Ahmadinejad wins re-election

[Whiplash]

The Hitch gives his $0.02 on the subject, agreeing, incidentally, with my original post that those who call these Iranian events "elections" at all -- let alone "skeptically" wondering if the "election" results were really fake, as in this forum, I may add -- should be ashamed of themselves.

It's truly pathetic, he notes, to see people speaking of "elections" or "robust debates" or "budding democracy" in Iran, (let alone, I add again, actually defending the result of this farce "elections") when it was blindingly obvious from the start that nobody except the ayatollah's favorite could possible win, as indeed happened.

Suckers and useful idiots. Useful to the ayatollahs, that is, because they do their best to make them look as something different than they obviously are, that is, dictatorical theocrats.

With all due respect, is such venom necessary? What do you expect it will accomplish? I share your feelings a bit, but I honestly do not believe that such methods change minds at all. It just makes people defensive, and more likely to be obstinant or want to stand against whatever you are saying. You are, after all, insulting them as being idiots. Even if someone is completely in the wrong, being called an idiot hardly makes them more open to changing their views on anything.

Who'd want to join / befriend people who are rather douchebag-ish when they feel vindicated? Real attractive.

 

[Erigena]

The Iranians would consider it a thinly veiled foreign attempt to get rid of Ahmedinejad. And rightly so, I don't believe for a second the West would call for re-election had Mousavi fixed it.

If we want Mousavi to win, we have to avoid every perception of foreign support for him. The Iranians have to do this themselves. They may not succeed, but foreign interference can only make it worse.


Sometimes bloodshed is necessary, these people made the deliberate decision to risk it.

And don't underestimate the inquiry. If Ahmedinejad fixed the elections without the mullahs knowing about it, they'll be furious. If they did know, the danger of riots to their regime may still convince them to dump Ahmedinejad.

ETA: Remember, the mullahs want to stay in power. Elections fixed without their knowledge are a threat to them, but so are massive riots in the streets.

You said it right when you used the word "perception." Even if the U.S. government were going to get involved, they would use the back door. They can't afford to be perceived as though they are interfering in another country's elections simply because they didn't like the outcome. The U.S. government is currently attempting to repair our global image as it affects our ability to negotiate foreign policy.

 

[brumsen]

You said it right when you used the word "perception." Even if the U.S. government were going to get involved, they would use the back door. They can't afford to be perceived as though they are interfering in another country's elections simply because they didn't like the outcome. The U.S. government is currently attempting to repair our global image as it affects our ability to negotiate foreign policy.

So let me try to understand this. Because of the reaction, at the time, of the US government to the democratic election of Hamas in Gaza , it cannot exert any diplomatic pressure when there are indications that an election anywhere was not in fact free and democratic?
Surely good diplomacy would be able to show that these cases are quite different?

 

[Erigena]

So let me try to understand this. Because of the reaction, at the time, of the US government to the democratic election of Hamas in Gaza , it cannot exert any diplomatic pressure when there are indications that an election anywhere was not in fact free and democratic?
Surely good diplomacy would be able to show that these cases are quite different?

If diplomatic pressure would work, then yes. I was referring to military action, which I should have clarified. We can't make up an excuse to apply force in order to administer change because the president in office is not the person we want there.

From what I've read in the news, I believe the election was tampered with. The Ayatollah and Ahmajinidad probably already know whom the U.S. government would prefer to deal with. It isn't a stretch to assume that they would have considered the diplomatic strategies the U.S. might impose on them if the election appeared to be fraudulent. They also know foreign countries, including some allies, wouldn't support another situation like Iraq. Therefore, in my opinion, that the U.S. couldn’t publically support any military operations in Iran at the current time.

 

[Skeptic]

I don't envy Obama deciding what, if anything, to do. If he does nothing, he will be accused of abandoning the protestors. If he intervenes in their favor, he will be accused of undermining them by making them seem like a foreign puppet.

 

[Ziggurat]

The simplest course of action is to simply speak the truth: the mullahs of Iran are despots, who use terror and violence to thwart the will of the people of Iran. What he gets accused of does not matter. Reagan was accused of plenty for calling the Soviets the "Evil Empire", but he spoke the truth. And Soviet dissidents took heart from his words. Why should speaking the truth now be fundamentally different?

 

[Skeptic]

I agree with you, Ziggurat, about what he SHOULD do. My point was that he's going to be blamed no matter what he does.

Being blamed no matter what you do doesn't mean that there is no right or wrong course to follow. It just means that some people will blame you even if you do the right thing.

 

[ddt]

The simplest course of action is to simply speak the truth: the mullahs of Iran are despots, who use terror and violence to thwart the will of the people of Iran. What he gets accused of does not matter. Reagan was accused of plenty for calling the Soviets the "Evil Empire", but he spoke the truth. And Soviet dissidents took heart from his words. Why should speaking the truth now be fundamentally different?

