Taking sides in Iran

Excerpt:

Many in the Western news media clearly have taken sides, favoring the more urbane Mir-Hossein Mousavi and the green-clad demonstrators protesting the official election results that show Mousavi losing to Ahmadinejad by a 2-to-1 margin.

The media’s distaste for Ahmadinejad is palpable. A “news analysis” coauthored by New York Times executive editor Bill Keller opened up with an old joke about Ahmadinejad looking into a mirror and saying “male lice to the right, female lice to the left,” a reference to his rise from the street rather than from a prestigious university.

Now, the Times editors and other Western commentators are adopting the position of Mousavi in rejecting the notion of a vote recount by Iran’s Guardian Council, which oversees elections. The Mousavi camp is demanding instead an entirely new election.

“Even a full recount would be suspect,” the Times wrote in an editorial. “How could anyone be sure that the ballots were valid?”

But the resistance of Mousavi and his backers to a partial or complete recount suggests something else, that they may fear that the recounted results would show Ahmadinejad winning. Mousavi may hope for a better outcome in a new election, especially if Iran’s powerful clerics tilt their allegiance toward him.

Despite the vehemence of Mousavi’s supporters regarding what they say is his rightful victory, they have reason to doubt their certainty. Some of the complaints about the Iranian election have become legend, but crack under objective scrutiny.

The complaint, for instance, about the hasty claim of an Ahmadinejad victory ignores the fact that Mousavi was out with a declaration of his own victory shortly after the polls closed. The partial results showing Ahmadinejad in the lead followed hours later.

Another favorite notion – that Ahmadinejad could not have carried Azeri-dominated districts because Mousavi was an Azeri – was countered by the findings of an extensive nationwide poll conducted by U.S. experts in mid-May showing Azeris favoring Ahmadinejad by about 2-to-1.

The poll – described in a Washington Post op-ed by two of its administrators, Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty – also noted that some of the high-tech methods of communication that have been central to the Mousavi demonstrations in Tehran are not widespread throughout the country, with only 1 in 3 Iranians having access to the Internet.

Ballen and Doherty also discovered that – contrary to widespread Western impressions – Iranian youth overwhelmingly favored Ahmadinejad, that the “18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.”

Generally speaking, Mousavi’s support was concentrated among the urban middle class and the well-educated while Ahmadinejad was more the candidate of the poor – of which there are many in Iran. They have benefited from government largesse in food and other programs, and they tend to listen to the conservative clerics in the mosques.

Ahmadinejad also is viewed as less corrupt than many of his political rivals, the likes of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani who has parlayed his political/religious standing into a vast personal fortune.

Indeed, Ahmadinejad may have scored some important political points in the closing days of the campaign by tying Mousavi to Rafsanjani, whose wealth and power make him a figure of disdain and distrust among many of Iran’s working-class and poor."

This has gone beyond the election results. Though Mousavi claimed he was willing to become a martyr for the cause, I wonder if he really realized how things were going to go down.

I think the day it really went beyond just the election was yesterday. The supreme leader's authority has been challenged by the people in many huge ways and the people defied all of the laws he set down. Now not just the presidency of Iran, but Iran's entire system is being brought into question.

Neda's death affected things as well, many bloggers and people on Twitter are using the term "Neda's revolution" now. I guess we'll see how this all plays out...

"It has gone beyond the election results." I bet Bush would have loved to use that line. We in the US were deprived of a great president because so many didn't care for the election results. And I was out in the streets in THIS country calling for my president, and where was this media then? Where were all the people in this country who are twittering now?

I noticed also here and somewhere else you talk about how widely covered this has been compared to other events. I was wondering about that too and I'm thinking a lot of it has to do with information flow.

The was social media has worked it's way into our lives has profoundly changed communication and even the news. Twitter and Facebook are no longer just indulgences (though they can be very self indulgent) but sources for world information. The collective consciousness of awareness is instant on a site like Twitter; the information flow is endless. The way in which it was used yesterday brought to light a lot of interesting applications...perhaps things would have been way different during that election (gore v bush) if the internet and social media had the type of presence then that they do today.

Somehow the people in Iran managed to get a lot of info out despite media blackout. Unfortunately as this article points out the poorer people in any country don't have the capability to spread information like that.

You mean "certain" entities and interests possibly also taking control of twitter to foment a protest frenzy without knowing the facts. Do you care that just maybe people are being "twittered" into going to their deaths without even knowing those facts? Do you have any real facts about the true results of this election? Many people have died since 2000 because we were too lazy, apathetic and politically polarized to get the facts and instead let the media cover it all up. And that truth most certainly did matter. Regardless of what technology there is or what it has or has not done, the facts are still primary if indeed you want real "Democracy," even if the results are inconvenient for you. And you can't state that you do believe in it if election results mean nothing to you. And that in this case is not stated by me because I am for or against any candidate in this. But as the author stated so well: If the Iranian people really did vote for Ahmadinejad – and Mousavi’s demonstrators are seeking to overturn the will of the majority – shouldn’t the New York Times and the Western news media be supporting efforts to get at the facts, rather than picking favorites and rooting for one side?

"You mean "certain" entities and interests possibly also taking control of twitter to foment a protest frenzy without knowing the facts. Do you care that just maybe people are being "twittered" into going to their deaths without even knowing those facts? Do you have any real facts about the true results of this election?"

