’s what they do. While one might have opinions on the extent of their impact, the fact that they are doing so proves nothing other than that the planet still spins on its axis.
Analyzing Neda herself is useless. I mean, it’s not like I was sitting around not caring about what was going on, and then I saw those pictures. Rather, those pictures somehow captured something I was already feeling, and by feeling in my heart something that people around the world were also feeling, they helped me feel more part of that movement.
Things seems to be operating at 2 levels, at least.
Yes, obviously all the players in Iranian politics are maneuvering for advantage, and many of those players are scum. Again, that’s what they do.
What’s important to me is what’s happening on the street/neighborhood level. While I disagree with Obamageddon’s overall thrust, he (she?) makes some good points about how unprepared are the people in the street for any real revolution. But to their credit, they have now stepped onto the stage themselves, exploiting the divisions among the scumbags. They are learning. They are developing new tactics. They are organizing at the neighborhood level. They are feeling some, albeit limited, sense of power.
However this current round plays out, I believe that this development will continue. The entire region is moving against clerical authoritarianism as a mode of government, however deeply religious they may be in their personal lives. Even if the current regime survives, they will do so based on their capacity to wield batons and bullets, not on their moral authority
That too is transformative. It’s easier to inspect and analyze events at the superstructure level, but doing so gives not only a foggy but actually a false picture, as the superstructure is moving in reaction to developments at the base that are going in the opposite direction.

Posted by: jeffroby | Jun 23 2009 16:40 utc | 28

It is interesting to reread this June 8 pre-election Bloomberg report “Ahmadinejad Campaigns for Iran Election One Handout at a Time” which gives sound reasons why voters would prefer Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: b | Jun 23 2009 16:45 utc | 29

obviously all the players in Iranian politics are maneuvering for advantage, and many of those players are scum. Again, that’s what they do.
Well slap me upside the head, that sure is rare behavior for scummy politicians, wherever they might be.
The entire region is moving against clerical authoritarianism as a mode of government
There is no evidence of this. A recent Iran poll, while it indicated a desire to elect clerics, included no indication of dissatisfation with clerical authoritarianism.
feeling in my heart something that people around the world were also feeling, they helped me feel more part of that movement.
I wonder, how much of this sympathy by Americans for the Iranian protesters is powered by this simple thought: Damn, I envy those Iranians and I wish I’d had the courage to do something like that in response to recent flawed US elections.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 23 2009 17:04 utc | 30

Don, my point was to make a distinction between the maneuvering at the top and the movement in the streets.
As for the region, I was referring to that entire area, not just Iran.
As for your last point, if true, it would mean that the Iranian demonstrators were actually providing political leadership to the American people. If it got them thinking, “I envy those Iranians and I wish I’d had the courage to do something like that,” wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Posted by: jeffroby | Jun 23 2009 17:17 utc | 31

Refusing to shop is probably the worst thing Ariana can imagine.

Posted by: dh | Jun 23 2009 17:18 utc | 32

b (23), and why do you have to insist that the following sentence uttered by the GC Spokesman contradicts what I’m saying? He says there will be further investigations
“to determine whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results,”
If it were only a matter of slight discrepancies instead of massively stuffed ballots he wouldn’t have made the above statement. Use your famed analytical skills for a second:
The GC announced that the (O.K., let’s call them) ‘discrepancies’ in the vote tally “could be over 3 million”. Agreed or not?
“Could be over 3 million” means it “could also be over 5 million”, and remember that they only monitored 10 % of the votes!!!
Now re-read my posts to Arnold, which introduce other factors, and then tell me Ahmadinejad won 62.5 % of the vote, which would have involved winning the votes of those who voted against him in 2005 PLUS the votes of those who boycotted the election in disgust in 2005 PLUS most of the new voters (mainly young and overwhelmingly liberal). = NOT JUST UNLIKELY BUT IMPOSSIBLE

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 17:20 utc | 33

According to Chatham House:
“Assuming that Ahmadinejad retained all 11.5m conservative votes from 2005, these additional 13m votes could have come from three sources, in descending order of likelihood:
• The approximately 10.6m citizens who did not vote in 2005, but chose to vote in this election
• The 6.2m citizens who voted for the centrist Rafsanjani in 2005
• The 10.4m citizens who voted for reformist candidates in 2005”

Where is the healthy skepticism you normally display on every topic EXCEPT regarding the Iranian regime?

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 17:21 utc | 34

Parviz,
“healthy skepticism”? The problem is that they start from the desired conclusion, and then cling to whatever POSSIBILITIES that support that conclusion. The situation calls for Occam’s Razor.

