Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 14, 2009

More On The Iran Election

There is a full effort of the "western" media and some expatriate Iranian organizations to de-legitimize the Iranian election despite the absence of any real evidence of voting fraud. These events show all characteristics of an engineered "color evolution". 

As said before I find the reelection of Ahmadinejad quite plausible. He has done a lot for the poor and the elections were for a decent part class based. As Robert Fisk relates from someone not-regime-friendly in Tehran:

But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."

The myth in the "western" media is that Ahmadinejad is a "right-wing hardliner". While he asserts nationalism and sovereignty as any president should do, in interior politics and economics, dominant in elections everywhere, his position is more to the left of the typical "western" right-left scale.

The argument favored by Juan Cole and others that high inflation and high unemployment numbers should have favored Mousavi and the 'reformers' backed by Iran's richest man Rafsanjani. But those numbers, as asserted in the "west", are not what they are said to be.

Unfortunately the myth that is currently created, will likely be used to favor the agenda of the war mongers. We will all be in trouble if their argument wins. This whole issue will do wonders for oil speculators and thereby snuff up any "green shots".

Posted by b on June 14, 2009 at 8:42 UTC | Permalink

next page »

b, I have never read such unadulterated crap, and I mean NEVER.

The fraud was so transparent that anyone denying it is either ideologically tainted or just plain stupid.

Karroubi was credited with only 260,000-odd votes this time although he won 4 million 4 years ago and is revered in his bastion of Lorestan province and surrounding areas.

Moussavi, a proud and highly respected 'Turk', drew unprecedented crowds in Tabriz and elsewhere that alone should have guaranteed him 5 million votes in this one constituency alone, not to mention Tehran where he drew one million onto the streets according to the FT. Khuzestan hates Ahmadinejad, but he 'won' even there.

Monitors were thrown out of polling stations, and those monitors who protested were arrested. Not one single monitor was permitted during the actual count in the Interior Ministry building in Dr. Fatemi Square. What was the regime afraid of?

The Guardian Council announced the vote results even before the Ministry did!!!

And in another 'miracle' 20 million votes were 'counted' by Ministry officials and the results announced at midnight, just 3 hours after the voting ended. In view of the crowds maintaining a vigil it would have taken 2 hours for the ballots to have physically reached the Ministry and another day to have separated spoiled ballots, sorted the valid ones out and manually entered the information into the computer. These were manually completed ballots, for Christ's sake, not computerized votes.

Exit polls showed Moussavi with 65 % of the vote, which would tally with the 30 % left for Ahmadinejad, the same number of votes as he won in 2005 against a highly unpopular candidate (Rafsanjani). The 20 million Iranians who boycotted 4 years ago in protest at the Islamic excesses of the regime did actually vote this year, even by Ahmadinejad's own admission. So whom do you believe they voted for?

I am sick to death of those of you who knee-jerk defend the Islamic regime purely and simply because it is anti-American. You make me sick.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 14 2009 9:13 utc | 1

I won't be responding to emails for at least a week.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 14 2009 9:14 utc | 2

Hi Parviz,

And in another 'miracle' 20 million votes were 'counted' by Ministry officials and the results announced at midnight, just 3 hours after the voting ended. In view of the crowds maintaining a vigil it would have taken 2 hours for the ballots to have physically reached the Ministry and another day to have separated spoiled ballots, sorted the valid ones out and manually entered the information into the computer. These were manually completed ballots, for Christ's sake, not computerized votes.

I do not know how the count is run in Iran but here the votes (all on paper) are counted in the election locality, get documented and signed off and the reported by phone and later by paper to the central authority. Voting places here close at usually 6pm and the first official trends are announced at 6:05pm. At 7:00pm the trend is usually stable. A 100% of votes is counted and tallied completely before midnight. There is nothing mysterious about that.

Yes, people voted against Rafsanjani in 2005. Now they voted against someone who was obviously backed by Rafsanjani.

Posted by: b | Jun 14 2009 9:27 utc | 3

b, by your normally exalted standards that was a pathetic response. You're right, you DON'T "know how the count is run in Iran". Then why do you take the liberty to comment and act like an authority on this subject? The count in Iran is conducted in complete secret, in the Ministry of the Interior building on Dr. Fatemi Avenue, and without the presence of a single outside or even independent domestic monitor or any representatives from the opposition candidates. 4 years ago it took 24 hours for the result to be announced, yet this time, with 15 million additional votes, it took only 3 hours.

I cannot believe that you, of all people, can defend a voting system that is conducted in secret by Secret Service officials appointed entirely by one of the candidates and/or by the Supreme Religious Asshole who made his choice very clear from the outset. Khamenei didn't want a repeat of the 2nd of Khordad movement that brought Khatemi to power in 1997, an election which people DIDN'T boycott. Do you get the hint? This time that same silent, pissed-off majority that got Khatemi elected AND re-elected with 80 % of the popular vote each time, came out in full force AGAINST the regime and were consciously prevented from choosing a popular candidate who cannot stand Khamenei (and the feeling is mutual, stretching back to the era when Khamenei was President and Moussavi an incredibly popular Prime Minister).

For Heaven's sake, wake up and stop defending a system you clearly know absolutely nothing about. Such behaviour reduces the credibility that you have carefully built up with your in-depth knowledge of other topics.

4 years ago 20 million boycotted a system run by a regime they detested and in an election featuring 2 front-runners whom they equally detested. This time the boycotters came out in droves, attracted by popular condidates and a genuine chance for 'change', and you want to tell me that the baby gorilla got MORE votes than last time and the reformists won FEWER votes than 4 years ago??? If so there's a bridge in London I would like to sell you, cash in advance.

I wasn't going to respond, but b's post was simply too much. You may be hearing from me from time to time, if I'm not arrested for exercising the freedom most of you all take for granted. Iran is neither 'Islamic' not a 'Republic'. It doesn't meet the minimal standards of either. It is a 'Religious Dictatorship', no more, no less, and its leaders are happy plundering the nation's wealth and turning its 70 million citizens into a nation of beggars dependent on subsidies and hand-outs. They weren't going to hand over their luxurious sandbox to a candidate who had promised to reinstate accountability, strengthen the private sector, re-establish the Money and Credit Council, re-establish the 50-year-old Budget and Planning Organization and impose all sorts of additional controls on the nation's finances to reduce the rampant corruption about which I have written so often.

B, stop pouring salt on the wounds of the 30 million who voted for Moussavi, who cannot stand the system of patronage and corruption, and who have risked torture and possibly their lives to take to the streets in protest.

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 14 2009 10:02 utc | 4

A ridiculous post, b.

The Revolutionary Guard flooded the streets just before polls closed;
phone and Internet connections were turned off at the same time;
Iranian news programs showed some candidates vote count actually decreasing by tens of thousands of votes;
leaked info from within the Ministry of the Interior show Mousavi with 19 million votes, and Ahmadi in 3rd place with only 5 million votes.

What is actually happening in Iran is a coup by the military, dubiously and cautiously backed by only a few of the ruling Ayatollahs.

A few hours ago, the rest of the senior Ayatollahs issued a call to invalidate this election. They see no way of remaining in power without at least the tacit agreement of the people that their votes counted.

The crux of the problem is that the army is trying to force a result that no other political institution is willing or capable of defending, proceeding with, or governing by.

The army may kill a great many people in the next few days. Most people actually on the scene expect it, since this is what the Guard does. Their history is known.

But the army alone cannot prevail against the people without utterly invalidating the Islamic Revolution that their own power rests upon.

