Mohammad of Vancouver (a Canadian-Iranian) has relatives in the
streets of Tehran, but he says that Ahmadinejad likely won the election, and
the west, with its "warm ears" for Moussavi, is choosing to hear what it wants from the demonstrations. And Ayatollah Rafsanjani, the former Iranian president, has manipulated the
electoral crisis in Iran for his own gain.
Based on opinion polls conducted a few weeks before the election by
Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT), Ahmadinejad was expected to win with even a
larger margin than announced in the official vote. The polls were
reported both in the Huffington Post and the Guardian and had several
interesting findings. First, even if the majority of the
undecided votes went to the reformist camp, it was still highly likely
that Ahmadinejad could secure the 50% + 1 vote needed to avoid a
run-off.
Second,
more than half of the electorate had a neutral or favorable view of the
economic situation, and there was a relatively-even split between those
that felt who the president's economic policy positively contributed to
the reduction of inflation and the unemployment rate and those who did
not. Lastly, the vast majority of the Iranian electorate believe
that religious expertise is a very important attribute of a successful
president. While some may claim that bias or fear led to these results,
these same Iranians were not afraid to answer extremely-controversial
questions. For instance, a free press and free elections were seen as
important issues that the government must address– by pluralities of the
electorate sampled.
In the actual vote as announced, Ahmadinejad performed 7 points poorer than in the poll by TFT.
Based on my own conversations with people inside Iran who were acting
as election monitors, Ahmadinejad did well in the poor areas of Tehran,
as well as the rural areas in central Iran and the northeast region of
Khorasan and Mashhad. In the Facebook sphere, I am already seeing
skepticism among some Mousavi supporters who are not buying into the
whole “it is very obvious that the election was rigged” statement. The
idea that “the results just don't make sense” is absurd. Mousavi did
very well in Tehran, Yazd, Azarbaijan, and other ethnic-minority
regions that he capitalized on while campaigning.
Nate Silver at 538.com agrees
that the argument that the election was rigged is weak. (A subsequent post at 538 finds some of the Iranian regional numbers "fishy".)
But if the election results are not the problem, then what is?
To
find the roots of the current crisis, one has to go back and look at
the history of Rafsanjani’s presence in the political scene in Iran.
Don’t forget that he is the second most powerful man in Iran and his
family has amassed wealth beyond the borders of Iran. Rafsanjani also
has a network of supporters outside of Iran that stretches from
individuals, Iranian press and web sites outside of Iran all the way to
the National Iranian American Council, whose positions are strikingly
favorable to him.
Rafsanjani challenged Ahmadinejad in the 2005 elections and lost.
Ever since then, he has been sabotaging Ahmadinejad’s plans of
reforming the political and economic structures in Iran. He has been
moving slowly from his moderate position to become the patron saint of
the reformist camp. In this round of the election, Rafsanjani did not
personally participate, but instead invited Moussavi, Karrubi and
Rezaee (all three with historical ties to Rafsanjani) to throw
themselves in the maelstrom of the anti-Ahmadinejad ring. The strategy was
to create enough voter distractions so as to prevent Ahmadinejad from
getting elected in the first round of voting.
Millions of dollars were spent on these three campaigns, most of it
provided by Rafsanjani’s children and cronies who look at this kind of
spending as a way of investing in the future government. The way this
support was distributed among the candidates was very complicated and
followed an elaborate pattern. Rezaee was asked to run in order to
weaken Ahmadinejad’s support among the Revolutionary Guards, since he
was the head of this force during the Iran-Iraq war. The reformist
coalition were divided between Karrubi and Moussavi with the former
receiving the support of reformist personalities like Karbaschi, Abtahi
and Abdi and the latter receiving the support of reformist
organizations and political parties (Mosharekat and Mojahedine
Enghelab).
This dividing of resources by Rafsanjani was done to diversify and
overlap the campaigns at the same time, while Rafsanjani and his
children would remain in the background by only providing funds and
logistical support to the anti Ahmadinejad camps. But things started to
go wrong when opinion polls from inside Moussavi’s own campaign began
to show a hardening of support for Ahmadinejad. That is when the nature
of his campaign changed. The color green was picked as a protest color,
and the rumors of voter fraud began circulating in the Moussavi
campaign so as to continue the fight beyond election day.
The culmination of this happened days before the vote. In a letter
written to the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei, Rafsanjani threatened
to start a social volcano if Moussavi was not declared the “obvious
winner”. (The letter in Farsi) This suspicious move, together with Rafsanjani’s wife’s
comments after casting her vote–encouraging people to pour
into the streets if Moussavi was not declared the winner– show that the plans
for social disturbances and support from the outside world was the
opposition’s plan B, even before the election results were announced.
The public confrontation between Rafsanjani and his family from the one
side and Khamenei from the other side exposed for the first time the
major role played by Rafsanjani and his family in the election.
The night of the election and only two hours after closing of the
polls, Moussavi, under pressure by his campaign manager, advanced his
prescheduled post-election press conference, planned for Saturday
morning, and declared himself the winner in front of CNN, BBC and other
foreign press reporters in Iran. There is no explanation for this move.
