Bear in mind the following.
10 million extra votes in 2009 over 2005. Inevitably counting, if it’s actually being done, is going to take much longer.
If one is following the rule that ballot boxes should not be unsealed until the polls close, and said polls are on extended opening, then the counts shouldn’t have started in many locations until after 10pm Iran time. Just out of curiousity, how many tellers would it take to count 30 million votes by 8am?
Lower voter turnout in 2005, both first second round, than in both of Khatami’s first round victories.
You’re making far too much of Mousavi claiming victory – politicians do that the world over. Note that Mousavi makes his claim after the polls have closed.
In 1997 Iranians vote on Thursday – NYT ( some 8 hours behind Iran time ), publishes on Sunday.
In 2001, it’s a 2 day gap, same in 2005 – but this year, 8am Saturday in Teheran will catch some of the later editions of the NYT for that day, in spite of a massive increase in turnout.
You haven’t thought about this at all, B – on the basis of your cites from the prior 3 elections, the count was being done at a vastly accelerated rate for this election ( ie a factor of 3 or 4 times as quickly ).

Posted by: dan | Jun 18 2009 17:22 utc | 4

You’re making far too much of Mousavi claiming victory – politicians do that the world over. Note that Mousavi makes his claim after the polls have closed.
yet it’s also a known tactic in the organized color-revolutions. regarding zimbabwe’s election, roughly outlined steps include

5. Before the official vote is announced, the opposition and “independent” election monitors announce an opposition victory.
6. If the official vote tally contradicts the opposition’s claim of victory, the vote is denounced as fraudulent, and people are encouraged to move the battle to the streets.

i’ve read more complete descriptions of the recommended tactic of announcing victory before the results are official & how that immediately places the announced winner largely on the defensive, but cannot recall where that was at this time. no doubt most political parties have their own contingency plans thought out, esp in certain political climates, and are ready to mobilize their base as needed. but how many really preempt the official announcement of the tallies?

Posted by: b real | Jun 18 2009 17:54 utc | 6

You’re making far too much of Mousavi claiming victory – politicians do that the world over.
Any example from some of the ‘normal’ countries? I.e. U.S., Western Europe etc?

Posted by: b | Jun 18 2009 18:15 utc | 8

Edmund Stoiber did that before he lost to Gerd Schröder in the German parliamentary elections of 2002. And remember the “Dewey Defeats Truman” headlines of 1948? Although I do not know if the latter was the press or Dewey’s wishful thinking.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 18 2009 18:31 utc | 10

B
We’re not comparing Iran to Germany, we’re analysing the difference between this particular election and the precedents from 1997, 2001 and 2005 – the count on this occasion was clearly vastly quicker, despite the fact it was the largest turnout in their history ( by some 7-8 million votes ) and spiced up with the additional complication of extended voting hours, which would have delayed the beginning of the counting process by 4 hours over the previous election.
From your description of the process in Germany, it seems that there is one teller per 500 voters – any idea what the ratio is in Iran?

Posted by: dan | Jun 18 2009 18:59 utc | 12

actually if the supreme leader pulls this off it will be the most efficient PR exercise for a theocracy ever

Posted by: outsider | Jun 18 2009 19:04 utc | 14

much has been made about fraud here and it has been coming from supposed Iranians and I suspect quite a few Israel firsters too. I found it remarkable how all of the MSM was immediately on script calling it a questionable election. Virtually every news source I watch, from Italian and German to British and US had the same angle. That goes for left wing blogs as well as the right wingers. This morning though it all seems to have run its course and everyone is talking about Obama and how he is going to fix the financial system.
I really enjoyed watching the experts here too. a lot of emotion came out and some attacked b, usually for things he did not write or support but for merely questioning the official line. I think r’giap had it mostly right with it being a struggle between the elites in Iran, along with that there were many rabble rousers who made the most of this to discredit AN and make it easier to not deal with him somehow putting off the inevitable. The color revolution was no doubt sponsored by outside powers and with all the money the US has officially spent on regime change in Iran it seems very likely that they are behind that.
My own gut tells me that AN won fair and square, he may be hated by some of the elites and upper class in Iran but I suspect that many see him as someone not afraid to stand up to Israel and the US. Pride goes a long way and can explain even such silliness as the massive support Berlusconi has in Italy. Everyone knows he is a bastard, liar, and cheat but he convinced everyone that he can make things happen and in many cases does, such as passing laws to make anything he wants to do legal. I think people like to see someone who can accomplish things. fancy talk doesn’t really cut it.
One thing I really don’t understand from all this back and forth is the vehement certainty of Antifa, I always read his posts with a great deal of interest and have marveled at his insight. This time however it doesn’t seem quite right. Perhaps if he is still around he could try to explain that to me.
man, did these last few articles from b ever draw out the trolls though! sheesh!

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 18 2009 19:20 utc | 16

B
I agree that we don’t know – but it begs the question as to why the authorities in Iran went through the process of having an open electoral process up to polling day and then, when they could have have generated a massive degree of national political capital that would have been of great global significance, would have MASSIVELY enhanced their position internationally irrespective of who won, dropped the ball so badly by not making the count transparent, deviating in unexplained ways from established protocols, not releasing the granular data thay they’re supposed to do ( you wanna guess why? )and acting like guilty schoolboys who are making it up as they go along without any coherent communications strategy.
Look, if the result were as advertised, there would be some intensity of support for the victor, and a smart machine would be taking foreign journalists around the provinces where Ahmadinejad is supposed to have crushed all opposition to demonstrate the intensity of this support – they’d even be doing this on their local broadcasting, but as far as I can tell, simply aren’t. If the count was remotely genuine they would have had the internal political capital to be WAAAAAY more aggressive toward the protesters than is currently the case – instead, Khamenei is clearly blinking.
This is what has perplexed me. They’ve really screwed themselves over on this one – and I don’t think that reference to presumed/imaginary external factors is in any way explicatory; this is an internally-generated clusterfuck.
Khamenei and his cohorts have been ad-libbing since Friday in a way that is highly suggestive of their preferred candidate, Ahmadinejad, receiving a serious electoral kicking.
If George Bush had got 5% of the vote in his re-election bid for the governorship of Texas, we’d all find it dead funny, but we’d never believe it for a second. Yet we’re supposed to believe that in Lorestan the local boy Karroubi, who polled 55% in the first round in 2005 to Ahmadinejad’s 5%, did just that.
We can be as relentlessly skeptical as we wish, but at some point, we may also wish to make a judgement.

