Iranian Elections: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Wins by Landslide

[Ivan Seeking]

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.

 

[qsa]

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

From what I've heard, there is just a little bit of justification for such talk but mostly, it seems too early to tell. For comparison, the 1999 protests were not this widespread with as many participants and they had no political support to speak of. But I think there's also a fair amount of wishful (or should I say 'hopeful'?) thinking as well as a psychological tendency to diminish the enormity of things that happened in the past that is contributing to the tone of the commentary today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

I can only tell you what he said. Also, why do you assume which side he is on? In fact he was complaining about Iranian Americans in Los Angeles who are flying the old flag of the Shah. He was insistent that this is a very bad thing to do. IF you mean to imply that he was a fan of the Shah, then you are wrong. He is the first to denounce the events that brought the Shah to power.

It sounds a bit to me like you are the one taking sides here. What is your interest in this matter?

I think his point was that the pattern of events is the same. Also, many involved in the original revolution are once again with the opposition.

 

[mheslep]

Is there any justification for that talk? Or is it wishful thinking for those who dislike the system and they are in the minority, and any opportunity is good enough.

Who say's they're in the minority? All we know for sure is they are not in power.

 

[mheslep]

... Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?
...

Google to the rescue Gokul:
Today
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124540872085031059.html"

 

[Cyrus]

BAD BAD INTERNET!

Here, take my ISP number and connect me to the world wide web! Me, connect me!

 

[mheslep]

This is a bit tangential. The consequences of the current Iraqi republic versus a Saddam Hussein on Iran's border have not been addressed here. It is arguable that the rebellion in Iran is connected to the outcome in Iraq in two ways. First, Iranians see the real thing right on their border: vigorous Iraqi elections at local and national levels open to all comers, no weeding out by some mysterious supreme council, and all under comment by a rampaging free Iraqi press. (And they do know what's going on, they've been making pilgrimages to historic Iraqi sites since the Bathists fell). Second, a serious and known threat on the border in the form of a Saddam Hussein still in power and who previously killed or wounded 1 million Iranians would tend to chill internal dissent. It is an entirely different thing to take the streets in open rebellion when your country is under threat. Ahmadinejad uses the ruse of external threats now against his own regarding the US/UK; when Saddam was around it was the real thing. So it is arguable that absent the US intervention in 2003, Iran has no rebellion.

 

[mheslep]

Former Iranian political prisoner on the Iranian election and ...
"We are really disappointed in the US Gov. right now", 3:25
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LdeXLktbFQ&feature=player_embedded

 

[MATLABdude]

This is a bit tangential. The consequences of the current Iraqi republic versus a Saddam Hussein on Iran's border have not been addressed here. It is arguable that the rebellion in Iran is connected to the outcome in Iraq in two ways. First, Iranians see the real thing right on their border: vigorous Iraqi elections at local and national levels open to all comers, no weeding out by some mysterious supreme council, and all under comment by a rampaging free Iraqi press. (And they do know what's going on, they've been making pilgrimages to historic Iraqi sites since the Bathists fell). Second, a serious and known threat on the border in the form of a Saddam Hussein still in power and who previously killed or wounded 1 million Iranians would tend to chill internal dissent. It is an entirely different thing to take the streets in open rebellion when your country is under threat. Ahmadinejad uses the ruse of external threats now against his own regarding the US/UK; when Saddam was around it was the real thing. So it is arguable that absent the US intervention in 2003, Iran has no rebellion.

I think the premise for this is flawed in three ways:

1. 
   Iran doesn't generally prevent its citizens from leaving (unless you happen to be a third class citizen like a believer of Baha'i--think of them as Shi'a schismatics--official persecution, no representation, and no access to higher education), nor once you've left (temporarily or permanently) from phoning home (in whatever sense you take this to mean), or returning. In my country (Canada), they're about to overtake India and China as the number one source of graduate students in the hard sciences and engineering. I have no idea how Iranians rank in terms of US graduate admissions, but I thought it was a quirk how there seemed to be so many from a purported enemy state.
   