This is a civil war, not merely a stolen election.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 14 2009 11:55 utc | 5

I know nothing about how Iranian elections are done on the ground and have never visited Iran.


What proportion of Iranians are ‘poor’ and live off the redistribution of oil revenues? Count on free basic education, free health care, a semi decent life perhaps, hopes of moving forward? Don’t understand the economic / strategic / issues involved at all? Hate the US, with reason, and like a ‘big mouth', somebody who sounds off against the enemies of Iran?

Are attached to a mixture of old style conservatism and what they see as a ‘modern’ but yet ‘islamic’ state?

See for ex. the popularity of Hugo Chavez, minus the religious element of course.

What % is city-type, fairly ‘rich’, progressive, and wants reform beyond changing dress codes and the moral police (these are legitimate aspirations, don’t get me wrong, and a driver in the election), or genuinely wants to adopt the ‘western’ liberal economic system?

I haven’t a clue, but guess the proportion is around 65..70 - 35..30 or even 80 - 20. ?

A military coup in Iran? Civil war? I don't think so. Or wait to hear more.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jun 14 2009 12:16 utc | 6

Why western media are full with images of blond Iranian women ready to vote?

Jordanian writer Yasir Abu Hilala wrote:

The [Western] media are interested in few rich neighborhoods in Northern Tehran, were most of the residents are Mosawi's supporters. Mosawi's election campaign costed about $120 Million.

Posted by: Ladybird | Jun 14 2009 12:33 utc | 7

spinning reality around the Iranian elections

Just 24 hours ago, we witnessed an election in Iran that the principle idea (as I've mentioned) goes back to almost 400 years. In this election, the youth, women and intellectuals in Tehran - the capital - supported Mr. Mousavi the ex-prime minister and a painter. The working people voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad, the current President of Iran. The official result was roughly 60% for Mr. Ahamadinejad with 30% for Mr. Mousavi.

There were more than ten thousand election observers from all parties - both national and international - in this election, so any irregularity would have been obvious and would have been announced and pronounced immediately. But the dispute by Mr. Mousavi ends up in a very limited area in Tehran's streets (the capital) through a physical demonstration.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 14 2009 12:43 utc | 8

"no more, no less, and its leaders are happy plundering the nation's wealth and turning its 70 million citizens into a nation of beggars dependent on subsidies and hand-outs. They weren't going to hand over their luxurious sandbox to a candidate who had promised to reinstate accountability, strengthen the private sector, re-establish the Money and Credit Council, re-establish the 50-year-old Budget and Planning Organization and impose all sorts of additional controls on the nation's finances to reduce the rampant corruption about which I have written so often"

and of course there is that deal with the US now in the offing.

Parviz, if you depend on patronism you vote for patronism. ask Lebanon.

and - you have to critize the electoral process before the vote, not after the vote, if you consider it intransparent and unfair. News say the vote was counted parallel to voting. maybe they are right, maybe not. any western politician who says he won because of his own statistics would be laughed out of his profession.

I think it highly unlikely the theocracy should gamble their power on a minority vote against a majority vote representing the future of the country. they are highly rational with regards to power I would suggest. and they seem to have left it open to the end. I am pretty confident, they are where they think the majority is.

the BBC is getting much more careful in its reporting:

Posted by: outsider | Jun 14 2009 12:46 utc | 9

Nejad Re-Elected: Where is Iran Heading to? By Politics in Depth Team

Some may consider it a victory of the lower classes since the 54-year-old head of state has reached out to Iran’s have-nots more than any previous president. During his campaign, Ahmadinejad offered nothing more than what won him the majority of votes in the 2005 elections: social justice.

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 14 2009 12:51 utc | 10

Bullshit,b. Pure bullshit.

You need a fucking editor to keep you from posting outright lies. It appears that your internal "good sense" isn't sufficient to the cause.

Posted by: Luce Imaginary | Jun 14 2009 13:18 utc | 11

Ahmadijejad won as expected. His larger margin of victory has a lot to do with bankrupts of his opposition and support of Pro west campaign.

Karoubi is and always been a loser, never won any election. Musavi has been a quitter in the past. He left politics under pressure during Iraq invasion of Iran. He could not handle the heat and exiled himself for about 20 years. So called reformer and pro US backers invested heavily on Musavi, but he is this time around a light weight without organization of his own. He was never a match for popular Ahmadinejad.
Only in Tehran as expected Musavi had a chance to beat Ahmadijejad and he did, but for rest of country he was not a serious candidate.

As expected in several locations, mostly in Tehran, few thousands of Musavi and pro US supporters demonstrated, in some places with violence. This trend expected to be followed with additional measures. When is done and over they will fail miserably like in the past. Musavai not only failed but dishonored himself with Muslim crowd.
20 years ago when he resigned as Prime minister, he left politics for painting; he will do that once again for good. Rafsanjani his main backer is another big loser.
Desperate irrational reactions of Rafsanjani and Musavi are for fear of expected consequences of such defeat.
Musavi and Pro US lost election, and after election. Desperate act and insignificant violence in street will furthermore isolate already very weak pro reform fractions in Iran.
Today was last day to register protest against results for protest against results. As of few hours ago Musavi has not register any official document for any cheating, nor did Karoubi….. Rezaei is only candidate who already accepted defeat and victory of Ahmadinejad was only candidate who request detail data of vote without protest.
Questioning Election result by defeated party in Iran is not new and out of their failure to face realities, and for USA it’s a way to undermine Ahmadinejad for future negotiation and policies.
Watching his today speech , Ahmadijejad feel he now has mandate to dictate term of talk with US.
He won big, he won fair despite deceptive talks of heavily cheating by losers

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 13:24 utc | 12


Whenever I used to hear lower-income blacks from my neck of the woods say that they'd never vote for Obama if he were Muslim, I reminded that there are many people throughout the world who vote again their own economic interests in order to make sure that religion remains a powerful force in their government.

So, I get the impression that Iranians, who are at or near the bottom of the economic totem pole, voted for Ahmadinejad, not because they want a leader who'd help lift them up economically, but because they want a leader who'll make sure that Iran remains a theocracy. So, in my view, Ahmadinejad's victory is more of a victory for the deeply religious than it is for the economically disadvantaged.

Please know that it saddens me so that many Americans, rich and poor alike, are trying to use every trick in the book to turn America into a theocracy -- laced with fascism, of course. But please know that it saddens me even more, as I'm sure it does you, as it does all secularists, that many Iranian, led by its poor, are exercising their democratic rights to further undermine democracy in their country, all in the name of God.:`(

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 14 2009 13:36 utc | 13

This guy was out of politics for twenty years and then -- surprise! -- he declares three months before the election that he wants to be president, upon which substantial financial support results in a sea of green flags and noisy Tehran rallies. Well, there's more to Iran than Tehran, and if it walks like the CIA and quacks like the CIA it must be the CIA. Again.

from the files:
March 5, 2006
Cheney daughter leads ‘cold war’ on mullahs
THE war in Iraq is her father’s business but Elizabeth Cheney, the American vice-president’s daughter, has been given responsibility for bringing about a different type of regime change in Iran.

Cheney, a 39-year-old mother of four, is a senior official in the State Department, which has often been regarded as hostile territory by Dick Cheney’s White House team. Nonetheless father and daughter agree it would be better for the mullahs’ regime to collapse from within than to be ousted by force.