This preemptive assumption of victory was done to sow the seeds of
doubts and discontent before any results were even published.
The timing of this early press conference points to the fact that
Moussavi’s camps were aware of the existence of warm ears outside of
Iran waiting for any kind of news of doubts in Ahmadinejad’s victory.
Otherwise, why wouldn’t Mousavi wait for the morning after to declare himself a winner?
In
my opinion, the speedy announcement of results by the Interior
Ministry, something that most people quote as the evidence of tampering
with the votes, only took place to counterbalance Moussavi’s early declaration of victory.
Had Moussavi waited, the results would have appeared more normal and
acceptable. As I have already explained, the switch from plan A to plan
B required the Moussavi camp to quickly dismiss Ahmadinejad’s victory
and move on to challenge the results as soon as possible.
Here are questions that I and my friend Ali
Sanaee have been circulating among Iranians to widen the debate about
the election results:
1-What is the real material evidence of voter fraud? Moussavi had
representatives in more than 95 per cent of the polling stations. Among nearly 6000 representatives who signed off on the polling results, only 220 of them
were barred from attending polls, due to lack of
identification papers. What happened to the rest?
2- Why did Moussavi and his friends begin to doubt the results a few
weeks before the vote? If he had serious doubts about the honesty of
the electoral system, why even bother to declare your candidacy? What
is Moussavi’s pre-election evidence for fraud?
3- Why Did Moussavi change the time of his post-election press conference abruptly?
4- Why did Rafsanjani and Moussavi’s wives speak out about fraud right after casting their votes?
5-Why did the Western media, who are normally against Iran and pro
Israel (CNN, Fox, Voice of America, BBC, Huffington Post, Roozonline,
Radio Zamaneh and Radio Farda), describe Moussavi the frontrunner as
soon as Moussavi’s camp began to cast doubt on the elections, weeks
before the vote? What degree of coordination was there between Moussavi’s campaign and
the western media about this message?
6-Why was the Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored survey, done by a credible team of investigators (Terror Free Tomorrow), not highlighted
in the coverage of the election in the West?
Mondoweiss has been removed from Google News and only shows up as a blog now. This happened over the last few days. Just thought you ought to know.
another view: Informed Comment: Terror Free Tomorrow Poll Did not Predict Ahmadinejad Win by Juan Cole http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/terror-free-tomor...
Read this…Stratfor Geopolitical Intelligence Service. Explains why Ahmadinejad probably was the winner or that the election at minimun was very close. http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090615_western_m... Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality June 15, 2009 | 1745 GMT By George Friedman
Why does Ahmadinejad have so little supporters that his rallies have to be photoshopped? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/74347... Get your head out of your ass – this is bigger than a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani.
Why does Ahmadinejad have so few supporters that his rallies have to be photoshopped? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/74347... Get your head out of your ass – this is bigger than a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani.
Why does Ahmadinejad have so few supporters that his rallies have to be photoshopped? http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/17/74347... Get your head out of your ass – this is bigger than a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani. Anyway, since when is "Mohammad of Vancouver", with relatives in Tehran, an expert on Iranian politics? About as much an expert as the authors of this blog are on Israeli-Palestinian issues.
7-What role did Jewish supremacist elements in the Democratic Party, the media, and the Obama administration play in propagating the "fraud" myth? And is “liberating” the Iranian people really their intention, or bombing them into oblivion and enslaving them per the Iraq precedent in which left-liberal Jewish supremacist elements collaborated with the GOP?
wattson, your comment is WAY over the line. You owe Mohammad an apology for your foul mouth and heart.
carnas, posting a comment three times is not necessary. Also, Get your head out of your ass is entirely unwarranted.
That's an almost stunningly dumb (or dishonest) article. Quote: "Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it." Yes, this in fact appears to be exactly what happened — yet Friedman says this as if even to state the possibility is to show it to be self-evidently impossible.
Ed, your hobbyhorse is getting really tiring. Get help – hopefully someone will report you before you end up like von Brunn.
Sorry, the TFT poll is BS. It's dated — from very early in the campaign, when the reformists hadn't engaged and rallied around Mousavi. If you know much about polls (in any country), it's typical for an incumbent to have a large lead early, before people tune in and focus on the candidates. Hell, remember November 2007 — when Hillary was 20+ points ahead of Obama in every national poll? It all changed real fast — same thing as happened in Iran. Plus, the TFT poll only had Ahmadinejad at 34 percent. Sure, he was well ahead — but he was also the incumbent, which means he had FAR less room to grow than the other candidates. People generally have fixed opinions of incumbents when campaigns start; it's the challengers who they have to learn about. So Ahmadinejad polling at 34 percent was actually a serious warning sign. Generally, the magic # for incumbents in polls is 50 percent; if they're under it, they're in trouble (even if their closest challenger is only at 14 points). It's a sign that the public has grave doubts about the incumbent and that there is lots of room for the challenger to grow. I believe that's what happened in Iran.
