Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
- Are JPMorgan's Losses a Canary in a Coal Mine?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Not the Change They Expected
UPDATE
It's Saturday afternoon in Tehran, and the streets are generally quiet. But the aftermath of Iran's rigged election, in which radical-right President Ahmadinejad and his paramilitary backers were kept in office, has left Iran's capital steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness.
Last night, after the polls closed, heavily armed troops from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps were in evidence in the streets. In one area of north Teheran, where backers of opposition challenger and reformist ex-Prime Minister Mousavi are concentrated, I saw a convoy of at least fifteen military vehicles filled with armed guards idling along the side of the road. The street in front of the Interior Ministry, where votes are counted, is blocked and heavily guarded after rumors that Mousavi supporters might gather there to protest the election count.
Mousavi himself has pledged to fight the verdict, using words like "tyranny" and adding, "I will not surrender to this dangerous charade."
80 Comments so far
Show AllMight this be the proverbial "final straw" for Israel and the US to invade?
To "protect democracy", of course . . .
Not likely, but it could be the lull before the storm, a prelude to massive civil unrest, or even revolution.As the article suggests, stay tuned.
we tend to like massive civil unrest and often encourage it - probably are at this very moment - destabilization is a much better route to our desired ends than actual democracy.
Yes! The USA oh-so-loves civil unrest in other countries when it serves it's global corporate interests. But when we clamor for genuine democracy at home? Terrorists!
And from privileged-class liberals: "violence!"
Did they use Die-Bold voting machines?
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.
I agree totally with this cautious attitude towards the event. There is no reason to jump to any conclusion.
What justifies Dreyfus's use of the term 'rigged election'? Where is the evidence?
If Mousavi had won, would Dreyfus be speaking of a rigged election? Of course, not.
Indeed, Abendland: Where is Dreyfus's proof that this was a "rigged election"? And was Dreyfus so indignant in 2000 and 2004, when elections were stolen on his home turf, the terrible fruits of which still plague our world?
It is obvious there is a concerted Media Blitz in the USA to back the pipe wielding, arsonist rioters.
The USA is destabilizing Iran rather than Israel nuking Tehran.
Yes, it is certainly trying all it can to destabilize Iran, in keeping with its glorious history of interferring in the affairs of other nations (a policy that does not shy away from violence and murder, as we know).
Yeah, this guy Dreyfuss, maybe you can believe him, but...probably not. The majority of Iranians voted not so much for Ahmedinejad as against foreign meddling.
It would appear as if Ayatollah Khamenei has decided to "live with" his current buffoon for another term.
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.
I can understand the pro-democratic strains underneath all of this "analysis" of the election. My problem with that tack is simply that democracy isn't largely advanced if either candidate wins, so to me, that's the sign of a red herring. If it's a class/urban v rural split (which in many ways is the same thing traditionally), that's similar to the split during the previous Iranian revolution.
My question is simple: who benefits from a Mousavi victory or, just as importantly, an Ahmedinejad defeat?
I don't so easily dismiss the comparison to the Ukraine at the level of US backing, however. We do know that there are ongoing and have been persistant attempts to destabilize the regime from the US in a variety of ways. That said, I also don't think Mousavi is a CIA stooge, either, or the clerics would have iced him already.
What I do want is a decent report absent the loaded imperial language of the State Department, and the infantile analysis that goes with it. And I lump most of the mainstream European press into that same piece of coal when it comes to foreign policy.
Some good analysis whould be nice, but most of what's out there is people shouting past each other, pushing their own agendas.I doubt we're going to get much solid analysis, and frankly, I'm not at all certain what that would entail.Iran is an enigma wrapped inside a mystery, to misquote some one, and whatever happens there is pretty much up to the Iranians. The options of the West (i.e the US and Britain) to influence events are limited at the moment.If things start to come unglued, new opportunities will present themselves of course.
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.
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.
Notice how friendly these people are?
I don't want to do to Iran what we did to Iraq!
They don't hate us!
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.
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."
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.
Understandable confusion. I was also thinking of "Mr. Holland's Corporate Coup".
Understandable, perhaps, but not forgivable. Puuuuleae! We Americans are clueless.
Oh, get over yourself. A simple example of malapropism is hardly something to stand up on the table over. but hey, if you can take a shot, more power to you, I guess...clueless, nice.
heh. George Markley, the Snarky commenter. Snarky, Markley. I bet I could interchange those two words. There's where malapropism works out to be kind of funny.
