Robert Dreyfuss, "Not the Change They Expected"

You mean, not the change WE wanted. It appears to me that the Iranian people have spoken.

Bring America Back !!!!..............Let us welcome Iran to our club of feaux-democracy.

**Eight years ago Al Gore won the popular vote in the USA, and a Republican Supreme Court put King George the Bush in Office, by denying a Vote recount in Fla.
That presented us with 8 full years of suffering, war crimes, and constitutional destruction.

**In our last election Americans voted for a big Change to supplant the DC Culture of Corruption, Big Oil Energy Ripoffs, Big Telecon Privacy Felonies, War Mongering on false Terrorism, and Big Runaway Healthcare Systems !
====NOt one promise kept; absolutely no Changes of the nature hoped for; instead the full blunt of a King George Third Term.

Welcome , Iran, to our USA Club of Disappointed Democracy. At least your guy has kept the Iranians out of War direct.

On his visits here, Achmadinejad directly denied making the statement about ..'wiping Israel off the face of the earth'....the prime Right Winger War Cry at present.

It is fact that he was quoting words from their Religious Leader The Aytollah who described Israel as a rogue state which took their lands from the Palestinians--and ergo, didn't belong there in the first place.

*In the Mainstream Media Zionist translations and interpretations, they pinned a false statement on Machmud about 'wiping them out'.

*Of course, our wartime MSM loves the false translation, and keeps publicizing the incindiary translation instead of the Truth. Sound familiar?

*We have just got to get a Progressive Candidate up and ready for the next election, who can prosper and win in a Progressive Party==Let us get Kucinich to change stripes and go Progressive.

Its amazing that reading many of these posts it seems that there are many here that don't seem to know how a dictatorship with the trappings of democracy works.

And what is being seen is the usual point where new generations become restive seeing the freedoms you enjoy as a matter of course.

I've never seen such a circle jerk of conspiracy theories aimed at doing little more than people convincing themselves that they're right about something. Have you actually bothered to look at any other news or watch any videos produced by actual Iranians in the street?

Just because guy A might be in the favor of the current US government doesn't make guy B any less of an idiot.

The demonstrations in Iran over the last couple of days have been legitimate uprisings over what has been seen on the gournd there as actual fraud :the banning of observers in polling stations, no reporting or transparency in voter counts, 50 percent voter increases across the board throughout different voting districts. Look outside the narrow prism for a change.

Just because you don't want to see your government use this situation as a pretext to launch an attack doesn't make the situation less real.

Would this be something like what we feel here where we are not finding the changes we expected from our past election?

Another pretty hard blow to the reality of any kind of a charade acted out as the reality of truth and equality of a government by, of and for the people of which americans have come to accept nowadays, otherwise it would be, 'damn the 2 parties, I will vote for a 3rd or 4th party' for congress and president.

Dreyfuss is practicing flamethrowing. He didn't even attempt to convey information. The wsws.org article provided by RichM shows the situation as not so simple. Ahmadinejad appears to have stood up to corruption during his term. Could Dreyfuss be bothered to outline the facts? Apparently not.

The article indicates that Ahmadinejad earned the popular vote such as "Broad layers of the country’s political and business establishment have become increasingly hostile to Ahmadinejad’s populist economic policies of keeping interest rates low and “squandering” the country’s oil wealth on handouts, particularly in rural areas."

"While he may make cosmetic changes, Mousavi’s agenda is to patch up relations with the US and to impose the burden of the economic crisis on working people—policies that will provoke opposition"

The USA wants Mousavi. USans ought to know by now they should support the opponent of the US elites in practically all cases. But USans voted elite candidates in their own elections so maybe they only want Iranians to enjoy a western type of fundamentalism ensuring plentiful supplies of Lexus SUVs.

"Dem-dat-dare June 13th, 2009 8:05 pm

clovis writes:
..."

I DO NOT think either of you are right about why or how Ahmadinejad was re-elected.

marzbanhagh's post, however, provides a certainly reasonable explanation for what happened. I can't, rather none of us is in a position sitting in North America to be able to say what really happened with the Iranian election, so I can't say if marzbanhagh is right. However, he or she definitely provided a very reasonable and credible explanation.

Peace.