Posted by: jeffroby | Jun 23 2009 17:32 utc | 35

Jeffroby, I couldn’t agree with you more. I cannot recall ever having read on this Blog a single criticism of the Iranian regime. I myself have defended Iran with all my might against foreign threats, but this is really going too far.
The only really detailed independent report I’ve read, with solid facts and analysis, is by Chatham House, but no, everyone here knows better: “How could such massive fraud be possible in a nation controlled by a Supreme Spiritual Leader who is the official representative of God on this Earth and whose word is that of God? He says there was no fraud so there wasn’t. MoA joins in and from the very beginning, from the very first day of the election, ‘concludes’ there was no fraud and then proceeds to post thread after thread (except mine), and now this one, reconfirming Ahmadinejad’s ‘fair and square’ victory and accusing everyone else of sour grapes.
MoA’s armchair critics have no idea how unpopular the regime is. Foreigners had no idea how unpopular the Shah was (he also received almost 100 % of the vote in 1975, with millions lining the streets to cheer him on, till he was summarily sent packing.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 17:46 utc | 36

Loyal (18), just a few questions:
1. Were Moussavi’s representatives present at EVERY polling booth?
2. Were Moussavi’s representatives allowed to inspect the ’empty’ boxes before voting began?
3. Did Moussavi’s representatives participate in the actual counting? Or did they simply stand aside while the counting by Interior Ministry appointees was done?
4. Were Moussavi representative allowed to monitor the Interior Ministry’s IT computations?
The answer to all 4 questions above is NO! So please don’t try dazzling us with statistics that are meaningless because they were thoroughly cooked from start to finish. Read the Chatham House report. You may learn something.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 17:56 utc | 37

There’s that word regime, again. If regime is clerical rule, then Moussavi is part of the “essence” of that clerical rule, and protesting the election results of a bunch of candidates preapproved by that clerical rule is a futile exercise.
I’m beginning to think that what some of the Iranians here want is Civil War. As c mentioned, the Iranian people are not monolithic as many of the Iranians postting here would have us believe. If this conflict grows and factionalizes, Israel and the U.S. win, Iran loses. Maybe you prefer that poison to the poison you have now, but when the time comes, I guarantee you won’t, unless, of course, you’re a person of means who can flee to a Western Liberal bastion and leave those of less means behind to suffer the consequences of your misdirected actions.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 17:59 utc | 38

Don Bacon (30)
“A recent Iran poll, while it indicated a desire to elect clerics, included no indication of dissatisfation with clerical authoritarianism.
Would you kindly provide me with a copy of that report? Thanks.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 17:59 utc | 39

is this what we’ll get w/ the revolution – all parviz, all the time?

Posted by: b real | Jun 23 2009 18:04 utc | 40

Has anyone considered in all this the simple adage:
Whoever Smelled It, Dealt It.
The presumption is that if there is election fraud, then it was on the part of Ahmadinejad and his cohorts. Moussavi and Rafsanjani had the means and the motive to rig the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor and then cry foul in order to lure him into a crackdown trap. If that were the case, I would consider it treason considering the implications for Iran and its precarious relationship with the U.S. and Israel.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 18:06 utc | 41

Everyone made so much fun of my claim that there were Arab guards in Tehran that I thought you’d like to hear the opinion of one of Iran’s most famous film directors who confirms my claims:
Mousavi ‘under 24-hour guard’
By John Lichfield in Paris
The Iranian opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi is under 24-hour guard by secret police and no longer able to speak freely to supporters, according to the film director Mohsen Makhmalbaf.
Mr Makhmalbaf, 52, an informal spokesman abroad for the protest in Iran, said that Mr Mousavi was not under arrest but “he has security agents, secret police with him all the time. He has to be careful what he says.”
In a telephone interview, Mr Makhmalbaf, the director of the 2001 film Kandaha, denied suggestions that the protests against the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were losing steam.
“The regime, arguably, is losing ground, not the protests,” he said. “Ordinary Iranians are openly rejecting the legitimacy and power of Ayatollah Khamanei. That is entirely new, unheard of.”

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 18:06 utc | 42

Mr Makhmalbaf, a friend of Mr Mousavi for 20 years, said that there were reports from Iran that some of the militia deployed to suppress protest were “speaking Arabic”. “That is unconfirmed but it suggests that the regime is unable to trust its own security forces to repress the Iranian people,” he said. “It suggests that people are being used from abroad.”
Looks like my eyes didn’t betray me after all ……..

