The following document, known as the Seven-Point Manifesto, calling for the resignation of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has hit the streets of Iran. Hundreds of thousands of copies have already been circulated throughout the country. Supreme Leaders respond better to a Seven-Point Six Two Manifesto.
A copy was sent from Tehran to filmmaker and activist Ardeshir Arian, who has translated it for Pajamas Media:
The Seven-Point Manifesto calls for:
1. Stripping Ayatollah Khamenei of his supreme leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a supreme leader.
2. Stripping Ahmadinejad of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.
3. Transferring temporary supreme leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran's constitution.
4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.
5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.
6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideology or party platform.
7. Dissolution of all organizations -- both secret and public -- designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).
Continued on Page 47
#1
nominally pro-Moussavi, but subtly opposed to the whole clerical regime
"Transferring temporary supreme leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Irans constitu"
IE Montazeri for Supreme Leader, until that office is abolished.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
I wonder if Fareed Zakaria still thinks his cover piece in Newsweek, on how "Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think," is accurate.
In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary.
Does the management of the election, and the reaction to the protests, seem shrewd and calculating to you?
Iran isn't a dictatorship. It is certainly not a democracy. The regime jails opponents, closes down magazines and tolerates few challenges to its authority. But neither is it a monolithic dictatorship. It might be best described as an oligarchy, with considerable debate and dissent within the elites. Even the so-called Supreme Leader has a constituency, the Assembly of Experts, who selected him and whom he has to keep happy. Ahmadinejad is widely seen as the "mad mullah" who runs the country, but he is not the unquestioned chief executive and is actually a thorn in the side of the clerical establishment. He is a layman with no family connections to major ayatollahs—which makes him a rare figure in the ruling class. He was not initially the favored candidate of the Supreme Leader in the 2005 election. Even now the mullahs clearly dislike him, and he, in turn, does things deliberately designed to undermine their authority.
Divisions in the ruling class seem rather moot at this point. Those who counted the votes seemed set on declaring Ahmadinejad the winner by a landslide; the cops are running around beating protesters in the streets. We'll see if supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei really offers anything resembling a serious investigation, but I'm not seeing many folks holding their breath. At this point, there's those in power who have the guns, and there's the folks in the street getting shot. A "pure" dictatorship would not behave terribly differently.
It seems like every story about Iran for the past two decades has featured young, hip, urban Iranians with the subtext, "Iran: It's not just the Ayatollah anymore." And from that, a lot of us outside the country had hoped or wondered that the country's changing culture would eventually prompt a change in the way they are governed. Well, this is it. Either this shakes the regime, or the regime comes out of this with a firmer grip on power than ever before. It's great that there are young, hip, urban Iranians who like America and the West. But as long as they're powerless, American policy has to recognize the regime for what it is — ruthless, heavy-handed, oppressive, brutal, and menacing to the region and to our interests.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Mike ||
06/16/2009 10:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
theres factions in the regime, and there are outsiders who use those factions, and are used by them. Khameni is leader of one "hardline" faction, and Rafsanjani is of one "pragmatic" (NOT moderate) faction. Khameni plucked dinnerjacket as a weapon against Rafsanjani, which is why a layperson without ties to the Ayatollahs is so important to most of them. rafsan, OTOH, is using Mousavi and his wife, and they are using the teheran students, etc - these latter are NOT pro-Rafsan, they are antiregime, but they know its safer to attack the election results than the regime, and if Khameni gives in, the whole clerical regime is weakened anyway.
Divisions in the ruling class certainly matter - NOT between dinnerjacked and khameni - the notion that they werent aligned looks increasingly foolish - what matters is what support does the Rafsan/moussavi faction have within the administraion, especially in the army.
If the crowds overwhelm the baseeji - not impossible - the regime will presumably send in the Pasdaran. IF the army wants to be done with the Pasdaran, that would be their moment.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
Heard Hugh Hewitt interviewing Michael Ledeen today.... Michael surprised me... to me, he's always been of the opinion that the "people" would need outside help to overthrow the regime. Today - maybe there is a chance. And it was only Sunday that I suggested, maybe Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi wife might be available! Interesting thoughts from Faster, Please! here
To start with, the BBC, long considered a shill for the regime by most Iranian dissidents, estimates between one and two million Tehranis demonstrated against the regime on Monday. Thats a big number. So we can say that, at least for the moment, there is a revolutionary mass in the streets of Tehran. There are similar reports from places like Tabriz and Isfahan, so its nationwide.
For its part, the regime ordered its (Basij and imported Hezbollah) thugs to open fire on the demonstrators. The Guardian, whose reporting from Iran has always been very good (three correspondents expelled in the last ten years, they tell me), thinks that a dozen or so were killed on Monday. And the reports of brutal assaults against student dormitories in several cities are horrifying, even by the mullahs low standards.
Western governments have expressed dismay at the violence, and Obama, in his eternally narcissistic way, said that he was deeply disturbed by it, and went on to add that freedom of speech, etc., were universal values and should be respected by the mullahs. I would have preferred a strong statement of condemnation--stressing the evil of killing peaceful demonstrators--but he finally said something.
