Ahmadinejad wins re-election

[a_unique_person]

We don't know who was responsible for election fraud. It could have been the mullahs, it could have been another faction, or some subfaction.

It doesn't matter, they were prepared to back it. The spontaneous demonstrations were about the demand for a vote, and asserting the importance of that right.

 

[Skeptic]

But I'm not sure that replacing Ahmadinejad with Mousavi is either legitimate or that much of an improvement.

If the protestors had FREELY chosen to Mousavi, of all Iranians, as their representative to the world, you'd certainly have a point about not supporting him. Mousavi has, indeed, a whole lot to answer for in terms of human rights.

But the all-important difference is that it was not the Iranian people, but the theocratic mullahs, who determined who can run in the first place. Mousavi is, therefore, supported not as the best, but as the best of those allowed to run -- that is, as Ahmadenijad's most bitter opponent. They're not voting for him, they're voting againt the Mullahs.

I am an Israeli. Mousavi help found Hizbullah (so much for the "group of local heroes fighting against evil zionist invasion" story, but I digress). But here I agree with Churchill who said, "If Hitler invaded hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons".

 

[marksman]

An interesting analysis, marksman, which may well be right. But if the choice between those two is the only thing we have, would you not in any case rather have the option which has come about by at least some semblance of democracy, rather than obvious massive election fraud?

Perhaps. But here's my dilemma:
On the one hand, I have Ahmadinejad, who is backed by the military and the Supreme Leader, who will hold power by virtue of force, and which exposes Iran for the brutal dictatorship it has always been. Or I have Mousavi, who is backed by the mullahs and the new aristocracy, who can lay claim to democratic mandate, but who in fact is simply perpetuating the carefully orchestrated rigged elections whose facade only briefly peeled away in the last weeks because the folks on top couldn't agree on whose victory to rig.

So you're asking me to choose between a despot we all know is a despot, or the figurehead of a behind-the-scenes despot, whose veneer of democracy is entirely fabricated.

I'm not so certain which choice is better. It's like saying, half the voters preferred actual crap to manufactured crap. That means we all get to eat crap!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's turning out to be a more Brit-Iranian dispute these days than a US-Iranian spat.

British Gov expels two Iranian diplomats after Iran does the same

BBC Persia must have really got up the Mullah's noses.

 

[dudalb]

It's turning out to be a more Brit-Iranian dispute these days than a US-Iranian spat.

British Gov expels two Iranian diplomats after Iran does the same

BBC Persia must have really got up the Mullah's noses.

I am a little worried that the Regime might be saving the US for a repeat of the 1979 playbook.....

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Well dudalb, here's hoping Khamenei gets outed by the fine US's Perez Hilton. If anything can bring down theocracy it's that.

 

[MattusMaximus]

So you're asking me to choose between a despot we all know is a despot, or the figurehead of a behind-the-scenes despot, whose veneer of democracy is entirely fabricated.

Nope. For many Iranians, it's now much bigger than that. After the "Supreme Leader" spouted off his nonsense last Friday, a lot of Iranians started to get pissed off at the entire cleric-led system. The mullahs have lost a lot of credibility in Iran, and that is a big deal there.

I think it's only a matter of time now. It may take months, it may take years, but I think the Iranian theocracy is doomed to failure.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I am a little worried that the Regime might be saving the US for a repeat of the 1979 playbook.....

I understand, and to some degree share, your concerns, but the Internet is still causing all kinds of problems for the Iranian theocracy. And unless they pull the plug completely, which will really wreck their economy even worse than it is now, it will continue to cause them troubles.

Besides, enough Iranians saw through the veneer of the theocracy in the last week that they'll not trust it much at all any more.

 

[marksman]

It may take months, it may take years, but I think the Iranian theocracy is doomed to failure.

If we're measuring success on a timeline to be measured in years, there are few systems that will withstand the process.

What has happened is Iran has gone from being a secret dictatorship to an open dictatorship, and there are mullahs poised to portray themselves as friends of the rebels (many mullahs back Mousavi) and thus keep the clericy in power no matter how this turns out.

To view this as a "clericy vs. the people" conflict is wrongheaded. The Supreme Leader is not the pope and he does not speak for all the mullahs. The Iranians understand that.

 

[dudalb]

I understand, and to some degree share, your concerns, but the Internet is still causing all kinds of problems for the Iranian theocracy. And unless they pull the plug completely, which will really wreck their economy even worse than it is now, it will continue to cause them troubles.

Besides, enough Iranians saw through the veneer of the theocracy in the last week that they'll not trust it much at all any more.

The danger is that fantatics, when cornered, often go into a Gotterdamerung mode.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Here's a good op-ed in the NYTimes from a reporter who is still in Iran. He outlines clearly why this is just the beginning of a wider revolution against the cleric-led system. Worth reading.

 

[marksman]

Um... that's not what he's saying at all. He doesn't term thsi as a "revolution" against the cleric-led system.