Arab guards deployed in Iran

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 18:06 utc | 43

b real
is this what we’ll get w/ the revolution – all parviz, all the time?
It’s one against 50, so this evens things up.
But now that I’ve made my 2 points (Fraud and Arab Guards) I’ll call it night. It’s all yours.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 23 2009 18:09 utc | 44

It is amazing how the ‘left’ falls all over itself praising analysis of the vote from Chatham House, the apparatus of the British foreign policy establishment, an institution the ‘left’ would have disdained in the past as much as it would disdain the sister operation of Chatham House, the Council on Foreign Relations. It is telling how the ‘left’ accepts uncritically a report from an operation that is an integral part of the destabilization program. In the pathetic colonialist stage of history, the differences between left and right fall away.
An Exclusive Interview with a Pro-Ahmadinejad Cleric in Qom, Iran

Posted by: hans | Jun 23 2009 18:11 utc | 45

Obamageddon,

“If this conflict grows and factionalizes, Israel and the U.S. win, Iran loses.”

I think that’s the essence of the MoA argument, and that argument would apply even if Mousavi had gotten a sure 70% of the vote, wouldn’t it? But in asserting that, you find yourself on the side of the killers. The arguments sound disturbingly like the defenses of Stalin back when (and I’m neither a Trot or a liberal). But in hindsight, that uncritical defense did not serve well either the people of the Soviet Union or the communist movement worldwide.
Consider the consequences of this entire debate. It won’t dissuade the Iranian people from protesting or not protesting, as the case may be. It won’t dissuade the U.S. and Israel from exploiting any opening. What it can do is discredit progressives who are seen lining up on the side of the machineguns.

Posted by: jeffroby | Jun 23 2009 18:18 utc | 46

It won’t dissuade the Iranian people
Correction. It won’t dissuade some Iranian people from protesting. Once again, the Iranian people are not monolithic, and if your revolution is to succeed, if that’s what it is now, or is to become, you’ll have to start killing some of “them.” That’s when people will factionalize and take sides.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 23 2009 18:27 utc | 47

About Musavi and his representatives.
Total numbers of ballo boxers : 45.713
Musavi’s numbers of representatives:40,676
89% for all cities and 95% for city of Tehran.
10-14 individulas are responsible for each box. they certified eachh boxes before and after votes. over 1/2 od these individuals are local council members, rests are representatives of various government agencies including , Interroir ministry , Guardian councils.
These 10-14 are responsible for integrity of voting box andcounting of votes. Their signitures are reguired . Presence or signitures of candidates representatives are not a requirenment. Even if a candidate refused to send single representative is not ground for nullification,. Election laws are specific about that.
There are dispute between Musavi and Interior ministry in regards to rejections of some of Musavi’s representatives . Regardless of which side correct about this particular dispute , tha is not ground for nullification according to election rules.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 23 2009 18:30 utc | 48

christ, parviz is completely maniacal about the ‘arabs’ – hezbollah & hamas shocktroops & moussavi’s spokesman is a really reliable source. yr getting crazier in your assertions
chatham house as hans says is & venereal think tank that people ought not to piss on if it was on fire
& i see the claims of a general strike have dissapeared altogether & i thought we would see slothrop leading the masses in their great numbers
there will be no general strike
there will be no significant mass movement
there are no arab militias – the very idea is too ridiculous to mention
parviz – you are fabricating all over the place, you are using sources that possess no value whatsoever
& it is not surprising slothrop follows you through yet one more of his mythologies
i’m afraid he wouln’t know class struggle even if ernst thalman place a fist up his ass
parviz you would be doing a service to your cause if you – followed in the fashion of -c with detailed, layered & as they say in the media circus – ‘compelling’ arguments
slothrop, you do not have any argument at all – why don’t you use your talents to write a reasoned argument against the political islam you insult at every turn

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 18:36 utc | 49

& parziz of you from a source toa source who someone suggested without verification to another whose sources are not reliable etc etc
you are really stretching your credibility, here
reply to arnold
reply to -c
& if you could forego insulting loyal – it might humanise your arguments

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 18:45 utc | 50

thank you loyal, for supplying the details

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 18:47 utc | 51

I thought you’d like to hear the opinion of one of Iran’s most famous film directors who confirms my claims:
i guess you missed this part parvis “ “That is unconfirmed but it suggests
your film director is not even in iran.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 18:49 utc | 52

your link is a wealth of information since the director is touring europe to give a voice to the opposition
Asked to explain how a Mousavi-run Iran would differ from an Ahmadinejad-run Iran, Mr Makhmalbaf said: “The first thing to say is that it is now clear that Ahmadinejad is irrelevant. He is not the real power.”
If Mousavi was to become president, he said, Iran would invest in “improving the economy for ordinary people, not creating nuclear weapons or supporting conflicts abroad”. Secondly, he said, there would be an end to the “constant harassment of young people which means that virtually every young person in Iran has been beaten up by the security forces.”

every young person? wow, impressive propaganda.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 18:54 utc | 53

Obamageddon
Moussavi and Rafsanjani had the means and the motive to rig the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor and then cry foul in order to lure him into a crackdown trap. If that were the case
oh my god i can’t believe you would ever suggest such a thing! who comes up w/these crazy ideas? snark aside. this is akin to what i was writing this morning but it got all jumbled and you said it better. but i wrote it in an email, does that count? i think this is a likely scenario. why wouldn’t they try it? it’s not like the idea of revolting against the election wasn’t planned w/a beginning (pre vote) middle (contesting it before it was counted and declaring victory) and end (the likes of which we’ve not been fully informed but i’d like to see their action time tables)
quack like ducks? walk like ducks. maybe its ducks!

