Ahmadinejad won indeed, and the real source of interference in Iran's election is likely the United States

Very interesting, John.

Here's a link to the first article you mentioned, for those who'd like to delve deeper.

What a load of bullshit. It  is actually some "Iran experts" who are shocked at the reaction of the Iranian people against Ahmadinejad, who they "assume" is supported by the poor or the majority. The Iranian people themselves know a lot better.

Ahmadinejad a highly educated man? you are killing me!

Let's deconstruct some of the arguments in that silly article:

1) "They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani."

The correct measure for Ahmadinejad's popularity should be the first round of the 2005 election, not the second round. Even his coming in second in the first round was alleged as a result of vote rigging, however in the second round he ran against Rafsanjani, who at the time was the most hated politician in IRI and held responsible by many people for everything wrong about the country (including the selection of Khamenei as leader and the defeat of Khatami's reforms). Ahmadinejad's vote in 2005 was a vote against Rafsanjani. You could have run a one-eyed dog against Rafsanjani and win in that election.

2) "American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi."

Interesting to see how many non-Iranians claim to speak on our behalf. In his debate with Mousavi, Ahmadinejad hurled a tsunami of unexpected personal attacks against him for which Mousavi was unprepared. While Mousavi looked weak and mumbling in that debate, Ahmadinejad's style disgusted people. This kind of personal attacks, while common in the debates here, is unusual and against the style in Iran. In the following debates, karoubi and Rezaei (the other two candidates) knowing Ahmadinejad's style, came prepared and knocked him down cold. Rezaei pounded Ahmadinejad on economic issues so effectively that even the state-owned media admitted it. Mousavi himself recovered in the sub sequent debates and were able to present his policies in a a fairly effective way.

It is also more important to note that debates in Iran are less important to people than the background and reputation of the candidates. Ahamdinejad was known as a man who took a country in a fairly healthy economic situation from Khatami, and ruined it at the time that oil was almost $150 a barrel. Mousavi was remembered as a prime minister at the time of a devastating war, who managed the country on a $8/barrel oil without a single dime of foreign debt.

3)"Before the debates, both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad campaign aides indicated privately that they perceived a surge of support for Mousavi; after the debates, the same aides concluded that Ahmadinejad’s provocatively impressive performance and Mousavi’s desultory one had boosted the incumbent’s standing."

Never heard any such thing during the election (where I was in Iran). Ahmadinejad's camp before and after debates insisted that they would win with 24 million votes (surprise prediction?!) while Mousavi's camp never conceded.

4) "while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible."

Not just the people, but even the politicians close to his rightist camp in Parliament blamed him for economic instability and inflation. His firing of three Central bank Chiefs and two economy ministers (that he had appointed himself) over two years, his lowering of tariffs and surge in imports, and his evasive responses about the missing oil revenue when he submitted his budget.

5) "The “Iran experts” further argue that the high turnout on June 12 — 82 percent of the electorate — had to favor Mousavi. But this line of analysis reflects nothing more than assumptions."

Interesting that an article full of so many false assumptions should simply reject a well known fact as "assumption". The government in Iran makes voting a religious and revolutionary duty. So those who don't vote, obviously do not believe in the religious and revolutionary rhetoic of the regime. When they come out to vote, they are not going to vote for someone who represent the religious and revolutionary rhetoric of the system they blame. These silent voters were responsible for Khatami's win in 1997. And it was obvious who they supported in 2009. I don't know any Ahmadinejad supporter who had not consistently voted in previous elections.

6)"Some “Iran experts” argue that Mousavi’s Azeri background and “Azeri accent” mean that he was guaranteed to win Iran’s Azeri-majority provinces; since Ahmadinejad did better than Mousavi in these areas, fraud is the only possible explanation. But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces"

Interesting that this "popular and successful official" received the least votes in 2005 in those provinces where he was a governer! In Ardebil province where, according to article, he was a "popular official" with "close ties to people", he ranked 6th among 7 candidates in the first round of the 2005 election! And now we are to believe that they suddenly remembered his success and overwhelmingly voted for him!

The following graphs from 2005 election are quite telling:

This shows, contrary to the popular belief in the west, Ahmadinejad's support in 2005 was mainly from the densely urban areas in the Central Iran (Tehran, Esfehan, Qum and his home province of Semnan), while remote provinces, rural and border areas were against him, even the nothwestern provinces were he was previously a governer. By contrast, Khatami's support was stronger in the provinces, indicating that contrary to popular belief, people of the rural areas and provinces were even more supportive of him than the urban areas of Central Iran. This is also consistent with the 1997 election where Khatami received his highest votes in rural western provinces.