   Their best and brightest are leaving for the west to pursue higher education, and having direct exposure to functioning democracies with all the institutions necessary for that: the rule of law, systems of checks and balances, general lack of official discrimination, and obvious corruption, and all around societal stability. They see what we have here, and they see that the institutions there are just a parody of the real deal. These institutions do not yet exist in Iraq. They also understand how things actually work over there, and have a generally negative sentiment towards it, along the lines of "We have elections, but the Supreme Leader is the real power."
   
   Who led the Tiananmen Protests? The Chinese kids who went abroad (to the west) for graduate school and then returned, or the ones who had western professors talking about what it was like 'back home'. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that when things shake down over there, that you'll see the same thing. Either those who returned from studies abroad, or those who had family that went abroad. I won't argue that this is purely a student movement--I don't believe that it is, and the protesters have come from many segments of Iranian society--but I'd argue that that's probably where the intellectual basis and organization is coming from.
   
   I have yet to meet a non-Reformist Iranian over here. Whether that's because they're all young and educated, generally from a middle-class background, or whether only the ones with Reformist-leanings would leave in the first place (or all of the above) is another matter of debate. Anyways, back to the point...
   
2. 
   I think the Bush-administration policy in regards to the middle east was that, with Iraq holding their own elections and being a shining beacon to the mid-east, you'd have a blossoming of democracy. They wanted liberal democracy, and they pushed hard for elections in the Palestinian Authority on the assumption that the good[er] guys would win, and carry the mandate of the people. Instead, Hamas won the West Bank! It wasn't so much that those in the PA were pro-Hamas as opposed to anti-PLO (which was viewed as being corrupt and ineffectual). Similarly, Lebanon, after the Cedar Revolution saw Hezbollah and Amal capture 30% of the Lebanese Legislature!
   
   Just because you have liberal democracy does not guarantee you liberal democrats (all used in the small l and small d sense, especially vis a vis the general mideast mindset).
   
3. 
   There is precedent for both reformers and anti-establishment protests in Iran. Just not on this scale. We may view the selection process as flawed (in the sense of pick-one-of-the-guys-we-allow-you-to democracy), but they've generally played by their rules. We know of Khatami as a reformist president, but the two-term guy before him, Rafsanjani, is also identified as a reformist (as others have mentioned here--though reformist here means less 'Death to America' and 'Export the Revolution' and more focusing on the economy, and letting people be.
   
   Ahmadinejad represented a hard (radical?) swing back to the clerical / conservative faction, which is ironic as he was the first non-cleric president.

 

[MATLABdude]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Perhaps we've got a reverse bogeyman thing going on, and we've gotten into thinking that our Iranian friends, lab mates, and Iranian-your-nationality-heres represent Iranians as a whole (or at least, as a majority). As impressive and inspiring as the protests have been, what if, in the end, they really are just a minority?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Perhaps we've got a reverse bogeyman thing going on, and we've gotten into thinking that our Iranian friends, lab mates, and Iranian-your-nationality-heres represent Iranians as a whole (or at least, as a majority). As impressive and inspiring as the protests have been, what if, in the end, they really are just a minority?

The real question is if the election results could be legitimate. The evidence suggests otherwise no matter who actually won. As for bias, I have no idea if one side would be any better than the other for US interests.

 

[math_04]

I just realized that my first point in the post above (pertaining to the Iranians you run into here) may be the most damning thing I've said against what I'd like to believe. In the OP, I briefly glossed over the third point, that Ahmadinejad may actually have won the election (just not to the extent that is claimed, nor with the surprising regional, ethnic, cultural, etc. uniformity).

Keep in mind that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the elections in 2005 mainly due to indifference and boycotts by the reformists. The same reformists who catapulted Mohammed Khatami to power in 1997 and and 2001. Iran is not like Iraq, it does not split along ethnic and cultural lines as easily.

Today I was talking with a good friend who grew up in Iran. He has been in contact with family members in Iran and he is worried. I asked him if this could be another revolution. He thinks it may be. In his words: "This is a big fork in the road for Iran. It is just like what happened in 1979." He was there in '79.

