View From Tehran

KT, Any news from Joe?

At the very least, hopefully this sends a message to the neo-conservatives here and in Israel that the majority of Iranian people want change and are not their enemy.

So, did anyone expect a new Democracy being born?

@kt,
You might wqant to adjust your link. I don't know who 'stumbleupon.com' is, but I'd prefer that they not sit between me and the 'Time.com' article.
.
Having said that, I want to second mmchampion's point. When we work hard to demonize countries without regard to the makeup of their contents, we engage in a common but avoidable evil.
.
There's no doubt that much of what went wrong at Abu Ghraib was due to the inability to separate out attiudes toward a regime from those towards its citizens.....

That is wack.

[...] View From Tehran – Swampland – TIME.com By Shakespeare in GA View From Tehran – Swampland – TIME.com [...]

[...] here and [...]

.
mmchampion Says:
Sunday, June 14, 2009 at 8:41 am
.
At the very least, hopefully this sends a message to the neo-conservatives here and in Israel that the majority of Iranian people want change and are not their enemy.

.
I'm going to guess that neo-cons here and in Israel are already certain that Iran is their enemy, and needs bombing. Preferably by the U.S., of course. So they're no doubt happy with the election result.
.
Here's some commentary on NYT coverage of Iran's nuclear program:
.
"As has been reported in previous reports, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran."
.
Okay, so much for Iran being in complete compliance with its NPT-related IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
.
...as a consequence of the deliberate refusal by Bush-Cheney-Bolton to allow the Brits-French-Germans to even acknowledge – much less accept — the March 23, 2005 confidential offer by the Iranians to go far beyond even the terms of the Additional Protocol in return for security guarantees by the Brits-French-Germans that Bush-Cheney-Bolton wouldn't be allowed do unto Iran what they had been allowed to do to Iraq, the Iranian Parliament not only refused to ratify the Additional Protocol, but directed Iranian authorities to henceforth comply strictly with only the provisions of the original NPT-related Safeguards Agreement.
.
Hence, ElBaradei's frequent lament that Iran is no longer implementing provisions of the Additional Protocol, including the "early provision of design information." Your quarrel, ElBaradei, is with Bush-Cheney-Bolton and the Brits-French-Germans, not the Iranians.

.
~

Thanks so much for linking to this report, KT.

This is as big as Tienanmen Square. Yes Twitter has to be taken with a grain of salt. At the same time though, it is providing leads for journalists to follow up on. Even in the glory days of foreign bureaus, when could you get real time live updates from the 10th largest city in Iran.
.
Perhaps this will be an indication of things to come.

Here's a report from Salon.com that seems to confirm the observations of Hahid Siamdoust.

Oh, and KT tell Joe not to write a book in Iran called General Election Colors about a feisty president who threw an election and is a bit loopy. They may get touchy about it.

Prof Cole makes the case that the situation does not significantly change the Obama Administration's Iran strategy.
.
One aspect driving Prof Cole's suspicions of fraud is this:

Nor is it plausible, as claimed, that Ahmadinejad won a majority of votes in the capital, Tehran, from which he hails.

, but this seems odd, given that Ahmadinejad is the former mayor of Tehran. Is it really that unlikely that a majority of Tehranis voted for him?

As the news unfolds we may end up having to the the changes neede in Iranian to the Iranians. The US has to get into the habit of dealing with the govt in Tehran even if its legitimacy is open to question. Our Western reporters have had lots of access to the opposition and much of the report reflects that. JK may have something to say about the rural vote.

KT: saw you on CNN. I don't watch State of the U most Sundays. I was struck by the people talking about health. Everyone was either the recipient of company or government paid health care. But there was no one on to talk about the public funding option. Instead of having lunch with three guests in various US locales perhaps King should sit down with three people without health care or who have had to go into bankruptcy over their bills. It may add another dimension to the discussion.

Extremely high youth turnout would suggest to me that Ahmadinejad would have a tough time winning a majority in Tehran. When you consider the economic woes on top of that, it's pretty incredible that he would win an urban center, even one he was mayor of before.
.
A plurality I can buy. The whole issue seems to be that they were too brazen. A controversial president in bad economic times does not win a 4 way race with 62% of the vote. This even tops the landslide LBJ had over Goldwater in 64 here in a two way race. If they claimed a 51 to 39 to 6 to 4 race, it could at least be barely plausible.
.
To suggest that Moussavi lost badly, in his own region, with his own ethnic group was just really dumb of them.

Oops: sorry: "to leave the changes needed in Iran to.."

I think I have decided that the race between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi would be like having a choice between Pat Robertson and Rick Warren and being very offended when the election was stolen by Mr. Goofy.
.
They did a dumb thing here. Moussavi would have extended the revolution, by putting a nicer faces and a few modern touches to it. Hubris...

Perhaps they're claiming the wide margin not to simply insure their victory but to make it unmistakenly clear to every observer that the 'elction' does not, in fact matter.....

Spectacular link. Front-lines journalism at its best. Thanks for passing it along, KT.
-
I think that the best case scenario is the regimes's loss of legitimacy among Iranians, and the worst-case scenario is Tiananmen II. The regime has as much to do with Islamic revolution as China does with Marxist revolution. They're a ruthless, cornered animal, unafraid of using force against its citizens. I don't see any way that the election is ever made to count.
-
I very much hope that I'm wrong.

Thus far, everyone appears to be drawing conclusions on mere hearsay and circumstantial evidence. While there certainly appears to be a great deal of confusion and questionable irregularities, I am hardly convinced by the emotional rhetoric of those engaging in violent rioting in the streets. Verifiable facts are nearly non-existent at this point. Allegations are all based on the expected outcome not conforming to the official outcome; overlooked, of course, is the fact that many Ahmadinejad supporters may well be hesitant to admit their votes during this period of unrest and violence; jamming of radio and tv signals and blocking of internet access, could simply be a misguided attempt to quell violent dissent, not to hide the truth, but to prevent false propaganda from inciting emotional responses from the youth.
.
I am not saying that any of this is accurate or verifiable in its own right, but we should at least consider these possibilities rather than make a leap to conclusions based on pure speculation and emotion. Calmer heads prevail...

Lets really examine this...
What would Khamenei have to gain by rigging this election? Considering that Iranian policy would be unaltered under a Mousavi victory as the President is simply the mouthpiece of the Ayatollah, why would Khamenei care who wins? In fact, it would easier for Iran if Mousavi were victorious, because he presents a softer image and thus lessens the capacity of the west to demonize Iran. Certainly it would problematic for Netanyahu to continue down his warmongering path with Mousavi representing Iran on the international stage. So, again, why would Khamenei engage in fraud to keep in power a man who is problematic for Iran's image?
.
Iran is a country where is is plausible that those speaking out would be shut down, as in the case of news outlets, but for propagating falsehoods, not for speaking the truth. In the US those who present falsehoods are ignored, it is those who speak the truth that are silenced or discredited. In Iran, those who speak the truth are generally allowed to, while those spreading rumors and lies are the targets of government censorship. It just doesn't make any sense if the allegations of rigging the election are true. It serves no purpose for Khamenei.

"In the US those who present falsehoods are ignored"
Not even close. Look at the legs the birth certificate, socialist ties and paling around with terrorists lies exhibited. They are not ignored, they become the news that drowns out serious debate. In 2004 we had a candidate that was awarded three Purple Hearts and a friend of Bush bankrolled the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. Kerry was portrayed as the one who was unpatriotic while a guy who skipped out on his natinal guard service and his five times deferred VP were portrayed as the patriotic ones. I think you got this one backwards. Off to work now.