He accurately points out that the Supreme Leader has been demythified. He accurately points out that the faction holding the power is a triumvirate of the Basiji militia, the Iranian Armed Forces and the Supreme Leader (through his son).

Nowhere does he say that this is a revolt against the militia. in fact, Rafsanjani, who he accurately identifies as the leader of the opposing faction, himself has the title of "Ayatollah"!

I think people are watching this -- inaccurately -- as some sort of poetic overthrow of the Iranian Revolution with its own mirror counter-revolution. That's not what's happening. What we're seeing is a power play that could result in one side purging the other, or it devolving into a wider civil war between Khameini and Rafasnjani's factions. What we are not seeing is the beginning of a democratic or Western-style revolution. Perhaps, if the two factions beat each other into a bloody pulp, a democracy could emerge, but that is a remote possibility at best. More likely, we'd just witness a long period of anarchy, lawlessness and crime (and be very thankful it all went down before Iran got nukes).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

After the "Supreme Leader" spouted off his nonsense last Friday, a lot of Iranians started to get pissed off at the entire cleric-led system.

The opposition is not an anti-cleric movement.

Anti-Khameini is not the same thing as pro-secular. (Even before recent events, plenty of people never felt that Khameini really was the "Supreme Leader" the way Khomeini was.)

CNN headline from yesterday: Clerics join Iran's anti-government protest.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think people are watching this -- inaccurately -- as some sort of poetic overthrow of the Iranian Revolution with its own mirror counter-revolution. That's not what's happening. What we're seeing is a power play that could result in one side purging the other, or it devolving into a wider civil war between Khameini and Rafasnjani's factions. What we are not seeing is the beginning of a democratic or Western-style revolution. Perhaps, if the two factions beat each other into a bloody pulp, a democracy could emerge, but that is a remote possibility at best. More likely, we'd just witness a long period of anarchy, lawlessness and crime (and be very thankful it all went down before Iran got nukes).

Well said.

I think plenty of Westerners are looking at these protests through some sort of filter. There will not be a secular, democratic Iran that puts a high value on human rights any time soon.

At best there's a "reform" candidate who talked about making some small progress in an election campaign even though we know his roots and connection with Ayatollah Khomeini are strong and profound. At best, the opposition is the lesser evil.

 

[marksman]

I think plenty of Westerners are looking at these protests through some sort of filter.

To be fair, I think everybody looks at this through a filter.

For the West, Americans in particular, our last in-depth look at Iran was the Iranian Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis. So, we naturally try to put what's happening now in that perspective. "Oh, Iranians are protesting; it must be similar to the last Iranian protest I remember."

But other news outlets have their own filters. Al Jazeera, which, for obvious reasons, is prone to see Western machinations in pretty much every upheaval in the region, tends to credit fairly silly reports of CIA influence (see section called "CIA blamed"). Al Jazeera's filter is clearly a presumption of "It something bad is happening, it is likely the result of the legacy of Western Imperialism or the result of present Western interventionism". But that's the prejudice of those who still feel the sting of colonialism. (Al Jazeera -- which is mainly Sunni-sympathetic -- also loves to highlight any perceived schism amongst the Shi'a; sometimes it almost sounds like a gossip rag.)

Another interesting news filter is Israel's. Israel has been under a perceived threat of nuclear annihilation, so from their perspective, they view Iran as a crazy theocratic regime; now they see it as a crazy, unstable theocratic regime.

I'm not saying anybody is wrong or right. It's absolutely natural to see things through one's own filter. I'm sure I'm doing it too. But one should be cognizant of the bias, and try to concentrate on the facts being reported, rather than the gloss placed on the facts.

At best there's a "reform" candidate who talked about making some small progress in an election campaign even though we know his roots and connection with Ayatollah Khomeini are strong and profound. At best, the opposition is the lesser evil.

I think the label "reform" is misleading. I'm not even sure the opposition is the "lesser evil". There's something to be said for having a known figurehead in power (who also has the knack for alienating everybody else in the world) rather than a figurehead who can lay some claim to popular legitimacy (and who has some political savvy).

 

[mr rosewater]

Um... that's not what he's saying at all. He doesn't term thsi as a "revolution" against the cleric-led system.

He accurately points out that the Supreme Leader has been demythified. He accurately points out that the faction holding the power is a triumvirate of the Basiji militia, the Iranian Armed Forces and the Supreme Leader (through his son).

Nowhere does he say that this is a revolt against the militia. in fact, Rafsanjani, who he accurately identifies as the leader of the opposing faction, himself has the title of "Ayatollah"!