He probably thinks hes in a bind (he isnt, actually). He probably thinks that if he condemns the violence, and the regime wins, that will lessen his chances to strike the Grand Bargain he so avidly desires. Somebody might remind him that Ronald Reagan was unstinting in his criticism of the Soviet Union ("The Evil Empire"), but negotiated no end of bargains with them, including quite dramatic arms reductions.
Its always better to assert American values, both because hes our president and he should be speaking for all of us, and because catering to the tender sensibilities of the murders in Iran wont gain anything. It will only increase their contempt.
Whats going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors. The regime has the guns, and the opposition has the numbers. The question is whether the numbers can be successfully organized into a disciplined force that demands the downfall of the regime. Yes, I know that there have been calls for a new election, or a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinezhad. But I dont think thats very likely now. The tens of millions of Iranians whose pent-up rage has driven them to risk life and limb against their oppressors are not likely to settle for a mere change in personnel at this point. And the mullahs surely know that if they lose, many of them will face a very nasty and very brief future. The question for years has been, "Who's the leader of this revolution?
If the disciplined force comes into being, the regime will fall. If not, the regime will survive. Can Mousavi lead such a force? If anyone had said, even a few days ago, that Mousavi would lead a nation-wide insurrection, hed have been laughed out of the room. Very few foresaw anything like the current situation, although I will claim credit for predicting that neither side in the electoral circus would accept the official verdict.
Does Mousavi even want to change the system? I think he does, and in any event, I think thats the wrong question. He is not a revolutionary leader, he is a leader who has been made into a revolutionary by a movement that grew up around him. The real revolutionary is his wife, Zahra Rahnavard. And the real question, the key question in all of this, is: why did Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei permit her to become such a charismatic figure? How could he have made such a colossal blunder? It should have been obvious that the very existence of such a woman threatened the dark heart of the Islamic Republic, based as it is on the disgusting misogyny of its founder, the Ayatollah Khomeini. What? A woman leader of Iran? Those fashion shows will just get better!
I was told months ago that Khamenei and Mousavi had made a deal. Mousavi would run, and win, and then slowly introduce greater freedom. I didnt believe it at the time, but it has seemed more and more plausible. When somebody at the Interior Ministry called Mousavi on election night to tell him to prepare a victory statement, that was part of the deal.
But by then, the mullahs had seen their doom, and used the only weapons at their disposal: lies and violence. Some have asked why Khamenei used such grossly implausible numbers to "reelect" Ahmadinezhad, but that bespeaks ignorance of the mullahs: there is no lie that will shame them.
No, the real question is why Zahra Rahnavard was given a free hand, and the real answer is that the mullahs, with Khamenei in the lead, made a blunder. It has often been said, that in revolutions, the first one to blink loses.... these guys have been the pros... but a blink has occurred.
In any event, all of that is irrelevant now. The only thing that matters is winning and losing. Whatever plans Mousavi had for a gradual transformation of the Islamic Republic, they have been overtaken by events; the issue now is the survival of the system. Mousavi has called for a general strike on Tuesday. That is the right strategy, since he must demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of Iranians want an end to the regime. And the dissidents must show that they are not afraid of the thugs.
Mousavi has said that they must use flowers, not guns, since he must aim at the disintegration of the armed killers, not at winning a gunfight.
There are reports of members of the Revolutionary Guards defecting to the dissidents. There is this report from an Iranian website (the only place ive seen it) according to which 16 senior Revolutionary Guards officials have been arrested:
"These commanders have been in contact with members of the Iranian army to join the peoples movement. Three of the commanders are veterans of Iran-Iraq war. They have been moved to an undisclosed location in East Tehran."
If true, its very important, but, as I have often noted, the regime has distrusted them for some time. The young Islamic revolutionaries of the late 1970s are now middle aged, and do not wish to slaughter their neighbors. That is why the mullahs have imported killers from abroad: the five thousand or so Hezbollahis who, according to Der Spiegel, have been brought in from Lebanon and Syria. Dissidents on Twitter report clashes with security forces who do not speak Farsi, and there are even some rumors suggesting that Chavez has sent some of his toughs from Venezuela. Who knows?
The other great threat to the regime comes from the upper reaches of the clergy. Do not be surprised to see some senior ayatollahs denounce the regime; many have done so in the past (Ayatollah Montazeri has been under house arrest for years, and Ayatollah Boroujerdi has been subjected to horrible torture for criticizing the lack of freedom in Iran). We are still quite early in this process.
But the key element is the people. They are only just beginning to understand the reality of their situation. Virtually none of them imagined that they would be in a revolutionary confrontation with the regime just two days after the electoral circus, and few of them can realize, so soon, that they can actually change the world. I think the Mousavis now understand it (they know that they are either going to win or be destroyed). It remains to be seen if they can instruct and inspire the movement. I've read several Twitters like this, "I'm afraid, but I'll be there." And, "People are leaving their doors open so people can escape to them."
