We've gotten a ton of comment/exasperation at Mohammad of Vancouver's post yesterday, blaming Rafsanjani for stirring the pot in Tehran. Mohammad has promised a defense/elaboration of his analysis. Meantime, here is Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic Politics at the Korbel School at the University of Denver, who says Mohammad is ill-informed:
The totality of Iran's pro-democracy movement is saying this
election is a sham; from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi to
political dissident Akbar Ganji and from the popular reformist
theologian and human rights activist Mohsen Kadivar to the dissident
Grand Ayatullah Ali Montazeri. There are no dissenting voices here.
None. Zero. Zilch. To quote from Montazeri's recent public statement:
“no one in their right mind” could believe last week’s election results.
I'm
not going to get into a back and forth as whether Ahmadinejad "might"
have won. This assumes neutrality on behalf of the Guardian Council and
the Interior Ministry that ran this election. Both institutions
are bastions of control of the extreme Right inside Iran and are deeply
invested in preventing a reformist comeback.
Look at the crackdown that is under way in Iran as I write; the
beating of peaceful protesters; the mass arrest of reformist
leaders,the brutal assault by the right wing Baseej militias on
university students at Tehran U (and other universities) which Robert
Fisk called a "massacre". 120 professors immediately resigned as a result.
The latest news is that the 76 year old Ebrahim Yazdi, head of the
Freedom Movement of Iran and a long pro-democracy leader was "pulled
from his hospital bed" and thrown in jail today. Is this the way a regime that has conducted a free and fair election behaves?
The "roots of this crisis" have nothing to do with the antics of
Hashemi Rafsanjani. This is borderline conspiracy theory which
subtracts from our knowledge of recent events. Below are a few
links to share with your readers that give a more balanced view
on developments inside Iran.
"The totality of Iran's pro-democracy movement is saying this election is a sham; from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi to political dissident Akbar Ganji and from the popular reformist theologian and human rights activist Mohsen Kadivar to the dissident Grand Ayatullah Ali Montazeri."
I don't get it — how does this prove that there was electoral fraud? An academic assessment is just an assessment, nothing more, nothing less. And most of those listed are not even academics but activists or religious figures. For every religious figure claiming the election was rigged, there are a thousand claiming it was not. I am not sure what makes Montazeri stick out. I can see there is a lot of grasping at straws here, and no proof whatsoever about the "obvious" vote fraud. Also, as of yet, we have not heard any answer to the question of why the authorities would make the disparity in the vote count so huge as to be "unbelievable", when they could've secured Ahmadinejad a 51% or 55% victory.
"I'm not going to get into a back and forth as whether Ahmadinejad "might" have won. This assumes neutrality on behalf of the Guardian Council and the Interior Ministry that ran this election."
Well, if we're going to look at it that way, then what about Moussavi, was his application to run for Presidency not approved by the authorities??
"the beating of peaceful protesters"
There is no evidence that the beatings were/are unprovoked. There is however evidence that it IS in response to provocation and even violent attacks… e.g. attack on a Basij post engulfed by protesters, setting fire to Basij posts, beating up cops with batons, etc. All these have been documented in pictures and videos… not even the protesters themselves are making a secret that they looted stores and set alight buses, and rioted inside the universities, even assaulting students refusing to stop writing their exams and ripping Hijabs off women!!! Again, I am not making these up, these are either documented by pictures or proudly repeated by protesters themselves.
"the mass arrest of reformist leaders"
First of all, your lack of understanding shows in the way you refer to them — they are anything but "reformist". Mousavi himself was, in the 1980s, behind the execution of numerous leftist and reformist leaders and activists… has Mousavi all of a sudden become an angel simply because he has led these riots? Also, the rioters have been treated with kid gloves and the protests have been allowed to continue. No, not because the authorities of afraid of cracking down (remember Tianamen? it was also not a one-day event, and the escalation only came after many days). The fact that they have not cracked down is not proof that they are afraid to do so……. And if there had been any real crackdown, Mousavi would've been holed up in a prison cell the day the riots started.
"Is this the way a regime that has conducted a free and fair election behaves?"
Again, not sure what this "proves." It is ridiculous that you are judging the validity of election results based on the authorities' actions that are themselves reactions to thuggish assaults and riots. In no other country — certainly not in the west — would such riots be accepted to go on for long, and not only those responsible for the rioting, but also those leading the incitement (whether on the scene or behind the scenes) would be arrested..
""pulled from his hospital bed" and thrown in jail today"
You seem to be implying something about the arrest of the elderly/sick. What about Demjanjuk? Wasn't he arrested numerous times in none other than the "land of the free", dragged to immigraton/deportation center, released again, then dragged back again, and finally deported and thrown in jail in Germany?? All this on (possibly dubious) charges of being a Nazi guard??
"The "roots of this crisis" have nothing to do with the antics of Hashemi Rafsanjani."
Actually, it does. I agree with Mohammad 100%.
One aspect of this issue is how much has the USA/Israel secretly interfered in Iran's domestic politics. I've already said, in terms of interference by asking Twitter to remain up, I view this as a good thing under the principle that more sunshine is always good. Now, I ask, what do you think about Israel's interference via AIPAC & minions on USA domestic politics? Check this out: link to original.antiwar.com
Great, so the Intense Debate stuff isn't working at the moment, so people start posting using the old TypePad comment facility…
Phil and Adam, this business of having two comment mechanisms, one of which attempts to hide the other (when it works), really isn't doing too well. The TypePad comment engine seems to be pretty weak due to its apparent inability to thread replies, which I would guess is part of why you installed Intense Debate in the first place; but Intense Debate is buggy as hell and sometimes doesn't work at all. Even when it does more or less work, sometimes it won't show me all the comments; it will say there are X replies to some comment but it will only display some lesser number.
TypePad's non-threaded comments are annoying but at least they work. I don't know what the ultimate solution to this problem is, but I don't think Intense Debate is it.
The reason Mondoweiss will fail to be for Iran what it has been for I/P & AIPAC: it lacks blogger/editors who are passionate about Iran, its people, its history, and who believe that the prevalent memes by which its news is being reported are deliberate distortions, engineered to hide crimes that are being committed, in the name of a group of people with whom the blogger/editors strongly identify.
Thank you Phil!