I think people are watching this -- inaccurately -- as some sort of poetic overthrow of the Iranian Revolution with its own mirror counter-revolution. That's not what's happening. What we're seeing is a power play that could result in one side purging the other, or it devolving into a wider civil war between Khameini and Rafasnjani's factions. What we are not seeing is the beginning of a democratic or Western-style revolution. Perhaps, if the two factions beat each other into a bloody pulp, a democracy could emerge, but that is a remote possibility at best. More likely, we'd just witness a long period of anarchy, lawlessness and crime (and be very thankful it all went down before Iran got nukes).

This needs to be saved , as it best reflects the reality of what we're witnessing. These young people are dying for nothing, as nothing will really change.

 

[FireGarden]

But other news outlets have their own filters. Al Jazeera, which, for obvious reasons, is prone to see Western machinations in pretty much every upheaval in the region, tends to credit fairly silly reports of CIA influence (see section called "CIA blamed"). Al Jazeera's filter is clearly a presumption of "It something bad is happening, it is likely the result of the legacy of Western Imperialism or the result of present Western interventionism". But that's the prejudice of those who still feel the sting of colonialism. (Al Jazeera -- which is mainly Sunni-sympathetic -- also loves to highlight any perceived schism amongst the Shi'a; sometimes it almost sounds like a gossip rag.)

Al-Jazeera reported that the CIA was blamed. Which part of the article did you read as al-Jazeera seeing these machinations? Their report seemed factual to me. The CIA has indeed been blamed.

Here's Reuters reporting the same accusation:
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc08/idUSTRE55N27920090624

Iran's interior minister on Wednesday accused U.S. spy agency the CIA of helping to fund "rioters," stepping up accusations of Western involvement in street unrest following the country's disputed election.

"Britain, America and the Zionist regime (Israel) were behind the recent unrest in Tehran," Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars News Agency.

"Many of the rioters were in contact with America, CIA and the MKO and are being fed by their financial resources," he said. The MKO (Mujahideen Khalq Organization) is an exiled Iranian opposition group.

Sadeq Mahsouli, Iran's interior minister, has accused the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of helping those who have taken part in the protests.

"Many of the rioters were in contact with America, CIA and the MKO and are being fed by their financial resources," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency. The MKO (Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) is an exiled Iranian opposition group.

Surely those are paraphrased from a common source. Al-Jazeera leaves out the reference to Britain and Israel.

 

[marksman]

Al-Jazeera reported that the CIA was blamed. Which part of the article did you read as al-Jazeera seeing these machinations?

An editor does not merely report each factoid that comes across its desk. They choose the facts they feel best reflect the facts on the ground as they are actually happening. That's exactly why we call it a "filter".

That Al Jazeera dutifully reports each and every allegation of CIA manipulation evidences the settings on their specific filter. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm not saying that it is accurate or inaccurate.

Similarly, that the West does not report each and every allegation of CIA manipulation indicates that they have a different filter -- one less likely to find such allegations sufficiently credible to be reported.

edited to add: I only gave one representative example of Al Jazeera reporting on CIA rumors. What do you think Al Jazeera's filter is? Or do you believe that have managed to maintain a filter-free reporting style with respect to what's happening in Iran?

 

[marksman]

This needs to be saved , as it best reflects the reality of what we're witnessing. These young people are dying for nothing, as nothing will really change.

Thanks for the kind words, but if you took that from my point, then I was unclear. I am not saying the protests are futile. The protests may succeed in changing the regime ("changing" being different from "toppling"). I am saying it is Western filters that see the protesters as necessarily a mass of people seeking democracy. Some may be, and see any change as movement and opportunity. Some may be fighting to get their own thug (Mousavi) in power. Some may be fighting to improve their standing in the order (the clerics probably fall in here). Some may be using this as an opportunity to settle a local score (you, local politician, support Ahmadinejad; I hate you; therefore I will join the protest against Ahmadinejad to take you down). Some may be protesting if only to convince the despots in charge to pay some heed to their wants.

They may be dying for nothing. They may be dying for something they care deeply enough to we willing to die for. But they are probably not dying for democracy.

 

[mr rosewater]

Thanks for the kind words, but if you took that from my point, then I was unclear. I am not saying the protests are futile. The protests may succeed in changing the regime ("changing" being different from "toppling"). I am saying it is Western filters that see the protesters as necessarily a mass of people seeking democracy. Some may be, and see any change as movement and opportunity. Some may be fighting to get their own thug (Mousavi) in power. Some may be fighting to improve their standing in the order (the clerics probably fall in here). Some may be using this as an opportunity to settle a local score (you, local politician, support Ahmadinejad; I hate you; therefore I will join the protest against Ahmadinejad to take you down). Some may be protesting if only to convince the despots in charge to pay some heed to their wants.

They may be dying for nothing. They may be dying for something they care deeply enough to we willing to die for. But they are probably not dying for democracy.

I think the majority want to keep the Islamic Republic. This is just a fight between two old beards, and everyone else are just pawns. I still think we kind of agree. Let me add that I think you and Darth have 20/20 vision, for Darth look here, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4843218#post4843218