Because the situation is vastly different. The Soviet Union was a (nuclear) superpower, equal to the US in military power. There was not a chance in hell that the USA would invade or some such. Iran is the underdog; there are already US troops to its west and east borders. Both the US and Israel have been floating publicly ideas of military strike against Iran. Speaking out against the Iranian regime could be perceived by Joe Average - or could be twisted by the regime - as a threat against Iran as a country: with outside threats, people tend to rally behind their leaders, how much they despise them.

Secondly, what did those SU dissidents accomplish? Nothing. Nothing at all. Without Reagan's criticism - and in hindsight, even without his increased military spending - Gorbachev would have done the same, as the economy was in dire straits. There was no revolution in the SU, there was a change from the top.

In Iran, there is a revolution going on - or at least, an attempt. There are now people on the streets demanding regime change. From the reports, I gather they're mainly students - but in the end, students don't make a revolution. The masses do, the protesters need to get Joe Average on board. Bush- or Reagan-like "evil empire" rhetoric doesn't help with that.

 

[dudalb]

My own predictions, the revolt will fail, Obama will negotiate a deal with Iran.
In a year or so, we will find out we have been had and we will have another North Korean game going on.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the situation is vastly different. The Soviet Union was a (nuclear) superpower, equal to the US in military power. There was not a chance in hell that the USA would invade or some such. Iran is the underdog; there are already US troops to its west and east borders. Both the US and Israel have been floating publicly ideas of military strike against Iran. Speaking out against the Iranian regime could be perceived by Joe Average - or could be twisted by the regime - as a threat against Iran as a country: with outside threats, people tend to rally behind their leaders, how much they despise them.

This is a rather ahistorical perspective. The threat of war with the west was a constant for the Soviet Union. And in fact, because war with the west could easily turn nuclear, the threat of large sections of the populace getting killed directly as a result of any war was significantly higher for the USSR than for Iran. There was rather more reason to tread lightly in regards to statements about the USSR than there is about Iran.

Secondly, what did those SU dissidents accomplish? Nothing. Nothing at all.

I don't agree. As China demonstrates, the communists could have relaxed economic control without loosening their grip on political control.

In Iran, there is a revolution going on - or at least, an attempt. There are now people on the streets demanding regime change. From the reports, I gather they're mainly students - but in the end, students don't make a revolution. The masses do, the protesters need to get Joe Average on board. Bush- or Reagan-like "evil empire" rhetoric doesn't help with that.

The median age in Iran is 27 (compared to about 37 in the US). I don't think it's accurate to say that this is just students and not the masses. But it's not a revolution, or even an attempted revolution. Mousavi is part of the government.

 

[FireGarden]

The simplest course of action is to simply speak the truth: the mullahs of Iran are despots, who use terror and violence to thwart the will of the people of Iran. What he gets accused of does not matter.

There are lots of ways to tell the truth. I think what Obama has done has done so far is exactly that:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h7GBJXe3uuTKD35HwLdBmCoDIdLQ

[...] "it is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling -- the US president, meddling in Iranian elections." [...] "When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed -- wherever that takes place -- it is a concern to me and it is a concern to the American people," he said. "That is not how governments should interact with their people. My hope is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations."

"There are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy. How that plays out over the next several days and several weeks is something ultimately for the Iranian people to decide. But I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed."


I think it's perfectly correct to stand back from making actual accusations of fraud. I've done it, but I'm not the US president! I still have suspicions, but I'm not convinced.

Reagan was accused of plenty for calling the Soviets the "Evil Empire", but he spoke the truth. And Soviet dissidents took heart from his words. Why should speaking the truth now be fundamentally different?

I think there will be plenty of Mousavi supporters in Iran today who will take heart from Obama's words.




On the fraud issue:
Mobile polling in army centres with little oversight.
Counting possibly suspiciously fast.
Karoubi getting fewer votes than he has party members -- possible, but....

OTOH,
The poll reported in the Washington Post.
Some explanation of surprising stats

 

[FireGarden]

The median age in Iran is 27 (compared to about 37 in the US). I don't think it's accurate to say that this is just students and not the masses. But it's not a revolution, or even an attempted revolution. Mousavi is part of the government.

Revolution may well be the wrong word. Gorbachev was also part of a government. What he did could be called revolutionary, even if it wasn't actually a revolution. There was certainly a heck-load of change.

 

[ddt]

This is a rather ahistorical perspective. The threat of war with the west was a constant for the Soviet Union. And in fact, because war with the west could easily turn nuclear, the threat of large sections of the populace getting killed directly as a result of any war was significantly higher for the USSR than for Iran. There was rather more reason to tread lightly in regards to statements about the USSR than there is about Iran.

You're forgetting about MAD. There had been various crises (Berlin, Cuba) but actual war had only been waged in the form of proxy wars in the third world.

I don't agree. As China demonstrates, the communists could have relaxed economic control without loosening their grip on political control.

But Gorbachev had no intention of relinquishing the leading role of the CPSU. Glasnost was more openness, but no questioning of the fundamental system.

The median age in Iran is 27 (compared to about 37 in the US). I don't think it's accurate to say that this is just students and not the masses. But it's not a revolution, or even an attempted revolution. Mousavi is part of the government.