The question is whether democratic reform can be achieved before Iran becomes a nuclear power. That is the younger Cheney’s job. In the State Department she is referred to as the “freedom agenda coordinator” and the “democracy czar” for the broader Middle East. “She’s fantastic and dynamic,” said a colleague. --TimesOnLine

Elizabeth Cheney headed the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG), established in March 2006, a unit within the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 14 2009 13:42 utc | 14

I'm sorry Parviz. I know you feel very angry and sad about the results. Most of us posting here, I think, want to see Iran prosper in wealth and influence. I know I do. Without commenting specifically on what happened in Iran, I do want to say that the color revolution phenomenon is entirely real. It is indeed financed and organized by by Western NGOs who act as fronts for intelligence services. It happened in many countries. It happened in Iran in 1953.

The Iranian government knows this and would certainly take steps to stop it, such as shutting down their means of communication, arresting ring leaders etc. Of course, these actions may be meant to stop legitimate protests following a stolen vote. But the same actions would be used to crush a foreign inspired destabilization effort. I have no idea which it is, but I know both are entirely possible.

Perhaps that is not what is happening in Iran now, but from our distance outside Iran, forgive us for thinking that it might be. The unusually close Western media attention, the discussion of debates, the election's significance for Obama's plans and the general desire to delegitimize Iran's government are all there. And had Musavi won, we would now be treated to a narrative of how its really the Supreme Leader in charge and how Musavi said xyz crazy thing in 1987, etc.

No need to be angry at b. He was addressing your question about how paper ballots could be counted so fast. In Germany, it seems, paper ballots are also used and yet results are quickly announced. Its not as if one person has to count 40 million ballots by himself.

Again, all of us are glad that you post here and provide us with insights we otherwise couldn't get. We are all hoping for the best for Iran. Good Luck.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 14 2009 13:43 utc | 15

I am willing to wait for the results to be investigated. And vote tampering can be done by both sides.

Son of a blacksmith, a Ph.D in engineering, Ahmadinejad was mayor of Tehran before running for president in 2005. He was one of the nominees in 2005 and it is believed he would have ended up in the top 10 for the 'World Mayor' award if he hadn't had to resign to run for president. He was considered a world-class mayor by this international group.

After years of demonization, I was stunned last night during the evening news to hear the talking head actually say: "there is no hard evidence" that the election results were rigged. Imagine that, a national news anchor here in the US actually trying to be fair and unbiased instead of jumping on the bandwagon with all the others yelling 'fraud' because their man didn't win.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 14 2009 13:47 utc | 16

let's see if the pictures will make it to the Western media

Posted by: outsider | Jun 14 2009 13:53 utc | 17

I don't know, Outsider. This is some pretty strong medicine:

The count in Iran is conducted in complete secret, in the Ministry of the Interior building on Dr. Fatemi Avenue, and without the presence of a single outside or even independent domestic monitor or any representatives from the opposition candidates. 4 years ago it took 24 hours for the result to be announced, yet this time, with 15 million additional votes, it took only 3 hours....conducted in secret by Secret Service officials appointed entirely by one of the candidates and/or by the Supreme Religious Asshole who made his choice very clear from the outset. Khamenei didn't want a repeat of the 2nd of Khordad movement that brought Khatemi to power in 1997, an election which people DIDN'T boycott. Do you get the hint? This time that same silent, pissed-off majority that got Khatemi elected AND re-elected with 80 % of the popular vote each time, came out in full force AGAINST the regime and were consciously prevented from choosing a popular candidate who cannot stand Khamenei....

I could see the election having been stolen.

Unfortunately, i see little point in arguing over that; we in the West are in no position whatsoever to press the issue: those who want to believe it was will use the issue to push for bombing Iran, and there are few who will argue that it wasn't simply because they lack any evidence to defend the point.

So i appreciate b's take on it, for that very reason: at least he's providing a counter-explanation that peace-keepers can use to defuse the push for war.

But that said: i myself have no idea, one way or the other, whether the election was stolen or not. But i'll probably be using b's take on the issue just to take the wind out of the blowhards around me who will insist that the only way we can "free" Iranis is to nuke them.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 14 2009 14:05 utc | 18

from the files:
Laura Rozen, Jan. 18, 2007
Sources close to the administration's Iran policy say the primary vehicle for U.S. government planning on Iran is the Iran-Syria Policy and Operations Group, an inter-agency body created in early 2006 that includes representatives and Iran specialists from the Office of the Vice President, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Security Council, and other agencies.

The overall group has four or five subgroups, including a recently combined one that focuses on "public diplomacy and promoting democracy" in Iran. That subgroup doled out some of the $85 million that Congress approved to support pro-democracy efforts in Iran.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 14 2009 14:06 utc | 19

I myself have no idea, one way or the other, whether the election was stolen or not -- and i really could care less if it was or wasn't. There's not anything besides terrorism and war that outsiders could do to try and force this issue, and i'm dead-set against either one of those options.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 14 2009 14:07 utc | 20

About Parviz and Musavi.

Few months ago at the start of election in Iran, Paviz was propagating for Khatami and his hope and chance of his victory.

I informed him in one of my response that Khatami will quit in favor of Musavi. At the time he did not know much about Musavi and indeed asked me in his post “who is e?
(Record should exist in Moon of Alabama).
It is strange now Parviz talk much about him and all that jazz.
For the record, procedure to contest in Election in Iran is to file as protest to Interior ministry for any violation and to Guardian council to protest result. GC (12 member committee) has power to cancel entire election. Musavi has not protested result because it require providing supporting evidence
Talk is cheap, he has to provide evidence.
All candidates have representative at all polling sites. Musavi has too. Only cheating registered has been from Musavi side!

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 14:09 utc | 21

NPR this morning actually mentioned, briefly and almost in passing, that Ahmdinejad had done much for the lowest economic groups in Iran which might have accounted for the his winning. Not much specificity, that I got here initially. I have to confess I've looked at the Iranian issue mostly from how badly I see our US foreign policy handling things.

Since US governments tend to have strongly negative reactions to any foreign government leaders who have a "leftist" to leftish bent, I wondered if that might underlie the hostility toward Ahmadinejad.

Just one of those waking up to the news thoughts....

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 14 2009 14:19 utc | 22

The Interior Ministry's top man has now come out publicly to say the vote was completely fraudulent. The government Minister responsible for counting and certifying the vote won't touch it.

The problem for governance in Iran now is not who has the power -- that is obviously the Guard, and Khameini. The problem now is: who is legitimate? In a theocracy, where the rules from the Book are the rules period, breaking faith with the faithful is fatal, and the Ayatollahs know it.

The people are going to hold the Book against them, and they have no defense against it.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 14 2009 14:49 utc | 23

Here is an interview conducted by the left-wing junge Welt: "Wahlkarneval in Iran." Its correspondent, for instance, interviewed a street sweeper who cleans up after green rallies of the young Mousavi fans. Perhaps b will correct my translation if it's incorrect.
My translation: "It is the 'children of the rich, who already have everything they want and still can't get enough,' that are peacefully occupying the streets here day after day from late afternoon to night, till 2 to 3 AM, to 'Change Iran,' says Hojjat, a worker who must clean up the mess left by the youth in the streets at the end of the night, with a sour face. Here, in the slope of the nearby Elburz Mountains, he knows the affluent of the city at home. 'And those people up there vote for Mousavi.' He is, like the majority of the population, happy with President Ahmadinejad, because he does things for the whole country, first of all, for the poor. 'Ahmadinejad speaks his mind because he is not interested in the US and the UN, which are anyway good for nothing."

Posted by: hans blink | Jun 14 2009 14:52 utc | 24

To No23

That is fabricated lie.
Please provide sorce or report. I have watched news conference of Mahsouli and official declaration of Interior Ministr.
Are trying to support your view just like Musavi supporters by fabricating new ?
Provide source and link.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 14:56 utc | 25

The Interior Ministry's top man has now come out publicly to say the vote was completely fraudulent.

