Dueling Demonstrations in Tehran
Borzou Daragahi reports from Tehran that supporters of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came out in the tens of thousands to chant "Death to America," "Death to Israel," and "Khamenei is our Leader." This rally, called for 4 pm, was meant to upstage one scheduled at 5 pm by supporters of Mir-Hosain Mousavi. The latter crowd instead staged a small quiet march on Vali Asr Street in the north of the city. (Update: I'm told the Mousavi march was actually enormous.
Grand Ayatollah Hosain Montazeri, once thought likely to be Khomeini's successor, called for 3 days of mourning for the 12 demonstrators killed on Monday. Montazeri broke with the regime, rejecting an authoritarian interpretation of the 'guardianship of the jurisprudent' or mandatory clerical rule, and is under house arrest in Qom.
On the other hand, Ali Larijani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament who quit as Ahmadinejad's negotiator on nuclear issues because of the president's confrontational style, nevertheless rallied to his side on Tuesday.
I'd say that there are three factions: the hard liners, the pragmatic conservatives, and the reformists. Larijani is a hard liner, so what he said is not surprising. If the pragmatic conservatives continue to back Mousavi, however, that is a real challenge to the regime.
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/16/2009 11:38:00 AM
|
Facebook
30 Comments:
Larijani's playing a funny game. Publicly backing the official line, but also expressing sympathy for the univ. students. He's a canny one.
Still no solid evidence of electoral fraud.
Rafsanjani and his faction have enough resources to find, give voice to and protect any whistleblower in the huge conspiracy to ignore every single vote in the country and produce fabricated numbers. There are major establishment figures who have an interest in opposing Khamenei's conspiracy, if there was one.
No whistleblower has come forward yet, to my knowledge. Day 4 and counting.
Just maybe there was no massive conspiracy to ignore all of the votes.
The fact that the side that was deemed the loser is able to hold large rallies does not prove it won the most votes.
Thank you for your great service with this blog. I have been fascinated by Aljazeera's English site. There is a feature article about Netanyahu's speech-- hardly the most exciting news of the day-- video of Ahmadinejad's jingo-istic press conference and a bizarre apologist article blaming the problem on Mousavi for, if I understand, agreeing to the terms by which you get to run for president, then breaking those terms in the last few days of the campaign. Apparently, you have to agree not to bring up the idea of the separation of church and state (to put it in American terms) if you are allowed to run and in the last few days Mousavi gave some secular speeches. Oddly, this article does not claim the the election was not a fraud, only that Mousavi should not have crossed the line and spoken in favor of clerics getting out of the power business. I would love you assessment of the piece and some sort of discussion of how someone is allowed to run or not and whether Mousavi did in fact call for some sort of secular state in the last few days before the election. Mousavi is, apparently, not very popular with many reformers and would not seem to be the type of man that would directly challenge the state, unfortunately. All of this would help me understand how the masses react in the next few days and weeks. Mousavi himself is not, apparently, some sort of Mandela, no kind of Khatami even, sort a milk toast kind of patsy. Then did he make an inflamatory speech before the vote?
Thank you again for considering these issues.
Grand Ayatullah Montazeri has issued a statement supporting more peaceful protests, condemning the violence, and calling the election results into question, as has Hujjat al-Islam Mohsen Kadivar and Grand Ayatullah Yusuf Saanei.
Link
It seems to me that you would have to admit there are at least four groups here. The "reformist" category is far too vague in this case, because it has traditionally meant people who are content with the present form of government, but want certain key reforms. But the present movement has been joined by a lot of people who want a revolution, who want a total overhaul of the government. These are two very different perspectives. So how about four working categories: pragmatic conservative, hardliners, reformists, and revolutionaries--or something like that? The power of the present movement is that it combines all but the hardliners. But I doubt this can continue much longer. The significant differences are already starting to divide.
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/maryams-grandmother.html
June 15, 2009
Maryam's grandmother
"Conversation with Grandma after Iran’s elections" *
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
* http://southissouth.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/conversation-with-grandma-after-irans-elections/
Some 48 hours following the stress and distress of the Iranian election results, a chat with my most trusted news source for inter-Iranian affairs: my grandmother. The force of right-wing populism didn’t die with Bush the Second. (My translation from original Persian.)
What on earth is going on in Tehran?
It was pretty quiet until the election results came in. It’s true that everyone was riled up and engaged in shouting matches at the voting stations — your grandfather voted for Mousavi but it took him 2 or 3 tries, it was so crowded — but it was run fairly.
What about you?
Well, there were 180 candidates. I figured, why should only 4 be given a chance to run? I didn’t vote in this election. It was illegitimate in my eyes. You can be illegitimate and fair at the same time.
How did the debates affect the outcome of the election?