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 19:00 utc | 54

i am getting really tired of this nonsense – parviz. you are not using facts – you are using the crudest elements of propaganda – mr murdoch has made us familiar with all the rules of that game. we know how it works, piece by piece. thankfully there are other iranians who come here to balance you & amir – because all i read fundamentally, are your ‘interests’
conjoined you & slothrop suggested we would be drowned by a general strike, a national strike, any old strike – but today there are less people than the day before who were less than the day before that
that would suggest it is neither an insurrection or revolution – a demonstration surely – but not even a mass demonstration
& yr godhead obama is also stretching credulity to its limits – at least four u s intelligence agencies including those of the pentagon have invested in these events in one way or another. to accuse the iranian state of pulling rabbits out of thin air on this question is a completely ludicrous assertion because even the most basic logic tells us that that investment goes somewhere other than chalabi’s back pocket
iran has been under siege, she has been under constant menace – she has a right to security. this the buffoons will never understand

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 19:05 utc | 55

@Parviz – in 33 – you are lying again.
The GC announced that the (O.K., let’s call them) ‘discrepancies’ in the vote tally “could be over 3 million”.
To my best knowledge, and backed with two different sources above, the GC did not say that at all. Again you put something into quotes and into the GC’s mouth without providing a link or a source. The GC likely never said that.
Stop lying and moving your goalposts when caught in a lie. It does NOT help your case.
I criticized the Chatham House study on sound methodological ground. You simply repeat its dubious conclusions to defend it. If you want to defend it, defend its methodology and refute my critique of it.

Posted by: b | Jun 23 2009 19:37 utc | 56

Important news.
Guardian Council has requested 5 more extra days to finished investigation. They were schedule to announce their verdict Wednesday.
As I posted earlier, Guardian council gave 3 days extra to candidates to beef up their earlier protests with details and facts because they were very general.
This is a very good move by Guardian council. I suspect it is because of their meeting with religious authorities in Qom and request from Legislative branch (Larijohny) and judiciary (Hashemi). Leaders of three branches had meeting with Khamenei .

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 23 2009 19:39 utc | 57

Request for extra 5 days has been granted.

Posted by: Loyal: | Jun 23 2009 19:55 utc | 58

I think jeffroby got it quite right at 28.
We are looking at an internal power struggle, external meddling and popular protests (for and against the different sides). Popular protests taking center stage is the new element. And there should be some pent up rage against the system of limited democracy (just as there should be – and to a certain extent is – in the US).
How this will end is hard to know. When the security appartus looses faith in the victory of the established government, the government falls. Thus the need on both sides to control and form the narrative.
Essentially I see some possible outcomes:
* Government falls. Elements of security apparatus goes over and the others go home. Game over for the current government. Color revolution scenario.
* Government cracks down hard. Gathering the most trusted forces some protesters are killed, and the rest understands that staying is a death sentence. China 1989 all over again.
* Protest peter out. As the conflict goes on, some protesters loose faith and go home. With dwindling numbers some of the remaining can be selectively arrested and the rest then looses faith and goes home. The arrested are sentenced. Lots of protests have ended this way.
I do not see any of these as particularly good, though number two is worst. After one or three Iran will still be a partial democracy, controlled mainly by a local elite mostly concerned with its own well being (not much unlike lots of other countries).
What hope there is rests with increased awareness of popular power among the population. The french revolution(s) started with a conflict between the nobility and the royalty, but things developed from there.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jun 23 2009 19:56 utc | 59

Some jew guy on the pitiful “fear” of “the people.” Boo hoo. Fear in a handful of dust.
Robert Fisk, who, as we know, licks the ball sack of Empire to impress the girls, writes how the terror of the regime disables protest. What a bunch of pussies.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 20:10 utc | 60

ignores the large pool of non-voters
Not true. Who cares?