Good job, Phil, in permitting all voices to be heard. (Personally, I fear the Colorado professor uses the term "pro-democracy" to mean pro-Mousavi. He acts as if he is not aware that foreign forces are trying to subvert Iran, and that there are people inside of Iran willing to cooperate with them. He certainly seems confident that his view from Boulder is an accurate one. And is this Freedom Movement of Iran something we should respect? Where does its funding come from?)
Where does its funding come from? Enquiring Minds want to know.
It is far too early in the game to be labeling anything a conspiracy theory. None of us know what's going on. We know what we've been told. C'est tout.
"Where does its funding come from? Enquiring Minds want to know." where did A.N's funding come from? I think there are several underlying reasons why what is happening in Iran is consistently considered by Americans to be fake, despite all of the evidence to the contrary: 1. Superficial understanding of Iranian political system and society due 30 years of anti-Iranian propaganda. 2. Feelings of superiority from thinking that they understand what is "actually" going on and that their government has again fooled millions of poor third world people. 3. Being ashamed of their own recent history and pitiful response they had shown to their election being stolen, and not being able to bear the sight of a population they have little respect for, have the courage to do what Americans should have done at home.
Moussavi is not the hero that the west is seeking. Why does the west assume that whatever happens in the world is somehow indicative of how much the people over there want to be part of their clique? From the little that I do know about Iran, moussavi is not "pro-western." Or certainly not as much as the west would like him to be. If Moussavi is declared the winner, I seriously doubt that suddenly a great dialouge will take place between Iran, Israel and America. Neither will Iran give up its ambition to have nuclear energy for civilian use. I am personally happy to stan with the ppl protesting because they have the right to protest and vent their frustration at the lack of democracy and transparency in the country. Perhaps greater freedom will come out of it all. Or maybe the downfall of the theocratic government itself. And the professor who provided mondoweiss readers with these links seemed to come off a bit arrogant to me. He's assuming mondoweiss readers aren't well-read. I know of all those sites he mentioned and freequnt them, some more than others. How about providing us with more scholarly information? I think to understand this we have to have more knowledge about modern day irani history, the revolution and its current internal politics. Its very obvious from many of the articles that many people writing these don't have an in-depth knowledge of Iran.
The humble, humble President Ahmedinejad….what a guy The Fox News TV (USA) asked the Iranian President Ahmedinejad, 'When you look into the mirror in the morning what do you say to yourself'? He answered: I see the person in the mirror and tell him 'Remember' you are no more than a small servant, ahead of you today is the heavy responsibility, and that is to serve the Iranian nation'. Ahmedinejad, the Iranian President who astonished many when he first reached to the office of the Presidency by donating all the high valued Iranian carpets to one of the mosques in Tehran by replacing them with the low cost ordinary carpets. He observed that there was a huge extravagant lounge for receiving and welcoming the VIPs and he ordered it to be closed and asked the protocol office to arrange for an ordinary room only with wooden chairs. On many instances he joins the cleaning staff of the municipality for cleaning the streets in the area where his home and the Presidency are located. Under his authority whenever he appoints any minister to his post he gets a signed document from him with many points particularly highlighting that he shall remain poor and that his personal and his relatives accounts will be watched and the day he leaves the ministry shall be with dignity, and therefore it is not lawful for him or his relatives to take any advantage of his office. First of all he declared himself for all the 'Big' wealth and the property he owned was a Peugeot 504 car, model 1977, an old small house inherited from his father 40-years ago in one of the poorest zones in Tehran . His accounts with a zero balance and the only money comes in to his a/c was from his salary from the university as a lecturer with an amount of US$ 250 only. For your information the President still lives in that same house. This is all what he owns; the president of one of the world's important countries; strategically, economically, politically and with regard to its oil and defense. He even doesn't take his personal salary with the argument that all the wealth belongs to the nation and he is the safeguard over it. One of the things that impressed the staff at the presidency is the bag the President brings with him every day, which contains his breakfast; some sandwiches or bread with olive oil and cheese prepared by his wife and eats and enjoys it with all happiness. One of the other things he changed was his personal carrier 'the President's Aircraft' to a cargo aircraft in order to save the spending from the public treasury and he ordered that he will be flying with the ordinary airline in the economy class. He organizes meetings every now and then with all the ministers to know their activities and efficiency and he closed down the office of the Manager of the president and any minister can enter to his office without any permission. He also stopped the welcome ceremonies like the red carpet, the photo session or any personal advertisement or respect of any kind while visiting any place in the country. Whenever he has to stay in any of the hotels he asks them to make sure not to give him a room with any big bed because he doesn't like to sleep on beds but rather likes to sleep on the floor on a simple mattress with a blanket.. Refer to some of the attached photographs which also confirm the above. The Iranian president is sleeping in the guest room of his house after getting away from his special guards who follow him wherever he goes and photo is taken by his small brother according to the Wifaq Newspaper which published this photo and the next day the photo was published in most of the world's newspapers and magazines and particularly the Americans. During the prayer you can see that he is not sitting in the first row. And the final photo is of his dining room where the president is busy eating his simple meal.
Yazdi is an old opposition figure, and the Freedom Movement of Iran is an entirely domestic organization that's been around for many years — it's not a US front. There are plenty of US fronts to which I could point you, but Ibrahim Yazdi has unimpeachable credentials as an uncorrupted nationalist-secularist (although personally fairly religious) in the mould of Mossadegh. No cause for alarm there. I'm not a follower of Yazdi, by the way — like most I find him quaint and anachronistic in a way; but this only highlights the disgusting antics of the right wing in Iran in stooping to pulling the old man out of the hospital and dragging him back to prison (where's he's spent plenty a day).
Moussavi is just the figure-head for the protests. As I read somewhere (probably on this site actually) 'some of the protesters are using the election fraud to voice their more general frustrations over the regime. The only way for these people to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the state was to protest as part of the Moussavi camp.' The things is, the Iranian people deserve better than both Ahmedinejad and Moussavi/Rafsanjani – they deserve proper democrats. The fact that Moussavi was allowed by the Guardian council to run tells you that he isn't as liberal as the West thinks he is.
