Elections in Iran

Remove all ads!

Now do you see why we voted for him?

 

If the election was rigged he can and should speak whatever Isreal or any other nation says. Your argument can be taken to mean that elections can be faked so long as it sticks it to foreign powers. If that occurred here it the US I'd call it utter nonsense and if it occurred (and it seems likely) in Iran and I was an Iranian voter I'd feel the same.

That is a HUGE assumption to make and that Mr. Ahmedinejad is generally viewed as unpopular in cities means a 50/50 split is way too much.

Like I said before I'd view accepting a rigged election in order to play politics abroad as utter BS. And if someone is playing into the hands of Netanyahu it is Ahmedinejad by first creating a great list of vices and quotes for him to use and then possibly being involved a damaging the limited democracy (Iranians cannot vote on who gets to be Supreme Leader) Iran has.

 

I am merely pointing out the inevitable practical consequences of Mousavi's Colemandom.

I don't know whether the elections have been rigged. It is possible. Just as it is possible that Ahmedinejad did win anyway. All that's pretty much moot to me, as I don't really care about democracy in Iran. I am not afraid of Ahmedinejad either. I am very sceptical as I am acutely aware of flowery tales from the Middle East, be they Israeli anti-Iranian agit-prop, or tales from the opposition in Tehran, or worse - from Iranian exiles, or Ahmedinejad's proclamations of victory.

What I am afraid of is Israel and their neo-con allies in the US having their way (about that, there is good news: Seems as if Dennis Ross is leaving the State Department) and succeed in, eventually, take military action against Iran. If preventing that act of self destructive lunacy means accepting a rigged election in Iran, so be it. There's nothing bad about accepting reality. To put it in starker terms: A politically relatively unfree Iran is infinitely more preferable to me than regional war raging between the Jordanian and the Indian border, with then US all over the place.

PS: AMaster, I have read Cole's post. Interesting. For my purposes, see above, irrelevant

 

You are being way too pragmatic. He is trying to reform his country and he is a patriot who going further out onto the limb, because he feels his country NEEDS the change. There really are still idealists left in this world, Ragusa. They may be few, but they are still with us (thank God).

That is one of the worst comments I've ever seen you post, Ragusa. I know I have been guilty of some ludicrous comments in the time that I have been here myself, so don't be too offended. Nevertheless, I hate to think that John Adams or Thomas Jefferson would have refused to draft our Declaration of Independence because they feared too much of a "raging war" with England. Look, I'm a peaceful individual, who does not like violence. But there are some things worth fighting for, and liberty is at the top of the list, my friend.

 

... and that sentiment makes you a very sympathetic individual. And I understand Mousavi and the oppositon, to a point. As for my gloomy tone, I have migraine for two days now, quite independent from the events in Iran. Joa expresses my view pretty well here:

The Iranians have to duke that one out for themselves. They have to find their own John Adams or Thomas Jefferson. They need to be aware that there are outside parties willing and able to make hay of all their blunders. Israel is such a party, the US neo-cons are another.

If at the end of the day we do see a change of power in Tehran, all the better. With Bush-Gore and Coleman-Franken in mind, the US appears to have some endemic vote-rigging/ballot-counting problems of their own and Europe stays clear of that as well; for the better I think. That's a model to emulate on Iran. I am glad to see the calm response from the Obama administration. It is predictable that Obama will for that be accused of not taking the cause of liberty serious and to tacitly endorse election fraud in Iran.

Pointed question: How much American (and Iranian) blood would John Adams or Thomas Jefferson have liked to spill for Iranian freedom? I think of Jefferson's inaugural address from March 4, 1801: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." That point is not moot. Military action is the inevitable consequence of the politics of the demonisation of Iran (that would have continued regardless of what have happened in the Iranian elections; Mousavi would only have made selling confrontation a little more difficult; his election would not have ended Israeli hostility). It is also a valid question about the domestic political sustainability (excluding the obvious financial dimension) of such a policy (i.e. popular support) in the US.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, according to the official line, to save the lives of US soldiers that might have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. Add to that Israeli hysteria, their limited means, their nukes, the nuke allegations against Iran and apocalyptic Israeli worst-casing and Bibi Netanyahu and you see what I am aiming at. The all but explicit Israeli threats in that regard are not to be shrugged off lightly. Any Israeli attack, short of a nuclear pre-emptive strike with ballistic missiles, would necessitate US support and draw the US in. And US non involvement would in the case of the nuclear pre-emptive strike really not make a difference any more. That's a thing to have headaches over.

 

I agree. We can only make things worse if we become involved. It is far better if we allow the parties in Iran to work through this themselves. Perhaps I misunderstood your original point.


