There isn't an American State Department since the fall of the Shah that
hasn't dreamed of this moment. The most hotly contested election in
Iran, possibly in the country's history, has concluded with a shocking
result that nobody anywhere on the American political spectrum believes
to be an honest result.
It was widely expected that if there was a large voter turnout, that the
challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, would win the election for President
against the incumbent, the hardline firebrand Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The turnout was an amazing 87% of the voters, and everyone figured that
in the next day or so, Iran would have a new President, one not as
creepy and scary as the clownish Ahmadinejad.
Less than an hour after the polls closed, the government of Iran
declared Ahmadinejad the winner in a landslide. At this point, less than
10% of the ballots had actually been counted. Mousavi immediately
appealed to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the shadowy mullah who holds the
real reins of power in Iran. Less than an hour after that, and with 88%
of precincts not reporting, Khamenei declared that the elections had
been handled fairly, and said, “All Iranians must support and help the
elected president" which is Godhead/Religious Head of State speech for
“Deal with it”.
All Iranians don't seem real interested in supporting and helping
the...well, “elected” probably isn't the term I'm looking for, even if
Khamenei, Allah's Asshat on Earth, likes it. Simply stated, nobody
believes the results, and except for Allah's Asshats, Incorporated,
nobody thinks there was an honest count.
Nobody. It just isn't credible that the widely popular Mousavi would
lose his own home district, or that the two splinter candidates, both of
whom were polling between 5 and 8% in the polls, would get less than 1%
each. The huge turnout was seen as a widespread revolt against
Ahmadinejad's hard-line policies, nuclear brinkmanship, and wear and
tear on the economy. Despite having nearly 10% of the world's oil, and a
constitution that, curiously enough, is actually more liberal than the
American one, and a strong healthy support of education and science,
Iran isn't flourishing, with a health system ranked 93^rd in the world
and a general lack of respect in the world. A lot of this has to do with
the theocratic nature of the government which, like all religious-based
governments, is authoritarian, imperious, and corrupt.
As a result, there are demonstrations and riots going on all over Iran
tonight, and the sense I'm getting is that the public anger is such that
it is an actual threat to the regime.
Mousavi, while pretty right wing by western standards, did at least
support such things as allowing private radio and television in Iran.
(Granted, he hoped to defray the influence of the Persian language BBC).
He also wanted to abolish the widely-hated religious police, and bring
accountability and transparency to the state budgetary process. Compared
to Ahmadinejad, not such a bad guy.
Until 2001, Iran had been gradually easing away from the precepts of the
1978 revolution, and slowly becoming a more secular and enlightened
place. Unfortunately, Iran runs its foreign policy much the way Dean
Acheson ran America's—it doesn't define itself by what its best
interests are, but rather as being the antithesis of a feared foe's. In
Acheson's case, it was the Soviet Union. In Iran's case, it was the
United States, and the contested election of a hardline right winger in
the US sent Iran back to their own hardliners.
Now they are facing a less frightening US regime, and want to get rid of
their own hardliners.
And they are finding out that this isn't going to be as easy as just
having a presidential election.
Clearly, Ahmadinejad's regime was planning this. Three days before the
first vote was cast, the security apparatus chief warned that
demonstrations and other disturbances would be dealt with harshly.
“Deal with it.”
The regime showed more substantive signs of preparation, moving late on
election day to shut down websites in Iran critical of the regime,
Twitter (with little success; indeed, this is becoming known as “The
Twitter Revolution”), and block BBC transmissions.
This was at the order of Ahmadinejad, who was simultaneously saying
things like “These [protests] are not important and these are natural."
Deal with it.
He called the elections "model of democracy" and accused "western
oppressors" of criticizing the election process. "On Friday's election,
the people of Iran emerged victorious." Deal. Just deal.
Something about Ahmadinejad's words reminds me of Bush's idiotic “bring
it on” remark early in the Iraqi occupation. The Iraqis promptly obliged
him, resulting in the deaths of some 4,000 Americans. I have a feeling
that Ahmadinejad, like Bush, will regret the dismissive and combative tone.