Sorry to have tweeked your ire, chuk. The difference between Robert Dreyfus and Richard Dreyfus is pretty wide. The names may be similar, but the people are well known and very unalike. It's not malapropism, dear little chuk, it's common American laziness. It's similar to US citizens refusing to learn foreign languages. We are the most arrogant, lazy people in the world. Just ask anyone, as long as they are not from the United States.
At least I use my real name, chuk. Chuck the wuck. Chukie fucky.
Argh! malapropism!
As you know as well as anyone on here, Rich, democracy usually means code for the opening up of a society to mass consumption/resource exploitation provided by global corporations. Only the enemies of unrestricted profiteering steal elections.
This plays into Israel's war plans, and that's where the focus should be. Sooner or later, we're going to start aiming for someone else's "liberation".
And when I alluded to the Ukrainian situation above, I was largely focusing on that aspect of it: get your man elected, then absorb them into "NATO", thus increasing the reach of a global corporate ethos (such as it is).
aha! The Color/Flower Revolutions are showing signs of age. Freedom House efforts are still impacting the Baltic and Caspian Regions, trying to put the squeeze on CIS.
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.
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?
I am pretty sure that the US would prefer Ahmadinejad to someone who would be more 'reasonable' with the US. A subdued Iran makes it very difficult to justify our massive military complex and virtually our entire position in the Middle East -- from supplying Israel with its outrageous arsenal to our continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. All that would be left are a few thousand rag-tag terrorists. How could that possibly justify the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend? We have to have at least one somewhat credible nation state that has the potential to do us harm to pose as the required "threat".
I don't doubt for a second that virtually all elections are rigged. When there is so much at stake -- if there is any possible way to control the outcome, you know they will. NED, CIA -- but other countries, too. Remember, they are "multi-national" corporations. Who actually carries out the rigging is irrelevant. It is all in service to the same goal, the same elites. Seriously, what can you call our country's so-called "campaign finance system" other than an elaborate election-rigging scheme? Or more simply put - bribery?
Do you actually have hard eveidence for what you're saying, or are you just punting like everyone else, myself included?
Election integrity activists do some good investigating, reporting - you have to dig for it - MSM doesn't hardly touch it. Brad Blog is pretty good for US elections. Eva Golinger did a thorough investigation of NED actions to rig (unsuccessfully) the elections in Venezuela. Greg Palast also reports on it. It is not a profession of mine and I don't spend a lot of time keeping a handy bibliography, but it is all out there for anyone to see. There are a lot of books by ex-CIA agents who talk about what they did/do, and also for a brief time under Clinton, some CIA records were opened up. They are not very creative -- you see the exact same pattern happening in election after election. Vote rigging doesn't have to mean stuffing the ballot box -- it can mean disenfranchising people, smear campaigns (threats, false reports that you will be arrested if you have an outstanding ticket, etc., rigged polls that show a candidate as being ahead when they are not, etc.), rejecting ballots for pretty bogus reasons, and of course, electronic voting machines that can create any outcome you want with just a few lines of code. And there are tons of things that are "legal" that I would definitely classify as vote rigging. The fact that it is not against the law doesn't necessarily qualify it as "democratic".
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.
Good point. It doesn't seem like it should be so hard to achieve.
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.
Well, it *is* the Nation. There are few more devoted rags to the Democratic Party than that one. Sad state of affairs during the Van den Heuvel regime. Beware the herders of cats...
yeah... i tend to forget that I am usually just pointing out the obvious to all of the astute readers here on CD.
You got that one right.
Once a proud publication
destroyed by becoming a tool of the Dems.
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 . . .
Evidence that it was rigged?
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)
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 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.
Reasonable assumption to make, given the history of this country. But it backfired yet again.
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.
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.
1. to show the subtle differences in how the story was being portrayed by international news agencies as it was breaking.
2. to show the similarities in perspective - w/ the exception of the chinese news agencies take on the situation and voice of russia's take - 2 members of the security council. both countries have accepted the election results as a natural given.
also - i thought it was interesting that the nyt's, fox news and the jerusalem post all fomented skepticism.
take it for what it's worth, thanks for your input - enjoy your evening.
...peace...
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.
Thank you for presenting an IRANIAN perspective on the election. It carries a lot more weight than the comments of most of the American blowhards on this site.I don't think anyone really knows where this is going, but take care.
i agree w/ ricardohead, thank you for your comments.
...peace...