Congress appropriated $400 million to do stuff like that a couple of years ago; there's a bill in congress now setting up a 5,000 federal employee agency to do more of the same, basically mess with foreign countries under the guise of enhancing democracy therein–there's a Ron Paul video clip taken a few days ago when he stood up and laid out why it's such a wrong-headed thing to do, also mentioning of course we have no way of paying for it.
Bravo to MondoWeiss for posting a dissenting view on Iran's election. Ahmadinejad may be a terrible leader, but it is just as terrible to have been fooled by manipulative or naive reporting. We need to be open to contradicting versions until the truth comes out, maybe years from now.
good post mohammad of vancouver. president ahmadinejad won with over 60% in 2005. was predicted to win by similar several weeks ago by western polling team (terror free tomorrow doesnt sound familiar) using farsi speakers. rafsanjani and moussavi want to create problems not enhance iran. they should be given treatment such actions deserve – whippings in the public square. god be with ahmadinejad. the devil with usreal.
Sadly, Muhammed of Vancouver might be justifying the likely backlash on Rafsanjani and others that oppose the form of the Iranian government. The reports on the results were that the % of Ahmenidijad votes were identical in diverse regions. It is possible that Ahmenidijad won legitimately. The problem is that it is NOT KNOWABLE from the election itself. If Muhammed is going to rely on a non-authoritative poll for this purpose, one would assume that he will regard ALL statements of polls in the future as authoritative in all cases, whatever thesis is supported. I don't give that much authority to an estimate of a likely future event. I wait until it is present and then historical, and in the case of an election verifiable and verified.
Interesting that Richard Witty is a major supporter of Moussavi now. That says a lot. If the TFT poll was consistent with the western media allegations, Richard would be quoting it everyday. I did not base my opinion only on TFT. I have a good friend on the ground who is saying the same. He has been widely quoted in the article. He studies in Harvard towards a PHD in anthropology and is in Iran to do field study and work, particularly using the election data.
NO! it had hom capturing 66 per cent. well we know he lost 5 per cent of that in the last 2 weeks. The TFT poll is verified by the fieldwork done by a friend of mine who is in Tehran from Harvard.
Mondoweiss breaks down when it tries to expand coverage to Iran. Mohammad's questions appear to bleed into paranoia. Why did Moussavi change the time of his press conference abruptly? Must be an all-revealing gotcha explanation for that! Phew. Stick with Israel and AIPAC, or get some new writers. Or just post a connection to Juan Cole's Informed Comment.
"In my opinion, the speedy announcement of results by the Interior Ministry, something that most people quote as the evidence of tampering with the votes, only took place to counterbalance Moussavi’s early declaration of victory." That's a bit lame. All the Interior Ministry needed to say was that Moussavi's declaration was premature and that the full results would be declared as soon as they had been verified. The authorities would have thus given the appearance that the process was being handled appropriately and that Moussavi was jumping the gun. Declaring that Ahmadinejad had won way before the votes could have been counted is far and away the most compelling evidence that the election was stolen.
paul. its the other way around. It was Moussavi who declared himself the winner even before the counting had started.
Listen We are asking for the outsing of the interior minister Mr Mahsouli. he is responsible for the chaos. he is an idiot who should have been prepared after reading Rafsanjani's open threats.
I am here all day send questions and comments and I will be happy to respond. I wont leave Mondoweiss
No. It had Ahmadinejad at 34% to Mousavi's 14%. Contrarian's analysis seems to be spot on. http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/terror-free-tomor...
Who cares if it was stolen or not? The real story Americans should be interested in is whether or not that $400 million in spook funds had anything to do with this attempt at another lame-o interventionist "Color Revolution", which the Iranian Government seemed to have preempted/disrupted by targeting things like Facebook. But of course there is not even a mousefart in the press about that money or any destabilizing "regime change" operations that we are conducting, which should tell you everything you need to know. I do find it hilarious though, the way everyone is letting their emotions get the best of them and cheerleading for this Moussavi character, who looks to be nothing more than a "free market" neoliberal wannabe, at least to the extent the Iranian leadership lets him be one. If he were running for office in the US the same people cheering him on would be calling him a fascist.
you are not dividing the undecided vote accordingly!!!!! just read the report. also i have a friend as a fieldworker on the ground. he verifies the results from the interior ministry tallies.
Juan cole has been spreading pro arab, anti shie anti iran propaganda since the beginning of time. I wont trust a biased person like him. Sorrry. Even robert fisk who is in Iran thinks that ahmadinejad won.
And Americans showing all this concern and lecturing other nations about the importance of fair elections and the dangers of election fraud is about the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Too bad they didn't have Twitter in 2000.
@ carnas Report me to whom? Homeland Security? The Dept. of "anti-semitism"? At this point, they'll have to report half the internet. BTW, Is that the most substantive reply you could come up with? Here's how that game is played: "carnas, get help – hopefully someone will report you before you end up like Baruch Goldstein."
And its odd that you appear to be a mouthpiece for Iranian theocratic military power. I'm questioning you Mohammed, not advocating for a particular position. There is MUCH to regard the election as rigged. You can answer those objective questions, if you choose.