“Western oppressors” usually means the US (and usually with good
reason), but publicly, at least, the Obama administration has been
bending over backward to not stir things up. Hillary Clinton took a very
mild approach to the controversy, saying only that she hoped the
election reflected the "genuine will and desire" of Iranian citizens.
Oh, they're dealing. It was a sensible approach by the Americans.
There's only one thing that can unite combatants in Iran faster than
American interference, and that's Israeli interference.
Ahmadinejad's mirror image, Benjamin Netanyahu, promptly shot off his
mouth, demanding that western allies intensify efforts to bring Iran to
heel. Of course, Netanyahu WANTS a war that will give Israel an excuse
to decimate the Iranian population, and hopefully Iranians will be
mindful of that.
Starting with Kosovo, the internet has changed the face and nature of
social insurrections. Now repressive regimes find it far harder to cut
off information, not only from the outside world but among the agitators
Iran is a first-world nation, one in which a large segment of the
population have cell phones, laptops, know how to Twitter, and can
mirror to websites safely outside the national borders. And of course,
they can blog. Some of the best and most dramatic images have come from
a blog that was covering Asian World Cup elimination rounds.
As a result, I can track what's happening in Tehran (current temperature
is 96 degrees, and most of downtown is closed off, apparently to no avail)
This will present quite a challenge to the 12th century minds of the
ayatollahs. Jamming the BBC doesn't help when anyone with WiFi can
simply browse to bbc.co.uk and get clear broadcasts in clear in Persian,
with hundreds of links to other sources reporting on the rebellion,
foreign and domestic.
I hope the rebellion succeeds. I despise all theocracies; being
“instruments of” one sky pixie or another, they regard themselves as
being answerable to no-one except the sky pixie (and any politician who
actually believes that sort of drivel isn't going to be able to climb to
the top; you need a cynic who can soak the sky pixie, wring him out, and
bend him to the politician's will), and generally cannot admit error,
and, like all religions, have “mysteries” requiring secretiveness and
usually involving money. As a result, they are even worse than fascists
when it comes to being arrogant and corrupt.
Mousavi isn't a saint by any means. But he's a damned sight more
rational than Ahmadinejad, and not as other-directed as the Chief Asshat
and his Allah-flogging.
This all comes at a time when the United States has finally replaced a
corrupt and bellicose regime, the idiot Bush, with an administration
that is at least willing to negotiate with Iran. And has, so far, shown
enough sense not to involve itself in Iranian domestic matters.
It would be a shame if, just when America had thrown off the nightmare
brought about by rigged elections, Iran were to fall into an even worse
cesspool. Ironically, at least one analyst, Steven Clemons, of the New
America Foundation believes that the Asshats moved to rig the election
after the people of Lebanon, reacting to a more reasonable regime in
Washington, responded by kicking out Hezbollah and elected a more
moderate government instead.
Ahmadinejad got his ass kicked Friday, and everyone knows it. He needs
to go. He can leave peacefully, or on a rail in a popular revolt.
Deal with it.
US skeptical of Iranian election results
*US officials tell Fox News analysts find it 'not credible' that Mousavi
lost balloting in his home town, but see no prospect of full-scale
attempt to topple Ahmadinejad's regime *
06.13.09, 19:08 / _Israel News
*Washington –* American officials are casting doubt over the results of
Iran's election, in which the government declared the winner Saturday,
FOX News reported.
Fox News quoted a senior US official as saying that analysts find it
"not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the
balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi,
would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote.
* Clear win for Ahmadinejad
* Mousavi: Iran election results fraudulent
* Syria, Hamas welcome Ahmadinejad victory
* Clashes follow Iran vote
Asked by Fox News if the turnout figures should be considered suspect,
given the "not credible" counts for Mousavi and Karoubi, the official
said the turnout clearly was questionable.
As for the reports of violence outside Mousavi's campaign headquarters
and of huge demonstrations for both sides in central Tehran, analysts
claim that even if widespread violence occurs, they see no prospect that
this event would lead to a full-scale attempt at revolution or the
toppling of the regime, said the report.
The dominant view among Obama administration officials, Fox News
reported, is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up
Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may
feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama's gestures of
June 18, 2009