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 20:14 utc | 61

@Loyal – thanks for the update. The media her doesn’t inform us at all about such issues. Please let us know as much as you can.
@askod – nice to see you are still lurking here – really.
– Point one: I find it unlikely at least in the short (one year) term
– I assume something will coming between two and three. A crackdown (already happening) and petering out demonstrations (already happening too – but may again change)
All over not much change but a preparation of the ‘western’ public readiness to attack Iran.
How many million will die in that? The ‘western public’ will not care … “We’ll kill one two three million Iranian thugs (which, accidentally, will include Parviz and his family) because some Neda (who is that?) somehow died.” Prepared by recent media accounts, the U.S. public will roar to that call …

Posted by: b | Jun 23 2009 20:26 utc | 62

I do lurk, but little time to read makes it hard to keep up with the discussions.
I suspect you are right scenario-wise, though these things can change quickly on small factors that are not easily seen while it is going on.
And yes, it will be used for propaganda against Iran in general. Though I am starting to suspect that there will not be an open war or it would already have started.

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jun 23 2009 20:43 utc | 63

Parviz @ 39
Iran Poll
The Center for Public Opinion
Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential Elections;
Iranians Continue to Back Compromise and Better Relations with US and West.
Results of a New Nationwide Public Opinion Survey of Iran before the June 12, 2009 Presidential Elections
NOTE: I know, the numbers don’t add up.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/TFT-NAF%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%20.pdf

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 23 2009 20:54 utc | 64

from Spy Talk:
Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut
Bob Baer, a former CIA Middle East field officer, places then Prime-Minister Mousavi close to the Beirut bombings in 1983.
Baer talked recently about the bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks, killing 241 Marines, in Beirut.
“He dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah,” who ran the Beirut terrorist campaign and was “the man largely held responsible for both attacks,” Baer wrote in TIME over the weekend.
“When Mousavi was Prime Minister, he oversaw an office that ran operatives abroad, from Lebanon to Kuwait to Iraq,” Baer continued.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html#more

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 23 2009 20:55 utc | 65

the US western public is beginning to be cynical
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/06/did-mousavi-kill-a-woman.php?ref=reccafe
whilst the British mix green with red
http://conflictsforum.org/2009/liberty-leads-the-people-even-in-tehran/
yes the western public will care – they have given “mad Islamic terrorists” faces and names now.

Posted by: outsiders | Jun 23 2009 20:58 utc | 66

I am shocked at the assertion that Mousavi would rig the election against himself. This is batshit crazy and is on par with the claim that there were Hezbollah Arabs among the crowds of goons in Tehran. The faction who have physical custody of the ballot boxes are not part of the Mousavi crowd. We are still arguing about the election? Talk about cartwheeling through improbable scenarios to support one’s case!
In the course of this debate some people have blown a fifty amp fuse at the core of their psyche.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 23 2009 21:03 utc | 67

Signs Mousavi’s rebel stature being eroded in Iran
Mir Hossein Mousavi is still nominally the guiding force of the fury over Iran’s disputed election. But there are ample signs his rebel stature is being eroded by his hesitation to shift from campaigner to street agitator as his supporters challenge security forces.
[snip]
“It’s not really about Mousavi any more,” said Ali Nader, an Iran specialist at the RAND Corp. “The population has expressed its unhappiness with the system. You could argue that Iran has reached the point where the population has said: `Enough is enough.'”
“An accidental hero,” said Rasool Nafisi, a professor of Iran studies at Strayer University in Virginia.
[snip]
“He really doesn’t have the credentials to be the leader for the reformists or for the opposition,” he added. “Even up to the election, Iranian intellectuals and political leaders did not support him, except one or two like (former President Mohammad) Khatami.”
[snip]
The grumbling appears now to be spreading among those who voted for Mousavi and then took to the streets in the most serious internal unrest since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
“People have risked their lives for him and some have died,” said a protester in Tehran contacted by phone by The Associated Press. She withheld her name for fear of reprisals from authorities.
Lol! “Said a protester contacted in Tehran by phone, etc…” Fucking hilarious.
http://tinyurl.com/ko2jt8

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 23 2009 21:34 utc | 68

said a protester who then tapped a woman on the shoulder who spoke to the man reading the newspaer who called out to the woman at the kerb who spoke to a passerby who asked his child who asked the greengrocer who demanded from the customer who asked his wife who spoke to the man with the moustache in Tehran contacted by phone by The Associated Press

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 21:49 utc | 69

Mousavi, Celebrated in Iranian Protests, Was the Butcher of Beirut
Well well. He murders marines. Surely now we can support the man?

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 21:51 utc | 70

All over not much change but a preparation of the ‘western’ public readiness to attack Iran.
By far, your most specious argument, which is your core argument. This would foreclose intervention of any sort, so long as the target regime is sufficiently anti-american, according to you.
But, to be clear, there is no reason whatsoever for Iranians to trust the US. Ever.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 21:56 utc | 71

Such contempt for the people, giap. tsk tsk. You should change your nick to rememberingberia

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 23 2009 22:00 utc | 72

I wish someone could organize a post-election poll to get an indication whether the election results are to be trusted or not.
They could choose 1000 random phone numbers (no cells) with a reasonable distribution among the various cities and towns, and have a farsi-speaking person (from a neutral country) ask what the people voted (anonymously). I know that’s not totally scientific, but I wouldn’t expect a margin of error bigger than 10%.