Please stop quoting your anonymous PhD "Harvard" grad student friend in Tehran as if it actually justifies the pro-Ahmadinejad propaganda you posted above. Anthropologists in Iran have been wrong so many times before, from Michael Fischer to Pardis Mahdavi, that it's not worth renumerating. The TFT poll has already been discussed at depth, and about how it and many other polls actually show widespread *support* of the reform movement, and thus its champions, Karroubi and Mousavi, before the election. Wake up! This is not merely about a stolen election! As Hamid Dabashi has written, regardless of how much fraud there was or wasn't, the fraud is now a social fact that is one, and only one, of many *legitimate* justifications for this movement. You want other justifications? 1) the widespread arresting of reporters and intellectuals during and after the election 2) the press blackout 3) shutting down of opposition newspapers 4) the brutal crackdown at universities shortly after the election, which destroyed public and private property, and resulted in numerous injuries and probably deaths 5) the brutal, vigilante actions of gov't sponspored Basijis, who SNIPED at innocent protestors, killing several and injuring many I need not even mention that some of the protesters, at least, are upset, over and beyond all this, at the anti-democratic tendencies deep within the IRI system, including the whole idea of Velayat-e Faqih. And certainly, at the very least, there is widespread dissatisfaction with Khamenei's performance as Faqih, who is supposed to be a nonpartisan, whereas he repeatedly supported Ahmadinejad's candidacy and, against Iran's own laws, confirmed Ahmadinejad's win before the official numbers were to be released, THREE days later. So get off the pasdaran payroll, Mohammad, and wake up to what is happening in Iran. You sound exactly like the people who were walking around dazed, asking "Wha hoppen?" after the '79 revolution toppled the "widely popular" regime of Muhammad Reza Shah. (and since you like credentials, Mo, I'm a PhD candidate in Middle East studies at NYU)
There were reports that Mousavi did so only after being told by the Interior Ministry that he had won but not to announce the results for a few days. He found that fishy and declared himself the winner.
Dividing undecided votes? They're undecided. That's the whole point. If you're talking about their political leanings, 60% of them favored reform. That would seem to suggest that they would swing to Mousavi. This is a quote from Ballen: 'The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi, is likely.' I'm sorry but the poll doesn't show what you say it does.
thank you, wake up—the proof of the crookedness of the elections lies in the aftermath/coverup/stifling dissent.
Also, it's possible your time in Canada has made your Persian rusty, but in the Rafsanjani article you link, he certainly does not threaten to "start a social volcano." He says that if he stays silent and allows events to proceed without protest, many people and parties and groups will not be able to tolerate the situation and these "volcanoes" which are burning in their chests will burst forth on the social scene, as we have seen in the electoral gatherings in public squares, streets, and universities. That's quite a bit different from saying "he will start a social volcano," don't you think? But read for yourself: با اينهمه بر فرض اينكه اينجانب صبورانه به مشي گذشته ادامه دهم، بيشك بخشي از مردم و احزاب و جريانها اين وضع را بيش از اين بر نميتابند و آتشفشانهايي كه از درون سينههاي سوزان تغذيه ميشوند، در جامعه شكل خواهد گرفت كه نمونههاي آن را در اجتماعات انتخاباتي در ميدانها، خيابانها و دانشگاهها مشاهده ميكنيم.
The absence of Rafsanjani from the media analysis of the situation os very fishy. I just wanted to provide information not available.
ببین توی نامه داره میگه آتشفشان. شما معنی کلمه آتشفشان رو نمیدونی؟ he refers to the world Atashfeshan which means volcano.
Mohammed, if you're not actually being dishonest, you don't know how to read. The TFT poll is quite clear; it showed Ahmedinajad support at 34%, with a large percentage of the people either saying they were undecided, didn't like any candidate, or simply refusing to answer. To get 66% of the vote, Ahmedinajad would have had to nearly double his support from what the poll showed. Either that, or supporters of other candidates simply didn't vote, which isn't consistent with the claims of a huge voter turnout. It's true also that Mousavi's support looks very weak from the poll, but not only was the poll conducted early in the campaign when incumbents typically have an advantage, in a country like Iran it seems reasonable to think that the people who refused to answer (and there were a LOT of those) were less likely to be Ahmedinajad supporters.
Interesting that Mohammed is resorting to ad hominem attacks now instead of answering perfectly reasonable questions.
thats exactly what he means you are naive. lets translate the whole thing and leave it to the readers to decide: "Even if I continue to patiently follow my own path, there are no doubts that a group of people and some political parties would not tolerate the situation and volcanos would erupt in the society, volcanos that are fed from from the burning chest of people that you have witnessed in the election meeting and public squares, streets and universities. Now lets leave it to the english readers to decide whether rafsanjani threatened social volcano or not, give the fact that him and his children financed most of those election meetings in public squares and streets and universities.
Thanks bu the point is that he declared his victory before even 50% of the votes were counted way ahead of his scheduled press conference. Doesnt sound fishy to you?