Posted by: dan | Jun 18 2009 19:56 utc | 18

Last post. I promise:
b, posted an article by Prof Mebane stating
“That is a somewhat funny claim. Prof. Walter R. Mebane, Jr. of the University of Michigan (political science and statistics) retrieved official data form Iran at election district level and on June 14th made statistical comparisons with 2005 data. He found (pdf) nothing abnormal, but of course would like even more detailed data at polling station level to confirm that. ”
Reading the updated paper we see on page 9:

I think the results give moderately strong support for a diagnosis that the 2009 election was affected by significant fraud.

I wonder if this story will have enough significance to make the front page.

Posted by: Amir S. | Jun 18 2009 20:20 utc | 20

Good article via Mondoweiss:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/tehran-is-burning-but-who-is-fuelling-the-fires—-based-on-opinion-polls-conducted-a-few-weeks-before-the-election-by-terr.html
” …The night of the election and only two hours after closing of the polls, Moussavi, under pressure by his campaign manager, advanced his prescheduled post-election press conference, planned for Saturday morning, and declared himself the winner in front of CNN, BBC and other foreign press reporters in Iran. There is no explanation for this move. This preemptive assumption of victory was done to sow the seeds of doubts and discontent before any results were even published.
The timing of this early press conference points to the fact that Moussavi’s camps were aware of the existence of warm ears outside of Iran waiting for any kind of news of doubts in Ahmadinejad’s victory.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t Mousavi wait for the morning after to declare himself a winner?
In my opinion, the speedy announcement of results by the Interior Ministry, something that most people quote as the evidence of tampering with the votes, only took place to counterbalance Moussavi’s early declaration of victory. Had Moussavi waited, the results would have appeared more normal and acceptable. As I have already explained, the switch from plan A to plan B required the Moussavi camp to quickly dismiss Ahmadinejad’s victory and move on to challenge the results as soon as possible.”
Also about the behind-the-scenes role of Rafsanjani.
sonar

Posted by: sonar | Jun 18 2009 20:22 utc | 22

Mousaka and his backers may be using the Color Revolution playbook, but I seriously doubt it is at the behest of Western Intelligence services.
ok, let me get this straight just so we are all on the same page. can we agree on a few things? do Western Intelligence services care about irans elections? did they care about them prior to the election? do Western Intelligence services ever covertly involve themselves in influencing elections in countries vital to their national security? would a country like the US ever involve itself in meddling in the internal affairs of another country? what about israel? what interest would a country like israel have in a country like..iran? might iran be a priority for a country like israel? seems to me like i’ve heard a squeak or 2 about iran coming out of israel lately. hmmm, let me check and get back to you on that. where were we?
Western Intelligence services
righto. Obamageddon having serious doubts Western Intelligence services would collude in anyway w/the opposition in iran to throw an election.
i’m more of the frame of mind to wonder why wouldn’t the cia or mossad try to destabalize the election in iran. can somebody gove me a good reason to believe they would take tha hands off approach especially given the evil incarnate A (of wipe off the map fame) was up in the polls? can you back up your serious doubts w/serious reasons for doubting both the cia and mossad would be changing their stripes for this election.

Posted by: annie | Jun 18 2009 20:33 utc | 24

Last night I wrote a piece on the beat-up by the CSM but didn’t post it because it became too long when John Simpson’s front row seat at a rally where Rafsanjani’s daughter spoke was discussed in relation to a the sleazy pols and 2/ whether or not the insurrection is being spread from inside Iran or abroad it has disturbing elements of a very destructive divide and rule technique that was popular in both Zimnbawe and, more recently Thailand.
That is the deliberate division between urban usually more educated, more consumerist oriented people and the rural people who still live in the old school communities many of the urban humans migrated from.
This was also amplified by the now standard domestic action, foreign reportage exageration, inspiring domestic reaction, feedback loop
Thailand was the most extreme where the urbanistas were celebrated in foreign media for laying Bangkok airport under siege because the government was “corruptly elected”. That turned out to mean that rural voters had been given subsidies for seed and equipment which the urbanist middle class termed vote buying although there was no complaint levelled against the previous governments’ habit of giving tax concessions or outright cash to land devlopers or industry in the towns and cities.
When the bourgeoisie got their way ie disenfranchised rural voters who had fought for over 50 years to have their votes count, whereas the disenfranchisement only took a couple of months, the rural poor came to town to protest, the Thai army shot and arrested those protesters. This was unlike the airport blockers who were staffed by (off duty ?) cops and soldiers; the celebrated ‘free press’ of the west didn’t say fuck all. What a surprise.
No not really even here at MoA where we have to suffer misanthropes who claim to be Marxist. How could anyone with such an obvious dislike of humanity possible support a political/economic system designed however badly to, help all humans? Well quite easily if the marxism is merely an extension of the person’s misanthropy ie it is a pose that serves to provoke arguments with conservative jewish family and friends. No point in suggesting treatment – doubtless many tens of thousands of dollars wrung out of the labour of the poor – taxation, and paid to expensive psychoanalysts has already been tipped down that sewer.
But anyway enough digression. Iran’s problem does seem to be a similar split between Iranians. The technocrats in Tehran, the students and those women looking for a more western, secular, less religious society are being ruthlessly manipulated by the likes of the Rafsanjani clan. (“Simmo” made it plain that the daughter was speaking on behalf of her dad).
Whether or not the division was deliberately provoked to grab some asset or just opportunistically exploited as a means to regain power is irrelevant.
We know where this goes, the rural poor lose all political and economic clout and consequently urban migration accelerates, creating vast slums of hopelessness and despair. Once at least they could grow most of their food, now they must purchase sustenance marketed by the likes of Rafsanjani’s corporations.
As soon as a sort of critical lack of mass is achieved in a particular country area, the remaining ‘stay behinds’ will be forced off their land which can now be seized in large ‘economically viable’ chunks to be exploited and polluted.
This is the real danger in these seeming ‘instant’ revolutions by the time citizens work out what the game really is it is far too late to do anything.
Say what you like about Ahmadinejad he has demonstrated more concern for the average Iranian during his term in office than Rafsanjani, Mousavi or any of the other sleek and shiny greed heads ever did in their terms of power.
Doubtless the usual suspects will be offended by that claim but to those actually live in Iran, if there even are any such persons dropping by, I strongly suggest they devote their attentions to the slugs they appear so keen to support rather than worry about what people outside Iran think of the shill.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 18 2009 23:19 utc | 26