The second graph shows the provinces won by different candidates in the first round of the 2005 election:

The most obvious conclusion from the above is that Iran provincial and rural votes are regional: people by far vote for the candidate orginally from their own region. Karoubi swept the southwestern Iran, where he is from. Mehralizadeh, a completely unknown Azeri, won the three Azeri provinces in Nothwest eventhough Ahmadinejad was previously the governer there. Tehran mayor Ghalibaf won the Notheastern province of Khorassan, where he is originally from, even though he had not lived there for decades.

It's just as interesting to see how many Iranians speak on behalf of the aggressor nations, and how many of them adorn their walls with pictures of Reza Pahlavi.

Speaking like a true colonialist preaching to the ignorant third worlder, eh? Who are the Iranians who talk on behalf of the aggressor nations? I sure haven't seen many.

As for Reza Pahlavi, the older generation may still respect or support him. He is an Iranian afterall. For the younger generations, he is totally irrelevant.

By the way, any specific comment on the several points I raised, or  just insults and stererotypes?

It isn't me who is speaking as a colonialist.  I witness the same divisions and preferences daily within my own family and extended family.  Some are nationalists, some monharcists, and some are enamoured of all things American.  Your 2005 election map roughly corresponds with the demographic population distribution, according to the CIA at least.  Persians are the majority in Iran, aren't they?

Absolutely. But Iran's elections are based on popular votes across the country, not electoral colleges per province. Ahmadinejad's win in those provinces meant he got most of the votes among seven candidates, in some cases with a mere 25% of the votes. It does not mean the Persians support him overwhelmingly (though it does indicate that he had no support in non-Persian areas). You can check the detailed results here:

http://www.electoralgeography.com/new/en/countries/i/iran/2005-president...

But that graph indicates a more important fact, that it is absurd that the southwestern province of Lorestan, for instance, that elected Karoubi with 55% of the votes in 2005, now votes only 5% for Karoubi. According to official 2009 results, he did not even win a single box his own home town (Aligoudarz).

In Northwest Azeri provinces we are to believe that Ahmadinejad's strong show (won 2 of 3) was a result of his past governership n the region. Surprisingly, that past governership earned him the sixth rank out of seven in 2005!

By the way what percentage of those nationalist, monarchist, socialist and other Iranians you know believe the election was fair and not rigged?

What a BS opening post. One million people protesting and risking their lives in Iran for weeks is just US interference?

sanizadeh: thank you so much for your posts and patience.

Thanks. My participation in these debates here (and other forums) is not merely for the sake of debate. We have got over 800 students, reformist leaders, journalists etc arrested in Iran over the past two weeks. Raising awareness about the situation and preventing the world from going along with the propaganda of the Ahmadinejad Government may be the only thing we can do to save them from the firing squads.

I withhold judgment, as I don't have a horse in this race. But I do find the level of interest in this election displayed by the Empire somewhat disconcerting. That said, sanizadeh has established his/her credentials around here - and Mr. Chuckman has not yet tried to defend his assumptions.

Most I've spoken with said they were inclined to believe some rigging took place in certain areas, but not enough to sway the difference substantially, as the western propaganda would have everyone believe.  Some contend that for Mousavi to have won the election, widespread vote rigging would certainly have been needed for that to occur.  Regardless of their preferences in the election, none that I know are willing to become a tool for western interference.

Are parliamentary seats distributed according to density of population?

That much is clear.

Have you checked out what Dr. Arash Hejazi has been saying?

He is the Iranian doctor who attempted to save Neda's life: (link includes a link to his actual blog in Farsi):

Ghislaine, don't you know that it is absolutely impossible for any evil or nefarious activity to happen anywhere in the world without the US being "the real source" of it?!?  In fact, with regard to Iran specifically, I've heard that the million people protesting in the streets are not even Iranian...rather, they are actually Iowans that the CIA snuck into Iran just before the election!!! 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Absolutely. I have not heard any Iranian activist support western invasion. Neither do I request it. All we expect is that the illegitimacy of this election and this government is recognized, and for the human right agencies to remain aware of the situation and push for freedom of the arrested people. The regime we Iranians will have to deal with it on our own.

As for Parliamentary seats, yes, typically one seat per about 200,000 population or so, with some adjustment for rural areas. The city of Tehran itself has 30 MPs. The recognized minority religions are allocated seats (one for Jews, Two for Armenians, one for Assyrians and one for Zoroastrians) even though their population is less than 200,000 per seat.

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that Ahmedinejad did have the support of better than 50% of Iranians. The problem is that with the allegations, backed up by some evidence, of cheating there is no way to determine if that's so. You cannot have election results that are widely accepted without a trustworthy electoral system.

More likely, some of them were not actually from Iowa, but from Tehrangeles.