I agree, but the point about the Photoshop manipulation of the photo of Ahmedinajad's rally is legit.
I wonder if the Mousavi/Khatami/Rafsanjani axis have overreached themselves. A correpondent at the AANS says: It is frustrating that everyone I talk to from Pakistan to Egypt loves Ahmadinejad and is shocked to hear that many Iranians think he is ineffective and embarrassing. Meanwhile every Westerner seems to think that Mousavi is a great reformist or revolutionary, and some kind of saintly figure beloved by all. He's an opportunist crook. ….not fighting for a Mousavi presidency, but for more freedom, which they must hide under a green Mousavi banner in order to have legitimacy in the eyes of the state." If this is the case, expect to see the Mousavi/Khatami/Rafsanjani axis rowing back their claims of election fraud shortly, a real democracy campaign is just as great a threat to them as it is to the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad axis.Then sit back and wait for the neo-con/zionist/wingnut axis to claim that it is all because of GWB's campaign for democracy in the Middle East.
This is another ad hominem fallacy. Cole makes his argument clearly; either refute it or admit that you can't. Accusing him of "bias" is not helpful. Anyway, why should we think you're any less biased?
بله آقا خواندمش. لطفا کامنت منو دوباره بخوانید. جناب عالی فرمودید که رفسنجانی هشدار داد که چنین آتشفشانی را ایجاد خواهد کرد. در حالیکه فقط گفته بود که چنین آتشفشانی توسط گروه های متفاوتی ایجاد خواهد شد. The difference is in passive versus active voice. (or in this case, transitive vs. intransitive) Saying "I will start a social volcano" is not the same as saying "A volcano will erupt on the social scene.
At least now we know to what extent we should trust the postings on this site. If Mohammad says Juan Cole spreads "anti iran propaganda", it must be true. Junk journalism at its best.
Neoliberals on this site screaming “fraud” at the top of their lungs with such certitude remind me of the liberals who professed to buy into the 9/11-Iraq connection myths circulated by the two-party regime and its various apparatus in the run-up to the Iraq war. Some of them are useful idiots, some of them want to advance the international finance Neocon/Neolib globalizationist agenda, some of them are sympathetic to (or part of) the Jewish supremacist/Jewish Zionist wing of the Democratic Party seeking to destabilize and defame Iran so that they can credibly claim a bombing campaign will lead to regime change I’m not sympathetic to the Political Islam imposed by Ahmadinejad on the Iranian people, but the U.S. needs to clean up the Political Judaism (Zionism) imposed on the American people by the two-party regime first before it has any moral authority to point fingers at Iran. Political Judaism, which has co-opted the massive world power of the U.S. government to advance its own racist, liberal-imperialist agenda, is far more dangerous to the Iranian people and the world than is Ahmadinejad.
mohammed- DO you think perhaps rasfanjani and co figure northern tehran and simliar areas have already kind of been lost to secularism so they figure why not embrace it and pick up those votes?
If your own translation is accurate, Rafsanjani did NOT threaten a social volcano as you claim. Instead, he warned that a "volcano" was the likely outcome of the existing trend in society. If I warn that certain tendencies in American society are leading us toward a police state, I am not threatening to create a police state myself. That is the difference here. You are trying to blame Rafsanjani for "threatening" a volcano, as if he were going to intentionally cause it to erupt himself, but your own translation does not support that interpretation.
Juan cole spread a very usual anti iran pro Arab commentary. I didn't expect from him to do anything bu t to trash the TFT polls. He is known for his anti Iran and anti hezbollah comments.
Thank you Craig, this is exactly what I was trying to say. Saying, "If the present course continues, people will be pissed off and will start trouble" is not the same as saying, "I am going to start trouble if I don't get my way."
No it's not because the original should have been scanned with higher resolution. I am not sure that the original image support the circles.
More ad hominem nonsense from you. You are not arguing honestly. Deal with Cole's arguments or admit that you cannot. Your biases are more extreme than anything I can see in Cole's writings anyway.
i dealt with him. the undecided vote was not all for moussavi. I dont trust juan cole. why not talk about others who say ahmadinejad won the election? why only quote those who support the western propaganda?
Yes but people don't usually make direct threats in the Iranian political system. The problem is that institutional figures in the government were trying to lubricate the public into thinking that some sort of fraud would occur before the election in order to get them to accept their claims more easily afterwards. Rafsanjani was letting the Supreme Leader know that he has enough power to start a provocation. And why would he not? His power was directly challenged by Ahmadinejad and incumbant's win puts Rafsanjani at risk politically and economically. Someone with his vast resources can start a lot of provocation on the cheap.
A higher-resolution image would be better, sure. But it looks pretty bad from the image we have. I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the claim of manipulation is invalid when people are working with the best data available and the similarities are as strong as they appear to be.