Edit:

Well yes, nukes are scary, which is why we are concerned about Iran. Nevertheless, I always find it curious that some people harp on Hiroshima and ignore Normandy, or Italy. Because of the sacrifice of my forefathers I, and my children, are free people but there are many in some other places who have their freedom, at least in part, because of American blood. The oppostition in Iran may have to go through their own version of Valley Forge as well.

 

Chandos,
the twist is that while Iran may be enriching uranium to weapon's grade, the IAEA so far has testified to the non diversion of fissile material under safeguard in Iran. What's left is allegations, like in the tale of the 'smoking laptop', and the demand 'prove to us that you're not hiding anything'. Where have I heard that before ... Israel has fielded (and probably tested, in collaboration with South Africa) nuclear weapons, about 200 or so (well outside the IAEA regime). Israeli politicians have implicitly threatened to use them, pre-emptively even, disproportionally, as a deterrent ... to an, at best, emergent, threat. A lot of that is posturing as 'Mad Dog' to pressure the US into a more forceful line, suggesting, under the logic of the alleged imminence of the threat, that if Obama doesn't act, Netanyahu will.

That Israeli nuclear strike planning is a reality you can see in this analysis (PDF link) by the ever well informed Anthony Cordesman. He doesn't devote a chapter to Israeli nukes for no reason.

The assumed threat posed by Iran implies that Iran, especially under Ahmedinejad, is not a rational actor but flirting with national extinction. What makes you think that a worst-casing nationalist like Netanyahu, or his cabinet ministers (Lieberman comes to mind), are less ideological and more rational actors? Or that they will, under the dynamic and logic of the threat projected on Iran, make rational decisions?

---------- Added 2 hours, 45 minutes and 24 seconds later... ----------

BBC's Q&A: Iran election aftermath

I recant. It's not Mousavi channeling Coleman. The three reformist groups did so for their own reasons.

 

I have a more general question concerning Iranian politics. What actual powers are afforded to Ahmedinejad - well not just him - but whomever the Iranian President happens to be at the time? As I understand it the true power in Iran lies with Ayatollah Khamenei, the "Supreme Leader" of Iran. If the President is subject to the whims of a religious leader, does it ultimately matter who the President of Iran is? I understand what Chandos is saying in his posts, but no matter how reformist a candidate may be, Iran basically reamins a theocracy regardless of who gets elected.

 

The BBC delivers, AFI. Because they still have people in Iran. Because they haven't slashed their foreign bureaus to the bone and then amputated the bone. Because they're government run.

Oh snap, American private sector news < BBC

Actually, it's still a little vague, I suspect because they don't really know.

 

The powers of the president are not very impressive, but I think he is still an important figure. Chances are, even if the majority of his policies are unpopular with the the big A, he will not veto everything. Something will pass. Plus, though the president might not make the final decision on international affairs he most likely has a voice in the matter.

 

You are as paranoid of Israel as the Mullahs, Ragusa.

 

Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbours whose rhetoric can extend to the genocidal. Given the events that occurred around the middle of the last century, you cannot blame them for taking such rhetoric seriously. I heard a commentator once say "The US and Western powers can afford to make some mistakes -- they won't be wiped off the map. Israel cannot afford to make any mistakes, as they could easily be wiped off the map."

That doesn't mean that the world should give carte blanche to the Israeli state, but they have much, much more reason to be paranoid than their neighbours, and they have little to no reason to put any faith into bastards like Ahmedinejad.

But the west can do nothing to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iran until the Iranian people want it. Trying to force it will just cause more troubles. Not a pretty situation.

 

Perhaps. Bush might not have intervened militarily so late in his last term, but it seems a certainty that the people around him would have been putting heavy pressure on him to act ("this is your chance!") in a pre-emptive strike to take advantage of the chaos.

My comment was more in the general sense, that Obama has a much cooler head and is playing this very shrewdly (and I believe that's what LKD was observing). He's sitting back and letting this play out - which really is the only smart play. If the administration offered any kind of support to the Iranian opposition, then if they won, their credibility would always be weakened as they would be seen as a "puppet regime" of the US, damaging any future relations we'd have with them. And if they lost, the US would be blamed for spoiling their revolution, quickly ending any relations at all. It's really a no-win for the US until the dust settles.

By contrast - John McCain is proving to be the opposite of a cooler head. He's been going on TV the last 2 days, flipping out to just about anyone who'll listen, criticizing the administration for not immediately jumping right in the middle of it. Exactly the wrong thing to do, and an example of the same kind of instability and poor judgment he displayed during the campaign.

Hence, I'm glad I voted for Obama, since he's the only candidate we had who I'm sure wouldn't have already overplayed their hand in this situation.