Posted by: St | Jun 23 2009 22:16 utc | 73

Praviz, I think slothrop hit the nail on the head when he suggested, You’re beatin’ your head against a wall,.
What sense is there to continue to butt your head against the wall of skepticism here. You may be right, wrong, partially right, partially wrong. But trying to convince or convert or persuade is not working for you with your present line of arguing. And what is the point anyway? Even if you do convince anyone what difference does it make? Is it going to change the results of the election in your favor? Is it going to help bring down a corrupt regime you so clearly (and I also) perceive? Is it going to help create a world or US opinion that will bring pressure to bear on the Irian mafia running the politics and hence near everything else in your country?
I really think not, and I suspect you would agree with me on this.
So what could your motivation be to continue this pathetic and useless dialog? I outline some of my possible conjectures on the present open thread if you wish to know my mind. But giving you all benefit of the doubt for your motivation, I think you’re wasting your time, a that’s a hell of a lot of your time over the past week that surely could be more profitably spent elsewhere, maybe on the streets – that’s for you to decide, not me. But I’ll tell you, my strong opinion is, it is not here. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to see you hanging round and participating. But I’m personally at the point where you are taxing my preferential belief that you are not coming from a sinister place.
I don’t want to believe this of you. You have contributed much. I have gleaned insight from you where I knew nothing before. I thank you and I hope to continue my association with you on that level.
Please reconsider your level of participation on this issue for now.
Juannie
P.S. I notice you haven’t been around for the last four hours. Have you decided this on your own or just sleeping. 🙂

Posted by: Juannie | Jun 23 2009 22:28 utc | 74

slothrop & parviz
where is the general strike?

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 22:50 utc | 75

It’s almost four am in Teheran.
Meanwhile, the Huffington Post gets on the Mousavi Who Movement.
Iran Uprising: Is Mousavi Becoming Irrelevant?
Is Mousavi really guiding the movement on the streets, or is the street guiding Mousavi? According to Ali Akbar Mahdi, an Ohio Wesleyan University sociologist and expert on Iran, it is the latter. “Mousavi is being transformed. Events have affected him and it is hard to assume that he would give up easily,” Mahdi tells the Huffington Post, “However, I do not think that Mousavi has the guts to carry on too far, especially if this movement is drawn out and its objectives go beyond cancellation of the election.”
http://tinyurl.com/nud3lc

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 23 2009 23:18 utc | 76

I thought at the beginning that I had seen it all from you folks. No matter what the potential outcome was the Americans had surely done it and the result (no matter the result) must be resisted at all costs.
“Moussavi and Rafsanjani had the means and the motive to rig the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor and then cry foul in order to lure him into a crackdown trap. If that were the case, I would consider it treason considering the implications for Iran and its precarious relationship with the U.S. and Israel.”
Of course! How on Earth did we get this far without this gem? And so neatly packaged with THE JEWS and Americans to boot!
I can’t look away from these threads. It’s enthralling It’s an honest to god race to see who can dehumanize the Iranians faster in the name of crapping on the Americans. I can’t wait for the next iteration. Carry on, ladies and gentlemen.
Surely you can raise the bar, debs and b?

Posted by: God bless theocracy and its defenders. | Jun 23 2009 23:26 utc | 77

but thrasyboulos – those ‘iran desks’ at cnn aljazeera bbc et al – ô they are busy, busy, busy interpreting but not verifiying, telling all the tall tales from the twit -ter – because as you must know from parviz & slothrop – the massive general strike is going to follow macbeth’s tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow
& obama ought to shit the fuck up – while his drones murder their way gliding across pakistan & & ban ki moon ought to be put back in the box he came from – or for them both to weep in the walls of their worn out washington

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 23 2009 23:32 utc | 78

R’Giap
The anti Mousavi screeds seem to be casting longing glances to Rafsanjani, but they ignore the last weekend’s Sicilian message via his relatives.
Obama has has to balance domestic pressure via the neocons (but not realists like Kissinger and Brzezinski) and long to medium term strategic needs of the usa in central asia. Another Sicilian message via Ahmedinnerplate at the SAC meeting.
GBTAID, be careful what you wish for. Some of us have been the souls of discretion.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 23 2009 23:45 utc | 79

‘THE JEWS’? are you sure you don’t mean THE JOOOS? i suppose any reference to israel (and their iran obsession) brings out the wackos.

