The Fix Is In in Iran

Pictures of the Iranian riots from a Blog

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gandy, he is a cleric, not the top cleric, that's wrong. The top cleric is Imam Ali Khamenei, who stated the election results were legitimate. It's interesting to see that Obama stated the "Iranian elections cast serious doubts," while Western sources continue to dub Pres. Ahmadi Nejad as a tyrant and dictator, when he has no such power. Almost all reports contain unnecessary words of vilification such as authoritarian, radical, hardline, etc. To expect impartiality from Western media on this matter is asking for too much. The Iranian government has forbidden Western journalists from reporting in Iran and many have been asked to leave the country, which the government explains that Western media are fanning the post-election violence in Iran.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does it ever occur to you to wonder why he's the Grand High Poobah, then?

Hardly interesting - I'd call it "expected".
How did Obama get in in the first place? By being an aggressive militant or by appeaing to the moderate and doubtful?
What the fuck else is he going to say? "Nuke the fuckers"? "Ich bein ein Iranian"?
He's a politician. A good one.

So certain, are you? Did you pick up this infallible intelligence at a coffee shop while you were there? Who decreed the power came from him?

Just as it is unrealistic to expect impartiality from the Iranians. They, after all, have so much vested interest.

An admission that the Iranian people are just as susceptible to being led around by the nose by propaganda as anyone else.
They were merely ensuring it's their propaganda which holds sway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense. Nobody in the West is terribly enamored of Mousavi, nor do they expect that his election would change a whole lot (he's not running for Supreme Leader, after all). And the West certainly didn't "back" him in his election. He received no funds, or shows of support, or any other "backing."

The distaste here is not over the outcome (not much was really at stake, for us), but rather seeing yet another hopeful, peaceful generation of Iranians seeking freedom and self-determination have their aspirations crushed by the dictator and his gangs of street thugs.

Any meaningful Democratic standards.

No, the most glaring flaws are the prohibitions on political parties, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, etc. Even if they allowed independent election monitoring tomorrow, there wouldn't be anything to "monitor" anyway.

 

Of course not, and there was NO disappointment, suspicion, debate, or outcry about electoral fraud when Ahmadinejad won.
And of course, what do we make of this?

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/obama-iran-twitter)

Its way better in the States eh?

(Defense Department sees protests as terrorism - http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2009/06/10/defense-department-sees-protests-as-terrorism/)
We will have to see what the outcome is. Either way it is an internal matter for Iran.

Which in any event is an illusion.

Yes. Sadly.

 

Disgust with watching tyrrants crush the hopes of a nation is not the same thing as "backing a horse." Had Ahmedinejad won in a way that the Iranian people accepted as legitimate, that would have been the end of the story.

Like I've told you repeatedly now: elections in Iran have always been a sham, and so there is little at stake in them for outsiders. Thus the idea that outsiders are committed to one candidate or another is absurd: the kinds of candidates that would appeal to us are barred from ever running for office in the first place, or any other kind of political activity. Sure, it would be nice to not have to see a jackass like Ahmedinejad grandstanding around, but it wouldn't fundamentally alter the power clique's stranglehold on Iran nor its foreign relations.

Yes.

You do understand that "internal matter" is a codephrase that indicates a rejection of the principle that legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed, right?

Which is hardly the sort of revolutionary tone I expect you'd like to strike. You're sounding more like the dictators in Beijing, Moscow and Tehran, lately. I mean, really: Obama is "interfering" in the "internal affairs" of Iran by urging Twitter not go along with the suppression of free speech?

Should Obama go looking for a UNSC resolution authorizing use of force against the Mullahs, then you might get some traction with that tactic. But applying it pre-emptively just paints you as a wild-eyed partisan.

More nonsense dressed up as sagacity.

 

The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is the difference between Pepsi and Coke.

They both are hard line, and approved by the Ayatollah Khamenei, Guardian Council, and the Assembly of Experts, so no real difference.

The only thing that They have managed to do is show just how rigged the elections are in Iran, and the fact that there is nothing that can be called a free and democratic process to the elections.

 

Fair enough Quad.