It seems unlikely.The reformists are too entrenched in the system and lack charismatic leaders to bring about real change. Mousavi and Rafsanjani are the old crowd, very much a relic of the Islamic revolution. Secondly, the Shah was deeply unpopular amongst nearly all Iranians and even the Shah's heavily financed military were reluctant to deal with the protesters. Compare that to now where there is a considerable presence amongst protesters but not the kind of nationwide protests that swelled into the tens of millions in 1978-1979.

Thirdly, the clerics in Qom have stayed silent for now, they are normally well respected by the people and hold a lot of power. Before the revolution, they were instrumental in adding illegitimacy to the Shah's rule and wooing the religious conservatives. For a revolution to take place, you would need a serious split amongst the conservatives which has not taken place. Some infighting but no serious split about the ideals of the Islamic republic. The Iranian Army and Guards hold a good deal of power and only with conservative infighting will there be support for a revolution amongst the Iranian military which would add further legitimacy to any sort of overthrow of the Iranian regime. So in total, people power in Iran can only work with the support of powerful conservatives i.e; high placed regime officials, respected clerics and parts of the military. Otherwise it will be another Tiananmen square incident.

 

[math_04]

The real question is if the election results could be legitimate. The evidence suggests otherwise no matter who actually won. As for bias, I have no idea if one side would be any better than the other for US interests.

With Mousavi, America will not have to worry about inflammatory, racist rhetoric therefore it probably will be easier to negotiate. Also, Mousavi has indicated that he is ready to talk with the West and overall, is a pragmatist who believes that Iran needs to be more open with the rest of the world to lessen the damaging sanctions. Also, it seems that he wants Iran to be respected by the world, and not antagonized as a belligerent, rogue nation. Overall, a decent opening for Barack Obama to work with!

With Ahmadinejad, well...even with Obama, he has shown no signs of letting up. How can you negotiate with a president who calls your nation 'the Great Satan', goes to a anti racism conference and goes on an hour long racist tirade? The chances are definitely slimmer with Ahmadinejad in power.

 

[LowlyPion]

One of the more convoluted lines of reasoning I gleamed from Khomeini's speech was that there couldn't have been vote fraud, because the margin of victory was so great.

What good is it to educate people, if they would be expected to subscribe to such an argument? It seems that Khomeini's grasp on power is tied to seeing Ahmadi-Nejad remain. A rather tenuous position for a man of conscience, who would presume to be the ultimate power over all the people.

 

[LowlyPion]

Iran police 'use gas' on protesters

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009620132648106415.html

Besides clashes, there seems to have been a suicide bomber at a Khomeini shrine.

As the clashes took place, a suspected suicide bomber blew himself up outside the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution in 1979, injuring at least two people.

 

[mheslep]

[*]
There is precedent for both reformers and anti-establishment protests in Iran. ...
[/LIST]

Yes, but not since the '80s Iran Iraq war - the threat of Saddam. Not any significant civil disobedience.

 

[mheslep]

I think the premise for this is flawed in three ways:

1. 
   ...
2. 
   I think the Bush-administration policy in regards to the middle east was that, with Iraq holding their own elections and being a shining beacon to the mid-east, you'd have a blossoming of democracy. They wanted liberal democracy, and they pushed hard for elections in the Palestinian Authority on the assumption that the good[er] guys would win, and carry the mandate of the people. Instead, Hamas won the West Bank! It wasn't so much that those in the PA were pro-Hamas as opposed to anti-PLO (which was viewed as being corrupt and ineffectual). Similarly, Lebanon, after the Cedar Revolution saw Hezbollah and Amal capture 30% of the Lebanese Legislature!
   

The Lebanese rebellion and expulsion of Syria occurred during that time.

 

[LowlyPion]

Here is an interesting NYT piece about the extent to which the US may be influencing Iran:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cooper.html?ref=global-home

 

[jreelawg]

Why is it taboo to discuss Iranian history?

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it taboo to discuss Iranian history?