@20: Mebane’s updated analysis includes a model which examines how well the 2005 votes predicted the 2009 vote tallies in 320 towns. He finds 79 outliers, where the observed values are far from the predicted values. This is suspicious, as he points out, unless there is some explanation for why these towns should be so different. However he also notes that of those 79 outliers, 39 observations have positive residuals—Ahmadinejad did much better than the model predicts—and 25 have negative residuals (AN did much worse).
A reasonable interpretation of this is that if there was fraud, it would have given AN some advantage overall, but the level of fraud is far from what would have been required to fix the election for AN if the true result had been the first-round win for Moussavi that his supporters claimed. Nor does this analysis suggest a centralized fabrication of results by the Ministry of the Interior – it looks like a mix of (mostly) fair tallying with some Chicago-style local efforts to rig the count in favour of one candidate or the other. It would be interesting to know more about what was happening on the ground in the 79 outlier towns.

Posted by: pmr9 | Jun 18 2009 23:25 utc | 28

b @ 7:
You say there were 3000 ballots counted by 6 people (each ballot counted twice) and it took 90 mins to count them?
That means, each person got to count 1000 ballots in 90 mins, or between 5 and 6 secs/ballot consistently for 90 mins without a break. And this assumes that there are no disputed ballots, no discussions, paperwork to be done etc.
I’ve been twice in vote counting in Greece and we were nowhere near that speed. Our typical voter district would have less than 500 people and at least 3 people to do the counting, and it would take no less than 2 (more likely 3) hours to finish counting and write down results. Assuming the process takes 2 hours and we check each ballot twice, the greek average speed would be 333 ballots per person per 120 mins, or more than 20 secs/ballot.
No wonder we keep referring to Germans as `machines’ 🙂

Posted by: St | Jun 18 2009 23:50 utc | 30

And here we are still, deep into yet another thread, discussing whether the election was fraudulent or not.
We are all parked right where the ‘mule’ wanted us to park — “could be” “couldn’t be” “look at this” “yabbit, look at this”
when no one — ever — will know the actual vote count.
In an honest election, anywhere on earth, the votes are counted. The property trail is maintained. If nothing else, everynbe involved can easily agree that the ballots are all safe, and can be counted and counted and counted again until no doubts remain.
But all of the Iranian ballots are gone — removed almost immediately to a government vault, and the MoI will release neither the ballots, nor the precinct registries, nor the property trail.
Reasonable doubt, therefore, exists. No ‘reasonable man’ can swear by the announced election results because there is not a shred of proof being publicly shared and examined.
The real story here is not longer the vote count — that can never be established by man, gods, or little fishes. The story is the power struggle going on like a kinife fight in a phone booth. Control of the regime and nation is dancing on a wire, and we have so much to discuss in this area as soon as we admit that the count is never going to be proven or provable.
If people insist on trying to prove the vote was fraudulent or honest from this point, I would like to suggest much more interesting topics, like —
* how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
* OMG! Gen. George S. Patton was secretly gay?
* Did you know Nixon actually won the 1960 election?
None of these questions have ever been proved, or can be. Let’s get right on them.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 19 2009 0:41 utc | 32

Dan seems to me to be a hasbarist. I don’t like to label people, I prefer to analyze their arguments. But he seems to me to be a total sophist, an obfuscator. I don’t get a clear sense of these things, but there is a cloud of deception here, it may be his own thinking, but me thinks he is an operative.
Better come up with another handle Daniel.

Posted by: scott | Jun 19 2009 0:49 utc | 34

@ Scott #34. Why don’t you impress us with your detailed analysis of his arguments, instead of using an Ad Hominen attack (in true Hasbara fashion, I might add)..

Posted by: L’Akratique | Jun 19 2009 1:05 utc | 36

…and he says crazy shit about jews. And he’s a millenarian religious nut.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 19 2009 1:10 utc | 38

If Iran is indeed in the midst of a revolution, the idealist in me sees it as homegrown and largely from the grassroots. The realist in me sees it, as I imagine Parviz sees it, as homegrown but mostly rooted in AstroTurf. But the pessimist in me sees it as imported from the West, namely the US and Israel, with AstroTurf written all over it.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 19 2009 1:40 utc | 40