 

[rant]

Spoiler

Well, I am not so sure about whether it's so cool to be Israel's neighbor. After all the Israelis suspect Iran may eventually have nuclear weapons. Their neighbors are certain Israel has them now, and if push came to shove would most likely use them. They know the government that has access to the big red button tends to the paranoid, is not averse to launching preemptive strikes, has an intelligence service that has done pretty much every dirty job you can think of, and has a strong military that they have used to intervene in other countries (i.e. Lebanon). To have Israel, the one country that afaik never once allowed inspections of its nuclear sites, talk about how Iran's secret nuclear program and how it is a threat to the region, probably does not do much to reassure them either. If the last 8 years have led to a flowering of anti-US sentiment in the Middle East, it still has nothing on the anti-Israeli sentiment there. I may not agree with all the reasons for that sentiment, but they are there.

Now, Israel has a right to defend itself and its citizens as much as any other legitimate state does (though I'd love to know who, then, defends the Palestinians and are their lives to be considered just as valuable). However, the most forceful way is not always the best - in fact, sometimes this paranoia may lead them to making the wrong decisions. If the US wants to be a true friend of Israel, it should help them on the right course, not leave them to do whatever they want. Personally, I think Israel will never be at peace with its neighbors as long as the Palestinian situation festers, and they need to give them autonomy as soon as possible - but there is no way Palestine could be autonomous if, say, a third of its territory is controlled by heavily fortified Jewish settlements, and the Palestinians simply would not accept that. Netanyahu, however, still pushes for even more settlements, all the while blaming the Palestinians for not wanting to cooperate - effectively undermining the peace process that will benefit his country just as much as any other. IMO this is not a sound policy for his country, and going along with this BS is definitely not sound policy for the US. Israel may be a bulwark against the US enemies in the middle East - but I can't help but think whether, were it not for Israel, the US would have any enemies it needs a shield against in the first place.

[/rant]

Anyway, for now I think the US can do better in its issues with Iran if it can build up influence with the Arab states in the region. There is not that much the US can do with Iran without causing a backlash (although perhaps some low-key overtures on issues that the two countries can agree with can not hurt), and Iran is not the only threat in the Middle East. Perhaps it is high time to have some serious talks with Syria - between their good relationship with Iran, influence with Hezballah (how else would they, oh, get weapons) and the whole issue with the Gollan Heights, there are a lot of things that an agreement with them could do for the US' regional priorities.

As for comparing Obama to McCain, I'm fairly sure McCain would not be as gung-ho in the Oval Office as he was during parts of his campaign (at least I hope he wouldn't sing his dear "Bomb Iran" on national TV), but I really don't think he would do any better on either the economic or foreign policy issues. Besides, the very idea of Sarah Palin taking over if he is somehow incapacitated gives me the shivers.

 

Iirc the reference from Ahmedinejad was misrepresented and then fervently reiterated because it sounds so threatening, especially when used in the same breath with the word 'nuke'. Ahmedinejad said it iirc in reference to Jerusalem and the crusader states, and that, like them, Israel will vanish from the page of time. Today here is little left of the Kingdom of Heavens, even though it lasted nearly two hundred years. On that time line there still is plenty of room for a few generations of Israelis.

If or when Israel vanishes from the page of time, it will probably be because it undid itself, perhaps when it's nationalist or religious fanatics bite off more than they can chew.

As for the remarks heard from Arab talkers, it is flowery posturing. They can speak all day long, but have zero capability to ever put their rhetoric into action. Israel is far too strong.

The problem with Israel is that that it has a policy that relies on them dominating their neighbours and on dictating terms. The Israeli leaders don't fear for Israel's survival but for their dominant position as the militarily most powerful state in the region. They see dominance as vital for their survival. A loss of their unrivalled position is to them tantamount to being at the abyss. That is largely a psychological thing rather than a real danger. In Iran's increased power and influence, not at last due to the boon the US handed to them by destroying Iraq as we knew it, Israel sees such a threat, that, even non-nuclear, has successfully challenged Israel. The Iranian supported Hezbollah, until 2000 and in 2006, didn't stand up to and defeat the vaunted Israeli army with nukes. That is a first. Nobody before succeeded in that. Only the Egyptians came close in 1973, and eventually Israel returned the Sinai to them and made a peace. The case against Iran is largely fabricated. I feel that the nuclear issue is, along the lines of Wolfowitz' famous quip, just the issue that sells best. It also lends imminence to the matter.

For Israeli hard liners it is this: If they cannot dictate terms, they will have to compromise, that means not only taking, but also giving - and that means ceding terrain, to Syria for instance. I see that Israel is unwilling to compromise. No, all in all, they want to keep what they have won. The right wing wants more than that and wants to expand.

And I wish I am wrong in that.