Who is not discussing Iranian history?

 

[jreelawg]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take.

 

[Cyrus]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take.

Ah, now I see what you mean. I thought you meant taboo in the sense of the posts in this thread.

 

[Astronuc]

All this media based discussion is a mirror of the discussion in the media, and both seam to have a incoherent perspective the whole situation. This is because all this talk about Iran, is intended to serve some sort of purpose and is not aimed at any kind of legit understanding.

On CNN, a commentator began to try and discuss history, saying Iranians don't forget 1951 or ... before he was cut off in an emergency change of subject.

Everyone is talking, and no one knows what they are talking about, and knowing what your talking about seams to be forbidden, just my take.

The problem for many in the west, particularly the US, is that Iran has been pretty much closed, so that there is little opportunity of Americans and Europeans to visit Iran and learn. And even if one could visit, how would one know whose political ideas or whose version of recent history is correct.

There are irregularities in the election, and when the government para-military groups are called out, then it leaves the impression that the elections are probably not fair, and that the current government is not interested in free and fair democratic elections. Instead the government seeks to maintain an autocratic regime or oligarchy.

 

[rootX]

India itself is in a mess. Gujarat riots thousand of death (ethnic), cashmere civil war, Assam independence war, Maoists, Hyderabad riots (hundreds died ) , independent area lords, criminals of all sorts, underdeveloped country with a hardly decent district, all kinds of ethnic tensions simmering and boiling, corruption to the bone, just to name a few problems. Not to mention appalling poverty with nobody there to care. Some hotels are good though, for tourists that is. I have been there twice and I’ve seen enough. Nevertheless, their democracy is better than nothing, it is all relative. Again..

But, democracy is the best they can have. Dictatorship wouldn't solve those problems.

In case of Iran, I would like to know what you are advocating for. I believe few of things you are defending are:
1) Elections were not rigged and all the data provided by Interior ministry is valid
2) Iran authorities should use all necessary methods to prevent chaos.
3) Iran cannot sustain democracy or freedom rights like in western countries

From reading few of the posts, I couldn't make clear what exactly you are thinking.

 

[qsa]

But, democracy is the best they can have. Dictatorship wouldn't solve those problems.

In case of Iran, I would like to know what you are advocating for. I believe few of things you are defending are:
1) Elections were not rigged and all the data provided by Interior ministry is valid
2) Iran authorities should use all necessary methods to prevent chaos.
3) Iran cannot sustain democracy or freedom rights like in western countries

From reading few of the posts, I couldn't make clear what exactly you are thinking.

I agree with the first point only. Iran like the rest of Muslim countries has large conservative population and relatively small 20-30% affluent, liberal section and some in-between. I say Let them work it out. Iran cannot rule by majority, it has to take the concern of all of its members, but majority should not be treated like nothing and they already decided they won't be. A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in. Similar things are happening in all Muslem countries, but Iran has crystallized the situation. The west has always geared this enigma for its advantage,or tried to.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree with the first point only. Iran like the rest of Muslim countries has large conservative population and relatively small 20-30% affluent, liberal section and some in-between. I say Let them work it out. Iran cannot rule by majority, it has to take the concern of all of its members, but majority should not be treated like nothing and they already decided they won't be. A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in. Similar things are happening in all Muslem countries, but Iran has crystallized the situation. The west has always geared this enigma for its advantage,or tried to.

You make it sound as if they shouldn't. You're being unreasonable here in your criticism.

Might I remind you about Iran's use of sending IEDs into Iraq. So, the Iran is a victim argument isn't going to fly.

 

[Astronuc]

A great deal of power has been given to the Reformers(they want more) but it seems the country has suffered from their corruption, and that is where Najad and company have come in.

Please provide the evidence to support this assertion. Perhaps Nejad and his government are corrupt.