They had a huge effect. First of all, personally speaking, I’ve watched every single debate, talk and analysis in nearly every waking hour since this all started. I go to bed at 1am or 2 am most nights.
There was a before and after effect for a lot of people. Before the debates, Mousavi had a strong chance, at least in Tehran. But it was like a sea-change. After the debates, a lot of people who were going to vote for Mousavi came out for Ahmadinejad. A lot of people.
Why?
Because of Mousavi’s Rafsanjani connection. And you have to understand something. [Ahmadinejad] sways people. He says certain things — he says certain truths. He is not a thief. He is a horrible, horrible person, but he is not a thief. He says things directly.
So did Ahmadinejad rig the election? Did he steal 15 million votes?
He didn’t steal them. Yes, Mousavi won Tehran. But what about the provinces? We don’t have too few of them. Ahmadinejad went to the provinces and reached out to the poor. People there still worry about buttering their bread. He went to every single one.
But some candidates didn’t even win their own districts.
Yes. [Candidate] Rezai is from Ahvaz. But he barely won there. That tells you something about how the campaigns were run.
You have to be wackily smart to pull this off.
[Ahmadinejad]’s extremely smart. But fortunately not a thief. Iran is not Tehran, Tehran isn’t even the size of the eye of the needle.
Every single countryside, province, Ahmadinejad had them. He was self-made in this election, he worked for four years holding babies and making visits to the countryside. You could have predicted these results.
There’s some interior cities that I haven’t even heard of. Zarak or Darak or something like that? He’d already been there.
What about all the communication breakdowns? Internet and cell phones…
There’s a certain amount of communication break anytime there’s a huge event or disappointment like this: All the telephone calls made outside and inside the country shut down the lines. If there was foul play different ministries could be to blame. Ahmadinejad is not omnipotent. It’s not like he has the power to shut everything down. He’s too damn smart to do that anyway.
From the outside, Mousavi seemed very popular for the past few weeks.
But how would a country bumpkin (dehati) know Mousavi? Ahmadinejad worked on himself for four years. His cranium’s been working since the beginning. I was really shocked anyone voted for him four years ago. But this year I wasn’t surprised at all, he showed himself as an honest, simple person, as incredible as that seems. The television images of his house show him growing greenery (sabzi) and tending chickens in his house.
Chickens!
Am I the only one that wish Obama just shut up regarding the ME? He is now murdering (directly) people in at least 3 states there (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan), indirectly (via Israel) in Palestina and Lebanon and covertly in Iran. Not mentioning his support for rulers in such bastions of democracy as SA and Egypt. Really, he has no sham preaching (or even demanding)to Iran. But why prof. Cole does not see such hypocricity? Is the blood of people which are not Western favorites SO cheap?
Frankly I take exception to the term HARD-LINERS that you are using. What does it mean ? They represent the legal government.
When the Italian police killed in Genova a young demonstrator nobody called the Italian government hard-liner or extremist or for that matter fanatic ... and I don't believe it was overthrown (same for the Brazilian killed in the London underground or the violent police aggression during May 1st). It is frankly time to see things in proportion – New York anti-riot police is certainly more intimidating than its Teheran counterparts with or without its mopeds... If i don't err nobody in the media call New York police thugs...
The pro-Ahmenedejad rally did upstage the one of the opposition (indeed I saw it of PressTV – the streets were black of people). Furthermore when a president leave for an official trip abroad in the middle of so called riots I believe the fate of the opposition is sealed.
Last but not least ... it would be good to remember that at the time of the Shah overthrowing protests and various rallies were one-sided only which it is not the case right now.
As someone who is supportive of the Iranian reform movement, but wary of U.S. CIA involvement in it as a pretext for a future American/Israeli war against the regime, I was hoping you could answer the charges of Paul Craig Roberts over at Counterpunch, who dismisses recent events as CIA propaganda and who cites Pakistani radio claiming to have evidence of direct U.S. involvement in fomenting the protests. I don't know enough about Iran to have an opinion about his analysis, but you do.
I hope Ahmadinejad's supportors get to demonstrate as much as they want, and get all the media attention they deserve. These demonstrations can then be evidence to confirm that Ahmadinejad did have the support to win by his large margin; or evidence that his support is actually much weaker. Comparable time to pro-Ahmadinejad rallies alongside pro-Mousavi rallies would also give us a more complete picture of the national mood in Iran.
- Inkan1969
The post on Angry Arab presents no real evidence to back up her grandmother's assessment. In an earlier post, the blogger also mistakenly wrote that Mossadeq was overthrown in 1956...of course he was overthrown in 1953. She claims it was a typo, and fixed it once I pointed it out.
http://southissouth.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/on-the-question-of-voter-rigging-in-iran/
Mousavi's campaign was a two-way street, particularly in the final days. He rode the wave of Change that was bottom-up, rather than instigated major reforms himself.