 

The struggle for freedom is never easy. Because of their actions this week the opposition and the reformists will move the needle in Iranian politics. But if this is indeed a real revolution the cost will be very high in blood, and in the end, the opposition still may be crushed by the dictators.

I am reminded a bit of the old newreels which show JFK at the Berlin Wall, when he challlenged the old regime of the USSR and commented that "We are all Berliners." In the same sense, those of us who claim to be for the progress of freedom for people everywhere are "all Iranians" at this momient in history. It's too bad because of our past involvement in Iran that Obama can't stand in front of the White House and announce that "We are all Iranians." It would be an historical moment.

 

Ah yes, Kennedy. My mother still vividly remembers the day when Kennedy said that on TV. She holds him in high regard. Next street from my childhood home was Kennedy Street. I for my part hold Bush Sr. in high regard for his exemplary foreign policy record, because he, over the resistance of the French and British, made the German reunification possible. He did so low key, without landmark speeches, but nevertheless he did good.

Dwelling on old glory and trying to conjure it up again has made that admirable statement become a little stale right now. Just think of McCain's line that American's are all Georgians. It must be confusing to be Berliners, Georgians and Iranians at the same time. Not to mention that there will be plenty of US citizens who couldn't find any of those the places, much less the food, they identify with on a map

Obama is a brilliant orator. He and his speech writers will find his own line and his own way

Observation: When Ahmedinejad won, and the opposition lost, that would mean that their challenging the result constitutes sedition. That would, from the point of view of the Iranian government, motivate and justify the crackdown.

Interesting question: Now imagine that Ahmedinejad would have lost and Mousavi had won. Everything would have went peacefully. Would a president Mousavi solve the Iran problem? Iran would still be an Islamic state. Is this about democracy or regime change?

 

To say Mr. Ahmedinejad won when there have been serious accusations the election was rigged is to assume the accusations are wrong. They may not be and the ban the current Iranian leaders have been putting on the media does little to help their credibility from my point of view.

So at this point Mr. Ahmedinejad may not have actually won the election. If the protests against him are peaceful then arresting the people in them is bullying. And if Mr. Ahmedinejad cheated to "win" the "election" then the government security forces are engaging in bullying in support of criminal actions.

Actually Mr. Mousavi would have supported Iran keeping a nuclear program so their would have been at least some tension over that issue. But (at least as it was reported from in an article on the presidential debate there) he indicated he was willing to have some sort of international observers at Iran's nuclear program so that it could be proven peaceful. Thus Mr. Mousavi could have offered a political compromise that helped resolve an international issue.

About if this is "regime change", Mr. Mousavi is a former Prime Minister of Iran, I doubt he is a traitor or outside force when related to Iran's government. If Tony Blair (like him or not) decided to run for office in the UK again the idea he was engaging in "regime change" would be laughable.

In an election if a sitting government leader looses to someone else then this is a change in government and it is totally proper (and you probably know this). And I doubt the great majority (if any at all) of Mr. Mousavi's voters are agents of the CIA.

A deeper question here is if the government of Iran decided to rig the election because it had turned from a government of liberators (from a US backed dictator) to a government of oppressors. Some revolutionaries that initially bring freedom to their people turn into dictators when, usually years later, the people would like a different leader and the former liberator decides to take away the freedom he helped give his people away and stops being a liberator.

 

The 'some sort of international observers' are the IAEA observers, who control the Iranian nuclear program and thus far have not found that any declared nuclear material has been diverted for non peaceful purposes. Mousavi has simply offered full cooperation with the IAEA, which is nothing new.

In any case, he would have insisted on Iran's inalienable right under the NPT right to enrich uranium. That would not have removed Israel's allegations of Iran wanting to build a bomb anyway, no matter what the IAEA sais.

Oh no, I am not speaking of Mousavi but of those, particularly in the US, who, after calling to 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' or so, vocally lament the lack of democracy and mourn about rigged elections in Iran and champion democracy's cause because it helps isolate Iran. For them it has always been about regime change, and if they can use the lack of democracy to call for the sanctions they don't get with hyping the nuclear threat - fine.

Spot the inner contradiction: Israel's deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon

Even though there was no difference between the candidates, Ahmadinejad's "victory" removes "any glimmer of hope...." Elliot Abrams:

They both want confrontation with Iran, no matter who runs the government. Above all, they want President Obama to stop thinking about diplomacy and give toughen up on Iran and give Israel the green light to attack Iran that even George W. Bush refused to give.

You assume something that we don't know yet.

Whatever happened in Iran, it plays nicely into Israel's efforts to depict Iran.

When one knows a concerted propaganda effort is underway, and knows what it aims on, one is well advised to take subsequent media reports to that end with a generous dose of salt.