I repeat my earlier statement. It no longer matters who truly won. The results will always be doubted by someone. At this point the Iranian government has to move fast to restore legitimacy, and frankly the only way to do that is through a new election. Trying to demonstrate that there was no fraud is pointless. Enough people worldwide believe there was and, much more importantly, so do many people within Iran.
If there is a new election and Musavi wins, so be it. It will be up to Iranians to decide if he has been influenced by foreign powers. We have no choice but to trust their judgment. Many of us, myself included, have viewed Iran as the last barrier to American-Israeli hegemony in the middle east. We would lament it if it ceased that role, but ultimately, Iranians have to decide what they want.
But with that in mind, I say a few things assuming Musavi becomes president;
1) He is not Netanyahoo. The Iranians demonstrating in the street are not the settlers. Iran’s national interests will be the same no matter who wins. It has a strong interest in pursuing nuclear development for purely economic reasons. It has an interest in expanding its influence abroad. Musavi is not likely to abandon Hizbullah or Hamas. Even if he is inclined to do so, hard line elements of the IRGC and intelegence services wont permit him and he is unlikely to pick a fight over that when he has more pressing issues. And the Israelis know it.
2) Even if Musavi wants to deal with the west, he will find their demands are far more burdensome than expected. Quite simply, the U.S. is loathe to accept a serious power in the Persian Gulf that is not under its thumb. Israel is loathe to accept a power in the mideast stronger than itself. And strength, by the way, is not nuclear weapons. It is economic power, which Iran will have once American sanctions are lifted or decay from disregard. This is doubly true if oil stays above 70$/bbl.
3) Iran’s strategic situation has not changed and is very advantageous. Musavi is unlikely to give that away.
4) A Musavi presidency would enjoy total legitimacy in the West. It would be a game changer wrt Iran’s relations with the west. It would be the final nail in the coffin of any ‘military option’ that anyone still contemplates. It will drive the Israelis mad because…
5) it will facilitate the change of policy that Obama, with the support of many realists, is likely contemplating. That being dissociating the U.S. with Israel and wooing Iran towards the western world.
Ahmadinejad, despite all the reasons Parviz and others may have to hate him, did produce a nuclear program and a space program. And he forced the U.S. to come to the table on Iran’s terms. Those are impressive accomplishments, but perhaps he has served his purpose and Iran may be better off with a new face.
And, of course, if Ahmadinejad wins an uncontested election, that can only be to Iran’s benefit compared to now.
Dan, @ #18, what are your thoughts on what a Musavi presidency would look like?

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 19 2009 2:01 utc | 42

This debate about the election results is completely meaningless. What difference does it make whether there was an electoral fraud or not? The real issue is that the people in Iran see this as an opportunity to demand changes in the system. Rather than arguing over the election-which was bogus to begin with-we need to pay attention to what the people in Iran are demanding. The election was bogus because the candidates were pre-approved. The only difference now is that some groups in Iran feel that they have the opportunity to change the regime’s policies. Now these groups are not outside of the ruling mullah elite, they just have an agenda that requires them to hook up with the international markets for their benefits.
The hardliners represented by AN don’t see it that way. They would rather like to keep the people of Iran poor and deprived of basic human rights as that guarantees the power to them. The argument that AN is relatively better for the poor folks in Iran has no substance at all. Can anyone show even a single reform in the economic system in the last 30 years that has benefited the poor folks?
The attempt in Iran is to maintain the feudal system so assiduously cultivated by the Shah and his feudal supporters. The mullah has continued with the same economic policies. Has there been any change in the rural Iran in the last 30 years? there are more religious schools than technical schools, the peasants are more oppressed than they were under the Shah. The Mullah-Feudal nexus rules the countryside and the regime enforces tribal customs on the middle class in the cities.
Is the anti-Americanism of the ruling mullah elite enough to justify their control of power in Iran? Why is it necessary for the progressive and the so-called leftists to support a regime that only has contempt for the poor folks and denies them basic human necessities?
I don’t agree with the argument that the regime has support in the countryside. There is no evidence of that. The rural Iran is not like the rural US or the rural Western Europe where the common folks have some access to information. Mostly in the rural areas of the deeply feudal countries, it is the local elders and influential people that determine the winners. They force the common folks or bus them to vote in a certain way.
Even in India that has a long history of relatively fraud-free voting, the rural votes are manipulated by the candidates and influence peddling determines the winners. Only in exceptional circumstances the rural voters show independencce. In India that happened only once after the Mrs. Gandhi’s emergency in 1977 when the rumors of forced vasectomy created panic like atmosphere in the rural areas.
True that US has interest in the outcome of the elections and that created the panic like situation in the ruling mullah elite and made them resort to manipulation of the result. I think their idea was to quickly announce the results to forestall any expected protest, but their strategy backfired on them. Admittedly, because of the superior efforts by the opposition and strong support provided by the US.
The fall of the regime in Iran is not imminent but it is important that the regime is forced to open up and allow some legitimate opposition in the country. Iran badly needs economic, educational, and cultural reforms. The people need to be represented in the government affairs. The current Supreme Council led by the Mullah Khaminie(SP)is more like the Kitchen cabinet of the Shah. The People of Iran deserve better.

Posted by: Hasho | Jun 19 2009 2:49 utc | 44

It would be interesting to know more about labor politics in Iran. The two books on Iran’s left suggested by a visitor the other day look interesting. I intend to read them.
And it is a shame the Iran visitors are gone. There was a lot to learn from them.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 19 2009 2:51 utc | 46

it’s been an emotionally charged, combative atmosphere round the old watering hole these last few days.
i think antifa has it right: The real story here is not longer the vote count…The story is the power struggle going on like a kinife fight in a phone booth.
what i want to emphasize for the impassioned advocates of fraud is this: don’t blame us for being suspicious. there is so much manipulation going on, on so many different levels, that it’s perfectly natural for us (not in the thick of it all) to be very skeptical about what our media jackals are trying to hammer into us.
any deaths by the force of a govt against is own people is reprehensible. i hope our iranian visitors will try to inform us about what is happening without attacking our justifiable skepticism.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 19 2009 3:38 utc | 48

the discussion if the election results were real or not is not meaningless, as when the election results were real and the opposition knew it and this letter and the initial information from the interior ministery the opposition claims were fake then the opposition is lying to the people.
would you support liars?
it is also not meaningless as it would mean the government has 60% support. you do not have a successful revolution against 60% of the population. it would have to be a putsch. only the military can do a putsch.