I may not be able to convince some about the rigged nature of the Iranian election; but I hope at least all could acknowledge and object to the post-election brutality by the Iranian regime against the potestors? What happend in the election is now done and gone. But hundreds were arrested since the fiirst day, including Mousavi's campaign staff around the country, people's protests have been violently suppressed by the government, newspapers shut down, and no doubt trials and punishments are going to start soon.

These are not US agents from Langley being arrested and tried. The entire Mousavi's campaign headquarter were arrested on the first day after election, even before any protest took place. Hundreds of students were arrested in attacks on university dorms in the days after. Among the arrested are leading reformist politicians (including several ex-ministers, Khatami's deputy and chief of staff, heads of most reformist parties etc) most of whom were not even opposed to the system itself. University professors, many union leaders, editors of several newspapers etc. You can find the list on the net.

After the main show down on June 15 where over a million people demonstrated in Tehran, the pro government militia started a serious crackdown on protests across the country. This is even in contrast with the article 27 of the constitution of the Islamic republic of Iran that supposedly guarantees freedom of gatherings and demonstrations!  

We may not agree about the facts behind the Iranian election, but I hope we can at least agree to condemn the brutality of this regime against its own people.

I'll leave the condemnation to Iranians as they see fit.  Internal domestic politics there does not interfere with, nor have negative influences here.  The same cannot be said in reverse of North American or European politics, and therefore criticism in that regard is appropriate.

The World Left and the Iranian Election

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22228

"the world left should not be mute.."

Ahmadinejad Privatizes 14 More State Companies

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=102386&sectionid=351020102 [22]

"As President Ahmadinejad starts his second term in office, his government announces the privatization of 14 state owned giant companies..

Guess those companies were the trade off, for him to keep his position.

To be fair, he's trying to educate himself. Remember a couple of years ago when he organized a conference to look into those rumours about some kind of "Holocaust"?

'Human Beings Are Members of a Whole': Protecting the Iranian Civil Society

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22247

"As supporters of the Iranian civil society, we stress the genuine nature of the protests by the Iranian democracy movement.."

Where Now for Iran?

http://stopwar.org.uk/content/view/1402/27/ [26]

"In the current post-election crisis, we see it as our duty to share our views based on years of defending Iran's national rights, and to help develop realistic solutions for the benefit of all our compatriots of whatever political persuasion.."

Just as Snert's (marvelous) observation about attempts at self-education on the subject of the holocaust, can be given the blind eye by we who must be obeyed ?

Quote:Ahmadinejad a highly educated man? you are killing me!

Snert: 

To be fair, he's trying to educate himself. Remember a couple of years ago when he organized a conference to look into those rumours about some kind of "Holocaust"?

George Victor:

And there must be no protest at the fate of the protesters, just as mention of the fate of Canadian journalists in prison there is verboten.

You are humanitarian to the core, Jack. And with the same, highly developed sense of political action designed to win over world opinion as the leaders of Hamas. Who knew that they were also given over to posto-modernist relativism to that degree.

While underway with your swaggering stride, you may have missed entirely what would only be perceptable to you when pointed out, as a faint line between condemnation and education, between relative revulsion in all circumstances that call for it, and awareness of our historical unhelpfulness, and indeed our proclivity to exacerbate wherever we tread.  So while you are busy at work forumulating strategies in your head to once again rescue them from themselves, or us from them, it might be worthwhile for you to consider that a little time, if any can be spared, might be put to good use in marking where that line exists, to render it more visible the next you're out for a stroll.

What do you mean by that?

Jack:

"While underway with your swaggering stride, you may have missed entirely what would only be perceptable to you when pointed out, as a faint line between condemnation and education, between relative revulsion in all circumstances that call for it, and awareness of our historical unhelpfulness, and indeed our proclivity to exacerbate wherever we tread.  So while you are busy at work forumulating strategies in your head to once again rescue them from themselves, or us from them, it might be worthwhile for you to consider that a little time, if any can be spared, might be put to good use in marking where that line exists, to render it more visible the next you're out for a stroll."

My experience, Jack, is that those who are interested in ferreting out the subtleties that you recommend, are shouted down, bullied into submission of adherence to the line of the moment.

It has given me real insight into the flexibility of solidarity movements in the past.

"Swagger" in this case is only a brave front for one almost despairing of the herd effect. The open forums such as the UCC are entising in their relative freedom.

