Another Day of Rallies Planned;
Press, Internet Crackdowns Announced
Mir-Hosain Mousavi, leader of the reform faction in Iran who maintains that last Friday's elections was stolen, has rejected as inadequate the government's offer of a limited recount of ballots. Note that the head of the Guardianship Council, to which this task has been assigned, is Aytatollah Ahmad Jannati, a notorious hard liner and partisan supporter of Mahmound Ahmadinejad. The reformists want a whole new presidential campaign, saying that last Friday's process was a charade. The state authorities have rejected this demand.
The reform faction was planning further street protests on Wednesday despite the government's crackdown. Arrests of figures close to former president Mohammad Khatami are being reported. He had led the reform movement 1997-2005.
Foreign media is now being forbidden to cover the protests by the Iranian authorities, which means we will more and more be dependent on Iranian eyewitnesses (see the two postings below for events of the past two days). Many foreign journalists have been told to leave Iran. The Revolutionary Guards are also threatening an internet crackdown. LOL they don't know about P2P
Global Post challenges the allegation that the trouble is only in Tehran, the capital, with reports of crowds setting fire in metal trash bins in downtown Ahvaz.
CSM has an eyewitness account of a Basij civil militiaman firing into the crowd on Monday.
Alexander von Rosenbach makes some interesting observations here
Despite their stand that polling suggests an Ahmadinejad victory was plausible, Ballen and Doherty now also admit that reformist ideas were held by the vast majority of their respondents, including Ahmadinejad supporters. This finding puts paid to the stupid assertion by Richard Perle and David Frum that Iranian elections are between fanatical fundamentalists and extremely fanatical fundamentalists. (Why can Neoconservatives not see that they are themselves fanatical fundamentalists?)
Pictures of Tuesday's march for Mousavi are here.
Russia Today has video on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's offer of a limited recount of some ballots in last Friday's contested presidential election.
Aljazeera English examines Iran's power struggle. This report is an excellent guide to the major personalities in the struggle and the social forces they represent.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/17/2009 04:55:00 AM
|
Facebook
14 Comments:
Juan, how do you placate those of us who are still doubtful. This scenario does have the hallmarks of a CIA operation to overthrow an elected government, at least I think so from what I've read from many legitimate US writers who have outlined CIA operations in the past. And the Washington Post which I suspect is hated in Iraq by the hardliners and the reformists (Chris Matthews, not a definitive source, but one nevertheless called it "a neocon newspaper") is pushing some stories that say that pre-election polls say the vote was valid. And the NY Times, which has been more of a voice for dialogue with Iran is pushing stories that seem to validate election fraud. So the "trusted" US paper among Iranians (I suspect) (although I know their are still Judith Miller types still there and always were) is pushing the version you are.
But I was somewhat swayed by the "grandmother in Iran" story someone put up. So maybe the voters didn't vote for local candidates, much like the reasons that people who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 didn't in 2004 and 2008 and voted for one of the two major candidates. Your latest stories have been wildly enthusiastic which I perceive as almost a Mr. Hyde compared to your normal Dr. Jeckyll, at least that's how I've perceived your calm and analytical voice in the past.
I've read everything you've written, but I'm still not convinced totally. I suspect vote rigging but I'm not convinced enough to say that I'm sure. Can you do more analysis for the Thomas the doubters out here if I may be very bold (at least for an agnostic) and use a Christian term to outline how the skeptic in me feels.
This is quite amazing. Whether your logic (that people expressing a desire to vote for Ahmadi Nejad and reform is contradictory) works or not is quite irrelevant. The simple question to ask is what those wanting revolution ('reform' is too mild a term, they are rioting for revolution) will really get. Do you believe that any regime formed after this one goes, can be anything but a dictatorship? Can a minority govern without being a dictatorship?
Be honest Juan, they are a minority. They cannot be anything but a minority.
There is no way on Earth that the majority will be in favor of a revolution. Reform yes; not revolution. The Mullahs are not the Shah, and Iran is not a Prussian dictatorship. So, a revolution will not be able to sustain itself and will succumb to the counter-revolution.
In effect, you are not cheer leading the subversion of a government, but the subversion of a society, with its attendant slaughter.
You need to follow your advice, and recognize that you too are a fundamentalist like the neocons and the Mullahs; smug and self-righteous because of your beliefs, and prepared for ritual sacrifice at the altar of your exceptionalism.
It must be strange feeling for you to be so accused; but think back to how the neocons had to endure similar accusations when they were cheerleading upheaval in Iraq. Or do you believe the outcome here will be better, and Iranians will be showering you with plaudits in gratitude for your efforts?