Really. Would it be impertinent to ask for some evidence? Such a statement would be quite interesting, in light of the Interior Minister's official statement.

Iran's Interior Ministry has proclaimed incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad the victor after votes were tabulated from Friday's nationwide election.

According to election commission figures, Mr. Ahmedinejad won about 62 percent of the vote to nearly 34 percent for his closest competitor Mir Hossein Mousavi. Moussavi complained of voting irregularities.

Final results from Iran's presidential election were announced by Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli, Saturday, who proclaimed incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad the victor with 62.6 percent of the vote.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 14 2009 14:57 utc | 27

whether the Iranian election was stolen or not, I find it hilarious that the US would dare make any comments either way given the demonstrated theft of the 2000 election and the very well documented proof of election fraud in 2004 in Ohio.

people who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

Parviz is of course disappointed, around 40% of the Iranians are disappointed, that is still far fewer than the 51% of US voters who were disappointed in 2000.

Posted by: dan of steele | Jun 14 2009 14:58 utc | 28

There's something here. Unfortunately I don't read Persian (Farsi) and cannot comment further on this.

Posted by: ptw | Jun 14 2009 15:03 utc | 30

antifa@ 23 - where is your link - for the foreign ministry honcho

as i've stated all the people that appear in commentaries on georgia, zimbabwe, lebanon - appear all over the place - especially on aljazeera - those who speak for moussavi are those that spoke for the stupendous saakshivili & al jazeera following in the tradition of cnn never credits where their commentors are coming from

the risk of a rigged election are so multiple that i simply cannot believe the state would be stupid enough & there simply is not sufficient proof - either statistic or otherwise that such fraud took place

i do not doubt the possibilities of an interelite struggle but that is a different apple entirely

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 15:05 utc | 31

To #30

I read it:
This site os Moj3 one of two dosens Musavi propaganda headquarter and supporters. They say election was cheat

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 15:09 utc | 32

& i take loyal's point - if we researhc the archives - we do indeed find parviz demanding to know who moussavi is

i do not doubt parviz's sincerity but in this instance especially - sincerity isn't a replacement for truth

& i simply do not see any -substantive questions by the supporters of moussavi

tho today also marks a religious festival - the enormous number of people in the street fot ahmedinjad seem to offer simple enough evidence of his support

& antifa - is it so wrong to question methods we have witnessed in every country where the forces of reaction have created their color revolutions

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 15:25 utc | 33

If it is going to be a case of who can put more people in the street, here is a bit of Ahmadinejad's side:

Tens of thousands of people have joined a rally in central Tehran to celebrate the re-election of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Posted by: ensley | Jun 14 2009 15:34 utc | 34

Some observations on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath

Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a “robust” debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police.

Is it possible that the U.S. government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70-90 million to fund “dissident” organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has U.S. military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government?


I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a “reform” candidate to win the election – it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi?

What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington – whose preference for “democracy” is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits – so sympathetic to the “reform” movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources?

Hm ...

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 14 2009 15:53 utc | 35

they need a partner in Iran to do business, I suppose.

this here is from Wikipedia

"According to current election laws, the Guardian Council oversees and approves electoral candidates for most national elections in Iran. The Guardian Council has 12 members, six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader and six jurists, elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial System, who is appointed by the Supreme Leader. According to the current law, the Guardian Council approves the Assembly of Experts candidates, which in turn supervise and elect the Supreme Leader

The reformists say this system creates a closed circle of power.[13] Iranian reformists, such as Mohammad-Ali Abtahi have considered this to be the core legal obstacle for the reform movement in Iran.[14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

However, conservatives reject the existence of a circle, stating the ever-changing members of the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts, as well as human free-will, makes this system of checks and balances in power that exist in any system.[19]

Neither of these two laws are mandated by the constitution and are ordinary laws passed by the Parliament or the Assembly of Experts [20], which therefore can theoretically be reversed. However, despite the efforts of many political activists, it has, thus far, been impossible to reverse as the reformists lacked majority control in the Assembly. [21]"

So all candidates for political posts are double checked certified members of the Iranian establishment. It is highly unlikely anybody can rig - or would want to rig - elections in a system like that. It is much more likely that elections are used to adjust the scales of internal - and external - power.

Posted by: outsider | Jun 14 2009 16:15 utc | 36


"Once again the West's perception was mistaken in its hope for change in Tehran: We like to talk to people in nice clothes, who speak a foreign language and talk and think like us. Their political logic seems valid. We are less interested in the opinions and dreams of the stubbly bearded men and the veiled women. However they have always been the majority, Ahmadinedschad's majority."

Posted by: outsider | Jun 14 2009 16:34 utc | 37

I presume>this is antifa's source.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2009 16:45 utc | 38

Those who keep pushing election fraud accusations based on specious claims better wake up. This is exactly the angle the Invasion Proponents want to play to further support their campaign of an invasion. They can now portray Ahmadinejad as a ruthless despot who circumvented the democratic process and seized power in a military coup. Of course, that's complete nonsense, but then, so were the claims for invading Iraq. The Spreaders of Freedom must now, for certain, invade Iran to bring Freedom to the afflicted. Watch, it's coming, and the Liberals/Progressives will unwittingly help make the case, once again.

Posted by: Obamageddon | Jun 14 2009 16:49 utc | 39

Also, today Juan Cole dispatches Fiske's anecdotal evidence for fair election. It's a fine argument even though the gutless former bah'aai Cole (and CIA spy-blogger) doesn't have the imprimatur of ideological puritanism only Counterpunch! can give him.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2009 16:53 utc | 40

so basically , the only guy who claimed "the interior ministry told Moussavi heaquarters he won"...was Moussavi spokesman ? Sounds nothing else to me than a cheap lie to justify why Moussavi claimed victory so ridiculously early.

Posted by: totoro | Jun 14 2009 16:54 utc | 41

I'm just saying the report seems to be a likely provenance for antifa's claim.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2009 16:56 utc | 42

We see here again all too clearly the default position of posters here whose intellects have been irrefragably captured by the cult of "Empire" thinking.

Even accommodating the growing likelihood of a coup in Iran is completely unthinkable.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2009 17:02 utc | 43

& it is simpler than that sloth - i have never consider mr cole a reliable source

& what i see mostly in western commentaries is the same liberal bourgeois bullshit that has allowed fascists to run riot over the world for the last 40 years - they are such willing collaborators in all the crimes that have been committed since thatcher/reagan. their good conciences are full of the bodies of many

there may be an inter elite struggle & that shouldn' surprise anybody - especially not here & despite mr cole's opinion the question is class not culture even though there is a very prominent photograph with one of the rioters revealing his calvin kleiin

the riots in greece in december - were by the sons & daughters of the poor & of the underclass. what is apparent even from photographs is that this is thesons & daughters of the rich

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 17:07 utc | 44

& yours my friend is the witting or unwitting support of all the invasive plans of capital wherever it walks. you have supported the invasion og iraq & i suppose you will support the invasion of iran in your liberal desire for 'democracy', 'human rights' & 'the rule of law'

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 17:10 utc | 45

Many of the posters here are certainly not considering this "unthinkable" , I see different colors here in that thread (between those who told B's post was crap, those who still don't have an opinion...), so maybe you should wash a bit those lenses before copy-pasting for the 4000th time your generic "anti-empire retards" verse ?