To my understanding, if we're discussing condemnation, the flexibility of the left both past, and more noticeably the present, is the least of its virtues.  It is not that we should become blinded to the horrific realities being perpetuated, while checking all sense of humanity at the door to discussion, but recognize the reactionary nature for what it is, as the defensive response of those in power toward dire external threats to their very existence, to self determination as they would portray it.  The outside intrigues of course care nothing of freedom for the people being suppressed, nothing of individual rights, but would appropriate the cause for their own nefarious gain, and crush them just as readily if the circumstances could be manipulated to favour a preferential puppet.  There exists no court of law that we could look to in equally presiding over the crimes and excesses of our representatives or theirs, except for the occasional tin pot that has outlived their usefulness to the extent that even global hegemony can no longer tolerate them.  In the absence of just reconciliation, we on the other hand should maintain the visibility to equally agonize on behalf of all who suffer under the weight of oppression, here and elsewhere, while bearing in mind to never lend a shred of validity to the caustic forces seeking to hypocritically influence our opinion, to never permit the flexibility of our thought processes to accept their mantra that we are any better.

 We actually know sweet fuck all about these "elections" (given that Iran is a closed theocratic state and any Iranian president at this point will be the sock puppet of a rapidly ageing(sp?) cleric) so why the hell are we getting all bent out of shape over this stuff. We do not have an apropriate amount of information on this subject.  Please sop the dickwaving.     

But I was assuming that the protesters in Iran DID have some idea of what was happening there.  Heck, lots of them might even be condemned to death by firing squad or to a life of squalor in  prison, where they could be tortured and raped, like that late Canadian journalist...eh? Even WE have some idea of what is happening when our journalists wind up dead there.

Maybe the protesters wanted change, not a "sock puppet of a rapidly aging cleric".

The idea is that Mousavi is the good guy, get it?

If they really wanted a change, they should have told both candidates to go fuck themselves and called for the overthow of theocratic rule in general.   Mussavi wouldn't have changed anything. The Ayatollahs would still have had the last word.  Do I perfer a moderate to a wackjob conservative?  Certainly, but if he did get into office  his decisions would be guided by his clerical patrion(Rafsanjani) and not by his own conscience.  Mussavi has played the sock puppet role before, by the way.   He had a human rights record similar to Ahmed's in the early 80's         

 and...

 We can't really be sure that ol' Ahmed did cheat,  We can't really be sure that he didn't either.

wow, how come this briliant strategy did not occur to me when I was in Tehran back in June? A pity you werent there to lead us to victory. We could have gone there together, you know, and you could have lots of fun overthrowing the regime while we cheered for you.

I am here to help you with all the information you need, my friend. First lesson: In Persian we say Ahmad, not Ahmed. Then, his first name is not Ahmad anyways, it is Mahmoud. Now his last name, it is Ahmadinejad. with a French J.

I am here to help you with all the information you need

Alright. I know that generally speaking Iranian Clerics have more power then Iranian presidents, and that Iranian presidents cannot declare war, but beyond that, I don't know what they can and can't do. Can you tell me?

How reformist can a reform candidate be in the Islamic Republic?

I think that the West's strategy is to discredit in advance democratic processes wherever the West has a strategic interest. It has never ceased to try and discredit these processes in Iran, for instance, but we have seen identical tactics in dozens of other target countries over the years, e.g. Venezuela, where elections are only deemed legitimate if the West's candidate wins. The press dutifully follows suit, reprinting before and after elections State Dept press releases, presenting CIA operatives as objective international experts, etc. Western governments' war is against self-government by Iranians, Afghans, Haitians, etc. not whomever these people elect to power. But the MSM go on demonizing leaders, parties and popular movements one after the other. Just read what Malalai Joya says about the West's meddling in Afghanistan. I am sending this interview to my MP, won't you?

Martin, it would be informative for you to read the threads on Iranian election before posting. on the subject

CMOT, the process of power in Iran is a lot more complicated than the simple picture of "clerics" and "reformists" etc. If you want a "good guy" vs. "bad guy" image, I am afraid I am unable to offer it here.

First of all, About "clerics". Islam has no clerical hierarchy similar to the Catholic Church. There are tens of thousands of clerics of different ranks and kinds in Iran, from the simple seminary students all the way to Marja rank (which means the highest source of scholarship and eminence). There is no single central hierarchy. Among the top rank clerics you find some who entirely reject Khomeini's view of Islamic government, to those who enthusiastically support it. So it is false to assume that a grand organization of clerics of some kind pulls every string in Iran.

The powers in Iran are also very complex. It is true that the position of supreme leader that Khomeini created, of course, has something like unlimited, supreme power. But his successor, Khamenei, lacks his religious rank, charisma and popularity and therefore, his influence is more limited as well. In many regards on most issues he is being pulled in different diections by various power centers who influence and protect him.

Now describing Mousavi as a "cleric lackey" is also simplistic. Mousavi was (and is) a leftist Islamist, as many Khomeini's disicples (and Khomeini himself) were. Khamenei and the rest of the clergy, as well as the traditional wealthy merchants and landowners, were hard rightists on economy issues. Once Khamenei became the leader, Mousavi and other leftist followers of khomeini were gradually purged from the system. He remains radically oppose to Khamenei's view in this regard. So if elected, he would definitely be anything but Khamenei's lackey.