True Saleema, I do think the Mondoweiss readership has a better grasp than the average US reader, but it's difficult for those of us involved in this situation to presume the engagement of our audiences with the nuances of Iranian history and politics. I've been spending most of my time on Facebook (which I hardly used to use) where my Iranian friends and I are asking our non-Iranian friends to post questions of any sort. Even among our "milieu" I find a very wide range, many of whom have very weak knowledge (and many of these are even Arabs, Turks and others who have an interest in the region). Second, I fully agree that Mousavi is not a "pro-Western" leader, and I would also say that the protesters for the most part are not "revolutionary" but rather seeking a correction within the system of the Islamic Republic. Mousavi will be a much more difficult adversary for Israel, for example, than the buffoonery of Ahmadinejad.
Sure, Ahmadinejad's lack of personal corruption sets him aside from the elites in the region (including Israel) and has been a major factor in his support in and outside of Iran. I salute him for that aspect of his life. However, it's worth mentioning that Ahmadinejad's elite supporters in Iran are not free of corruption (many of those from the Revolutionary Guard Corps, who are big power base of his, have plundered and stolen huge sums from public projects, etc). At the same time, Mousavi himself is also totally uncorrupted. He too lives in a simple house, drives an old car, wears old suits, etc. In this sense you can't shine a light between the two. He has corrupt backers, to be certain, like Rafsanjani… but that's politics, my friend. So it's nice to romanticize Ahmadinejad, but we need to go further into his politics. He's dictatorial, nationalist in a very frightening way, repressive, small minded, unimaginative, and totally unresponsive to the public or to those with expertise in the areas over which he has oversight. He has tried to run Iran like a little neighborhood bully; handouts here and there from public funds, shaking his fist and beating up his opponents. He's a thug. Iran deserves much better. So does the region.
Thanks for continuing the debate, Phil and Adam… I must say I thought Mohammad of Vancouver's note was typical of a predicament on the left now, that has romanticised Ahmadinejad endlessly. I'm totally on board with Iran's non-alignment with "the West" and its right to nuclear technology, and its strong voice in critiquing Israel. But domestically Ahmadinejad is no bed of roses, not even for the poor that we're always told are his supporters. In fact Ahmadinejad does have fair support in the lower classes, but his backbone is from the bazaar — the conservative traditionalist middle and upper middle classes — and from the Revolutionary Guard and Basij. The Revolutionary Guard has transformed itself into a kind of mafia that has been skimming and stealing money from every sector of Iranian society, and there are some incredibly wealthy and corrupt figures therein. So the cookie-cutter division of rich=Mousavi, poor=Ahmadinejad is a fallacy, a huge one. Beyond this, the question of the vote having been rigged is accepted right across the political spectrum. Mohsen Rezaei, who ran as well, is a hard hard right winger, former head of the Revolutionary Guard. He also is screaming bloody murder about the vote. The rigging was so hamfisted and so obvious that this in and of itself has been a great cause of anger. It's as if they were so arrogant as to think that by obviously rigging the vote would have no effect, so total is their control over dissent. However, I'm really not certain how much the margins were shifted. Ahmadinejad was a strong candidate. Perhaps he was not due to win enough to win in the first round, but he certainly was neck-and-neck with Mousavi. I personally think that Ahmadinejad and his backers had expected to win, and when the numbers came in they were upset by the margins (even if he was ahead) and so just went ahead and cooked the books. The plan, such as it is, was to try to humiliate the opposition and to move ever more directly to a system where no meaningful opposition could exist. In this sense I do think Ahmadinejad is on course to trying to make Iran a cult-of-personality driven autocracy. Thus the protests are partially over the elections, but also driven by the wide awareness of diverse Iranians of the danger he poses to the country and its development.
What I think is obvious is that the internal undercurrents and tensions in Iran are being exploited by the foreign corporate media for their own interests… the neocons are piling on too. Reading through the Iranian cast of characters it is also obvious that America does not have a dog in this fight. Simply put, the situation is being used to weaken Obama's ME strategy. The question: qui bono? Answer: the usual suspects.
Exactly. I think what confuses people now is that the neocons have hijacked the discourse with their regime-change-that -makes-the-military-complex-happy tale: Bomb them into surrender. So suddenly a democracy movement is felt to have flowed out of their pens, is directed by them. I actually think the neocons would prefer Ahmadinejad. He acts exactly like they want him to. There is absolutely no doubt that there is much noise and gossip around now. Personally I am just as suspicious of the modestly and honest non-corruptible man Ahmadinejad as of the no doubt partly justified billionaire tale. That's simply part of the fight among the different camps. And yes, I am assuming Ahmadinejad's tale has been carefully constructed. If he hasn't been chosen exactly for his profile? The reformist movement had to choose someone wisely. But he was chosen only to represent a larger desire inside Iran. The religious leaders sent millions into the sure dead in their war against Iraq. Don't you think that is an issue for a very young society? Should they trust their leader to not send them into a war with the US? Were I one of them I wouldn't. Ahmadinejad is close to the leader, if I understand correctly. Now shouldn't we expect that he mirrors his views? Ahmadinejad was feeding the rage just as much as the neocons from their side of the power struggle. Don't you think Iranians can read and listen too? They, their family and friends will have to pay the price in dead, as disabled person, with their blood, just as the American side were it forced to feed soldiers into a war. The pro-Ahmadinejad fraction here basically suggest they should not have an influence on this. On Patrick Lang's blog I watched such an hyperventilating authoritarian with horror. He recommended among other things. The Mullahs should get all people from elite universities on their side, these were the future leaders. All other students were only rabble-rousers and should be shot. We have to understand that Moussavi is all they can get under these conditions. That doesn't mean they will follow him everywhere. And I think he is aware of this. If you look at Phil's traffic at Alexa, 10% come from Iran. It's in fact the second biggest group after the US with 60 something. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.philipweiss.org
Thus the protests are partially over the elections, but also driven by the wide awareness of diverse Iranians of the danger he poses to the country and its development. Thanks, Faris, it was confusing initially but that's what it felt very fast. I think it was healthy to watch hyperventilating Ahmadinejad supporters as "curious" on Patrick Lang's blog. I was absolutely baffled by the authoritarian strain that showed. Not very dissimilar to the neocons really. This is my gem: Student is the future, those who march in front rows from elite school will lead the nation one day. Work with them. They want better future, just like everybody else. Talk and invite them to work together. The idiot who burns stuff and go running around doing violance, usually from B and C school. detain them. Liquidate the ring leaders. Nobody will remember them. http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyranni...