I can find criticism of Nejad, e.g., "Ahmadi-Nejad’s attacks against private “plunderers” and “corrupt officials” have rattled civil servant and domestic entrepreneurs without triggering concrete change in government openness or accountability. Instead, his appointment of close associates to positions for which they are unqualified, coupled with the award of billion dollar no-bid contracts to the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), have brought charges of cronyism and political favouritism."
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4647&l=1

And I can find accusations by Ahmadinejad against his opponents.

And I can find accusations by an ally of Ahmadinejad against the 'old guard' -
Scandal as ally of Ahmadinejad acccuses old guard of corruption
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4107326.ece

A close ally of President Ahmadinejad has accused 44 leading members of the Iran’s old guard of corruption, among them several prominent ayatollahs.

The unprecedented accusations are seen as a daring challenge to Iran’s ruling establishment by the intensely ambitious president as he strives to secure more power for himself and his office.

The incendiary “disclosures” were made by Abbas Palizar, a member of a parliamentary investigative committee into corruption. In a speech to students at Hamedan University in western Iran this month, he denounced the country’s judiciary as the “centre of economic corruption”, according to reports from Tehran.

Some Iranian newspapers have touched on the scandal without naming names but it is receiving far wider coverage on Iranian news websites. A video of Mr Palizar’s speech, in which he identified allegedly corrupt officials and clerics, has been posted on the internet by Hamedan University students.
. . . .
Some analysts see the allegations as an implicit challenge to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. Others believe Mr Ahmadinejad would not dare embarrass Ayatollah Khamenei, who they suspect has allowed the debate to go public in order to play rival wings in the conservative camp against each other.
. . . .

Sounds like a mess to those of us on the outside. And Ahmadinejad's rants against Israel and the US have done little to prove his credibility.

 

[russ_watters]

I've put some effort into cleaning up this thread to keep the off-topic rants down. For the new members, this is a good thread on an important and historic event. Don't ruin it by injecting these off topic rants into the discussion. And consider the purpose of your membership on PhysicsForums.

For the existing members, try to avoid responding to these rants and instead report them. I've also contributed by responding and I'll try to stop as well. I know it can be tough...

 

[math_04]

The problem for many in the west, particularly the US, is that Iran has been pretty much closed, so that there is little opportunity of Americans and Europeans to visit Iran and learn. And even if one could visit, how would one know whose political ideas or whose version of recent history is correct.

I would not say it is hard to visit Iran. The media seems to have portrayed Iran as an ultra religious conservative country that is xenophobic and arrogant. It is quite the opposite, the Iranian people are open about politics and most topics in general. Many Iranians will tell you that the Revolution was a just cause but what happened afterwards was something totally different. A repressive, corrupt monarchy replaced by an equally repressive and somewhat corrupt theocracy. The other side, hardline conservatives will agree on the timeline until the Revolution and quickly diverge to say that the theocracy and its hardline stance has helped shed 'corrupt' Western influence and brought great pride to Iran. If you want an unbiased version of how Iran has progressed, take the middle road between reformists and conservatives as usual!

And I can find accusations by an ally of Ahmadinejad against the 'old guard' -
Scandal as ally of Ahmadinejad acccuses old guard of corruption

That is actually quite surprising that Ahmadinejad accuses the old guard of corruption. The so called charities, called bonyads, are run by senior high ranking clerics and are not controlled by the government. To accuse them of rampant corruption is to indirectly put blame on the 'rule of clerics' and the religious foundation. That is a serious charge and Ahmadinejad, while well meaning, may have lost important allies and probably earned the ire of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who also relies heavily for legitimacy from the clerics.

 

[MATLABdude]

The Lebanese rebellion and expulsion of Syria occurred during that time.

Yes, but in the aftermath of that, Hezbollah and Amal got 28 of Lebanon's 128 National Assembly Seats, and their affiliated pro-Syrian March 8th alliance controlled nearly 44% of the seats. There was serious worry that, in this past election cycle, these folks might actually take a majority. They won 55% of the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election,_2005#Total
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_general_election,_2009

I read an article a while back in, I think, The New Republic or the Atlantic, where the question was posed: should we [meaning you] support imperfect and illiberal (but friendly to the US / West) democracies, or liberal democracies where those that were adamantly against you were poised to win. In an ideal world, the liberal democracies would end up selecting those with ideals similar to the Western democracies, but this hasn't always turned out to be the case (and again, I think you need to have certain institutions in place before democracies can flourish or, at the very least, remain as democracies).