Ahmadinejad came to power as Khamenei's man. He also has a strong power base in the revoltionary guards, as well as certain hardline clerics in Qum who were not happy with the path Khatami was taking the nation during his presidency. Describing Ahmadinejad as a fighter against the "old guard" and "rich corrupt officials" is entirely false. His whole approach has been based on a simple objective: purging Khatami's reforms from the system. That's why it is laughable to read articles that describe him as a man of the poor. He has restored the power to the traditionalists, and has made Khamenei a king. Now we do know that Khamenei is not capable of acting like a king, so it remains to be seen how the whole thing would turn out.

By the way officially the role of the president in Iran is similar to a Chief Operating Officer. However in reality, many power centers inside and outside the government influence the way things are done. There are certain issues that are decided at higher levels; kind of consensus between all power centers in the system: one is for instance the nuclear issue. So yes, election of Mousavi would not have made much difference in the nuclear standoff.

Sanizadeh: Martin, it would be informative for you to read the threads on Iranian election before posting. on the subject.

And it would be respectful of you not to presume I didn't.

Mousavi was (and is) a leftist Islamist, as many Khomeini's disicples (and Khomeini himself) were.

Khomeini was a leftist?

And Martin, it would be seen as an attempt at acquiring wisdom on your part if you recognized sanizadeh's account as probably the most detailed and accurate understanding of the political situation in Iran - complete with a demonstrated understanding of the shifting religious ground in recent years - that you are going to read anywhere. It makes understandable what up to now is the wooden and confusing renditions coming out of the media in its own ignorance of recent history.

Don't come on the complete ass with your bruised ego, please.

Rape

http://www.sidewalklyrics.com/?p=1150

Hossein Karoubi said: "My father wrote this letter for Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani and sent it to him privately. He insisted that Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani reply to this letter and take appropriate action. Unfortunately Mr Hashemi Rafsanjani did not reply to the letter.."

George Victor, my ego is fine, thank you very much; please don't reduce this discussion to inane personal attacks. I commented on the West's systematic bashing of the electoral process in the countries it has an interest in, not on "sanizadeh" (whoever he is) and the analyses he offers here.

"Sanizadeh: Martin, it would be informative for you to read the threads on Iranian election before posting. on the subject.

Martin: And it would be respectful of you not to presume I didn't."

Nothing "inane" or "personal" in that, of course.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/09/clinton-us-supported-iran-protesters-... -scenes/

As was suggested earlier on this thread, the U.S. and the West seem to be playing a hand in and gleefully taking any benefit they can from the chaos surrounding the Iranian election. As per normal, the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House don't care about the Iranian (or any country's they meddle with) people.

What do you make of the link?

Clinton's statements will hurt not help the Reform cause. This might even be her true intent..

 Frmrsldr:

"What do you make of the link"?

Look, mate. I understand completely the way in which the insurrection in Iran has been capitalized on by forces in the West.

But all of the accounts from solidarity with progressive forces aside - the degree to which we can ignore the real history and structure of institutions and events in Iran, is the degree to which our attempts at peacemaking founder on ignorance, which can be easily dismissed.

Sanizadeh has given us the real picture. What we do with it, friend and foe, is for us to decide, now knowing facts like this:

"By the way officially the role of the president in Iran is similar to a Chief Operating Officer. However in reality, many power centers inside and outside the government influence the way things are done. There are certain issues that are decided at higher levels; kind of consensus between all power centers in the system: one is for instance the nuclear issue. So yes, election of Mousavi would not have made much difference in the nuclear standoff.

Peacemaking (a NATO term btw)? For us to decide?

The way I see it, we have no "right" or business meddling in Iran's internal affairs. That is for Iranians to sort out without our interference. Should we do what we reasonable can to alleviate human rights abuses and the suffering of Iranian individuals? Yes. But we have no right to anything more than that.

If we wish to intelligently discuss what is going on in Iran, then yes, we have an obligation to inform ourselves.

And how do we help "alleviate the suffering" of people being  tortured? I would not "interfere" by suggesting marching or bombing, but the occasional word on the subject in the nearest mullah's shell-like ear? Perhaps indicate to Iranian protestors we give more than a tinker's damn about their situation?

And I would hope that someone is concerned about "peacemaking" - which has to begin with understanding where everyone is coming from. I have admitted to great ignorance of the Muslim world, myself. Now on a very sharp learning curve.

 A step up from peacekeeping, when the dogs of war have already been loosed.

Yep, moral suasion.

We the people need to do it as Obomba and Harpoon certainly aren't.

But I'm afraid, even if I got in as a tourist, any attempts to whisper into the nearest cleric's shell-like ear might get me incarcerated.