I am not sure about this, David Seaton. The neocons as the hawks here don't have an interest in a precise and more subtle image of Iran. This is what the troubles surrounding the election riots brought automatically. Many questions were asked. The Iranian people from now on cannot be as easily judged via their leaders. I read statements like, why did none protest over here in 2001? Remember Florida? People start to think and to look closer. Let's see what problems the propaganda will encounter, like I read here, a new list of terrorism sponsored by Iran, including 911 by the way. At least it should leave traces in the media, and that in turn shapes American public opinion. Will they be able to pick up on the old perception management to paint Iran in black and white? Patrick Lang is still very worried that the drum beat against Iran can again gain momentum and that Americans could be tricked again into supporting another war. Really?
The U.S. is interfering in Iran. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/obama... "The Obama administration, while insisting it is not meddling in Iran, yesterday confirmed it had asked Twitter to remain open to help anti-government protesters. The company had planned a temporary shutdown to overhaul its service in the middle of the night on Monday but the US state department put in a request to postpone this. The New York Times last night identified the author of the request as Jared Cohen, a 27-year-old state department official. Twitter complied with the request, delaying its overhaul until last night."
You've summed it up perfectly
Kissinger said in the '70s if you control oil you can control countries. China is Iran's largest trading partner. China isn't happy about the U.S. $ being the reserve currency (they hold 900 billion and are currently dumping them buying up assets all around the world). They held talks with Russia about replacing the dollar in March. With Iran, China and Russia putting the squeeze on the $, the U.S. most certainly does have a dog in this fight, at least the money men think so.
I don't agree generally with your last paragraph. Mousavi himself doesn't seem to be as 'uncorrupted' as you declare either – I've read that his campaign planned the accusations of fraud and the subsequent rioting late in their campaign(and alot of it was NOT peaceful Mr. Weiss) and before the election(as well as his wife's apparent comments at a voting booth). It's also well known that millions of western dollars have been pumped into Iran to destablize the political process – so a fair proportion of this 'pro-democracy' movement can realistically be looked upon as paid for provocation. It was has been well known for years that there was discontent with the political process within Iran(particularly amongst the youth who object to the lack of civil liberties) – it's unfortunate, to me, that this election has been jumped upon by those who look to reform those internal issues. IMO this was the wrong wagon to get hitched on in terms of that goal. The reality is that powerful hostile powers are actively destabilizing Iran through the use of terrorist groups; probably funding opposing political parties and of course through the media (western and domestic). Two border nations are under military occupation and Iran is continuously threatened with war for having a perfectly legal nuclear program(it's nothing to do with nuclear weapons). There was likely some fraud in the Iranian election- it is seriously doubtful that it would have changed the election result. For me Ahmadinejad is the right man for the time. He is smarter than he is certainly give credit by you and most of the western criticisms of him are false i.e holocaust denial, threatening Israel, unnecessarily provocative etc. For the youth of Iran I think he is somewhat of an embarrassment, as seen through their western tinted eyes. The region certainly deserves better. And so does Iran. But that will come when these hostile powers stop their immoral war against the peoples of that region. But to expect these revolutionary changes to happen at this time is extremely short-sided in my humble opinion…
Wishful thinking should not be the framework for interpreting events. Just because the authorities reacted so devastatingly against protesters and the media does not mean that there was no possibility that the people had chosen Ahmadinejad. I wish we could get the 're'-count today but now it seems the fog of the post-election events might preclude an honest recount or resolution for the time being. And the point about "well, even if they chose Ahmadinejad the whole crop of choices was not democratic to begin with, and Iran is in the hold of the extreme right". Well, yes, definitely true although maybe 'right' is not the right term, but tell me is US democracy any better? Does anyone take Ralph Nader seriously? Does any candidate for US office, one who doesn't tow the corporate line and heed the 'guidance' of the powerful lobbies, have a chance of even having a campaign? Tell me the US is not, even today, in the hold of corporate interests and lobby groups? Of course that does not mean we let Iran's effed up democracy off the hook, but that we look at it with some perspective. Let's remain skeptical realists and try to understand what went on in this election from Iranian views, the entire spectrum thereof, and not listen to our friends the opposition liberals who may or may not live inside a bubble, before we call this a done deal of rigged elections.
Correction: In the last sentence I meant to say "and not listen ONLY to our friends the opposition liberals who may or may not live inside a bubble, before we call this a done deal of rigged elections."
Look that is not interference. That's giving them a chance to communicate. As long as the US does not shut down communications about issues shouldn't it allow it to others too? Young Iranians over here are non-stop on their PC's trying to figure out if there families are safe, so are their German partners, I spoke with. They are watching this carefully they want to know. Maybe I don't understand you. Is it the name of the young man? For which part of the world would the US shutdown have been their primetime? Do you have any evidence he did it for the wrong reason? The whole media people worldwide watched Twitter the moment they were prevented from doing their job. But maybe I don't understand.
Nonsense, Faris. Ebrahim Yazdi lived in the US for 20 years until the 1979 Revolution. I first became acquainted with Yazdi when I read an article in 'Penthouse' with Yazdi and Khoemeni being interviewed. I can't find the August 1979 article on the internet, however Yazdi's residence in the US while ostensibly acting as an opponent of the US's most important ally in the ME is suspicious to say the least. Yazdi's organizing activities began in North America, and if you look at his Wiki stub, he is credited with founding the Freedom Movement of Iran, Abroad chapter while a resident of the US in 1961, so it is disengenuous to suggest that the Freedom Movement of Iran is an 'entirely domestic organization'.
You make a very good point about Neo-cons poisoning the well. I, for one, immediately reject anything spoken by a neo-con. But, you know: sometimes they are right even if their motives are all wrong.
Another point: Sometimes the "least worst" is the best choice. My metric: Which leader makes it unlikely that the West will attack Iran. That's who I want to win.
Oh it's a Freedom Movement. Excuse me while I genuflect.
It also doesn't matter if it "helps" in the short term. The more Americans who see the beautiful people in Iran, the harder it is going to be to demonize the country. If only Iraqis were blogging in 2003…….