Posted by: totoro | Jun 14 2009 17:12 utc | 46

i have never consider mr cole a reliable source

Of course. You have to think this way. There is no other way for you to think.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 14 2009 17:18 utc | 47

china_hand2: I myself have no idea, one way or the other, whether the election was stolen or not -- and i really could care less if it was or wasn't. There's not anything besides terrorism and war that outsiders could do to try and force this issue, and i'm dead-set against either one of those options.

Yes! -- Yes to what Obamageddon said as well.

(My first impression is that the CIA is all over Iran, as other commentors have pointed out, and perhaps because of that, there was some counter-hanky-panky on the part of Ahmad.'s side? I don't know.)

Posted by: Cloud | Jun 14 2009 17:33 utc | 48

& why should i believe one more liberal bourgeois bullshit artist who masquerades as an expert. it is one of the strangest things - the blogosphere is full of many, many thinkers of the left from the middle east - all of different character & not once do you source them - are they unwashed, unthoughtful, do you only consider experts are those with tenure at an american university & even then i don'r see you ever sourcing the angry arab for example, or for those from the middle east who comment at lenin's tomb. your sourcing is highly selective

simply because you do not speak either arab or farsi - it is as if a whole world of experts don't exist for you & that colours everything you say on this part of the world

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 17:36 utc | 49

Just reported on Alarabiya that there are attempts to form a National Unity Government with the reformists.

Posted by: Ladybird | Jun 14 2009 17:39 utc | 50

it is what it appears to bhe - an inter elite struggle with a litte help from the u s & its multiple agencies who love 'democracy' - the question of electoral fraud is just an excuse

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 17:44 utc | 51

Although Mr. Cole is no longer a missionary for and has since left the Bah'aai faith, it is an historical fact that the Islamic revolution 'murdered' several of Bah'aai's highest leaders in Iran in its early days. Whether or not Mr. Cole would still retain anger for anyone associated with that group is only for him to know, but it can be a strong reason for bias on his part. After all, he admits he was appalled when Ahmadinejad was elected the first time, long before the guy did anything to anger anyone. Juan Cole is also a supporter of Israel.

Posted by: ensley | Jun 14 2009 17:53 utc | 52

I have been reading this site for more than a year, but have hardly replied to any comments. It's precisely this kind of debate that brings me back again and again to this site. There are certain blogs that are either "left" or "right" on any topic, be it political or economic, and the commenters there are similar kinds of people that further that kind of thinking. What that leads is to "group-think" and the same kind of "ideologoy" is furthered more and more on such blogs.
In contrast, MOA has both kinds of commenters, and that is highly laudable. It keeps "extreme" views in check, and at the same time, gives readers both sides of the picture, leaving them to draw their own conclusion.

Way to go, MOA!!

Posted by: Mentalic | Jun 14 2009 17:56 utc | 53

Thanks Mentalic :-) - you are welcome to comment!


The Parviz-Loyal exchange on Mousavi mentioned above was back in February here in comment 7 and 11.

Loyal pointed out that Parviz didn't know that Mousavi was to replace Khatami as the front runner.

Posted by: b | Jun 14 2009 18:07 utc | 54

My Earlier post from Feb 11, 09 in this forum

In Feb eveb before Musavi enter contest i said about what will happen:


1-Musavi (Khamenei 1/2 bro is not yet finalized his decision to run or not)
2- If Musavi decide to run (he will made decide in 2 weeks), Khatami will move out of race (his own word)
3-Even if Khatami stay in this race he will split votes of opposition with Karubi who has significant support.
4- Khatami this time around does not have massive support he used to enjoy few years back and reluctantly has accepted to run because Pro US reformers has no other alternative to offer.
5-AhmadNejad enjoys majorly support in small towns and rural areas.
6- Deciding factors are Rev Guards & Basij block (approximate 10 million votes) and they are totally behind Mahmud.

7- Pro US reform movement in Iran is no longer enjoying support and prestige they used to have.
8- Khatami this time around is perceived as weak with less credibility.

Unless Musavi enter the race Ahmadinejad will win with large margin not even close.

Time will show who is wong and right and I will be right here....

Posted by: | Feb 11, 2009 10:47:52 AM | 7


Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 18:11 utc | 55

I said ealier he failed to file a protest.
My apology

During dying hours of deadline today Musavi register required legal protest to GC. No one in list of 7 items is… why some officials have been accusing of being anti regime!!
Why in few cities TV & Radio has given extra times to Ahmadinejad...

….I guesses he realized he had to file a protest if he refuses to accept result…
Most item in the list laughable

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 19:16 utc | 56

Cole's argument is here, in case anybody wants to debunk the logic in detail.

Posted by: ...---... | Jun 14 2009 21:05 utc | 57

to ...-...

According to Cole since Musavi Azari, he has to win his hometown so victory of Ahmadinejad is fake. !..
2- Musavi never during past 25 years lived even a week in his birth city.
3- Musavi campaigned in that province.
4- Ahmadinejad not only travelled their past week, that was 6 time during his presidency.
5-Ahmadinejad has travelled to various towns across country and villages more than all previous presidents combine during last 20 years. Every month he set up his cabinet in different province,
6- During his candidacy Musavi briefly travelled only to 4 cities…
Indeed Ahmadinejad beat all candidates in their home town, even in hometown of Fafanjani.
Unable to comprehend basic facts, Cole take that as an evidence of fraud.
Perhaps Cole forget IRI leader Khamenei is well known Azari and most Azari consider him supporter of Ahmadinejad

Cole resorts to misinformation (if not lie).
In second paragraph he said there is no way Ahmadinejad could be ahead of Musavi in Tehran.( cole said %50 a big lie or mistake)
Indeed in city of Tehran Musavi beat Ahmadinejad by about 300,000 votes. Ahmadinejas lost city of Tehran but won Tehran province that include various small towns and villages. It seems Cole is confused about difference.

Cole provide no evidence but speculation without merriest

Musavi contested Election result last hour of deadline today and his list of complains has nothing to do with any points of Cole speculation.

Most ridicules item in list of 7 is why few pro Ahmadinejad has published projected winner before count is finalized; something that is very common practiced everywhere.

Musavi’s all 7 point of complains will be rejected easily and won’t stand in any court.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 21:50 utc | 58

After reading the comments to his last post, I think some of the posters make good points against his support for the vote rigging hypothesi. So I advice to read them and make your own opinion.

Without more knowledge about internal iranian politics I can't really make sense of what were the actual results of the last elections. Wikipedia says that the 2008 parlamentary election was won 58% to 18% by the conservatives over reformist candidates with a 47% participation. In the 2005 presidential election with a 62% turnout in the first round Rafsanjani got 20%, Ahmadinejad got 19% and Karroubi (the main 'reformist', may be the only one) 17%. In the second round with a 59% turnout (at some points in the Wiki article it says 48% I'm not sure which one is correct, the vote counts in the result table support the 59% number though) Ahmadinejad overwhelmly won Rafsanjani with similar percentages to the current election. If he was actually suscceful on equating Musavi and Rafsanjani (like he did on the televised debate) it would actually favour this outcome. I don't really see the participation being so much lower than when reformist were being voted in early elections. And the 2008 election may be show a trend against reformists. The reformist movement could have just died due to not producing any tangible result and the attacks by the conservative regime forces. So I don't see, as Juan Cole tries to suggest, impossible that Ahmadinejad won against a movement supported by part of the empresarial corrupt elite clearly dispissed by the population.