The economic sanctions led by the U.S. and U.S. and Israeli saber rattling could be causing this paranoia among the Iranian establishment:

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/08/12/wag-the-dog-again/

We could go on as Abbot and Costello.

I'm sure there are better examples of the straightman delivery for use in this instance, but  none come to mind as I fight for air.

Contrarianna, the situation in Iran cannot be really discussed from a pure economy-based or market-based viewpoint. There is not any real socialist force within the political hierarchy in Iran. However, generally you are right in that Ahmadinejad's government has not taken any specific social/economic action that should earn left's admiration. I woudl be happy to discuss if anyone can name a specific achievement.

The socialism of the People's Mujahedin of Iran was scary, not socialist, somethiing else, sanizadeh?  They apparently date from 1967. 

Socialism is anathema to a clerical state.  What can be offered other than the corporatist entity we see...the smaller entities being privatized.

Clearly, the provision of nuclear power to generate electricity suggests that science has a place. That and the previous freedom of one scientist to flog secrets for nuclear weaponry  round the world. Or do I have his nationality wrong?

Yes, that's understood,  the issue of "leftism" was raised by others.

The fact that there were "hundreds of companies" (including in the oil industry) for Ahmadinejad's government to privatize suggest a pre-existing level of socialism not present in much of the West.

Very good point.

So does the new owning class represent another repressive force? The beholden? They won't really have the socially freeing effect of the petty bourgeoisie in the liberal revolutions of our experience?

It is difficult to pin point the ideology of PMOI as they have changed their ideology as many times as one changes underwear. Started as a radical Islamist militia, then switched to marxism, back to islamism, again back to a mixture of islamism with social democracy slogans etc. The goup is more like a cult that tries to get to the power with whatever ideology that is the flavour of the month. Shady human rights record as well, in particular about their alleged collaboration with Saddam Hossein in suppressing Kurdish rebelion in early 90s (Anfal rebelion).Their fall out with Khomeini in the early years of the revolution had a lot more to do with the fact that Khomeini did not share power with them. Some call them Ayatollahs without turban.

However, you should note that like many other Iranians I am biased against this group because of their close collaboration with Iraq during Iran-Iraq war.

You, and I would think, most other Iranians who have relatives in a graveyard  complements of Sadaam's war on Iran--that is, most other Iranians.
Faux endorsers of Iranian freedom are absurdly suggesting this hated group could be the vanguard of a popular uprising in Iran and are urging support for it--it's hard to conceive of the real outcome being anything but supporting chaos and mayhem.

Terry Glavin has urged support for it and argued it should be removed from the Canadian terrorist list.

New Nuke Report Debunks Iran Hawks

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KH11Ak01.html

"Iran is unlikely to be able to produce enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a nuclear weapon until at least 2013, according to a US government intelligence estimate.."

Iran: Ahmadinejad's Predicament and Iran's Political Crisis

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48024 [65]

"despite the proclaimed support of 24 million Iranians, his government is by far the weakest post-revolutionary government. Ironically, it is this weakened position that tempts him to be a force of constant agitation and confrontation."

Chomsky on Iran

http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3391.cfm [66]

"Well, protests against the nature of the regime..It's a clerical, military regime. Putting aside the details of the election, about which we do not know much, the whole structure of the regime is oppressive and authoritarian and undermines basic civil and other human rights, and protesting against it is not only honorable but courageous, because it faces extreme violence. So yes, I have to honor what they are doing.."

Chomsky on Iran:

"Well, protests against the nature of the regime..It's a clerical, military regime. Putting aside the details of the election, about which we do not know much, the whole structure of the regime is oppressive and authoritarian and undermines basic civil and other human rights, and protesting against it is not only honorable but courageous, because it faces extreme violence. So yes, I have to honor what they are doing.."

And I guess Chomsky does not see a U.S. bogeyman among the flag-waving protesters.

I see no logic in that simplistic either/or statement:

Because Chomsky does not support the Iranian theo-thugocracy and supports the protests and people's opposition to the regime does not mean that he believes the US has anything resembling clean hands in its  threats of military attack and funding terrorist organizations (which ultimately consolidate the regimes hold).

There is no more reason to believe the US wants democracy in Iran now than when it overthrew the democratically elected government in 1953. The continuance of the  US hegemony in the region (ratified in recent publicly available US Strategic Planning Guidance documents) depends on subservience, or, in lieu of that, mayhem.

====
July 24, 2009
Transcript

Yes, indeed, That has been my understanding from the time the Shah took power.

But I sort of thought that in this, the U.S. was only a background presence, its "freedoms" .  It would be a surremely stupid move on the part of the protesters to have it any other way. (Not that that is going to save them from some nasty fate. Those freedoms are harder to come by there.)