Posted by: outsider | Jun 19 2009 4:24 utc | 50

it is important that the regime is forced to open up and allow some legitimate opposition in the country.
you mean the way cheneyco should have been forced in 04(by foreign elements) to allow some legitimate opposition since the spineless dems wouldn’t do it?
The People of Iran deserve better.
maybe they should listen to the neocons. after all, israel is operating swimmingly isn’t it.

Posted by: fuck this shit | Jun 19 2009 6:43 utc | 52

Gosh, i can’t tell y’all how great it is to see anti get her butt kicked all over the place like this.
Now i’m “the mule”? It’s really rather flattering to have become a “the”, but hey — the last exchange i left with her ended with something close to a “You’re beneath me and i haven’t any interest in talking any more.” Now i’m reincarnated as “the golden ass”. Ho-ho-ho.
I continue to side w/the skeptics on this one: there has been little in the way of concrete evidence to suggest to me there was much, if any, real election-stealing going on, here. It sure seems like a color revolution to me.
My imagined conversation:
Raf: Hello, my old friend. Was your business in Amman successful?
Anon: Yes, it was. I secured four long-term spot-contracts with Fujian.
Raf: Well, now that the guests have retired, let me ask: were you able to meet with our friend?
Anon: Indeed, i was.
Raf: And what did he say?
Anon: He suggested that your offer was extremely attractive.
Raf: Good. Did he have anything for you?
Anon: Yes. All the material you asked for is here, on this disk.
Raf: Excellent, excellent. And have you prepared the shipments?
Anon: Indeed, i have.
Raf: So the guarantees are in place, then?
Anon: As much as they can be. But, may i ask…?
Raf: Certainly, feel free.
Anon: Do you truly think you can trust these promises? Aren’t you playing with fire, like this, putting Iran at risk?
Raf: Iran is already at risk. The Israelis are determined to attack us, and it will likely be with nuclear weaponry. They are siphoning the oil from beneath our feet, and are close to compelling the Americans to join their aggression.
Anon: Surely, the Americans would not be so stupid.
Raf: Wars are not logical things, my friend, and at this point in time the Amerians are like a fat, rabid dog that has gone too long without a meal. I am not willing to risk the consequences of what seems like their inevitable violence.
Anon: But if your plan works, then Iran will be divided, and ripe for attack.
Raf: The Americans are not so sick that they do not recognize the value of negotiation over violence. They know I will facilitate a peaceful end to this impasse, and more to the point, if my plan works, then their intelligence services will be robbed of their most fundamental criticism of our land: we will have become a full-fledged democracy. It will be a wedge we can use to further pressure our freinds to the East and North for more protections, and which they can use to justify more business.
Anon: I wish you the best, then. Inside the files, you will find a man recommended by our friends. He is in Jordan. All the information you need for your people to establish a secure connection is there.
Raf: Thank you, my friend. Peace be upon you.
And so on.
I could totally see the U.S. — or even Israel — “cooperating” in this way with Rafsanjani. It would be a gamble for Rafsanjani, but also is certainly something he could pull off with only four or five trusted associates. A man in the office at his side, send an advisor out to Mousavi, send another one or two out to look over the various grass-roots political groups, and give another one or two control of a PR team.
Or not. If we can all sit around here cogently debating whether something is or isn’t a “color revolution”, then clearly the Irani intelligence services would have dissected and analyzed the technique a very long time ago. Adapting those reports to a local situation would also be something very easy for Rafsanjani.
The point is, all he’d really need are three things: clear documentation of how the plan should proceed, a handful of highly trusted advisors, and some reason to believe that the U.S. and Israel wouldn’t pose a threat during the chaos. Such reasons could be found in many places: discreet communiques through intelligence go-betweens, privileged intelligence regarding U.S. and Israeli plans, guarantees by other superpowers, and so on.
My point is simply that, unlike O’mageddon, i think it’s quite possible that communications, assurances, or agreements we’ll never know about did take place.
That doesn’t mean there’s any point to debating them.
Also, unlike Lysander, i do see there being quite a good reason to debate what’s taking place there.
If enough people push back against the narrative currently being forced upon us (…by people like antifa, dan, and Alex_no…), then it will make selling any new wars against Iran that much harder.
And let’s face it: those of us who want to actually avoid that war need all the help we can get.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 19 2009 7:47 utc | 54

A) No cell phones or internet? Where do think is Tehran? The back side of the moon? And then what is all that propaganda about the young generation twitting against the dictatorship?
B) Actually Musavi won in Tehran propper if I remember correctly by more than two milion of votes. More than half the voting census. So he doesn’t lacks supporters … in Tehran. Add explicit support from the second most powerful man, and likely the richest, in Iran (Rafsanjani) so the capacity to mobilize tens, hundred of thousans or even a million is there. Whatever the real results of the elections are.
C) You mean that Rafsanjani isn’t an Ayatollah? When did he drop his clerical garments and turned into a secular prodemocracy liberal? Yesterday? Musavi has been campaigning for the return of the ‘old good days’ when Khomenei was alive. So much for ‘zero sympathy for the Ayatollahs’.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 19 2009 8:15 utc | 56