Posted by: ThePaper | Jun 14 2009 22:02 utc | 59

Reply to ThePaper.
Khatami was reformer candidate, but about two months before election quit in favor of Musavi. .Even before Musavi candidacy m Rafsanjani and Khatami met several time with Musavi to encourage him to come back and run after 20 years away from politics.
Khatami and not Musavi was Reformists candidate but he left because all polls gave him no chance of competing with Ahmadinejad.
Reason they resort to Musavi was his past closeness and association with opposite camp, hoping he can get votes from both sides.
Not all reformers supported him until he accepted their agenda specially collaboration with pro US policy.
Reformers constitute approximately 30% of votes across Iran. They will not win any election unless in collaboration with a fraction from rival.
Only time they won election was when they nominated a Mulla Khatami. As a swimming card. Khatami was not member of reform camp then This time around old trick did not worked , because nasty debates exposed pro US views of Musavi..

Game is not over yet... USA does not care about democracy in Iran, they want a partner who agree with about Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Nuclear.... Ahmadinejad is not their man

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 22:25 utc | 60

@ Loyal:

- More campaigning does not necessarily imply more votes.

- Quote from your previous post: "Even if Khatami stay in this race he will split votes of opposition with Karubi who has significant support"
Are you not surprised that Karroubi got less than 1%?

- IMO the election results stink. Ahmadinejad's description of the outcome as "very accurate" smells foul. The quick announcement of 20% of the votes and the Supreme Leader's haste to confirm the final tally is suspicious too.

Posted by: St | Jun 14 2009 22:29 utc | 61

Haste to announce final results? Had there been a delay they would have claimed it was to stall to fix the vote.

Posted by: Lysander | Jun 14 2009 22:44 utc | 62

Reply to St

I expected more from Karoubi but not surprised of his humiliating defeat.
He did ok up to debates, when he lost every one to one debates.
During last week even reformer ridiculed him and he had to write an open letter to Musavi and complain.
If you want to know how irrelevant Karoubi became his campaign chief advisor former convicted Mayor of Tehran voted to Musavi not his boss Karoubi!
Karoubi is only candidate who did not contest GC.

Now that Musavi has contested to GC, he has trapped himself, GC will carefully will investigate list of 7 articles, but easily will reject them. What Musavi had to say then ?

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 14 2009 23:10 utc | 63

This post exposes the author's fundamentally flawed worldview. Nothing in the Third World can ever be as bad as it seems, and everything America says or does must be part of some conspiracy.

In reality, Iran has drifted from being a pseudo-plural pseudo-democracy to another run-of-the-mill dictatorship, run by cabal of radical clerics and Fascist thugs. It's incredible that some people still think the CIA, Mossad or whoever are pulling the strings.

Posted by: Matt | Jun 14 2009 23:15 utc | 64

@ ensley #52
"Juan Cole is also a supporter of Israel."

This is not correct. Cole lost an academic appointment to a University, on the basis of his pointed criticism of Israel.

@ rgiap

We were, many of us, children of the middle class, who protested the war in Vietnam. Most of the 27 million who found a way to avoid conscription were middle class kids. It's a very classist distinction to complain that some kids in the Tehran crowd are wearing "Calvin Kleins". And to be fair, the fact is that the Greek protesters who came to the streets were not all from the ranks of the poor.

There is something to complain about here at MoA when ideological cookie cutters are being applied to complex situations. If Antifa and Parviz are right, then something more tragic than a stolen election is afoot in Iran. If this is a coup, and as Antifa suggests, if it is true that Khameini is in cahoots with the military, then this is especially tragic for Iranians.

Ahmadinejad has been turned into a boogey man by western propaganda I will admit, and his statements are typically interpreted as being inflammatory, when they are not much beyond the usual political fare. But let's be able to see a coup taking place, if it is indeed happening.

This looks to be a stolen election. It is hard to believe that the enthusiastic voters who swelled he ranks at the polls were Ahmadinejad's people.

Moreover, I think Parviz is being factual and is imparting fact, not opinions, when he describes the mechanisms and intimidation and secrecy surrounding the theft of the vote.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 14 2009 23:20 utc | 65

An article about voting & counting votes in Iran.

Is there a link with the ex-pat Iranians' vote tallies? Like, from Boston, London, D.C. etc...
Coz I read a comment that says: "The BBC reports that it polled almost all of the 2,000 Iranians who voted in London; the result showed 90% in favor of Mousavi. Iran's electoral commission reported the vote in London as 80% for Ahmadinejad."

Posted by: St | Jun 14 2009 23:24 utc | 66


what i habe suggested is that this is an interelite struggle - & there are many shades of grey in who is whom & what is what

largely, i would err against the western media whose track record is little more than grotesque - & a point i have tried to make - the iranians are very far from being victims & if this is really a revolt by the people, it will win - but if it is putchists - it will fail

i trust people, & i trust history - & it seems to me the hysteri at huffington post represents not history but juust a more liberal form of contempt & hate

parvis is absolutely clear about his interests & has never hidden them - & for an intense moment - there are bery few 'facts' floating around

by the way, i think the greek iran youth comparison not as maldroit as you might make it out to be - the leadership with the greeks are almost entirely sons & daughterd of povertty & not privilege

i'm not discounting that you or antifa or slothrop might be right tho i do think you are being inexact

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 14 2009 23:47 utc | 67



Do you consider yourself

1. Knowledgeable in Iranian affairs by any stretch of imagination?
2. Guided by logic, not by wishful or sloppy thinking, when analyzing the news?

Please let me know if the answer to either one of the questions above is yes. If so I would like to continue posting a comment or two on your last couple of posts.

It is always a pleasure to highlight people's ignorance and their overt use of fallacious logic. My utterly self-interested motives aside, your last couple of posts are utterly disappointing. Perhaps opponents do look alike after some sparring, since your rigor seems to have stooped to the level of the MSM when it comes to the issue of Iranian presidential elections. I will provide reasons for this claim once I have your public commitment to intellectual honesty (You talk about things you know.) or adherence to logic (You know how to draw inferences from premises.).

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 15 2009 1:26 utc | 68


I understand your position. I was just a little astonished at the way b is rushing to judgment on this, and the habitual interpretation that this is just another color revolution and some kind of failed putch where the Mousavi campaign is concerned. The pent up frustrations of the young and educated in the face of Iran's changeless autocracy is real, living under stifling theocratic layers: the prudish and impermissive, the reactionary and draconian, the unimaginative and censorious hell, that only theocratic autocracy can obtain. We should have a little more sympathy with Parviz even if he is not a camposino.

It didn't occur to me to respond to what ensley had written upthread, about why Professor Cole was so appalled at the prospect of an Ahmadinejad presidency, the first time around. But I seem to remember Cole's horror was Ahmadinejad's lack of what might correspond to a liberal education. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the thrust of Cole's argument was that Ahmedinejad was something of a rube, a yahoo. But this could be elitist on Cole's part. I'm not sure if Cole is right about that; or whether Ahmadinejad's confusion about the Holocaust reflects the fact that he is a dumbass, or if he has some real degree of malice. Meanwhile, guys like Parviz can suffer for using the internet in ways that we take for granted.