The irony in most Western report is mirrored by a news `documentary` on a Japanese news network a few days before the Iranian election. In that show, an American diplomat/State Dept official (ex? not sure) was interviewed and she actually said that, contrary to most Western analysis/report, that the US would actually prefer to work with Ahmadenijad in diplomatic negotiations because he is a known factor, whereas Mousavi has still to articulate fully his position on US-Iran relations.

I do not follow the developments of Iranian politics/society or US-Iran relations much at all, so I can`t be sure whether these assertions were true, but it just struck me that what newspapers report and what some government officials really think about the situation are so diametrically opposed that I really wonder whether we all live on different planets/dimensions.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the problem with US-Iran relations has more to do with the US than the Iranians, as is commonly asserted by major Western news outlets.

Thanks.

"iowablackbird June 13th, 2009 7:45 pm

well mike, you're entitled to your opinion.

and feel free to skip the post if it's trivial (to you). the reason i posted the various leads (multiple story leads) was 2 fold. "

BIT LATE for skipping. If I questioned you on the value and purpose of the post, then I must've already read it; right?.

I accept and respect your explanation, although don't find anything special about the story or how it's reported. It's nothing new of "news" media.

Nonetheless, such posts can entertain. They lighten up world topics; but then the Iranian election isn't really important, except to Iranians. After all, it's not like the rest of the world is threatened by the Iranian government and military.

Otoh, perhaps if the main opponent for the presidency of Iran had won, then maybe he would've properly corrected Iranian government meddling in Iraq, where the Iranian government, which is Shi'ite, works with the Shi'ite puppet regime the U.S. basically installed in Iraq, all of which is an unjust situation for many Iraqis.

Would he have done that, though? I don't know the opponent except for the little read about him starting yesterday. If he wouldn't have done this for all Iraqis, then the Iranian election remains one that's rather only of importance to Iranians; since nothing good for Iraqis in general would come of either Iranian candidate winning.

If the main opponent to Ahmadinejad had won and had done as per above in the case of Iraq, then maybe he would've also gotten the Iranian government off of the backs of the Taliban, instead of having Iran continue to back up the U.S. and NATO in the totally criminal war on Afghanistan and Pakistan; blatant war in the northern part of Pakistan, but really more "in the works", too.

Now that would be an Iranian candidate I'd really care to see get the presidency in Iran; meeting these above criteria, as well as stopping the brutal and extreme punishments applied to people, Iranians anyway, who either haven't done anything wrong (like women being victims of rape, f.e.) or did something that is wrong according to law, but certainly nothing seriously or even really wrong (like trafficking hashish, f.e.). Not that the USA is any example to look to for how to run a justice system and society, but these extreme punishments in Iran still can't be justified in any terms, regardless of other governments also being hellishly wrong in their applications of law; mis-applications, that is.

How is Mr. Dreyfuss so sure it was rigged? Personally, I'd wait for more information before coming to such a conclusion. On the other hand, I am not surprised by the results: Iran has more poor people (likely Ahmadinejad voters) than upper-middle class city dwellers and students with dyed blond hair who see themselves as "westernized."

clovis writes:
"I wonder if any of the "unrest" in Iran in the wake of the election has anything to do with the secret operations the CIA and US military intelligence have been conducting there for some time. Funny how Dreyfus makes no mention of such operations, or of the likelihood that the U.S. fomenting and arming of opposition groups may have driven many to vote against the "moderate" candidate"

--> And don't discount the likelihood of the 'Cairo Effect' -- neo-potentate electioneer Oblabla ("The Iranian regime . . . challenges us across the region.") having come around to pontificate and annoy.

If we ever have a fair election system here, and if we ever stop our disgusting behind-the-scenes meddling in the elections of other nations, THEN we will be in a position to criticize.

But until then, the U.S. should just shut up about elections in the rest of the world. Our hypocrisy isn't fooling anyone.

"maxpayne June 13th, 2009 6:48 pm

It doesn't really matter who won the election in Iran. As long as the US and to some degree Europe are relying on oil from the Middle East, it's all the same."

NO! WRONG. It's NOT all the same. After all, it's definitely not "all the same" for the population of Iran, and they do count!

marzbanhagh June 13th, 2009 6:01 pm,

I appreciate and respect what you say, however for me to support either side while not the other is not something that can readily happen. After all, I'm aware of the fact that plenty of Iranians in the U.S. and Canada supported the psychopathic, insane, imperialistic, ... notion of the U.S. (and Israel) warring on Iran, the government there, but the U.S. doesn't war on governments without also warring on the whole of countries, either.