Hi. I am Iranian, I am new here and have read all the threads. The fraud is transparent and there have been 646 officially documented complaints to the Guardian Council.
For example, the most popular opposition newspaper Etemad-e-melli has circulation of 750,000/day, and maybe 2 million read it because the papers are passed around in the office and home. The paper belongs to Karoubi. Now, I was in Lorestan – Karoubi’s home province, one week before the vote and there was not one picture of Ahmadinejad. 90 % of photos were of Karoubi and 10 % Musavi. So calculate 5 million home votes plus 2 million paper circulation and you have 7 million BASIC votes for Karoubi, even if nobody else out of 45 million votes for him. This 7 million (my guess) would be 2 million more than he got in 2005, which is logical because he is more popular today.
How many votes did the Ministry of Interior give him? 300,000. They wanted to teach him a lesson.
My guess is 45 % voted Musavi, 35 % Ahmadinejad and 20 % Karoubi. But the Government could not risk a run-off because the 45 % of Musavi and 20 % Karoubi would wipe out Ahmadinejad in 2nd round vote. So they told a Big Lie to end the voting immediately.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 8:50 utc | 58

No its my nickname. I am a complete Iranian.
If what I write has been reported, then how about this?
It takes 2 hours for the government to count 45 million votes, but when the Guardian Council says it will take “samples” to check fraud they need 10 days to do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because they cannot find any samples where there was NO fraud. Maybe they have to fix the checking like they fixed the election and need so much time to do it. I guess they will need time to re-arrange the ballot boxes and make sure the boxes they “check” have the correct proportion of votes and with valid IDs. Then they can claim they “checked”.
You know, if you watch CSI on TV you know that evidence must be collected IMMEDIATELY or it can become “tainted”.
45 million votes counted in one hour, and a sample check needs 10 days???????????????????????
I am also upset by some comments. One person keeps calling Musavi “Mousaka”. Please show some respect for the choice of 30 million Iranians who are risking everything.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 9:03 utc | 60

Amir jan, ejazeh daaram harfhaaye tora tarjomeh konam va baraye hameh benevisam?

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 9:47 utc | 62

Sorry, everybody, that was a private discussion with Amir. I will let you know the result.
The claim that America or Israel or other power is helping the protestors is wrong. Most women hate the regime. The Constitution does not allow a Supreme Leader. People are angry because of inflation and unemployment which influence every election in the world. We Iranians are proud. We don’t want charity. We want to work.
Ahmadinejad is a crook. Everybody here thinks he is honest and only Rafsanajani is a crook. No. Tehran City Mayor Qalibaf presented hundreds of documents to Khamenei showing Ahmadinajd sold government property to relatives and friends, when he was Tehran Mayor, at 95 % discount and on 100 % loan basis. Then those friends make billions and return some of that money for propaganda.
Corruption, religion, unemployment, inflation, newspaper censorship and censorship of lives has made this regime unpopular among the people not connected directly or indirectly to the power centers. Ahmadinajad cannot bribe 70 million Iranians, he only needs to bribe those 10 million who will attend every rally and to pay high salaries to the militia who will kill for money. The revolution is real, nobody is helping, and many of you are also not helping. I thought this was an objective blog.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 10:00 utc | 64

Iran’s protestors would never betray Iran and sell it to the Americans. The greatest hero of the past 100 years to all protestors is Mossadegh. He is talked about like a God because he fought against British oil interests. All the protestors are in favor of uranium enrichment and do not like Israel. Same as Ahmadinejad. The only difference is that we protestors do not like the system that produces an idiot president like Ahmadinejad. We oppose religious extremism, we hate the Taleban, we hate the religious police, we hate the guardian council that prevented 2500 candidates in 2005 and 4000 candidates this time.
We oppose America. Ahmadienjad opposes America. The difference is that we are nationalists and he is an ignorant religious fanatic who is destroying our country.
So stop saying we are led by a country (America) we hate. We just want freedom and democracy.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 10:11 utc | 66

Corruption, religion, unemployment, inflation, newspaper censorship and censorship of lives has made this regime unpopular among the people not connected directly or indirectly to the power centers.
I find it kind of funny that those two points are always mentioned in elections in Iran.
NYT on the reelection of Kathami in 2001

Candidates identified as conservatives did try to accuse Mr. Khatami of poor economic policy, citing an unemployment rate officially put around 15 percent but believed to be far higher.

NYT on the first election of Ahmadinejad:

The nation’s leading reformers seemed stunned by the victory of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Mohammad Ali Abtahi, a former vice president and chief aid to the departing president, said in an analysis posted on his popular blog that Mr. Ahmadinejad won in part because of missteps by reformists, from offering unrealistic campaign promises, to losing touch with average people.
“In the political atmosphere of the advertisements, little was said about the economic issues,” he wrote. “We focused our attention on elites and forgot the ordinary people who are trying to get their daily bread.”
Assadolah Athari, a political analyst with close ties to the reform movement said Iranians were “just frustrated with the bad economy and high prices.”

Some things never change …

Posted by: b | Jun 19 2009 10:47 utc | 68

I saw the speech. The idiot said
“There is a difference of 11m votes. How is vote rigging possible?”
I ask Khamenei (and you all)
If votes were not rigged why was the counting conducted in secret? Why were the monitors dismissed and some even beaten up? Why were the boxes not checked immediately in the presence of independent monitors? Why is the checking been done in complete secret? Why is it taking 1000 times longer than the original vote (=10 days compared with one hour)? Who has the computer files of the Ministry? Do the files and ballot boxes even exist still today? The guardian council will say “there was no fraud”. What else can they say? Do you expect these unelected Talebans (Have you seen their faces?) to commit suicide and lose their jobs by helping the revolution?
Why do you not ask REAL questions but simply assume that the dictatorship’s statistics are the correct ones?
You give credit to a secret system but not to transparent demonstrations by millions?
I suppose you support Mugabe as well, just because he is anti-Western?
What do you call this type of blogging? Propaganda?