It is interference. You may call it positive interference but interference it is. "Is it the name of the young man?" "Is what the name of the young man?" Please explain yourself.
Thank you, ASN. It pains me to no end to see people like MRW, who can't read a word of Persian, sitting around making rampant speculation and then, on top of it, challenging the credentials of people who have the language skills, have studied Iran for years, and are themselves, god forbid, Iranian. If indeed, as MRW says, "none of us know what's going on," shouldn't you be a bit, um, quieter? And maybe let people who can actually decipher primary sources, like Nader Hashemi, do their jobs? It would be like sitting around watching a group of Iranians who don't speak a word of English (you'd have to go to a pretty remote village to find this), talking about America with authoritative condescension, claiming with confidence that America is, for example, just run by the Jews or something. Although you don't have to look far on Mondoweiss to see some people saying just that.
"Below are a few links to share with your readers that give a more balanced view on developments inside Iran." Funny how they didn't include any of the following reports: Reports of interest regardng Iran: The situation in Iran http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Elections http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Rafsanjani's gambit backfires http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** These are the birth pangs of Obama's new regional order http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Khamenei rides a storm in a tea cup http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Ahmadinejad tries to douse the flames http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Ahmadinejad won. Get over it http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Iran's enemies are circling http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Iran elections 2009 http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html **** Why the U.S. Wants to Delegitmize the Iranian Elections Are You Ready for War With a Demonized Iran? http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06162009.html
Moussavi is not the hero that the west is seeking. We don't want another hero. We just don't want another damn war for Israeli.
The U.S. deserves proper Democrats yet who in the U.S. and the west should be defining what a proper Democrat is to the rest of the world? And as Democrats do we have such a Democratic right?
more views: The CIA's Iranian Plan? Short video explores the possibility that the CIA is involved in Iran's recent election unrest. http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/06/grand-ayatul... Grand Ayatullahs Gulpaygani, Makarem Shirazi, & Arbadili Join Grand Ayatullahs Montazeri & Saanei http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/06/grand-ayatul...
… the left … has romanticised Ahmadinejad endlessly. This is not a criticism. Could you please explain what you mean by 'the left'?
"For me Ahmadinejad is the right man for the time" Correct me if I'm wrong, but from your comment it is apparent that you are not living in Iran. And so perhaps you should let Iranians decide who the 'right man for the time' is. And a President who calls a legal grassroots opposition exercising their constitutional rights 'weeds who will be forced to surrender'is not just an embarassment to Iran's youth, but to all Iranians. The audacity of sacrificing the dignity and rights of human beings in order to cheer on a tyrannical regime from afar is unbelievable.
Well quite frankly it is STUPID to think that whoever is elected in Iran will control what Zionist Israel or its blind Zionized supporters within the U. S. will do…
Very good and honest points…
this is a really overwrought topic posting. this guy seems like a pretty typical college professor i mean no offense but listing a bunch of "human rights" people immediately sets of alarm bells with me here is my two cents: when I see the iranian soccer team wearing green to show solidarity I'd say we have entered a new phase. my impression now is that the reformers, who were cynically used by mousavi and co to get votes/power have turned the tables on everyone mainly via TWitter. they have been having these rallies for years but they weren't covered by the medai and were thus, easy to put down. now unless the iranian governmetn wanted to look like absolute monsters, they have no choice but to let them go on which will lead to fundamental changes for the country. my hope is this "revolution" will be better managed than the ones in ukraine georgia and elsewhere where people risked life and limb protesting only to put incompetents in charge of a country who subsequently blow the whole thing. China I think might be ba better sort of template: stable but significant change
That is exactly the kind of intervention of which I approve, rather than using the local lunatic fringe to carry out idiotic bombings in some forlorn and pathetic attempt to sew enough instability to bring down the government.
fbid, from your lips to God's ears. I am honestly horrified at how many people here are afflicted with the disease of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I believe in a one-state, secular democratic solution in Palestine, I believe that the U.S. has been a horrendous imperialistic presence in the ME and should immediately withdraw all foreign military presences, I believe that Iran has every right to develop nuclear power free from all foreign intervention. I supported Mosaddeq and the Iranian revolution to overthrow a U.S. sponsored dictator, the Shah. And yet, I wholeheartedly oppose the new system of dictatorship called Velayat-e Faqih in Iran, and its charlatan of a President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and support the popular reform movement in Iran, that did not start last week, but has been going on practically since the beginning of the revolution. Mousavi and Karroubi are this weeks heroes, but this movement has had many others, from Batebi to Saeed Hajjarian to Akbar Ganji to hundreds of others, dead, or imprisoned. Is my stance somehow contradictory? Seeing some posts here, one would think so. Have some nuance, people. Try to imagine viewing this situation from the perspective of an *Iranian* progressive, not from an American one that is totally removed from the domestic situation in Iran and views everything from a foreign policy lens. The enemy of my enemy is very often just another enemy.
Beyond this, the question of the vote having been rigged is accepted right across the political spectrum. Mohsen Rezaei, who ran as well, is a hard hard right winger, former head of the Revolutionary Guard. He also is screaming bloody murder about the vote. The rigging was so hamfisted and so obvious that this in and of itself has been a great cause of anger. It's as if they were so arrogant as to think that by obviously rigging the vote would have no effect, so total is their control over dissent. Thanks for expressing this so well. This point is the core of the whole issue, and is also what makes it so amazing that anyone is trying to defend the honesty of the election results at all. As Montazeri says, no one in their right mind can believe the official vote counts. The situation is such that it is nearly certain that anyone who claims that Ahmadinejad really won 60+% of the vote is a dishonest partisan or an idiot (if not both). However, I'm really not certain how much the margins were shifted. Ahmadinejad was a strong candidate. Perhaps he was not due to win enough to win in the first round, but he certainly was neck-and-neck with Mousavi. I certainly don't think that Mousavi would have won a majority, but he would very likely have forced Ahmadinejad into a runoff. That in itself might have been viewed by A. and Khamenei as unacceptably contrary to the image of strength and solidarity that they want to project. Even the danger of Mousavi actually winning a runoff may be secondary to that.