Cutting channels of public communication during an election cycle is a particularly heavy-handed measure. The authoritarianism that squelches even young couples who kiss in public is also repellent. A president who has not been as popular in the cities as he has in the rural areas, has pulled off a landslide re-election. Is this something we can accept as probable?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 15 2009 1:35 utc | 69

During Shah Era, Ahmadinejad enter University of Tehran ranked #100 in entry exam among 178000 applicants. He was distinguished and honor student during Master and PhD program. He still teaches at University of Tehran (He actually does not get salary as a president but as a Faculty of University of Tehran).
He was one of student leader of university of Tehran during revolution and only student leader who oppose taking hostages at US embassy. It is storage few of those who took US embassy are among Musavi camp.
Ahmadinejad after university was part of special operation in was against Iraq. He was elected Mayer of Tehran before presidency.
Main reason A Bahaei Cole or Zionists hate him is because of his stand against Israel and Zionists.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 2:54 utc | 70

Dear Author

You are an idiot, with very little knowledge of what is happening in Iran. I hate American meddling in internal affairs of Iran and the coup d'etat of 1953 as much as any other patriotic Iranian, and Iranians are quite capable of understanding what is happening during these sort of times. The coup d'etat of 2009 however, was not the work of the Americans. It was a faction internal to Iran who has pulled it off.

I have family in Iran who are of these religious poor which you speak of academically. They voted for Mousavi.
I have friends who were so indifferent that didn't even vote the previous 2 times. They voted for Mousavi.

If you look at the numbers they have released, in an academic manner (and I know mathematicians which have), various log distributions are dissatisfied. Not only were they faked, they were faked by hand, i.e. no random number generator.

You should really shut your trap and try understand the situation better before speaking.

If people in Tabriz love AN so much as you say, why was Tabriz under military rule last night?

If the religious love AN so much, why was Qom (vatican) under military rule last night?

Out of respect for those killed in the last 48 hours, please exercise your right to free speech in a more intelligent manner.

Sincerely, Ali

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:02 utc | 71

Reviewing the posts here, i see a lot of people who are clearly taking this election as a jumping off point for "regime change".

Antifa, Matt, sloth (et tu, sloth? Oh, yeah...never mind), Luce whatever --

The response to people such as these is simple:

Iran isn't our country, we don't own their oil, and it's high time folks like you stood up for the "principles" you claim to hold so high and engage in some genuinely free trade.

Orange/velvet/rose revolutions? Bullshit. A new "revolution of the book"? Bullshit.

Regardless if the election was tampered with or not, i am increasingly of the opinion that, outside of the urban centers of wealth, most Iranis voted for AhmadiNejad, and that this buildup of Mousavi was nothing more than a preparation for the post-election, Western putsch for regime change.

What i see in the cards for Iran are protests in the city centers that are widely covered in the Corporate media, an eventual attempted coup which is put down with a lot of police batons and revolutionary guard involvement, all of which then gets used as a justification for a first-strike against Iran, organized and implemented by the U.S. as a favor for the Mossad.

Which makes a lot of sense, actually, if you think about it: Obama, aware that this is the plan, is now pushing Israel to cut off the settlements and commit to a partition of Jerusalem as "payment".

I sure hope i'm wrong -- and since i just had the idea now, i'll wait and see before i actually put my faith in it -- but the possibility has sadly become too great for me to ignore any longer.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 15 2009 3:04 utc | 72

Calling me Idiot won't make you smart or your argument stronger.
Present your view and let other judge for themselves .

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 3:07 utc | 73

There have been demonstrations in
Qom, Tabriz, Babol, Mahshad, Esfehan (the student dorms there have been reduced to rubble), and Shiraz. There have been heavy demonstrations in North, Middle, South, East and West of Tehran. Don't insult the Iranians and say it's something which is being setup by the rich of northern tehran. (i assume you mean saadat abad)

Iranians can smell foreign interference very well (we've dealt with it with 200 years, you americans aren't he first ones to overthrow governments around here) and I assure you there is none of it here. At least none in the favor of Mousavi.

This is a power struggle between Khamenei/AN and Rafsanjani/Khatami/Mousavi. And the only thing that matters is that Mousavi was democratically elected.

If you just look at the numbers from the MoI, they claim foreign ballots went 50% A.N.; this is absurd nonsense.

They claim that Karroubi got ~300000 votes. His GODDAMN newspaper has more subscribers than 300000. In his town (and I know someone from his town) people are his "fedayee". They would die for him.

If you had been following the election in any detail beforhand you would know that the families of the martyrs have come out and *officially* supported mousavi.

If you were following what is happening right now, you'd know that Ayatollah Sanei (an actual marja-e-taqlid, like Khamenei, and a very right wing one at that) has come out and stated "Support of the AN government is a Sin".

You would know that Ayatollah Montazeri (another marja-e-taqlid) has stated that "22 Khordad (June 12th) was the day that the Islamic Republic became the Islamic Regime".

You would know that Khatami's brother and Khomeini's granddaughter have been jailed, along with hundreds of reporters.

Speaking of foreign interference, i'd note that A.N.'s election is good for Israel, U.S. and Europe. Just look at the pitiful coverage they have given to the Coup of June 12th.

Yes, you're right, calling you an idiot won't make me smart. it does make me feel good however and considering the amount of rage your story has inflicted on me personally, as someone who can't contact family right now and is worried sick about friends and family (who all voted for Mousavi, including a cancer stricken great-aunt who is extremely religious, and never voted before and stayed in line for 3 hours to vote for mousavi).

Retract or clarify your story, if anything, in memory


Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:25 utc | 74

To Ali:
In your post you said
"Out of respect for those killed in the last 48 hours, please exercise your right to free speech in a more intelligent manner.

I checked CNN, FOX, BBC, IRINN , none report of killing in past 48 hours as you suggested
would you provide alink to source to see if its true or another lie ?

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 3:26 utc | 75

* continuing message

Retract or clarify your story, in the memory of those brave students and protesters, poor and rich who have been fallen victim to batons and bullets of the repressive regime of AN.


Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:29 utc | 76

"I checked CNN, FOX, BBC, IRINN , none report of killing in past 48 hours as you suggested
would you provide alink to source to see if its true or another lie ?"
And yet you claim this is an orchestrated attempt by the west to delegitmize the regime of AN?


I suggest the opposite.

hang in there, i'll find you some.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:32 utc | 77

Here are pictures of what happened several hours ago at Esfehan University of Technology student dormitory. There are reports of deaths.

I wonder why CNN doesn't report this.

Wait I'll find more. I got caught up with something else.

I'll try to keep posting actual images but if reports are good enough for you, a 17 year old was killed in front of a reliable eye-witness, there are several people reporting 2 guys killed in Qeytariyeh in Tehran. There have been reports of shots being fired in Elm-o-Sanaat University and screams of students. MoI entered student dorms in UTehran this morning for the first time in many years. Consistent ringing of gun fire in Tabriz... hey I thought they loved AN and his ways (80% of them according the intelligent author of this article, who is not an idiot).

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:46 utc | 78

On CNN and FOX you couldn't find out that the fucking Georgians had attacked South Osetia!

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 15 2009 3:47 utc | 79

To Ali.
You originally said "killing" now you changed you story to " fallen victim to batons and bullets.."
Then you aske to retract .. very interesting.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 3:50 utc | 80

Here's a video of someone being killed yesterday if you like that kind of pornography.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:52 utc | 81

Can I have my retraction now, or do you have to feel the pulse yourself?

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 3:53 utc | 82

I'm gonna go have a drink, reading this pathetically sorry excuse of pseudo-intellectual b.s. has left me scarred.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 4:00 utc | 83

Unlike you, I won't refer to that violent beating pornography. It saddens me and outraged at all those responsible. I condemn all sort of violence by all parties.
If anybody has been killed Government won't be able to hide it. One way or another truth will prevail in the end lies too.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 4:01 utc | 84

Looks like "Ali" got his ass kicked.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 15 2009 4:22 utc | 85


For starters, I am neither a Baha'i nor a Zionist.

You need to get your facts straight.

1. Ahmadinejad never studied at the University of Tehran (UT) as you claim. He studied at The University of Science and Technology (UST).