You don't seem, from your post, to be one of these above types of Iranians. I don't preceive any words of hatred in your post; only seeing your time to write the explanation that you presented and well enough, indeed.

I wouldn't be surprised if what you say is true, because if Ahmadi(nejad) is with the Ayatollah and his right-wing, extremist religious, capitalist, ... faction, then I suppose that ex-PM Mousavi isn't; but then maybe I'm mistaken about that, given I don't know anything about Mousavi before yesterday's reports on this Iranian election happening.

I'd be opposed to any and all persons who'd support or command extreme acts of punishment like happens in Iran and too many other countries, as well as the USA, which is hellbent criminal in its (mis-)application of law.

It doesn't really matter who won the election in Iran. As long as the US and to some degree Europe are relying on oil from the Middle East, it's all the same. Let's leave Iran alone and mind our own business and that includes withholding our taxpayer money from being sent to Israel. There's enough trouble here on the homeland even as we speak !

Obama June 4, 2008 (AIPAC):

"the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever."

"I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party."

"There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure. "

"The surest way to increase our leverage in the long term is to stop bankrolling the Iranian regime.

Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.

That is the CHANGE we need in our foreign policy. CHANGE that restores American power and influence. CHANGE accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike: that America maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security."

Well, at least he clearly spelled what CHANGE meant (and before the election BTW).

Is this the CHANGE you expected, Mr. Dreyfus?

I think I can clarify a few things about this election. I am not Ukranian, so I don't know what exactly happened there. But I am Iranian and I voted in this election. Mousavi has massive (and I mean massive) support in Iran. What media is focusing on is mostly claims of "irregularities". We are used to that in every Iranian election and by no means I am surprised. But when people support a candidate in Iran, they go in such massive numbers and vote for him, so that the margin cannot be covered by any rigging. This is how Khatami won his first term.

This time the same thing happened. As I hear, people in streets are taking head counts of who voted for mousavi versus Ahmadi and in any random sample it turns out that Mousavi received about 60 to 70%. The problem with result was not "irregularities" alone. Even with those, Mousavi won a large and clear margin. The problem is that electoral officers completely ignored people's votes and announced their own prefabricated results.

There are very convincing evidence of fabrication too. First, a few days before election, police announced they clamp down any protests by Mousavi supporters. If Mousavi is the most likely winner, why the hell would they make the assumption that his supporters have to be clamped down? (Unless they wanted to fabricate results.) Guardian troops also said they would not tolerate a revolution (translation: they would not tolerate Mousavi as president). The poll results announced for the first few cities (like Yazd) clearly showed a 60% majority for Mousavi, but the next reports consistently changed the numbers so that Ahmadi had a FIXED 70% majority, until the very last ones where they figured out they have to perturb numbers to make it look more realistic.

To conclude, what's happening in Iran now is not frustration of "soar losers", but frustration of "stripped winners". I hope everybody understands that and gives their support.

iowablackbird ,

What's the point of a post like the one you made? Who cares about what headline titles say when what people need to do is read the articles. I learned this after noticing enough times that titles sometimes contrast a little too much from what the associated articles actually said. In some cases, the titles were rather bogus, given what the articles or article bodies said.

However one thing I do see from the headline titles you listed is [demonization] of President Ahmadinejad and we still have morons and liars claiming that he had said that Israel should or must be "wiped off the map" when he never did say this; it was some crap journalist or "news" media that (apparently intentionally) mistranslated a few of his words.

I'm not impressed at all, otherwise, by the headlines you listed.

Even the headline from evidently AlJazeera that you included in your list, and saying evidently because it's the article excerpted in my prior post in this CD page; even it doesn't properly describe what the article says. The title of the piece reflects a little of what the article consists of, but not even half of the piece.

I wonder if any of the "unrest" in Iran in the wake of the election has anything to do with the secret operations the CIA and US military intelligence have been conducting there for some time. Funny how Dreyfus makes no mention of such operations, or of the likelihood that the U.S. fomenting and arming of opposition groups may have driven many to vote against the "moderate" candidate.

a sample of today's papers lead stories concerning the iranian election - notice the blase practical chinese-russian responses.