There is a huge pent up demand for change among the youth and women in particular. They, like the Saudis, suffer at the hands of the hideous morality militias and see the corruption and ineptitude of the mullah rule everywhere around them.
The rest of the country aren't blind but their religious beliefs and the fear from the unknown are too strong. Many millions cannot afford to upset the status quo which supports or threatens them or their loved ones, directly or indirectly through the militias.
Dr. Cole, I would be interested to know what you think of this article in the Wash. Post, regarding some pre-election polling done in Iran.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
It strikes me that this is Ukraine all over again. Compared to 1953, this time they appear to have found internal supporters, voluntary or otherwise, in Rafsanjani and Mousavi to overthrow the government. The mainstream politically entrenched corporate media in the West have collectively waged a relentless propaganda campaign against the Iranian leadership (supported by a majority of common people) and are as much to 'blame' for the current unrest taking place in Tehran as are the dashed hopes of “millions of reformers.”
Even more problematic is what the left (and left leaning liberals) are supporting? Mousavi and his movement to re-define Iran into a toothless nationalist republic that are backed by some of the most corrupt elements of the Iranian establishment? And they are located in the most affluent areas of Tehran. Whereas Ahmadinejad’s support base is located in the heart of most cities, towns, villages, and working class districts. Wittingly (for the most part) and (a few) unwittingly, the “western” left is, in essence, siding with the elite, upper classes, against the working and under-privileged classes!
Uh Juan, I wish you would drop the Posch-like factionalism lines.... To call Ali Larijani a "hardliner" is quite unhelpful, (to put it mildly) simply based on a potentially misleading report about him backing A/N (or not). And it was extraordinary he's more prominently expressing concerns about the University.... Recall his brother Javad -- and while the brothers Larijani may be closer to social conservatives, on foreign policy matters, you might call them "pragmatist extraordinaires" -- of the Rafsanjani variety... on foreign policy matters to be sure. (go back to events in the late 1980's for starters) Think twice before tossing around the factional labels....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jun/15/iranian-elections
Updates from the UK's Guardian newspaper. A few interesting audio reports on there.
Perhaps worth remembering that this is what the US would be like if it were really a "Christian Nation".
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-developments.html
June 15, 2009
Iranian developments
Typically, I support neither side in the Iranian situation: but I support those Iranians who are struggling against both sides. I have worried before about the impact of Ahmadinajad's stupid rhetoric on the Iranian public attitudes toward the Palestinian question. I worried that in the long run it will move the public away from solidarity with the Palestinians. Of course, there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are approved by the US? The role of Faqih * in Iran undermines any claim of democracy in that country: but I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini. But Western media are always quick to pick villains and heroes: especially when one side is identified against Israel. I don't know whether the elections in Iran was stolen or not, and I would not be surprised if such a regime did that. But why do Western media express outrage over a stolen election in Iran when they don't even feign outrage over lack of elections in Saudi Arabia? So it is not about democracy or respecting the will of the people in any way.
* Jurist-Scholar
-- As'ad AbuKhalil
The obvious problem with comparing the size of counter protests, is Ahmadinejad supporters don't have much of a self motivated reason to mass in the streets, their side won the election. Generally, people protest when they feel their rights are being trampled upon. I don't remember Bush supporters holding mass rallies in the streets when he won two elections.
The pro-mousavi demo on Vali-Asr st. was not small at all. It was even bigger than yesterday's demo on Azadi st.
It is pretty amusing, Arnold Evans, that you seem to be giving the benefit of the doubt to Ahmadinejad.
You say no whistle blower has come out. That is false. Rather, there have been many reports of whistle blowers coming out and/or being arrested. Which of course should be subject to verification. The issue is, there is no way for that to happen, because Ahmadinejad has silenced all people who could hope to provide verification one way or another and expelled all foreign journalists who could relay such verification to us.
That's the central dynamic he's creating and you're quite willing to play into his hands. He creates a situation where it's impossible to know anything and puts out an official line. The official line is the only thing you give credence to; any other information is near impossible to get out and dribbles through in snippets and tweets. When we try to get a feel for the situation, supporters of Ahmadinejad denounce the undoubtedly unreliable information leaking out and expect us to accept the hardliner's line because it's the only one out there.
Larijani has not supported Ahmadinejad, how can you say that Prof. Cole?
He has in fact been critical of the violence and supported the students who were attacked and injured.
It would be useful if you would provide some citation or a link to show Larijani's support of Ahmadinejad.
What if Ahmadinejad actually won? Who will apologize for the mountains of US originated invective hurled at the man? Maybe David Letterman, with the experience he gained from the recent Sarah Palin episode, can be given the mission to make a lump sum apology for the few hundred thousand "guilty until proven innocent" pontificators.