 

As a person who lived in Iran for quite a long time, I personally expected Musavi to win the elections. Although Ahmedinejad has a good support in the rural areas, I suppose the biggest problem with the reformist camp was that their votes were divied in three (Musavi, Karoubi and Rezai). Vote fixing is also a possiblity, but my personal experience with Iran tell me that those on top in Iran are too smart to do such naive acts without taking the public risks into account.

 

I think its interesting that the media likes to make it seem as if there is no freedom in Iran yet there is complete dissent in the streets, dissent that would not have been tolerated in China (tiananmen square) for example. It seems the streets are filled with as many Ahmedinejad followers as that of the opposition. Considering how Americans just sat back when they had doubts about the Florida elections I would say Iranians are showing true political engagement, they're not being crushed, they're out making their voice heard.

 

To be fair, Lucy, the Chinese demonstrated for much longer than the Iranians have thus far before the army was sent in. A surprisingly large number of people seem to think a hundred thousand people gathered in the square all in one night and then the military jumped in. It was a long, drawn out affair.

If the Iranians spend another month and a half protesting and halting business and the gov't still doesn't respond with mass violence, then we can say Iran is more free than 1989 China.

 

No, not even close. There have certainly been some pro-ahmedinejad rallies organized by the government, but they were much smaller, and there are wide-spread reports of people being rounded up by the basij and forced to attend them, apparently simply in order to fill space and give the illusion of support.

 

The less said and done from outside Iran about what is apparently happening there, the better. "God Bless Iran" would make apt and sincere bumper-stickers right now. Here in the USA, we should be cheering Iranian protestors in their ironic struggle against us/them: As righteous as our struggle with England 2 centuries back. These struggles have much to teach us all about ourselves- including the lesson that violence, authoritarianism, and militarism are not satisfying ways of life any more (if we are to assume that they ever were).

 

I certainly agree that they will likely attempt to order such a crackdown. Whether or not they can actually execute it is unknown. The Tehran police are doing virtually nothing to interfere with the protesters, and have actually been involved in confrontations with basij thugs (one of which involved the basij beating police officers, and the basij building being burnt down in the ensuing fight). Most of the "riot police" on the streets of Tehran now are actually basij. So far the army has been silent, but there are many reports of high-level army generals being arrested on vague "conspiracy" charges, and many reports of generals meeting with pro-opposition ayatollahs. The general feeling seems to be that the basij and revolutionary guard probably can't control the situation on their own. People are mostly now waiting to see what the army will do.

 

They demonstrated for much longer because the first batch of troops refused to interfere with the crowds (the officer who was in charge of that saying it was a peaceful protest was removed). The second batch of troops were mobilized and they simply rolled their tanks over students in the park and the random shooting that took place thereafter is history as they say. It was a three day affair. I doubt this will go on for another month I think the government will come to some kind of compromise. If this was a real crack down they would have reacted much more violently like under the Shah. They are out on the streets making themselves known not sitting at home like many americans did waiting to see what happens. No curfew, no martial law and no military in the street in Iran. You can check the link below.

Nasor: According to Amanpour of CNN who just returned from Iran the Ahmedinejad crowd isn't 'small' at all. She reported that each group is taking into the streets in increasingly large numbers.

http://www.irantube.com/videos/1918...-zakaria-and-christiane-amanpour-in-iran.html

Bells: Iranians are showing their displeasure at what they view as a fraudulent action by their Government.

But the fact that they show their displeasure is a sign of free political engagement. The government could use troops to simply crush them from the beginning and they didn't do so. No curfew, no martial law and no military in the street. When they had the Seattle protest against WTO they people burned things, engaged with riot police, 500 people were arrested what's the difference save the size and longevity? Check the link above

 

I did not say that they were "small," I said that they were "much smaller."

No offense, but I don't think you understand the reality of what is happening on the streets of Iran. The basij are committing extreme acts of brutality. A few days ago a basij headquarters was burnt down by a mob after a basij officer shot a peaceful, unarmed protester in the face.

See my previous post on why a government crackdown might or might not be possible.

 

Anyone seen the riots in India? Police crackdown is unbelievably harsh [we avoid the streets where the cops are if we want to get home safely]. There were incidents of people who had their arms broken and then were dragged by those arms.

 

Iran does beg (of all) this question today: "Which side are you on?"

 

Whatever side they choose. Its their government, their election, their society, their future. I say good on them for not just sitting on their asses