-------------------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Breaking news:

* Iran clashes follow disputed poll - PA
* Clashes erupt in Iran over disputed election - AP

Ahmadinejad wins Iran election by landslide
• Riot police clash with opposition supporters
• Challenger Mousavi claims fraud
+ Abbas Barzegar: Wishful thinking from Tehran
+ Henry Newman: Election mania turns to confusion
+ Masoud Golsorkhi: An election confiscated
+ In pictures: riots in Tehran after results

---------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/

- Ahmadinejad Re-Elected; Protests Flare
Riot Police Confront Crowds as Rival Denounces Results
By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI

- Memo From Tehran
Reverberations as Door Slams on Hopes of Change
By BILL KELLER

---------------------------------

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

Iran's Election Results Raises Questions Over Its Relations to U.S.

Some analysts believe the outcome of Iran's election could complicate President Obama's efforts to engage the country.

-------------------------------

Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/

- Ahmadinejad slams foreign media, calls election win
'great' - Unconfirmed reports say Mousavi arrested;
Iranian president urges public to respect vote amid
Teheran riots; cell phone service cut in capital.

- World cautious on Ahmadinejad's win
Clinton hopes outcome reflects "genuine will" of voters;
Assad and Chavez congratulate victor.

-----------------------------------
http://english.aljazeera.net/

Poll results prompt Iran protests

President praises "great victory"
amid demonstrations over his election win.

- Mousavi sees election hopes dashed
- Iran poll result 'harms US hopes'
- Iran: A female voter's perspective
- Video: Exclusive Mousavi interview
- Iran's presidential candidates
- The Iranian political system

----------------------------------------
voice of russia
http://www.ruvr.ru/index.php?lng=eng

MAIN TOPIC — Russia hopes Iran will refrain from building nuclear arsenals during Ahmadinejad’s second term as president Russia hopes Iran will refrain from building nuclear arsenals during Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s second term in office. A statement to that effect was made by Chairman of the parliamentary International Relations Committee Konstantin Kosachev. Under preliminary results of presidential vote in Iran on Friday, President Ahmadinejad is re-elected as president for another four years.

---------------------------------------
china's news service...

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

Ahmadinejad wins Iran's presidential election
Iran's incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won a landslide victory in the 10th presidential election, securing a second term of presidency for the next four years, Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said.

• Mousavi: obvious violations in presidential election
• Iran's supreme leader warns against provocative behavior

-----------------------------------------
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Tehran-tense-after-poll-results/articleshow/4652777.cms

Tehran tense after disputed election results

------------------------------------------

...peace...

I don't know that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is really right-wing, but he's working with the right-wing Ayatollah and his league of right-wingers; no doubt about the latter. He's basically nothing more than a figurehead, a puppet president, with the Ayatollah being C-in-C. I think Ahmadinejad would be a fine president, if he was a real one, instead of a puppet controlled by the Ayatollah and his right-wing "conservative" faction of Iranians. Pres. Ahmadinejad went to I believe Jordan where there was a spectacle, an arts type of presentation, with women on stage, and maybe wearing bathing suits, or maybe it was simply a bathing suits competition or modeling exhibition; and he was "whacked" by the Ayatollah and his right-wing ... faction for this. They rule; [not] him. But as long as he remains their puppet associate, he does and thereby develops the reputation of being like them, right-wing, etc.

Was the election rigged? The following article indicates that there possibly wasn't any rigging.

"Poll results prompt Iran protests", by AlJazeera.net, June 13, 2009

(url broken over two lines; unfortunately needing to do this due to ... a weird and limiting change at CD over the past few years)

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/
middleeast/2009/06/2009613172130303995.html

EXCERPT(S):

Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran in protest against the outcome of the country's elections, in the biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution.

Riot police were deployed in the capital on Saturday after about 3,000 supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist candidate, took to the streets following the announcement of his defeat by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.

The protests intensified following a televised speech by Ahmadinejad in which he said the vote had been "completely free" and the outcome was "a great victory" for Iran.

...

'Running battles'

Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili, reporting from Tehran, said major streets in the north of the city had come to a standstill.

"Coming up the street there were running battles happening between riot police and students and there were refuse bins alight in the middle of the road," he said.