I agree with Colin. Anytime any government wants to use its weight or leverage to interfere in behalf of more light in the room, I think that's totally in keeping with the USA's First Amendment–would only that we have more sunshine in all the purposefully small rooms where congressional committees meet, to for example, to show us how our foreign policy is made and implemented, the theme of another recent Mondoweiss article in this blog.
Amen.
Amen.
The main stream coverage of Iran's disputed presidential elections is receiving much greater, and graver, coverage than the disputed Mexican presidential election of a couple of years ago, which provides a bit of information about what the establishment wants people to think. Mexico's declared winner was pro-West, so was portrayed as legitimate by the media. Iran's declared winner is anti-Western hegemony, so is portrayed as illegitimate. The protesters in Iran resemble urban Americans; cell phones, internet access and tweets are the materiel of the world' s upper classes. What the protesters in Iran seem to want also resembles Western ideals of civil liberty; freedom of expression, right to assembly, freedom of religion, etc. are dear to the American body politic. Nevertheless, like the upper classes in the West, the upper classes in Iran have contempt for the poor and provincials of Iran, who are clearly the majority of people in that country. But, like so many other places, the poor of Iran do not have the capability of tweeting to their counterparts around the globe to broadcast their attitudes and political desires, so are treated as if they do not even exist by the West. If the Iranian poor are recognized, they are marginalized for being ignorant and culturally backward, thus delegitimizing their political voices. The poor of Iran have just as much of a right to be heard as the upper classes, but they do not have the economic wealth, sophistication and socio-economic ties to make themselves heard, which is probably one reason why they support someone like Ahmadinejad.
I guess there's no Hasbara talking points out yet on this issue–anyone else notice we've not heard from the usual hasbara messengers?
It is not at all impossible, and in fact it is likely, that in an honest count of the votes, Ahmadinejad would have come in first, but with less than a majority; it is unlikely that A. would have won a majority, and as more statistical analyses are done it becomes more and more certain that the official vote count was in fact tampered with. At this point the fact of tampering, and the damage done to democratic institutions by such dishonesty, is more important than the question of who would have won had the votes been counted honestly. One problem with a recount is that since it is clear that the first count was dishonest, it is difficult to prove that all the ballots still exist and have not been tampered with. A repeat election is really the best solution, though the question of how to prevent abuses from being repeated obviously needs to be addressed. International observers would be the best solution. American democracy is certainly not perfect, but at least we allow anyone who meets the basic legal criteria for the presidency (born an American citizen, at least age 35, etc.) to run for the office, to advertise, to speak publicly, etc. If a third-party candidate, or an outside-the-mainstream Republican like Ron Paul, isn't able to mount a credible challenge to the mainstream candidates, it's not because the government prevents them from doing so, but because they are unable to attract enough support. This in turn has a lot to do with the power of the media, which generally ignores minority candidates, and also a lot to do with the ignorance of the public, which gets back to the failures of our educational system, the decadence of our culture, and the fundamental contradictions of democracy itself.
Here's an analysis of the four options available now in Iran–which is most probable? I pick #4. Further, it seems to me in view of those options, Israel no longer has a cardboard fanatic to show as the face of Iran; this has to help Obama's POV on the Middle East. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,190...
Paul Craig Roberts raises an excellent point: Why would Iranians vote for Israel's candidate?
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all these Iranian Grand Ayatollahs are just stooges for the CIA.
ok. what will now happen to the poor hamas and hizballah idealists and peace-loving pacifists
*Bush makes deal with Iran to round up MEK terrorist group, dedicated to overthrowing Iran, and puts them in a camp in Iraq to keep them out of Iran *John Bolton, Perle & zio and neo crew march in DC rally to have the MEK taken off US terrorist list *CIA says Iran nuke plans given to US by Israel intelligence came from MEK operatives and " To quote from Montazeri's recent public statement: “no one in their right mind” could believe last week’s election results"……well some people who know more than you and I, whose business it is to kow more than you and I don't agree. I have watched the hysterics over this revolt and wondered if those who think we are seeing some kind of popular revolt, that just happens to made up of 99% young students are ever going tocatch on.. Read Stratfor intelligence..http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10298 and Leon Hadar on what this is actually about and get your head on straight. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10298 http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10298
They are stooges for the most monetarily powerful man in Iran Rafsanjani…And Rafsanjani is the most monetarily powerful man in Iran because of his business connections outside Iran that could very well have some link to the CIA….
Stevie – I'm afraid you're engaging in the very same romanticization that I was speaking of. The line about destroying Israel was mistranslated (and is still cited) but there is absolutely no way to say he is not a holocaust denier. And I have a high tolerance for critical views on all historical accounts, including those relating to the shoah, but there is a basic threshhold beyond which we have to term someone beyond the pale. To be certain, he plays around with this, for political purposes. But he has explicitly questioned whether the holocaust is not just a fabrication to justify the foundation of Israel. The worst thing is that this narrative totally misses the fact that Zionism precedes the holocaust, and that Europe had accepted a Jewish state before the holocaust even occurred. Beyond that you're not mentioning anything about the way in which he has degraded the very tenuous democratic aspecs of the Islamic Republic, and has brought an air of fear and repression to Iran worse than any since the Iran-Iraq war. People have good reason to seek a different path.
We are repeatedly told that the 'poor' (one giant faceless voiceless mass) supports Ahmadinejad. There is no proof of this beyond hearsay. I remind you that the worst protests and violence has actually been in Rasht and Ahvaz, neither of which are particularly affluent parts of Iran. I remind you that under Ahmadinejad's regime, labor unions have seen tremendous pressure (where is Mansour Osanlou today?). And I remind you that last year, Ahmadinejad postponed a visit to Kermanshah twice after MPs and local residents complained that the development projects he had promised during his first visit had never come through. I recommend you read this piece: http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/17/irans-rural-vo... before you speak on behalf of Iran's 'poor and provincials'. It at least has the credibility of first hand evidence.
(contd) Ahmadinejad's so-called humble and uncorrupt nature may have won him votes four years ago, but it is patronizing to pretend that the 'poor'have not felt the economic devestation of the past four years, or have forgotten because of potato handouts. It is downright condescending to pretend that 'civil liberty; freedom of expression, right to assembly, freedom of religion' are only the aspirations of the upper-classes. If you are purporting to stand in solidarity with someone, I recommend you stand behind them or beside them. They don't need you to speak down to them.