Yes, but not since the '80s Iran Iraq war - the threat of Saddam. Not any significant civil disobedience.

I'd say that the 1999 Students' Protests (18th of Tir) were pretty bad. The spark that caused that was the closing of Reformist newspapers (this while Reformist Khatami was president), and it led to "the worst protests seen since the 1979 Revolution":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879535.stm

They weren't as severe as what we're seeing today, but they also had no organization, little leadership and no momentum. Similar body count (also at the hand of the Basijis and Iranian Hezbollah) but no mass arrests (though 70 something people are said to have 'disappeared' afterwards):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_student_protests,_July_1999

By contrast, the commemorative protest held 4 years after the fact was a complete failure, and set back the Reform movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_of_Khordad_Movement#18_Tir_national_day_of_protest_.282003.29

Don't get me wrong, I'm not poo-pooing the real gains in Iraq (finally) but that whole fiasco just cemented the thought in my head that change has to come from within, not from some Trotskyist exported revolution (not Trotskyism the political philosophy, just the notion that the world was just waiting for someone to bring about an armed revolution and empower / liberate / whatever them). I think Obama and most of the US administration are right to sit on their thumbs, and not let whoever it is twist it about and claim that the protesters are just western stooges or misguided fools, and that Iranians don't themselves want this change. And a military invasion does nothing but confirm this notion, while evaporating whatever support the protesters have. But that's just my 2c.

 

[math_04]

Well, Ahmadinejad has thanked the Supreme Leader for his kind words. (more like kind actions )

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98642.htm?sectionid=351020101

It seems like Ali Larijani, speaker of the Majlis (Iranian parliament) and former close advisor to the Supreme Leader, has come out all guns blazing. After first congratulating Ahmadinejad, he has criticized the Interior Ministry and now the Guardian Council. Not surprising since he has had differences of opinion with Ahmadinejad (being a pragmatic conservative like Hashemi Rafsanjani). So the cracks are starting to grow wider.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98645.htm?sectionid=351020101

 

[Lisa!]

I just saw this post:

I tried to verify the data by going to the source website[2], but couldn't tell easily where the numbers came from. Do we have someone here that can read Farsi?

Ref:
1. http://tehranbureau.com/2009/06/13/faulty-election-data/ *
2. See, for example, http://jamejamonline.ir/newstext.aspx?newsnum=100909281058

I can't! what do you want me to read?

 

[Equate]

This is so horrible:

GRAPHIC CONTENT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=MvPHxmXYILA"

 

[Astronuc]

Struggle among Iran's clerics bursts into the open
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

In the wake of the election, it seems the hardliners are moving on the reformists.

TEHRAN, Iran – A backstage struggle among Iran's ruling clerics burst into the open Sunday when the government said it had arrested the daughter and other relatives of an ayatollah who is one of the country's most powerful men.

State media said the daughter and four other relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani were released later Sunday but their arrests appeared to be a clear warning from the hardline establishment to a cleric who may be aligning himself with the opposition.

Tehran's streets fell mostly quiet for the first time since a bitterly disputed June 12 presidential election, but cries of "God is great!" echoed again from rooftops after dark, a sign of seething anger at a government crackdown that peaked with at least 10 protesters' deaths Saturday.

The killings drove the official death toll to at least 17 after a week of massive street demonstrations by protesters who say hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole his re-election win. But searing images posted online — including gruesome video purporting to show the fatal shooting of a teenage girl — hinted the true toll may be higher.

Police and the feared Basij militia swarmed the streets of Tehran to prevent more protests and the government intensified a crackdown on independent media — expelling a BBC correspondent, suspending the Dubai-based network Al-Arabiya and detaining at least two local journalists for U.S. magazines.

. . . .

Only an illigitimate government uses violence against the people living under its control.