Guess I'm jsut "with Noam Chomsky" on this...have been on just about everything for half my life. Or are you reading something into his statement, that there is a  U.S. presence influencing the protesters ?

Thanks, Contrarianna, excellent defensive tackle!

No, nor have I said anything to that effect.
The notion of popular freedom movements, in general, as being foreign instigated is not a picture that generally makes believable sense to me.
(I do not consider the bankrolling terrorist attacks by fringe groups as "influencing the protesters".)

In fact, quite the contrary, there is no reason to believe there is real enthusiasm from the governments of the US and Israel for a popular movement for a liberalizing and more rational government in Iran any more now than there was preceding the election:

see the original article for links to key claims
http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2009/07/05/false-sorrow-for-the-peopl...

I was only making an observation (that Chomsky seems to support) that there is no direct U.S.ionvolvement in the decision to protest. You have eswtablished the reasoning for a fine plot theory, but I don't see that anything Chomsky has said, is reason to believe it was acted on by agents of subversion, for reasons I have state.  It would be foolishly counterproductive in a place where torture can extract such beginnings of such events

As for you, Martin, I've no idea where you are coming from on this, out-of-the-blue observation about "tackling" - one day after grand protestations about a need for peace in  babble - but you at the moment are acting like one huge hypocrite.l

I have flagged your post.

If that's all it takes, in future, I'll be sure to tread lightly.

Always take your posts as "light", Jack.

But you, too, seem to have taken nothing from exhaustive back and forths on the effect of sniping from the sidelines. If you have nothing substantive to add, then you are just coming on as a smartass.

I post here to try to learn something. Even read books with that in mind.

Do a sanizadeh or a contrariana or STFU.  Thanks.

You post here to shovel your rancid neo-colonialist swill down everyone's throat, to be exact George.  And for all of that book learnin of yours, reducing it down to chatspeak invective is not convincing in the slightest.  Learning isn't a priority here so much as teaching what you know.

Still light on facts, Jack.  But seems you've fallen  off the otherwordly accounting .

You certainly don't have to read works like Fatah's (I take it you  have not and will not), and clearly the fella has some serious faults, but you are, in effect, asking me to not read anything that you see as "rancid neo-colonialist swill".

Sorry, but other people also take the trouble to read and to post those readings. And from that I can begin to understand that it is not just the simple world situation of colonialism versus progressive revolutionary out there, or in their armchairs. Learning more about the few thousand humans parked out in the desert of eastern Iraq, for instance (People's Mujahadin of Iran) awaiting their fate, helps me to divorce myself from use of the catch-phrases employed by the "decided", some of whom I would not bother to try to understand, let alone label.

Okay, you two.  Ding ding ding.  Round over. :)

No, nor have I said anything to that effect.
The notion of popular freedom movements, in general, as being foreign instigated is not a picture that generally makes believable sense to me.
(I do not consider the bankrolling terrorist attacks by fringe groups as "influencing the protesters".)

I don't know man. If the Americans didn't want Mousavi to win, why did the corporate media spend so much time trying to portray him as Jack Kennedy, and focus on the street protests which supported him? The US media barons, usually only focus on events and people that will benefit corporate power, and ignore or demonize ones that don't. I mean, if the cause of the reformists is entirely just and good, why did the anti Ahmadinejad forces receive the blessing of a scumbag like Benjamin Netanyahu? There's also the matter of the US government preventing twitter from shutting down so that Mousavi's supporters could use it.

On the other hand, it's kind of racist and patronizing to assume that large-scale protests in Iran couldn't be organized without the help of translucently white bureaucrats in the State Department, and there is no doubt that Ahmad is a lunatic, so as a Western outsider I think I have to join Noam in saying that, while I don't know what's going on, I have to salute the protesters for organizing an incredible anti-theocracy uprising. No Pasaran!

Corporate media and Netanyahu are dumb enough to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

It's not clear the uprising can be said to be anti theocratic entirely.  It is pro democratic, so it is opposed to the autocratic components of theocracy, It is apparently not opposed to the idea of an Islamic republic, with the emphasis on republic rather than Islamic.  From the point of view of a human riights supporter (the only POV that has anything to say about other countries behavior) that's better than the other way around.

How can you have an Islamic Republic WITHOUT focus on Islam?

It's quite possible that the Pentagon (U.S.), MI-6 (U.K.) and Mossad (Israel) may have 'fixed' the Iranian elections or at least knew that Amadinejad would win (which is what they want) and that they also funded and instigated some of the protesters to add the additional element of chaos and instability in Iran - which (for them) makes the situation 'better' and is also what they want.

Let me put it this way: while no doubt foreigners and intelligence services have tried sice the 1979 revolution to influence the situation in Iran, I cannot name a single significant event inside Iran for the past 30 years, pro- or anti- government, that has ever been a direct result of foreigners work. In many ways, Iran has been the most independent nation in the world in the past 30 years. Everything that has happened there, good or bad, was done by Iranians.