How can someone be "twittered" into going to their death? No one was "foment[ing] a protest frenzy", we were sharing the information that was coming out of the area. Not all of the information from Twitter can be confirmed or should be considered trustworthy, but that doesn't make everything untrue. The Iranian people who went into the streets yesterday (and have been going into the streets all week) clearly believe in their cause.

The facts about the results of this election are highly disputed. This whole article rests on maybes and ifs. Also, the article says "that they would rather lay their bets on a new election than on a fair recount of the June 12 election"- but one problem is that people didn't think a 10% recount was fair.

"And you can't state that you do believe in it if election results mean nothing to you." I don't understand what you mean by this.

"Many people have died since 2000 because we were too lazy, apathetic and politically polarized to get the facts and instead let the media cover it all up." I don't understand what you mean by this either.

edit: here's an article in reference to "real facts" about the election: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6550345.ece

here's another: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98711&sectionid=351020101

excerpt:
Rezaei, along with Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, reported more than 646 'irregularities' in the electoral process and submitted their complaints to the body responsible for overseeing the election -- the Guardian Council.
Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of the people eligible to cast ballot in those areas."

Ahmandinejad has done for Iran what Dumb Ya did for America!

I think what I meant is pretty clear if you followed the previous elections in this country. But then you do seem more concerned with Iran's than your own. Which is part of my point that you didn't understand. And to clarify, I never stated there may not have been vote fraud, but again, the hypocrisy of people who will now be outraged if votes in 50 cities there exceeded the number of voters in comparison to the acceptance of it here is mindboggling.

Your opinion came thru loud and clear. I love how you equate wealth with intelligence. So very superior of you. There was a recount in Florida. In Iran the people were told not to protest and that the election results would not change. Big difference. So I hope all of these "dummies," can make it until the "smart," people can come up with a solution.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026690.php

~excerpts;

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi vowed Sunday night to keep up the protests, charging the June 12 election was a fraud....

The former prime minister, a longtime loyalist of the Islamic government, also called the Basij and military "our brothers" and "protectors of our revolution and regime." He may be trying to constrain his followers' demands before they pose a mortal threat to Iran's system of limited democracy constrained by Shiite clerics, who have ultimate authority....

More evidence for the fact that the choice between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is, as Pamela Geller memorably put it last week, "a battle between a wolf and a wolf in sheep's clothing."

Where does the information come from that U.S.' intelligence'?? agencies think ahmadinejad actually won?

The truth is in the numbers,....but whose tally?

jh66487 has provided a good resource.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers.html

I can't believe that I agree with jh64487, but I do, because he brought evidence that is clear and correct.

Back to President Obama.
I think that the Iranian government has already accused us of meddling into their private affairs.
Madjob (Ahmadinjad) has directly accused our country of interfering in the internal workings of Iran.
In that case, why be so nice to those killers who shoot their people just because they protest?

Mr. Obama should tell it like it is, because those murderers are already blaming us anyway. Therefore,
our president should let them have it right in the face and tell them directly, to keep their hands off of all those innocent Muslims who are right to protest that rigged, fake, criminal election.

That government hated us before and they still hate us, so why not tell them to stop violating human rights?

I think this entire conversation is irrelevant. It's time to cut through the bull$&^# and get down to brass tacks.

Point 1: The Iranian regime is not an ally, not even a neutral nation: it is an enemy of the United States, a state-sponsor of terrorism around the world, a supporter of other enemy nations, a nation that has trained and armed insurgents to enter Iraq and kill US soldiers, not to mention it's a holocaust denying bully that has directly threatened the very existence of Israel. So we should not treat them like we would Mexico, or Kenya, or Indonesia, where it makes sense to stay totally out of it. We have an interest in destabilizing the country.

Point 2: Ahmedinijad vs Mousavi: while Ahmedinijad has stated clearly his unwillingness to recognize the right of Israel to exist, Mousavi has said that he recognizes Israel. If that report was correct, he would likely be less of a threat to Mid-Eastern peace than Ahmedinijad. So again, anything we can do to turn up the heat on Ahmedinijad is good.

Point 3: It doesn't matter what actually happened in the elections; what matters is what the iranian people THINK happened in the elections, and more importantly, that the behavior of the regime AFTER the elections has crystalized their contempt for the regime, and that they are SICK TO DEATH of the Dictatorship. Does anyone here honestly think that the support Ahmedinijad received BEFORE his thugs killed Neda and the other protestors has NOT declined thanks to his brutal treatment of fellow Iranians? We should not wait to find out what happened, we should pounce while the opportunity is there. This is a chess game (which by the way, the Persians created), and they have shown that the only thing they worry about is utilizing every opportunity to hurt the USA and our interests.

Many of you guys here seem to think this is some sort of refereed boxing match, when in reality it is a no-holds-barred street fight. This is why liberals lose wars, and why tyrants mock presidents like Carter and Obama.

I guess Obama doesn't recognize that even the Iranians are entitled to basic human rights. Bush wouldn't take this shit from a dictator. I'm excited to hear Obama's excuse why he doesn't care.

I agree with jiminycricket. When those Muslim people can sing, "Death to the Islamic Republic," to me that means they understand how horrible it is to lose your freedom.
Certainly we remember that protest in England by a bunch of Islamic Republic lovers. Their sign said, "Freedom Go To Hell."
now, this is the exact opposite.
Great news!