Posted by: annie | Jun 23 2009 23:45 utc | 80

Here you go, R’Giap…via Haaretz.
http://tinyurl.com/kku6qw
Iran turmoil emboldens opponents of dialog
By Nathan Guttman
WASHINGTON – Criticism of the Obama administration’s call for negotiations with Iran has gained new life as the country is rocked by unrest following disputed election results.
Among those calling on President Barack Obama to reconsider engagement with Iran are Bush-era neoconservatives and congressional Republicans. Pro-Israel activists, meanwhile, are maintaining a cautious approach, avoiding the issue of talks with Iran altogether.
But even moderates who back Obama’s outreach policy say the widespread popular protests in the streets of Tehran, the government’s aggressive attempts to suppress them and its efforts to limit media coverage of these events have raised new questions about Obama’s timing and scope for engaging with Iran.
“This will recalibrate the way the Obama administration thinks of moving forward with the Iranian nuclear issue,” said Nicholas Schmidle, a fellow at the New America Foundation. “There are voices now that say the regime may be in danger and therefore you might want to wait.”
etc.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 24 2009 0:11 utc | 81

well the only matresses that rafsanjani & his gang are going to are well padded. they have forgotten the guns alright but they surround themselves with cannelloni
& ô obama, yes he supports freedom of assembly – it makes it easier for his drones to kill innocent people in afghanistan & pakistan

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 0:11 utc | 82

i’m sure that’s the same guttman that humphrey bogart slappped around when he was sam spade.

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 0:14 utc | 83

Lol!
Yes, yes, R’Giap. I’m not defending Obama. Heaven forbid! 🙂
I’m just trying to understand what’s going on.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Jun 24 2009 0:15 utc | 84

& i would presume that one of the growingly decrepit mossad’s skill would rest in the technological field. hardly requires a conspiracy theory – those clowns like to talk in a way sicilians would never appreciate. i’d be very surprised if they are not involved in a little bit of destabilisation. it’s about all they are capable of except common slaughter of innocent – incidentallly at a level not even the revolutionary guards could pretend to be capable

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 0:18 utc | 85

Parviz @ 43
Mr Makhmalbaf … said that there were reports from Iran that some of the militia deployed to suppress protest were “speaking Arabic”.
There are other competing explanations for hearing the IRGC folks speak Arabic, if indeed this report is right. Here is one.
The IRGC has deployed folks from the Khuzistan Vali-e Asr Provincial Command led by Brig. Gen. Mohsen Kazemeini and Bushehr Imam Sadiq Provincial Command led by Brig. Gen. Fathollah Jomeiri. The last names don’t sound “Persian”, do they? The IRGC of both provinces is dominated by Arabic speakers. These two provincial commands house 5 infantry divisions together, one of which houses regiment-level Saberun [Those who can wait] units. Think light US Marine Force Recon, but trained for urban theaters. For three years these units trained for a possible uprising that would ensue a major US air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. They would have been put to proper use if the IRGC had decided to use them in Tehran.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 0:21 utc | 86

ô no dragonfly, i’m getting to prefer the funkier version – you know of hamas shock troops – you know it sort of…coalesces everything, you know – it is its own kind of ontological argument

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 0:26 utc | 87

& what i’ve heard in fact is there is an entire cadre (i guess what they used to call a squadron) when british imperialsim actually had an empire not the country of decaying & dying citieswe know today) of ex maoists schoolteachers from the ecole normale superieure who have been infiltrated into iran to spread spinoza & some dress sense

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 0:32 utc | 88

remembereringgiap @ 87
I am merely stating a possibility, not a certainty. There are other possibilities as well. I didn’t know Hamas has any Stosstrupp. Interesting….

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 0:50 utc | 89

normally they are engaged in calisthenic exercises taught them by a mongolian circus who yearn for the days of old but i guess they are just waiting for the general strike – cartwheeling the opposition demonstrations into submission. devlish buggers those hamas

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 1:02 utc | 90

actually, i think the opposition is so paranthetic that, while understanding iran’s need for security – i do not understand why she has to react so repressively. it is an enormous error that will fragilise iran. to that degree rafsanjani & his goons have won a part of their battle using the people’s blood to do so & from what i understand today – there have been deaths on all sides

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 1:09 utc | 91

& the monsters imagine their feast

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 1:14 utc | 92

Juannie #74:
I see no indication of any sinister or ulterior motives from Parviz. He thinks he’s right the way I think I’m right, and even if I don’t come to agree with him, there are lurkers and he wants to make sure an alternative view is heard, even if it’s shouted down.
The reason comments sections exist is that there is a pleasure of some sort just writing one’s opinion and getting a reaction to it.
An ulterior motive for Parviz is way, way, way more far fetched than that he’s just writing what he considers the truth.