"I saw riot police hitting students with sticks. I saw students - or young people - throwing stones at the riot police, trying to knock them off their motorcycles.

"But you didn't get a sense that there was any kind of organised movement in this."

...

Poll victory

...

But supporters of Ahmadinejad also took to the street following the announcement of his victory, waving Iranian flags and honking car horns in celebration of his winning a second, four-year term.

Mehran Kamrava, the director of the centre for international and regional studies, at Georgetown University's campus in Qatar, said that protests in northern Tehran were not necessarily an indication of a rigged ballot.

"The western media has been talking to people in north Tehran, who tend to vote overwhelmingly against Ahmadinejad," he told Al Jazeera.

"But let's not forget that many of the urban Iranians have priorities and proclivities that are not necessarily reflected in other areas of the main cities, and those people could easily have voted for Ahmadinejad.

"Iranian politics have proved themselves to be notoriously unpredictable and this could be one of those instances of unpredictability."

...

'Provocative behaviour'

Mousavi said that members of his election headquarters had been beaten "with batons, wooden sticks and electrical rods".

He also appealed directly to Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Iran's supreme leader, to intervene and stop what he said were violations of the law.

But Khameini appeared unlikely to intervene, calling on defeated candidates and their supporters to avoid "provocative behaviour".

...

Iran does not allow international election monitors.

END OF EXCERPT(S)

Evidence that it was rigged?

markpaddles writes:
"To me, Fisk represents what journalism SHOULD be, and Dreyfuss represents what corporate journalism is all about - reporting a story within the state/corporate framework."

Rrreally: on CNN, the talking heads seem PERSONALLY affronted not to have another happy-gas "change" story to broadcast.

Guess Oblabla's biiig pitch delivered the election to . . . the "wrong" crew.

Funny, that seems to have happened HERE, too . . .

Notice the difference between the two election day reports of Robert Dreyfuss and Robert Fisk (both posted on CD).

"Iranians Posed For Change" - Dreyfuss

"Divided Country United by the Spirit of Democracy." - Fisk

Dreyfuss seems to paint a picture that an overwhelming majority of Iranians are for Mousavi - which plays perfectly into his next article above. "Rigged elections", "Despair and bitterness."

Fisk seems to paint a much more balanced viewpoint of Iranian voters.

To me, Fisk represents what journalism SHOULD be, and Dreyfuss represents what corporate journalism is all about - reporting a story within the state/corporate framework.

We are dealing with cynical news analysis, cynical leaders in both the United States and Iran, cynical populations of voters. I say, who cares. Democracy, if it ever existed, is dead.

Like others , I am unwilling to accept the election RIGGED unless I read articles from sources that are not so closely tied to Western Governments.

I wonder how it is that the Governments of the Western nations and its media (A Media which assured as as example that Saddam Hussein a dire threat and had stockpiles of WMDS) have assumed the role of determining which elections are fair?

It also so very hard to understand how every election that sees a party the West wants come to power is deemed fair, and those that elect peoples the Western powers do not wish to see win is deemed rigged?

As others used as example see the so called "Color Revolutions" in eastern Europe. The more these are investigated., the more evidence of the hand of the CIA and NED is exposed in funding these "spontaneous revolutions".

Is this a replay of Iran and 1953 when Mossadeq was elected and our same Western media pilloried him?

It is just shocking to me how journalists label people and situations without any presentation of evidence whatsoever. Does the CIA run every single news center in the world? Sure seems like it. Funny how Ahmadinejad is called radical-right or populist, depending on who is doing the reporting and what they can get the most mileage out of.

In the days ahead, we'll be treated to unending charges of "stolen election" in the outraged US media. With a grim sort of doublethink comedy, NONE of today's "outraged" media outlets -- suddenly so sensitive to rigged elections -- said even a word when the 2000 US presidential election was stolen in broad daylight.

Currently, Richard Dreyfus is a repeated source on the Iranian election for CD, which, unsurprisingly is from the Nation. The next source: Guardian. I suppose we should be happy it's actually being reported on here as opposed to the lack luster coverage of the Lebanese election.

Note how the selections of articles for Lebanese election focus on the US relation, whereas the Iranian election focus on the failure of Democracy. Interesting depiction.

US directly and indirectly influenced the Lebanese elections, but this didn't happen in Iran? What border skirmish have been happening as of late? What focus do we see in msm reporting and what don't we see? What does Dreyfus focus on and not focus on?
...