Maybe the reason Obama is being so quiet is that the CIA told him Ahmadinejad won fairly. Of course such information would have to be withheld from the public under the State Secrets policy.
Does Jaun Cole remember that last year Bush approved $400 million for subversion activity CIA attacks on Iran?
First off, to those of you who think the election wasn't rigged, let me say the following:
I live in California, and for the past ten years, I've been actively involved in politics. And for every election, I go down to San Diego's Golden Hall, and watch the election results come in. In all that time, I have never, ever seen an election decided officially within two hours of the polls closing. Sure, exit polls have shown the winner, but never the official results. And California has a modern infrastructure and uses machines to count their ballots.
So, you're telling me that all the votes were counted BY HAND within the first two hours? It's just not possible. That's not to say that if the votes were counted, Ahmadenijad wouldn't have won, but its pretty clear some fraud was going on.
In the meantime, the question that I have is why. Why rig an election for what is largely an advisory position? Its not like Iran hasn't dealt with reformists before. And Mousavi is nowhere near the reformer that Khatami was. So, why make trouble? What am I not seeing here?
There is a potentially serious problem with supporting the theory of a stolen election. If you are wrong, you may be encouraging the minority to revolt against the majority. Convinced that the masses will cover their back, they may find themselves in serious jeopardy of life.
The internet may provide a new moral dilema here, agitators of revolution may be safe thousands of miles away, while the people on the ground may have the mistaken concept of more people in the trenches with them.
Ahmadinejad won. Get over it
By: Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
June 15, 2009
Some “Iran experts” argue that Mousavi’s Azeri background and “Azeri accent” mean that he was guaranteed to win Iran’s Azeri-majority provinces; since Ahmadinejad did better than Mousavi in these areas, fraud is the only possible explanation.
But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality.
With regard to electoral irregularities, the specific criticisms made by Mousavi — such as running out of ballot paper in some precincts and not keeping polls open long enough (even though polls stayed open for at least three hours after the announced closing time) — could not, in themselves, have tipped the outcome so clearly in Ahmadinejad’s favor.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
Very cogent points, As'ad AbuKhalil, and frankly, questions I wouldn't know to ask. Your meditation reveals the viscera of politics, as it were. But what is your point, really? This thing is happening and it isn't my doing, except as I live my daily life and buy groceries, and get on the internet. And it isn't your doing either, what?
As watchers, we see what we see.
What I am captured by is that we really don't know what is going to happen. Time isn't symmetrical, as a fellow university student once revealed to me. Sure, we can count on patterns repeating themselves, in an ultimate sense, but in certain instances we have to await what is next to know what patterns are emerging.
Sorry- you have shared much more specific knowledge, I am just intrigued by your critique of those of us in the West following these events. I can agree that it is dicey imagining a hero (as if it were the opposition leader) but really, I'll let you in on what is driving the fascination in the West. It is a "crush" on, not the leaders, but the people of Iran, and also, incredibly shiny technology...
-AJR
Thank you..
They don't have to count ALL THE VOTES by hand -- they only have to count a statistically significant portion to be able to declare a winner. That doesn't take a lot of time. Canada does it in a matter of hours.
here is confirmation that Larijani is not as described by Prof. Cole:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98645§ionid=351020101
On Iranian national (govt controlled) TV no less!
Larijani criticizes Guardian Council, IRIB
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:11:50 GMT
Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani
Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani suggests that some of the members in the Guardian Council have sided with a certain candidate in the June 12 presidential election.
Speaking live on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Saturday, the speaker said that "a majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election results are different than what was officially announced."
"The opinion of this majority should be respected and a line should be drawn between them and rioters and miscreants," he was quoted as saying by Khabaronline -- a website affiliated with him.
He was referring to rallies that have been held on a daily basis in Iran, since the announcement of the presidential election results last Friday, in which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with almost two thirds of the vote.
The president's main rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who according to the Interior Ministry has lost to Ahmadinejad even in the East-Azerbaijan province where he hails from, cried foul and described the election as a 'charade' -- a charge the president and his interior minister have denied.
Mousavi -- Iran's last prime minister -- has as a result called on the Guardian Council, the body that supervises the electoral process, to nullify Friday's vote and hold the election anew.
Larijani, however, believes that the Iranian people have lost their trust in the country's legal system. "Although the Guardian Council is made up of religious individuals I wish certain members would not side with a certain presidential candidate."
"The Guardian Council should use every possible means to build trust and convince the protesters that their complaints will be thoroughly looked into," the parliament speaker added.
Larijani who, was formerly in charge of IRIB, criticized the organization, saying that "the IRIB should not act in a way that provokes people."
The authorities should provide an atmosphere in which people feel free to express their opinion, he concluded
Post a Comment
<< Home