2. What is your source for the 100 out 178000 rank?

3. Whether Ahmadinejad excelled in his studies at UST or not is immaterial to whether he (a) did well during his presidency; (b) cheated in the 2009 presidential election.

However, having been educated in the same university system as he, I know that it is highly unlikely for someone to excel in a graduate engineering program while he has a full-time job as a Governor and Governor General. Most likely he was just "given" grades as many students on "veterans quota" were. He finished his doctoral studies in two years, an impossibility for even the most gifted, because the regulations at that time and even now simply do not allow it. How can a Governor General of a distant province write a PhD dissertation in Civil Engineering no less worthy of the name in two years? Do you have any idea what a PhD dissertation in CE looks like? What it entails? It is of course no surprise that his dissertation adviser became his current Minister of Transportation, inaugurating the Isfahan-Shiraz railroad that are clearly not finished according to several pictures and anecdotal evidence. Shoddy work is shoddy work, be it in classroom or out.

4. He used to teach at the UST not UT. Now supposing that he is still teaching at the UST, the question is why? Isn't being President and having "management plans for the world" enough? I have contacted the UST Registrar's office and they told me that he hasn't taught there in four years. So he seems to be on paid leave or has been officially assigned to the President's Office while retaining his university salary. This is simply a bureaucratic gimmick.

5. He was only one of several student leaders who opposed raiding the US Embassy. He actually favored the USSR Embassy as a target. Why? Why would someone oppose locking horns with the U.S. at the height of the Islamic revolution? Could it be that he was a U.S. agent even then? Or maybe he was just a fake convert to Islam from Judaism (We do know he is ethnically Jewish based on a single man's report.) and he was working for the Mossad even then? Realize that I am just being sarcastic, since the owner of this blog has made similar claims under similar circumstances about Mr. Mousavi.

6. There is no evidence that Ahmadinejad has ever, repeat ever, been part of special anything within the IRGC. He was simply a back-bencher, an epitome of a class of IRGC members more interested in politics and power struggle in various provinces than actual warfighting; the "logistics type" as they used to call them then. He eventually showed up at the fronts, or as they used to say then "visited" the fronts in the last six months of the war donning a Basiji uniform. However, his stomping ground was the city of Oroumieh. I have first-hand knowledge of the internal politics of the IRGC in both Azerbaijan provinces and how his circle of friends destroyed the lives of two famous war heroes, the Bakeri brothers. Remember that when Mehdi Bakeri died he was a Brigade Commander at the 3rd Seyed al-Shohada Division of the IRGC led by Maj. Gen. Kazemi, the last IRGC Army commander who fell prey to "mechanical problems of transport planes", not at the division assigned to his native E. Azerbaijan. Bakeri was effectively thrown out of his own city. Need I say more of what the President and his friends are capable of?

Posted by: Dragonfly | Jun 15 2009 4:24 utc | 86

"Looks like "Ali" got his ass kicked.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 15, 2009 12:22:42 AM | 85"

How so?

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 4:31 utc | 87

b, I started with the assumption that you were a misinformed idiot, but reading some of your other posts, I begin to suspect something more sinister.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 4:47 utc | 88

Don't worry, Ali --
the feeling's mutual.

Posted by: china_hand2 | Jun 15 2009 5:04 utc | 89

To: Dragonfly:

I don’t believe I have ever referred to you as Baha’i or anything else.
1- You are right about him attending Elmo Santa University. Eror in my paret.My understanding is that university had reputation as one of best next to Tehran and Sharif (I think Aryamehr) name).
2- I have read in the past about entry exam during Shah Era. Here is one link (said 132)
That I searched quickly but I will be happy to find more if you are interested.
3- My dad attended University of Tehran around that time and he told me how hard it was to pass entry exam and was for distinguished student.
4- I have read about more than once about his service during imposed Iraq war and his participation in intelligent gathering in Solemnize Iraq. I will search for that story and I will be happy to send you when I find it.
5- Reason to mention his university record was in response to someone called him dumb and yahoo. And I don’t think he is like that.
6- Ahmadinejad in numerous interviewed clearly stated he does not get any salary as a president and live with his salary from university. In same interviews as I recall he said he still work with student in their projects.
7- He was among student leader early in revolution. He apposed taking US embassy. He argued he is against it and if they had to take embassies best is to take both USA and Soviet Union embassies. Fact remains. He did not participate in hostage taking. . I have never read he has been involve in any violent act except the was in the past.
Once again I never connected his education background with right or wrong of election.

As for election fraud, Musavi has send a letter to GC listing his complains and what he considers his reasons of cheating. You welcome to read it and judge for yourself
As far as I read Interior ministry has made all ballot boxes in every city available to candidate and GC.
And GC will have response to Musavi’s letter.
To my understanding unlike Ahmadinejad, Musavi has not won any election in the past but he should know very well election procedures. GC is final arbitrator of election and I believe GC will reject Musavi’s claims.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 5:17 utc | 90

i'm watching cnn. not good. i don't know what exactly you're insinuating, ali, but tell me this: if there are winners, who are they?

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 15 2009 5:24 utc | 91

cnn told me something else: twitter shall fuel revolution...

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 15 2009 5:30 utc | 92

i'm watching cnn. not good. i don't know what exactly you're insinuating, ali, but tell me this: if there are winners, who are they?

cnn told me something else: twitter shall fuel revolution...

Here's what CNN won't report

The winners are the people of Iran who voted for Mousavi, 21M of them.

And we will use whatever means we have, including twitter, to get the truth out about what is happening, because CNN won't report it.

If this were an american and israeli backed coup, would they have been this silent?

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 5:39 utc | 93

To Ali:

you said :
"The winners are the people of Iran who voted for Mousavi, 21M of them."
Please provide link.
Musavi himself in his letter to GC had no such specific claim of 21 millions.
Is that from one of internet link with unknown official in Iranian gocerment.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 5:47 utc | 94

Attributing the words "rube" and "yahoo" to Professor Cole's description of Ahmadinejad was an exaggeration. What I remember of Cole's article was that Ahmadinejad was credited with having some technical education; but Cole was concerned about Ahmadinejad not having much in the way of a liberal education, being fairly ignorant of the world at large, being limited and provincial, to put it more politely. I was making a joke. Sorry to offend anyone's sensibilities; but this is a man who claims no homosexuals exist in Iran, and who is hopelessly naive about the Holocaust.

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 15 2009 5:52 utc | 95

well, good luck. the imitation of a democratic process world wide is a tricky illusion to sustain.

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 15 2009 5:52 utc | 96

Is that from one of internet link with unknown official in Iranian gocerment.

Yes, usually we say anonymous.

Anyway, need to go to sleep now, it's 2 am here in Canada.
I'm still waiting for a retraction/clarification.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 5:54 utc | 97

Have a sweet dream.

Posted by: Loyal | Jun 15 2009 5:56 utc | 98

To Copeland:

I know Ahmadinejad's classmates in IUST, and UTehran (he took some courses there as well).

I assure you, his technical education has been exaggerated as well.

He however was apparently quite good at football. (gol-koocheek or small-net). Of course football fans voted against him as well, thanks to his disasterous meddling with iranian national team and ghotbi/ali daei affair which led to national humiliation.

Posted by: Ali | Jun 15 2009 5:58 utc | 99

Please, I'm not blogwhoring. I have been paying acute attention to this business, and there is something the pro-Mousavi and/or anti-theocracy people are forgetting, a few things, but one blaring thing, and I am tearing my hair out wanting people to think about. Thank you.

Posted by: 99 | Jun 15 2009 6:05 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.