Robert Naiman: Huffington Post: So suppose that we allocate 60% of the 27% who told pollsters they didn't know to the two "reform" candidates, Moussavi and Karroubi; and 40% of the undecided vote to the two "conservative" candidates, Ahmadinejad and Rezai. And within each camp, suppose we allocate the votes according to the proportion of reform or conservative votes they had among those in the survey who named candidates. In that case, this would have been the result on June 12: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – 57% Mir Hussein Moussavi – 36% Mehdi Karroubi – 5% Mohsen Rezai – 2%
I'm sorry, I've watched Rafsanjani for years, and accepting him as the puppet master behind all this is just too much for me. Other than that letter, he has been completely off the stage this past week. Tell the hundreds of thousands of people that are coming out every day that Rafsanjani is secretly pulling their strings, and they will laugh. It is quite clear that even Mousavi and Karroubi aren't "leading" this movement, it is being led by a grassroots effort on the ground, and in fact, it seems that Mousavi and Karroubi and the other reformists are, at times, struggling to keep pace with the people and follow their lead. There are internal dynamics and power struggles at work, sure. But that's not what's bringing thousands of people in the street everyday. Thuggery, intimidation, dictatorial tendencies (of which I pointed out several current examples, above and beyond the fraud accusations), are doing that quite well without Mr. Rasfanjani needing to fan any flames.
avaaz.org just sent me an email saying Rafsanjani can save Iran if only I give them some more money (having done that for their Gaza campaign and gotten zero feedback, fat chance). My theory is Ahmenidijad was set up. He might even have won, but by annoucing results like his main rival losing in his hometown, his enemies created the right conditions for an "orange revolution". Now the ball is rolling. But it's interesting that Obama is playing neutral (or was last I looked).
Cole doesn't claim that all of the undecideds would go to Moussavi. He says it is likely that more of them would, and he gives reasons why he believes this which you have not addressed. Instead you prefer to smear him as "biased", as if it were not perfectly obvious that you are more biased by far. The basic problem here is that the TFT poll does not support the conclusion you want. You claimed explicitly, elsewhere in this discussion, that the poll showed Ahmedinajad with 66% and that it showed that he would win with a majority. In fact the poll shows Ahmedinajad with 34% support and says explicitly that a majority win is unlikely. Rather than address this honestly, you prefer to attack people.
Rafsanjani is a real crook and real crooks know never to make direct threats as they can be arrested for that. So Rafsanjani is threatening to start a social volcano. Just watch The Sopranos to see how it is done! But you know what, Rafsanjani was an idiot because once a volcano starts there is no knowing where it will stop. Will it be a Surtsey or will it be a Krakatoa?
How did you do your math? 27 * 0.6 = 16.2% = 30% for Moussavi 27*.04 = 10.8% = 45% for Ahmadeinejad That is not only with assuming things that shouldn't be assumed about undecided voters, but also with 22% of the poll respondents not answering, and before Moussavi's campaign really took off.
Who cares if Rafsanjani orchestrated this? If Rafsanjani did this in order to move out the extremists and create a more moderate Iranian policy — more power too him. In any case, there have been numerous reports, now, from interior ministry officials that the election results were totally faked. If the results were in any way legitimate, it is highly unlikely you'd see this kind of mass protest and resistance. That would just not happen no matter who tried to orchestrate it.
Careful, Mohammed. Your attack on Cole is approaching the line, and your statement about Fisk is suspect: from what I've seen, he's quoted an unnamed official who insists the election was legit and has acknowledged the possibility this is true — but has NOT come out and declared that he believes it is so. Moreover, the above commenter is correct: The idea of divvying up the undecided vote in proportion to the 34-14 poll finding is antithetical to everything we know about polling — especially when an incumbent is involved. For those who observe American politics, think of Louisiana, where they still have run-offs. In the preliminary, you might have an incumbent win 48 percent of the vote, with the next closest challenger getting 21 percent. But then in the run-off, it's close to 50/50– because the incumbent's support doesn't grow, while the anti-incumbent vote all coalesces around the pne surviving opponent. Same basic thing was happening in Iran.
There is a serious flaw in your argument, just as there is in TFT's oped yesterday. Their poll, while valuable and significant, was conducted well before any shift in support for Moussavi was noted. The TFT poll was conducted in mid-May and took some time to complete, which means some of the opinions were recorded even earlier. Reports from internal polls (as much as you can trust Iranian Ministry dissidents) showed a considerable change in the support in the last four weeks before the election, with Moussavi surging after the debates. This is the main reason why most news organizations ignored the polling data they considered obsolete. The argument that Rafsanjani threw his support to multiple opposition candidates at the same time makes little sense. Divide and conquer is a simple principle. Putting out three candidates to divide your power base is counterproductive, even if you don't think any one of the candidates is strong enough to beat the candidate you oppose the most. I have no doubt that Refsanjani manipulated the situation behind the scene, but the reason for this is more likely to be found in the fact that direct support is not possible under the Iranian electoral regime that eliminates candidates even before they have a chance to campaign. But, more important than Rafsanjani's manipulations is the fact that Moussavi has support of many of the top clerics, which makes for divided leadership. Had Ahmadinajad had unanimous support of the Council, it is highly unlikely that Khamenei would have allowed for the possibility of fraud to be investigated. What is driving the opposition right now is likely the divisions within the Council more so than the divisions in the streets. The perverse violent and dictatorial reaction from the security forces and pro-Ahmadinejad militias suggests quite the opposite of what you argue–that they are not secure in their position and feel compelled to suppress the opposition by force rather than by evidence of their stunningly dominant victory. Nate Silver has changed his mind on the *statistical* evidence of fraud. The reason why statistical evidence is important is that this is not the ordinary kind of developing world voter fraud, where ballot boxes are stuffed. In this case, the results were announced even before the ballots were counted. Essentially, it's not that the election was "stolen" by manipulation of the votes–a better description would be that the election never took place or was simply ignored and the results manufactured out of thin air.