JohD
The clip from Russia Today, from 0.16 to 0.23 uses footage from a pro-Ahmadinejad rally (obvious from the photos people are holding) and paints that as opposition protest. Have been noticing this slight of hand in a lot of news clips circulating around.
Your reporting is one sided. there is more news which is bieng hidden. Rafsanjani is a corrupt politicain who is spreading this. This is the good analysis
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/06/tehran-is-burning-but-who-is-fuelling-the-fires----based-on-opinion-polls-conducted-a-few-weeks-before-the-election-by-terr.html
It is a mistake to frame the struggles in Iran exclusively in terms of religion. The revolution in 1979 was probably more about removing Western political meddling than Islamic fundamentalism, and currently support for Ahmedinejad is fueled by the anti-Iranian, anti-Islamic attitude in the US.
I find it disconcerting that many images are appearing of Iranian youth holding signs in English reading "We Want Freedom," and the like.
Who are these signs supposed to be directed to? What will be the policy outcome in America if the media frames this revolt as a revolt for "freedom" against a tyrannous regime? I fear are being set up for another war.
Why is Mousavi labelled a "reformist" when he's in bed with Rafsanjani? Wasn't it Ahmadinejad who called for women to attend soccer games in Iran? Wasn't it Ahmadinejad who named names and accused high ranking figures of corruption? Who is the real reformist?
Please view the disturbing image in this video with caution. It contains brutal killing of a protester in Isfahan, Iran, yesterday or the day before.
http://blip.tv/file/2249806
Juan, why are you repeatedly implying Ballen and Doherty have somehow changed their position with regard to the elections, or that they are "now admitting" something?
From the beginning, their report has said that most Iranians, including Ahmadinejad supporters, support reform.
Their original report also allowed for the possibility of an Ahmadinejad blowout, though they said the numbers could not be automatically extrapolated to assume that would be the case.
I get the impression you haven't actually read the full report.
If my memory serves me, Ballen and Doherty sampled in April and then attribute the undecided proportional to the their numbers. Undecideds were the largest single group. At that point the race had not heated up and AN was getting an incumbency "name recognition" head start. Recall, the switch from Dean to Kerry from Iowa to NH, it was profound. The undecideds broke 4:1 for Kerry. Winds can change direction. Put those three things together and Ballen and Doherty's analysis is frivolous. A FAR better index of who voted what is the size of the demos. AN had some bussed in and photoshopped 40K. Mousavi had 2.5M. AN supposedly WON Tehran and 40K was all he could muster as a reply to 2.5M?!!!
"Despite their stand that polling suggests an Ahmadinejad victory was plausible, Ballen and Doherty now also admit that reformist ideas were held by the vast majority of their respondents, including Ahmadinejad supporters. "
Why is the word "despite" in there? Their poll suggested that Ahmadinejad might have won and it's also true that their poll shows that most Iranians want democratic freedoms. They are just reporting what their poll indicated.
I agree about the neocons, but then that bunch never gets anything right except by accident.
Donald
Richard Perle and David Frum can frame the current movement in Iran as "elections are between fanatical fundamentalists and extremely fanatical fundamentalists". If you add up the two the size of both side of the demonstration you see an almost all of Iran. Hence one can conclude that Neocons have no support in Iran.
The alleged electoral fraud is the trigger for these amazing street protests, but the underlying cause is the mullahs rule.
The 1978/9 protests started not to overthrow the Shah, but to demand more liberty from him. Confidence gradually rose to a level where the seemingly unthinkable (at the start) became both reasonable and necessary.
This time, the ruling group itself is split, and the memories of 1979 are already playing a major part.
I am predicting the collapse of the Fakih rule, and that the IRGC and other militias will switch (to the new regime) as the majority of the Shah's notorious forces did in 1979.
For days now, Western Media and even this web site have become mesmerized showing the protests, the violence, etc. All of this stems from the accusation of voter fraud, on a massive scale. If there was no voter fraud, then the primary excuse for the current crisis disappears.
I would think, therefore, that anyone interested in truth, would be investigating and printing how such a massive fraud could be put together. In my scouring of the news, I have failed to see any attempt at reconstructing the presumed crime. I have read nothing about how many voting stations there are. I have read nothing about how many vote tally locations there are, and what methods are used to tally the vote. I have read nothing about what procedures are used to limit voter fraud. All I have read is the presumption of crime on a massive scale, with no plausible description of how this massive crime could have occurred.
Seems like uninformed comment to me, and I'm truly disappointed.
Post a Comment
<< Home