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 1:15 utc | 93

Parviz:
About your four questions to Loyal. The overall thing is that I don’t see 11 million votes in the answers to those questions, I don’t see how, any answer to those questions could produce one illegal vote from Ahmadinejad without also producing a witness who could be convinced to testify by the faction of Iranian politics that currently holds the chair of the Assembly of Experts.
But question 3 is really irritating me.
3. Did Moussavi’s representatives participate in the actual counting? Or did they simply stand aside while the counting by Interior Ministry appointees was done?
The story was that the votes were not counted at all. You remember that right? Juan Cole’s theory was that when the preliminary votes were going Mousavi’s way, he recalled all the ballots to Tehran, and began releasing numbers made up from scratch. That was the story.
The claim was that the ballots were not counted. One of the things I couldn’t explain was why the ballots were not counted in the usual way. I didn’t think it meant there was fraud, but the idea that the ballots left the polling places uncounted was a core premise of the spectacular fraud scenario. There still was never evidence of that scenario, but the key element was the ballots being taken to Tehran uncounted.
It turns out that Mousavi had 40,000 observers watching the ballots being counted, and is now complaining that they couldn’t participate in the counting they witnessed?
I’m angry at this. How could Mousavi let us believe these theories based on interior ministry personnel, to the shock of the local poll workers and contrary to normal election practice, suddenly taking the ballots when he had 40,000 observers watching the votes as they were counted normally.
Where did this lie start?
This lie was disseminated very well. It is a brilliant lie for its purpose. Any amount of witnesses produced by the government would be met with the claim that these are the only ballots counted normally. It was also so outrageous, so obviously false, that the government unless it was specifically prepared to combat this type of campaign might not even know to directly address it, which would fuel theories based upon it.
The lie was spread widely and quickly, and I think that lends credence to the idea that it was professionally designed beforehand. And even if the “Go West” faction of Iranian politics wanted to, they don’t have experience inventing lies to discredit elections. The best organizations at using elections to destabilize countries are US-based. It is starting to seem like that is at least partially what is going on.
I’d appreciate if anyone can post links to the earliest instances of the “ballots were taken away from polling places before they could be counted” story.
Mousavi, as an Iranian who had 40,000 election monitors that knew the story was false absolutely had a responsibility to set that straight.
I consider this lie, the lie that the ballots were removed from polling places irregularly to be the core lie of the entire election-related destabilization campaign.
Loyal:
Can you give us an idea in your dealings with people, what parts of Iranian society seem to believe there was massive fraud in the election and whether or not the idea is changing over time?
Also, are there links, preferably in English, to the number of poll observers the different candidates had? And also to Mousavi’s report to the Guardian Council about election irregularities?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 1:36 utc | 94

Gee, it’s funny how nowhere in that CNN article they mention that the former Shah was a monster, and that his regime was murderous, and the murderous part of it was another reason for its overthrow. Well maybe not so strange that they ignore historical context..

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 24 2009 1:54 utc | 95

cnn wouldn’t know a historical context if a train fulll of go go anderson coopers slammed into their atlanta headquarters. the gonnoreah-ridden-golem wolf blitzer presumes to be history itself
we really are somewhere deep in a text written by dante

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 1:58 utc | 96

it feels sordid to even link to cnn

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 24 2009 1:59 utc | 97

Arnold Evans @ 94
Please read my post
a) 199 in Parviz: Khamenei’s Aura of Invincibility Shattered
b) 208 in Parviz: Khamenei’s Aura of Invincibility Shattered
c) 38 in The Real Clashes Have Begun
After reading these three posts, you will probably be equipped with a tiny bit of information — not opinions — about how things work in Iranian elections. Give me a holler then, so I can comment on your post knowing that you have some background and I would not have to repeat basic stuff.

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 24 2009 2:11 utc | 98

I’ve read the three posts Dragonfly.
Please give me as plausible a detailed scenario as you can in which Ahmadinejad actually got 49% of the vote (or less), which would have forced a run-off (or outright Mousavi victory?) but the interior ministry registered 63% of the vote for Ahmadinejad.
I’m not asking you to tell me what happened. Just make up a scenario you consider plausible. I really do not think you’ll be able to present a scenario even you think is plausible that meets these requirements and does not conflict with known information in the real world.
In your scenario:
Where, when and by whom was the decision to falsify the results made?
How was the falsification carried out?
Who knows about the efforts falsification?
Why is nobody talking?
How is the information about this falsification kept from the Chair of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, constitutionally entitled to review the performance of the Supreme Leader?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 2:51 utc | 99

Dragonfly:
Also I’d like to know in your scenario:
Why was the decision to falsify the results made?
How will the falsification be kept from the campaigns, so the campaigns will not be able to publicize irregularities after the revote?

Posted by: Arnold Evans | Jun 24 2009 2:58 utc | 100