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 11:03 utc | 70

The Grand Ayatollah Khamenei’s Friday prayer address offers no compromises, and no hope of reconciliation. He pretends to an honesty that is above being examined.
He pretends that election cheating is too complex to accomplish: “how could eleven million votes be changed?”
Bottom line — when it comes to reexamining the votes, only a few, and only on Khamenei’s terms: “I will not accept any illegal means” of revisiting votes.
This is stonewalling. This is saying “talk to the hand.” It now becomes more likely that the Basij and Guards will begin to put more and more pressure on protesters, even to the point of severe violence, since this is all Khameni has on his side. He and his minority of supporters clinging to their privileges are under siege.
He may as well have announced that his coup will be forced upon the populace. And it is already way too late for that. This is the exact same error the Shah made in 1979, when he stonewalled political opposition parties, and turned to force and terror to hold on. He left the opposition no alternative but to go all the way, and that is what the dissenting population of Iran must do now. To give up now is to return home and await a knock on the door from the police or Basij, coming around to punish dissenters. Remaining under Khameini’s thumb is worse than the threat of street violence, and so they will not clear the streets.
The election itself is now entirely moot — it is not accepted by enough of the populace to stand. The majority of the populace is already past that, demanding a complete and transparent do-over as the minimum they will accept.
So the struggle between hardliners in power, and the disaffected populace will be decided in the streets, starting tomorrow. Khameni will try to clear the streets, and the people will defy him no matter how long it takes, no matter how many he kills. This is what the marchers are saying.
By the way, comments suggesting that I and others are privately or openly in any way urging America and/or Israel to invade Iran are strawman arguments, raised by trolls in order to push ‘election doubters’ out of the conversation. My many posts at MoA warning against the disaster an invasion of Iran would be are a matter of record.
The specter of invasion is a strawman at this juncture. Israel is concerned with Iran becoming a greater economic power in the Middle East, (as oil prices inevitably climb in the coming decade or two), which would crowd Israel’s aggressive progression into the region’s primary economic powerhouse. America is concerned about Israel’s primacy as well, and is concerned about preventing a regional power of any kind arising in the oil-rich regions unless that power is very firmly allied with the USA. Even more firmly than the Shah was (until the morning he wasn’t).
But — Israel does not have the blessings of the Americans to strike Iran, and the Americans don’t have the means to pull it off neatly. It would be a bloody and protracted failure by their own best estimates. Iran can sink any ship in the Persian Gulf (Sunburn missiles), Iran can wholly destabilize Iraq at will, and Iran can survive anything short of total nuclear annihilation (which America cannot really do without becoming a pariah state in the extreme). So there will be no invasion or airstrikes interrupting Iran’s homegrown power struggle.
The struggle for political ascendancy could go either way. The people who get out in the streets in the major cities of Iran in the coming weeks to months are going to decide the course of their nation, not journalists or bloggers from abroad. To borrow a phrase from Lincoln, ‘it matters little what we say or do here.’
Khameni has left the opposition no alternative, and left himself no alternative. Since no one can back down, there will be blood.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 19 2009 11:08 utc | 72

jony_b_cool@71 – If Moussavi is now saying that the problem was that tallies were locally rigged, this is a complete change of tack from the original assertion that the Interior Ministry first told him he had won outright, then undertook a full-scale fabrication before releasing the first results a few hours later. Why has he changed his story? Is it because his original claims are now untenable. If votes were counted locally, before sending the tallies to the Interior Ministry for aggregation, it should have been straightforward to confirm or rebut the claim that totals were rigged by the Interior Ministry.
For what it’s worth, the statistical analyses undertaken by Mebane show suspicious anomalies in about one quarter of polling districts (favouring AN more often than Moussavi), but are not consistent with a full-scale centralized fabrication capable of changing an outright Moussavi win into an outright AN win.

Posted by: pmr9 | Jun 19 2009 11:45 utc | 74

Khamenei’s speech was very disappointing. Whether fraud took place or not, is no longer relevant. Too many people believe there was fraud which makes effective governance impossible. On that basis alone, there needs to be a new election. Short of that, there is not much else that can satisfy enough people. If AN won handily the first time, he will win again. If Musavi wins, so what? If fraud has occurred and Khamenei needs a face saving way out, then he should negotiate the terms in advance with Musavi.
If Khamenei relies on brutality to suppress opposition, he may find that many will not be willing to kill other Iranis. Then his regime will be over.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 19 2009 12:35 utc | 76

a line has been drawn – i wonder if the elites really want to pay the price of their infighting – whether the people are prepared to lose all in this struggle on behalf of one group or another. whether the rural & urban masses will militarily defend their inerests – the role of the repressive state apparatus is not cpable of defeating an insurrection & in any case those masses might not react to that repression in the way that might be expected – be that as it may – they are the decisive force & not the militias. whether rafsanjani will risk all & cover his county in blood is not yet clear & whether khamenei is prepared to lose all & cover the country in blood
at this particular moment iran risks everything – & it is the iranians who will pay

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 19 2009 13:01 utc | 78

It would be nice if Antifa responded to Hasho’s post. Afterall, Hasho has done exactly what Antifa suggested and focused on the larger, more important underlying issue, rather than belaboring the distracting debate about vote fraud.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 13:17 utc | 80

Mr. b., your logic is worse than the arguments used by every dictator to justify his vote. You write
“Where exactly at what stage was there fraud. Mousavi should explain that and then it should be easy to find out if there really was fraud.”
Tell me, please, how anyone can “prove” fraud when he has not been given access to the voting ballots or to the computer files?
I am not the one who is shitting in your guest room. It is you who is doing it by insisting I prove that I have never beaten my wife, after she has died naturally and I cannot call her as witness.
Where are the ballots? Where are the Ministry files? If the regime is confident it won the vote, why is it afraid to lay open the results, the ballot papers, the computer files??? Is an honest person scared to present the evidence which supports him?
Musavi supporters think he won easily based on the rubbish total votes for Karoubi, the exactly identical percent of votes for Ahmadinejad in the whole country (if you study earlier elections you will see that Iranians vote heavily for their locals and therefore there were big swings even when Khatami twice won 80 % of the total vote but only 40 % in some places), which meant that the ballot results were IDENTICAL in every province. If you know Iran you also know this is impossible. The Ministry took all the results that came in and then simply entered into the computer files 65 % for Ahmadinejad, 30 % for Musavi, 1 % (??????) for Karoubi.
What is the regime afraid of? And why do you fear to question the regime instead of the people?