From the various reports I got the impression it was mainly students, but I could very well be wrong - the news is quite confusing. As to Mousavi being part of the government - yes, but they apparently also want Ayatollah Montazeri as the new Supreme Leader, see the other thread. He's an ayatollah who fell out of favor shortly before Khomeini's death and is an outspoken proponent of more human rights. And who says people like Mousavi and/or Montazeri are Iran's Yeltsin - he was also part of the system in the SU, and dismantled it.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're forgetting about MAD.

No I'm not. The "destruction" part of MAD was one of the reasons used to criticize Reagan for speaking out against the Soviet Union.

But Gorbachev had no intention of relinquishing the leading role of the CPSU. Glasnost was more openness, but no questioning of the fundamental system.

And yet, that happened. Why? Perhaps because the role of dissidents in affecting general opinion wasn't so irrelevant as you suggested.

 

[SezMe]

An article from Al Jazeera.

 

[CapelDodger]

So, it seems that the best evidence available indicates that the election results may actually be legitimate?

I think the best evidence comes from the actual election. This survey was done three weeks before, when there was general apathy amongst Mousavi's natural supporters. That was dispelled by the TV debate in which A'jad made a complete arse of himself. The evidence for that is in the turnout.

The country-wide survey (I haven't seen any of the details in it) fails to explain why A'jad apparently performed so well in districts which are clearly Mousavi territory, particularly in Tehran. The similarity of the returns across a disparate society are strong evidence of a blunt instrument being wielded.

There are other more general reasons to find the returns less than credible. A'jad has not performed well in his first term, particularly not on the economic front - and it is about the economy, stupid. The rural poor may adore him as one of their own but the proletariat don't, and they have to be frustrated. Then there's the inexorable demographic change which has increased the proportion of young voters. A'jad may be popular with some of that electorate, but he's clearly not as popular as he is with the pre-Revolutionary and wartime generations.

There was a low turn-out four years ago largely, it seemed, because of boycotts and cynicism. Khatami was unable to achieve anything, so why legitimise a fake democracy by participating? That attitude wasn't present this time.

And yet A'jad is supposed to have done better this time than four years ago. It beggars belief, frankly.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is a rather ahistorical perspective. The threat of war with the west was a constant for the Soviet Union. And in fact, because war with the west could easily turn nuclear, the threat of large sections of the populace getting killed directly as a result of any war was significantly higher for the USSR than for Iran. There was rather more reason to tread lightly in regards to statements about the USSR than there is about Iran.

That doesn't follow. You're saying that the USSR's fear of war with the West was a reason why the West should speak softly.

After Cuba there was no serious threat of war between NATO and the USSR. A threat was certainly talked-up by both sides, but they had their reasons. Both served as a perfect foil for each other - just as Ahmadinejad and Netenyahu do today.

I don't agree. As China demonstrates, the communists could have relaxed economic control without loosening their grip on political control.

China and the USSR are not comparable, despite both being termed communist. They were very different societies with very different histories and their own peculiar political and governmental systems.

The median age in Iran is 27 (compared to about 37 in the US). I don't think it's accurate to say that this is just students and not the masses. But it's not a revolution, or even an attempted revolution. Mousavi is part of the government.

I agree that it isn't a revolution, but it's a significant step in Iran's political evolution to a post-Revolutionary state. If nothing else it has pointed up the divisions and fractures within the system, and shown it not to be monolithic clerical dictatorship it's so often cracked-up to be.

 

[CapelDodger]

No I'm not. The "destruction" part of MAD was one of the reasons used to criticize Reagan for speaking out against the Soviet Union.

Was it? From what I recall Reagan's rhetoric was entirely expected and discounted. The thing which got people on edge over here was the positioning of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in Europe for no good reason that we could see apart from one (to keep nuclear war localised and well away from the US).

And yet, that happened. Why? Perhaps because the role of dissidents in affecting general opinion wasn't so irrelevant as you suggested.

"It's the economy, stupid". It's not the whining of intellectuals. The disintegration of most autocratic regimes is preceded by concessions which get out of hand.

 

[ddt]

Was it? From what I recall Reagan's rhetoric was entirely expected and discounted. The thing which got people on edge over here was the positioning of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in Europe for no good reason that we could see apart from one (to keep nuclear war localised and well away from the US).

Didn't Caspar Weinberger make remarks about the possibility of a restricted nuclear war?

"It's the economy, stupid". It's not the whining of intellectuals. The disintegration of most autocratic regimes is preceded by concessions which get out of hand.

Yep, people having no bread on the table (e.g., 1789, March 1917).

 

[CapelDodger]

Didn't Caspar Weinberger make remarks about the possibility of a restricted nuclear war?

There was all kinds of talk. CND grew like a mushroom.

Yep, people having no bread on the table (e.g., 1789, March 1917).

Concessions are forced when the situation clearly can't go on. It's often the crack that tears down the dyke. "Managed change" depends on managers. Oh dear ...

I find it remarkable how the Chinese government has managed change since the death of Mao. They still appear to be firmly in control.