Thanks, Mohammad, for writing this, and thanks to Phil, for posting a dissenting voice to the trend of what had been on MondoWeiss regarding the Iranian elections thus far. That's not to say you guys were handling this situation badly by any means, especially compared to some other Palestine-Israel/Middle East blogs I frequent — some of it was absolutely shameful — I was so disgusted by the vitriolic, haughty liberalist rhetoric on one blog I used to enjoy that I stopped reading it altogether. Anyway, I'm just saying it's a credit to the MondoWeiss team that you put this piece up. I don't think it's up for debate that Hashemi Rafsanjani had his hands all over this, and the implications of that fact as far as internal Iranian politics are concerned are quite staggering. That's one of many reasons I think we should all try to view these elections, their lead-up, and their aftermath through as objective a lens as possible, because this really is a historic period for the Islamic Republic, whatever the outcome. However, there is one point that Mohammad didn't touch on, and I'm not sure if it's because he doesn't think it was a factor, or if it's because he wanted solely to focus on the internal mechanisms of the Iranian polity and its role in the 2009 presidential election. That is, I'm truly leaning towards the idea that there was outside involvement in this, perhaps working in concert with Hashemi, perhaps even having built up Mousavi; of course I'm talking about American interference, but I don't necessarily think it was one concentrated effort from a nebulous, monolithic U.S. imperialist chimera. Perhaps holdover moneys in a particular element of the State Department, working an underhanded, low-key operation for the long-term with multiple private financier/economic teams like George Soros/Jeffrey Sachs, or financier/political operative teams in the style of Sam Zemurray/Edward Bernays, et cetera. Simply put, despite the the current administration's overt goal of rapprochement with Iran, I don't see the U.S. being able to contain itself, sit on its hands, and stay out of the fight, so to speak.
"In any case, there have been numerous reports, now, from interior ministry officials that the election results were totally faked. If the results were in any way legitimate, it is highly unlikely you'd see this kind of mass protest and resistance. That would just not happen no matter who tried to orchestrate it." yeah. nothing like this has ever happened before, especially not in ukraine, georgia or kyrgyzstan. the PNAC energy angle, as per usual http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3637/pnacplan1... overview of the PNAC project, with attention to color revolutions and their function in herding oil to its rightful owners. http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3637/pnacplan1...
The election wasn't a fraud because Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, the election was a fraud because no matter the result – the real decision is made by Khamenei, and not the people. It just happens that the Mousavi supporters are the ones no longer willing to accept this.
I agree that dissenting views are critical, and should be made public. I'm more inclined to believe statistical analysis by professionals than anecdotal observations by those on the spot, who only see a tiny portion of what is going on. There is a substantial (perhaps a massive understatement) body of data on voting statistics, and if any fraud took place that did not attempt to be even remotely consistent with prior elections, it will be obvious. Whether fraud took place or not, and in spite of the violence that has taken place, I am glad that the protests have taken place. I agree very strongly with Adam's observation from a previous post that these events make war less likely (not his exact words, but I think an accurate summary). Neocons and fellow travelers are still pushing VERY hard for an American attack on Iran, and the carnage in Iraq should provide some context to people of the horror that would result. It would be far, far worse in my opinion because it would be a inter-state war, not just an occupation, and the long-term consequences both in the region and around the world would be profound, especially from increased instability and authoritarianism which would continue claiming victims far into the future.
Get a clue. I think Baruch Goldstein was a despicable murderer. So you're the only racist here, with conspiracy theories straight out of a KKK manual. Despicable again.
I assume he will follow up with some peer-reviewed publications. I'm interested in hearing what he has to say. Perhaps you could post info on Mondoweiss with journal, issue, and title when he publishes them.
Is this an accurate statement? I've read it in several place, but have no idea where it originated. If true, it would certainly be fishy.
Criticizing one set of conspiracy theories and then injecting your own conspiratorial nonsense = priceless irony
I thought your article was great, Mohammad. Informative. Covered a point of view we haven't heard elsewhere. And as for the armchair critics here, they seem to think that something definitive can be said. We're all still in info-collecting mode. I love the way non-Farsi reading people here are the new experts. And kudos to Mondoweiss for reacting to this worldwide news event which has captivated so many. Twitter is now a-flitter with every manner of agent provocateur imaginable, screaming for 'regime change' and urging the Prez to effect it. The neocons are out in full force. I wrote a post on Pat Lang's site two days after the election that something about the protests wasn't sitting well with me.