There was an interesting use of color, the playing up of a revolution of politics, the sequestering of the "youth" vote, the marching mob in the streets. A specific campaign formula was evident something witnessed before. Interestingly, the connections were never talked about by MSM opeds like Dreyfus.

When reported over the last few weeks, there appeared to be an over abundance of opinion pieces on the (positive) significance of the younger voters in green. Western News coverage focused primarily in city hubs, reporting what was viewed "on the street".

"Was change coming?" queried the reporter. He mused, "one could only hope."....

The hype didn't match the return.

The title of this news item by Dreyfus is "Not the Change They Expected."

To whom is 'they' supposed to refer?

In formulating the title of his brief in this fashion, Drefys assumes that his potential readers know what he means, that his readers are, as it were, of one mind with him. What does such an assumption say about Dreyfus? Is that reporting? Or is it commiserating with a pal?

There are many very poor people in Iran, and, as is always the case when a society is strongly divided between haves and have-nots, there are way more poor people in Iran than well-to-do people. The indigent folks have been Ahmadinejad's constituency from the start, and there has been no indication that they were changing their minds about him. Given this state of affairs, is it surprising that Ahmadinejad was reelected?

One could thus also write a brief entitled "The Winner The Poor Expected."

The recent European election favored the right, so there may be something in the air in Iran too. Ahmadinejad may have been helped by the threats against Iran by the US and Israel, since people tend to lean to the right under threat of war or failing economy. Perhaps they just didn't want to 'change horses in mid-stream'? There are many explanations besides elections being rigged.

Notice how friendly these people are?

I don't want to do to Iran what we did to Iraq!

They don't hate us!

I am still not sure how the American elections of 2000 and 2004 were run or won or not won . . . I am not really excited about Iranian elections at this point, and I wonder why any other American would be. Elections in Iran are the business of Iranians. So who is right-wing? Ahmadinejad or Netanyahu? Or are they both right-wing? Perhaps they are both conservatives.

Can Mr. Dreyfuss and The Nation inform us how as to how can state the election was rigged with such categorical certainty? Is Mr. Dreyfuss fluent in Farsi?

Just Like late US and Mexican presidential elections, there are some suspicious aspects to the elections at this point. But, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad did have strong support among Iran's poor majority, while Mousavi's support was largely among the well-off urban classes of Tehran.

I guess I would have preferred Mousavi to win - assuming that his socially moderate views didn't also mean selling their sovereignty to the US/Israel/global corporations, but I find it odd to see The Nation jumping so vigorously on the Ahmadenijad-bashing wagon - or not so odd. I stopped my Nation subscription long ago.

Recall that Iran has a moderate president before - Khatami - with whom Clinton/Albright continued the hard line and blew a chance at improved relations with Iran.

Right.The reporting on this very important country is generally lousy in the US, but you can get some insights reading the UK and other European papers.Some kind of class split, or city vs. country split may be going on, but I would put my money on the city folks if this thing turns into a real crisis.Re: class in Iran. There's the peasantry, and there's the urban working class, whose interests typically are opposed. Then there's the sizeable middle class.But all of these groupings, in a country as large and complex as Iran, are going to have all kinds of groupings within groupings.I also get the impression that there are huge numbers of people from all classes who are just fed up with a bunch of very rich, very powerful clerics telling them how to run their lives. And let's not forget, Iran's population is very young.I doubt that the so-called 'orange revolution' in Ukraine, with its clear support from the US, is anything like what's happening here, but I could be wrong. Sreet demonstrations brought down the Shah; we'll see.

It would appear as if Ayatollah Khamenei has decided to "live with" his current buffoon for another term.

I'm still wondering who was backing Mousavi. This has the smell of the Ukraine all over it, and I'm not happy with the reporting so far. Still waiting on some more sober pieces that don't characterize Ahmedinejad as "radical right" or Mousavi as the next coming of Tom Paine. Neither seems particularly accurate.

The results also looked a bit like Venezuelas, in that the poor I think were underestimated and maintained their loyalty to the current regime for better or worse. This looked like a class split to me.

Hopefully someone can get this story sorted out.

Might this be the proverbial "final straw" for Israel and the US to invade?

To "protect democracy", of course . . .