I'd be interested in knowing a bit more about the players and whether their private club contracts are owned by Rafsanjani & Sons before I place too much emphasis on the players' display of Green.
The poor of Iran do not have internet access, cell phones or Twitter accounts with which to make their voices heard. All of the news from Iran is from its upper classes and it resonates with the West's upper classes. Iran's poor are not being represented anywhere. I support no one faction in Iran, and prefer no Americans interfere with the political process there.
"However Yazdi's residence in the US while ostensibly acting as an opponent of the US's most important ally in the ME is suspicious to say the least." This is the type of thing that makes me suspicious–not necessarily of secret midnight meetings with the CIA, but of old-fashioned opportunism. All these patriots who chose to fight the good fight from the comfort of the West. (Remember Ahmed Chalabi?) I notice from the CNN article on Yazdi's arrest that his family lives in California. Nothing wrong about that, but it does suggest a less than total identification with the Iranian people.
Colin, I decided to ignore it. It's the most cherished stereotype on the American scene, both Ed and Richard share it with specific variations. Surely my heart beats on the left, but that doesn't mean I cannot agree with conservatives on certain issue. It simply boring to read again and again, but part of the larger left-right-fight I guess.
We have no idea who won that election. We can only watch. In any case we should applaud what is happening on the streets — significant numbers of people are rising up against their extreme right wing government. We can thank Obama for this change. This follows from what Bush offered the Iranians. During his reign he and Rice continually threatened the Iranian people with war. This provided Ahmedinijad with an external threat to consolidate his power. Those forces in Iran who opposed his repressive regime were paralyzed from engaging in political opposition. If they tried they would be immediately branded as tools of US imperialism. In fact many of these forces were Iranian nationalist who believed they had the right to develope nuclear power and would resist American and Israeli demands that they stop. So one may ask: how did Obama empower these forces in Iran to now oppose Ahmadinijad? Simple answer. His speech to the Iranian people a few months back, his speech in Cairo and his general statements that he wanted engagement and not war has convinced Iranians that today they can oppose the local antidemocratic forces without being considered lackeys of US imperialism.
I agree, and would also point out that the State Department's request may have had a positive effect on stability in Iran. If the schedule downtime had gone ahead its very likely that the Iranian Twitter users may have interpreted the shutdown as another form of censorship and this could have generated more false rumors and the possibility for more violence.
I love how people who can do a wiki search suddenly become so self-righteous as to begin with absolute statements, "nonsense!" I don't know you at all Marc, but your research's very thin. I'm Iranian, have studied Iranian politics and history, have lived and breathed this history for a long time and know plenty of these people either directly or through close contacts. So I have no need to refer to wiki stubs — you can look up what I'm saying in more authoritative venues if you bother to crack a few books. FMI was started in the US in opposition to the Shah — note it began in the 60s, when the Shah was in power and the US was an ally. Yazdi returned after the revolution along with Khomeini, but then split with him. He's since maintained his (as I said quaint) group as one of the few semi-tolerated opposition organizations. He's been thrown into jail from time to time, but most see him as a sort of elder statesman and even the hardliners can't find a reason to come down hard on him. FMI is now a domestic organization (actually FMI is pretty much just Yazdi and one or two other old timers), again there are plenty of State Dep't funded outfits (I'll give you a few names if you ask nicely) but FMI is not one of them. It's just plain silly to argue over this.
I am writing a response to this post for philip right now. mohammad from vancouver
(Replying to all) I certainly wouldn't say Montazeri is in the pocket of Rafsanjani… He's had a long history in the upper echelon of the Islamic Republic and I would go so far to say in my admittedly intermediate knowledge of Iranian modern history and politics, that he's out of Rafsanjani's sphere of influence. While I might agree that Rafsanjani is pulling the strings of many of the outspoken actors in this drama, it doesn't mean he controls one of the most respected, senior clerics in the country, a leader of the Islamic Revolution, who has managed to stay well-respected despite having publicly fallen out with his one-time best friend Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, due to his piety, credentials, and perceived incorruptibility. I don't know much about the other Ayatollahs Colin mentioned, other than Shirazi, but Montazeri has a long history in what could, I suppose, be crudely described as the "reformist" camp of the clerical establishment. His friendship with Supreme Leader Khomeini and dissent on many of Khomeini's choices and policies, when Montazeri was still involved in government, is well-documented. My feeling on American involvement in this most fascinating episode in modern Iranian history is that while I do indeed recognize the high likelihood that there was and is some level of State Department/CIA/NED/private interference, it's impossible that it permeates all strata of Iranian society and government as it pertains to these elections. The Iranian institutional establishment's hold on itself is far too strong, the players are far too unique and numerous with conflicting agendas and allegiances, and, to put it bluntly, the Islamic Republic's various foreign and domestic intelligence apparatuses are no joke. I'm not sure where exactly the connections between American involvement lie — perhaps in Rafsanjani, perhaps in Rafsanjani and Mousavi, and even in some other clerics — but I highly doubt this was American-orchestrated, but more American-assisted.
Well-said, tommy. To fbid: your article speaks only of one village; that's not to say I'm discounting it because it might ill-represent the true tide of the rural vote — I understand what the authors were trying to achieve in painting Bagh-e Iman as a microcosm of what a rural village might look like electorally speaking — but the article does not even mention the urban working class. Perhaps you have something from TehranBureau, or better yet, a more impartial source, that discusses the voting trends of the working class?
And that's kind of interesting, considering the claims we've heard about how all the allegedly Iranian Twitterers are actually Israeli propagandists trying to stir up trouble.
watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TlYJj62Ps4
I will certainly look, but my gripe with Tommy and everyone else who echoes this line that the poor support Ahmadinejad (a line that tommy backed away from in his second comment) is that it denies them agency. I just wanted to point out that they have significant interests at stake here, that likely influence their voting, but somehow, unlike every other voting constituency, they are portrayed as some sort of impenetratable black box. Over the course of Ahmadinejad's presidency, bus drivers, factory workers, and teachers have all gone on strike and faced awful repression. They have already risen up against regime injustice. We are watching hundreds of thousands on the street. I don't know if videos have to specifically focus on the street cleaners among them (who were on strike on Tuesday, and can indeed be seen on youtube) in order to dissuade people from repeating ad nauseum that these are just the upper classes.