The emphasis on "republic" in Islamic Republic is just a step to eventually drop the "Islamic" adjective from it completely. That's not to say a large portion of Iranian nation does not remain religious, but that a theocratic government will not have much support.

Iran Oil: Exploration Going Private

http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20090811070304/lok/070300090811

Iran's Privatization Organization has been given the go-ahead to privatize 80% of the rights to explore oil in the north and Caspian sea regions.."

Here are some interesting articles:

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/14/in-iran-reformists-call-for-investiga...

"Thus, decades of U.S. hostility toward Iran, and sanctions and military threats and attacks have had a net result: the efforts by the courageous people of Iran in establishing a democratic political system has been thwarted by undemocratic... groups, who have used the militarist policy of the U.S. toward Iran as their excuse to suppress freedom."

http://original.antiwar.com/sahimi/2009/08/14/role-of-us-militarism-in-a... [86]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103483&sectionid=351020101 [87]

Heard on CBC radio yesterday, from unspecified sources, of jailed protesters being very badly abused physically, and worse.  This was not unexpected, but does anyone have any sources pointing to the extent of this? (Now that the excitement of the election results are over and we wait for a world press to report on the results of its earlier work?)

Just caught this on one of your links, frmsldr:

"In fact, one of those putting forth the allegations, Reformist candidate Mehdi Karrobui, has gotten into some hot water of his own over claims of sexual abuse in the prisons. Top right-wing cleric Ayatollah Khatami has demanded the indictment of Karroubi on a charge of "libeling the system." If the charge sticks, Karroubi could face "80 strokes of the lash" according to Iran's state media."

Iran, America, Imperialism and "The Left"

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2009/08/iran-american-imperialism-lef...

"Aren't the leftists able to understand that if the US gave weapons to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war and if Israel backed the Mullahs, it is rather unlikely that Saddam 'launched the Iran-Iraq war at the behest of the US' as generally claimed? I could not agree more.."

Israel backed the Mullahs!?

I suspect there is lots of potential variation there.  You ought to be able to base a legal system on Sharia law and still maintain a democratic government.  That sounds like an Islamic Republic to me.

Yes.

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

According to an Iraqi who calls himself "Arab woman blue" and calls Saddam Hossein "the great hero martyr"! What do you expect?

She seems so pissed off about the hanging of that bastard.

Israel did supply weapons and support to Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Ir...

"Arms sales to Iran totaled an estimated $500 million from 1980 to 1983.."

As for this Iraqi woman's feelings about the lynching of her President, an international war crime, perhaps it has something to do with how much better things were under him than under the present puppets connected to Tehran and Washington.  If one was really interested in learning the answer of course one would read her blog. Here's a sample and we'll leave it there since "thread drift" is discouraged here..

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2009/07/to-sons-of-bitches.html [95]

Wag the Dog Again

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/08/12/wag-the-dog-again

"Israeli media reports that visiting National Security Adviser Jim Jones and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have told the government of Prime Mininster Benjamin Netanyahu to stop complaining about Iran because the U.S. is preparing to take action "in eight weeks.."

The meaning of the 8-week wait has taken on considerably different outcomes since it's first announcement. Not sure that the U.S. has promised some kind of military action, and of course, is unlikely to have.

War? Israeli Ambassador to US: Obama's End-Of-The-Year Deadline to Iran Has Been Moved Up to September

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14798

re: Iran strike Op "Israeli Air Force plans to participate in aerial exercises in the US and Europe in the coming months with the aim of training its pilots for long range flights. IAF planes will take part this year in a joint aerial exercise with a NATO member state that cannot be identified.."

Here's another Israeli angle on the Iranian nuclear issue:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108564.html

Here's how the U.S.A. is putting undue/unjust pressure on Iran over the NPT:

httP://original.antiwar.com/prather/2009/08/21/iaea-legal-expert-stifles... [100]

"'They [Iranian authorities] should at least have the courage to declare that this government is neither a republic nor Islamic with nobody allowed to protest, comment or criticise,' fumed ... (top dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali) ... Montazeri."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090827/wl_mideast_afp/iranpoliticsunrestmo...

Netanyahu Calls for 'Crippling Sanctions' Against Iran

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090827/wl_mideast_afp/mideastisraelgermany...

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Thursday for 'crippling sanctions' against Iran to stop its disputed nuclear work, on a solemn visit to Berlin marked by Holocaust rememberance. After talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Netanyahu expressed hopes for a quick resumption of a Middle East peace talks as he warned of a mortal threat to Israel's survival poised by Iran. "There is not much time," to halt Tehran's nuclear ambitions, he told reporters.."