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 13:19 utc | 82

remembereringgiap, thank you. We Iranians always pay. We pay when you Westerners destroy our democracy and we pay when you Westerners support our dictators.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 13:21 utc | 84

Mr. b., you make me angry. You write
“Where exactly at what stage was there fraud. Mousavi should explain that and then it should be easy to find out if there really was fraud.”
This means that we are guilty till proved innocent, even when the judge, the defence lawyer, the jury and the DA are all bought by the regime, and when the evidence has been either destroyed or refused to the defence lawyer.
I thought this was a fair Blog. How can you doubt, for even one second that all the cards are stacked against the protestors? How can you automatically assume the vote gathering and the vote counting was fair when even top Ayatollahs like Sanei and Taeri announce it was manipulated and when Ayatollah Montazeri is in house arrest because he wanted democracy and transparency?
I suppose you would have supported the Catholic Church against Galileo.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 13:27 utc | 86

.. of the 645 complaints made…
I keep hearing about these complaints, whether 645 or 646. Yet I haven’t seen anywhere a breakdown as to which side is filing them. Therefore, at this point in time, it’s just as likely that at least some complaints came from AH’s side as well. Every election has complaints, and from both sides. Looking at the 645 complaints made, one, does not put them all in Mousavi’s corner and two, does not mean they are valid or important.
No, I do not support AH nor Mousavi. That is for the Iranian people to choose, not me. I am just looking at the facts rather than the assumptions and wishful thinking on both sides.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 19 2009 13:30 utc | 88

The burden of proof is on the winner, not the loser. This discussion is analogous to the one one has with religious people.
Atheist: “Prove to me that God exists”
Believer: “Prove that he doesn’t”!
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, with the help of some mutually acceptable third party monitoring vote recount. What Mousavi said of the election results is of secondary importance.

Posted by: L’Akratique | Jun 19 2009 13:34 utc | 90

ThePaper re post 85.
How old are you? You are using the same crazy logic as Mr. b. You write
“With the current results Ahmadinejad has almost 12 million more votes than Musavi. He would have won in the first round even with 4 million fewer votes.”
Yes, but what if he won only 45 % and Musavi 40 % and the rest mainly Karoubi? The there would have been a run-off which Ahmadinejad would lose.
We do not know who won what, so as L’Akratique correctly says, the official winner has to open the books, not the official loser, especially when there is so much doubt and the regime is well known for corruption, oppression, religious hypocrisy and Machiavelli tactics.
You and Mr. b. are condemning the rape victim and not the rapist, and asking the victim to prove she was raped when the “rape kit” has been concealed and only the defence lawyer is allowed to examine it or use it as proof. You are even more Islamic than the Mullahs!!!!!!!!!!
You are not demanding answers from the regime. You keep asking the victims to provide the evidence which is in the hands of the regime and which is probably being altered as I write. Why the incredible inspection delay???????????

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 13:54 utc | 92

DOES NOT MEAN I am for Ahmadinejhad or against Mousavi.
That’s not what you said yesterday. You don’t like Mousavi because you suspect he is the agent of an American-engineered color revolution. But you have zero proof.
Antifa has been spot-on throughout. You have some outstanding visitors who do a fine job correcting your false impressions.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 19 2009 13:58 utc | 94

You know the CIA is all over the reporting of this issue when you get multiple spellings of the main characters. It is a subtle tactic used to denigrate a particular cultural segment. Remember Muammar el-Qaddafi, or was it Qaddhafi, or Gaddafi, or Kaddafi, or Khadafy, or Qadhafi, or Qadaffi, or Gadaffi? The world may never know…but the Mockingbird Press does. I have seen no less than 4 spellings of Moussavi, aside from my satirical spelling a few threads back. Patterns are fun, aren’t they?

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 19 2009 14:02 utc | 96

Sorry, but your logic is the flawed one. There isn’t a single ‘western democracy’ where the winner would have to prove anything without any prove of fraudulent action. To be even accepted any reclamation or fraud alegations requires some kind of prove. Such kind of logic is only applied on color revolutions promoted against ‘enemies’ of ‘western democracies’.
While Musavi was primer minister there were orders of magnitude more blood spilled, people killed and oppression than in the years of the Ahmadinejad presidence. I guess that doesn’t count as ‘brutal regime’ for their ‘pacific’ ‘freedom-loving’ ‘western-friendly’ supporters. Or propagandists possing as one of them.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 19 2009 14:06 utc | 98

“DOES NOT MEAN I am for Ahmadinejhad or against Mousavi.”
Sure it does. Just look how you manipulate the headings of your threads and their content.
Recent MoA Posts
“Early Results No Sign For Fraud” (Oh, really?)
“Christian Science Monitor’s False Reporting” (Oh, really?)
“Debs Take On Iran’s Election” (Who is debs and what does she know about Iran?)
“Some Dots You May Want To Connect” (Suggesting foreign influence)
“A ‘Coup’ in Iran? We Don’t Know.” (Strange, because 35 million Iranians DO).
Why did you not post one single thread suggesting fraud, for example, with the title
“Massive Fraud Suspected”
“Karoubi’s 300,000 “votes” generate widespread laughter”
“Guardian Council: Judge, Jury and Executioner”
“Tough Questions for Khamenei”
“Ahmadinejad claims demonstrators were “just a few thousand” ”
No, Mr. b., you are not fair, not just, not even-handed, and you cannot hide your hatred of the Iranian Democratic Reformist Movement. So don’t claim you are moderating fairly, because you certainly are not. You can ban me from this Blog if you like.

Posted by: Ben | Jun 19 2009 14:12 utc | 100