What is being repeated ad nauseum by America's media is the people in the streets of Iran are protesting for freedom. A bourgeois form of freedom, not freedom from foreign interference in their nation's affairs or freedom from hunger or freedom from US and Israeli hegemony. Both types of freedom are important, but it is up to the Iranians themselves to sort out how they want them implemented in their society, not Americans or their president or oil companies.
I don't understand why everyone is shocked that Ahmadinejad could win. After all Bush was deeply unpopular in 2004, but still won, because of possibel fraud but also because enough voters thought that he was strongest on national security. It seems Ahmadinejad's mixture of populism and his hard-line foreign policy was reassuring to a majority of voters, if not 2/3rds. In addition, to those who think Mousavi's win would mean less likelihood of war, I doubt that. We keep forgetting that the Iranian president doesn't have broad powers. I doubt Mousavi, if seated, would have the mandate or means to reverse nuclear policy in a manner that would satisfy the U.S. or Israel. The only advantage would be that he would apparently be a more pleasing face at the negotiating table than Ahmadinejad.
Faris, I'll be polite, although that is not my inclinattion as this point. I beg you not to read any further as I wouldn't want to cloud your beautiful mind with my silliness. Some additional background on Ibrahim Yazdi, described by the 'Newsweek" Tehran bureau chief as one the 'reformers' apparently arrested by Iranian authorites. According to a 'Time' magazine interview with Yazdi of May 7, 1979, Yazdi was a US citizen and an employee of the US government, Veterans Administration, at the time of the revolution. The article further states that : Washington analysts see Yazdi as a bridge between Iran's Western-educated elite and the more conservative forces of religion and nationalism that made Iran's revolution. State Department officials recall that during the attack on the American embassy last February Yazdi's timely arrival on the scene settled the situation and possibly saved American lives.
BTW, your friend that you mentioned earlier, the one that scurries between Berlin and Washington, he's a tool, bought and paid for, he knows it and so does the parents of the children he aids in killing.
That's very true, fbid, that issues are more complex than mere class, and workers can't always be bought with potatoes and hollow promises. I would not be surprised if a sizable portion of Ahmadi's base in the working class had broken from him in this election and voted for some of the other candidates over economic representation and beneficiary issues. It's also true, however, that the Western media is largely ignoring the class issue in these elections and the subsequent protests, and that's saddening to me. We are watching hundreds of thousands on the street. I don't know if videos have to specifically focus on the street cleaners among them I don't know if you meant it to come across as such, but that sounded a little snarky. I won't harp on it, though. No doubt, we can't discount the meaningful realities behind the demonstrations and protests: regardless of how much money is behind Mousavi's campaign or the political clout of his backers, this particular campaign of his would be nothing without the millions of Iranian voters that follow him so loyally to the point of marching to the doorstep of Iranian power to express their outrage. That said, the loudest voice in the street doesn't always equal the majority voice.
The quotation was provided to Al Jazeera and the Washington Post by IRIB directly, an organization that publishes regularly in English.
The point is that is in fact constitutes interference because 'twitter' is a medium of communication available, for the most part, only to the upper economic strata in Iran. As far as I can decipher from the muddle of contradictory information, that class of voters would likely support Moussavi over Ahmedenijad.
Jared Cohen, is a very Jewish name. All I can see is that he did the right thing. Keep it open. I wouldn't call this interference but solidarity. Look, maybe I haven't recovered from my personal clashes with Ed/Chris Moore, one of the people here. I have to take care that I do not develop a post-traumatic stress disorder, and see his mindset everywhere. If I misread you, I am sorry. Basically it sounds from the link you give he took the initiative and plainly these are the people I like to work with. It's much more safe to not act according what you believe is the right thing to do, since it could cause you troubles. You could do the wrong thing from the perspective of some of your superiors.
No, no, that's not a friend, but a class mate of a close friend. I only met him once and it was an dislike on first sight. He is absolutely vain. But he tries to keep contact with my friend so every few years I have him on the phone or hear the latest tales about him.
absolutely not snarky, sorry if it came off that way as i fired off a thought. my point was that mass movements can't necessarily be broken into their component parts at this stage, but i wanted to make a point that there is at least one video that shows the social class everyone seems to be looking for.
The number of responses to the Iranian protest reveals what Huffingtonpost.com did to the responses to the Gaza War over Xmas: eliminate, destroy them. Illusory advocates. Phony democracy.
Sorry for the mistake.
I think my country uses nice words and ideas like democracy, human rights, tolerance, transparency, etc. to further an agenda of cultural/economic/military dominance. I think this is wrong, so I am extremely skeptical of any interference in other countries even if on the surface it is a positive.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Iranians did decide who the right man is. Your emotive response isn't very convincing either – you sound much like the zionists who claim that without seeing how wonderful Israel is from the inside that one could not possibly know the true Israel. That of course is pure nonsense. You have your opinion. I think it's garbage. Anything else?
"The CIA will also be allowed to supply communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet censorship by the clerical regime." This is a quote from an article in the Telegraph – May 2007. Shall we talk about that?
You are making a mistake.
I haven't said anything about it because I don't believe that to be true. At least not of Ahmadinejad – who has incorrectly become the poster boy for all that is wrong in the Islamic republic of Iran. Of course they have good reason. But until you are able to look at the bigger picture your views will be used to destroy Iran. That is the process taking place at the moment. Ignore that at your peril.
Well, we'll let them decide, right? Thusfar the opposition has done nothing unlawful, it has simply exercised it's constitutional rights. You can say whatever you want about my opinions. I am standing with every Iranian dissident that has risked much more then an insult on a comment forum. Their dignity and rights may be nothing but an emotion to you, but it obviously was worth more to them. If you want to reduce them to CIA agents or make some irrelevant allusion to Zionists – if you want to stand with the oppressors – that's your opinion, and you can imagine what I think of it. Nothing else.
Remarkable how you cite the Asia Times-articles of Bhadrakumar but leave out those of Pepe Escobar. Just as a supplement: Divine assessment vs people power http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak02... **** The meaning of the Tehran spring http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak02...