It was reported a few days ago in the MSM that Rafsanjani was 'angry' that Mousavi hadn't won and was going to the Supreme Leader to argue his case. A letter was mentioned as well.
Mohammad does not "appear to be a mouthpiece for Iranian theocratic military power." You are making that leap that he is. I see absolutely no evidence above that Mohammad is the mouthpiece you describe. None.
Witty supports the other guy because he wants Israel to go to war w/ Iran. Typical snake-like behavior.
Yeah, where were they in 2004?
So you've got a dog in this hunt, wake up, hunh. So which Middle East countries are you an expert in and what is your doctoral thesis about.
I agree in the sense that a war with Iran is the worst thing that could happen for everyone involved. That includes many who would be drawn in beyond Israel, USA, and Persia, the obvious peoples.
Who is paying for the expensive flags at the soccer game?
Mohammad, is your Harvard friend on the ground in Iran able to use Twitter? And if so, how does that work if the net has been shut off, and cell phone service? Is it dial-up?
Can we question the Israeli theocratic position? Or should we Americans just continue to rubber-stamp Kosher Zionism?
Mohammad's questions appear to bleed into paranoia. I don't think this question or his other questions are stupid. Usually the schedule is followed scrupulously. And he puts matters quite well into context. My problem is less the argument above, but obviously I hoped for a president capable of easing the tension not make it worse. Ahmadinejad UN speech could have written by the Mossad/pro-Israel hawks/anti-Islamic forces. Bani-Sadr (Banisadr) was on German TV yesterday he says there is a broader democratization movement in Iran, and he claims to be part of it and what we see now. I don't like the idea that my Iranian fellow citizen have to fear Iranian forces just as they had to fear SAVAK under the Shah. And don't pretend to know what exactly happened. But I find it interesting, who are pro-Amadinejad on this list now.
TEn years ago is was blogs in Serbia and Kosovo. This year Twitter in Iran.
His opponents declared it was a fishy victory even as they went to the polls and voted.
Mohammad, is this true? "The sense of threat against the opposition was growing. Reuters reported that Mohammadreza Habibi, the senior prosecutor in the central province of Isfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be executed under Islamic law."
Didn't the anti-Ahmadinejad forces declare victory for the international press before the results were in? I think so, and so was that not tit for tat, both premature?
I don't think Mousavi is great. But he surely is the lesser evil now.
From Nico Pitney on HuffPo: 1:28 PM ET — The letter alleging fraud. Many, many of you have sent along a letter alleging to be a government official admitting that the election was a fraud and presenting the accurate total, with Mousavi ahead. It is a hoax, as Mousavi's official Facebook acknowledges today (in Farsi). I wrote more extensively about the fraud question earlier (12:51 AM) if you're interested.
More from Nico Pitney: 2:01 AM ET — Aslan: Rafsanjani calls "emergency" meeting of Assembly of Experts. If true, this is a bombshell. Appearing on CNN last night (video below), Iran expert Reza Aslan reported this:
Aslan's scoop is also reported by the Farsi-language Rooyeh. The reader in Iran who tipped me off to this sent a follow-up note:
An informed Iranian-American had a different take. "I think Rafasanjani is not going to ask for Khamenei's removal, but is bluffing to force Khamenei to drop support of Ahmadinejad."
There is a document circling allegedly from these interior ministry truth forces the basis of these claims, we do not know yet if it is real or a fake, or if it was bought. …
Conspiracy? You are intentionally ignorant. AIPAC uber alles.
Another Pitney entry: 2) As to serious allegations of fraud, I present you with this excerpt from NYT executive editor Bill Keller's first piece from Iran:
Again, not direct evidence of fraud, but a serious allegation from someone in the position to know the truth. In other words, Iranians are completely justified to be highly suspicious of the results of this election. They shouldn't "get over it."
The USA congress passed a bill a couple years ago, devoting 400 million to infecting Iran politics by stealth; in the last few says the USA congress is passing a bill that will set up a 5,0000 employee agency to continue this route.
YnetNews was the first to report that "Iran prosecutor warns of death penalty for violence" which it did last night. I found the link via Twitter. Pitney now says its in the NYT.
Thats a good joke.
I can't find any place that ever displayed the "photoshopped" picture. It seems the only place it appears is the article exposing it as photoshopped. So don't worry carnas, it doesn't seem that much damage has been done. (Odd that someone would go to all the trouble of "photoshopping" and not send it to the West, isn't it?)
تحصیلات بنده در رشتۀ ادبیات و تاریخ معاصر ایران است. ولی باید بیافزایم که نکاتی که به آن اشاره کردم در کامنت بالا نیازی به تخصص علمی ندارد البته سواد فارسی کمی کمک میکند حالا شما لطف کنید در مورد تخصص خودتان صحبت کنید. Hope that answers your question.
Have any of you people read about the other "color revolutions" that have taken place before making BS assumptions like the one above? News Flash, there doesn't have to be any fraud, the fraud is merely a catalyst, whether it is actually there or not is irrelevant.