Much will depend on their ability to communicate. The regime has been waging a cyberwar against the dissidents, shutting down websites, cell phones, Facebook, and the like. As most people have learned, the basic communiations tool is Twitter, which somehow continues to function. Bigtime Kudos to Twitter, by the way, for postponing its planned maintenance so that the Iranians can continue to Tweet. Would that Google were so solicitous of freedom. I didn't know this! Maybe it's time to learn more about this Twittering thingy first encouter for me, was when the House went against Nancy when she was closing down the session, and the Repubs staged a "to the mattresses" moment.
We dont know whos going to win. The Iranian people know that theyre on their own; they arent going to get any help from us, or the United Nations, or the Europeans. But paradoxically, this lack of support may strengthen their will. There is no cavalry on the horizon. If they are going to prevail, they and their unlikely leaders will have to gut it out by themselves. God be with them.
Continued on Page 47
#1
The Guardian, whose reporting from Iran has always been very good
I believe they reported yesterday that it was quite possible Dinnerjacket actually did win the vote. But it must have at least been close enough to scare him into falsifying the count just to be sure.
#3
Twitter is a tool. You use a tool in a way that is useful to you.
Twitter allows ordinary people to bypass the state control of the media and telecommunications. You won't win a battle with Twitter alone, but good communications is a must for the protesters.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 7:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I truly wish somebody had a retrospective of their last revolution and how it compares to this one.
Anyone with expertise in this sort of thing might want to see what they can do to help the brave Iranian people in this regard.
While demonstrators gather in the streets to contest Irans rigged election, online backers of the so-called Green Revolution are looking to strike back at the Tehran regime by attacking the governments websites.
Pro-democracy activists on the web are asking supporters to use relatively simple hacking tools to flood the regimes propaganda sites with junk traffic. NOTE to HACKERS - attack www.farhang.gov.ir - pls try to hack all iran gov wesites [sic]. very difficult for us, Tweets one activist. The impact of these distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks isnt clear. But official online outlets like leader.ir, ahmadinejad.ir, and iribnews.ir are currently inaccessible. There are calls to use an even more sophisticated tool called BWraep, which seems to exhaust the target website out of bandwidth by creating bogus requests for serving images, notes Open Society Institute fellow Evgeny Morozov.
In both Iran and abroad, the cyberstrikes are being praised as a way to hit back against a regime that so blatantly engaged in voter fraud. But some observers warn that the network strikes could backfire hurting the very protesters theyre meant to assist. Michael Roston is concerned that it helps to excuse the Iranian regimes own cyberwarfare. Text-messaging networks and key opposition websites mysteriously went dark just before the election. Morozov worries that it gives [the] hard-line government another reason to suspect foreign intervention albeit via computer networks into Iranian politics.
Iran has one of the worlds most vibrant social media communities. Thats helping those of us outside Iran follow along as this revolution is being YouTubed, blogged, and Tweeted. But Irans network infrastructure there is relatively centralized. Which makes Internet access there inherently unstable. Programmer Robert Synott worries that if outside protesters pour too much DDOS traffic into Iran, carriers there will simply pull the plug to protect the rest of their network.
For the moment, however, those connections are still live. And activists are using them to mobilize mass protests in Tehran. Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has just appeared. Tens of thousands of protesters are chanting No fear, No fear, we are with each other.
Meanwhile, universities are recovering from assaults by pro-regime goons. Students were bloodied. Memory cards and software were swiped by police. Computers were smashed.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In terms of the White House, this explosion of over a reported 3 million Iranians demanding long over due freedom, is an absolutely disgraceful missed opportunity to assist in various ways to bring down the despotic Islamic Iranian régime. Then again what's in today's White House very likely supports rat boy.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
06/16/2009 2:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Mark, "Disgraceful" is O'Bambi's hidden middle name.
It is 1979 in Tehran all over again. From Saturday to Sunday, the deafening sound deep in the night across Tehran's rooftops was a roaring, ubiquitous "Allah-u Akbar" (God is great). Then, in 1979, to hail the Islamic revolution; now, in 2009, to signify what appears to be the hijacking of the Islamic revolution. Then, the revolution was not televised; it was via (Ruhollah Khomeini) radio. Now, it is being broadcast all across the world.
Let's cut to the chase: what Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi qualified as "this dangerous charade" and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "the sweetness of the election", or better yet, a "divine assessment", has all the non-divine markings of intervention by the Iranian Republican Guards Corps (IRGC). This follows President Mahmud Ahmadinejad officially gaining 64% of the vote in defeating Mousavi in what in the days before Friday's vote had widely been called as a very close race.
Scores of protesters equating Ahmadinejad with Augusto Pinochet in 1973's Chile might not be that far off the mark. Call it the ultra-right wing, military dictatorship of the mullahtariat.
This is emerging as a no-holds-barred civil war at the very top of the Islamic Republic. The undisputed elite is now supposed to be embodied by the Ahmadinejad faction, the IRGC, the intelligence apparatus, the Ministry of the Interior, the Basij volunteer militias, and most of all the Supreme Leader himself.
The elite wants subdued, muzzled, if not destroyed, reformists of all strands: any relatively moderate cleric; the late 1970s clerical/technocratic Revolution Old Guard (which includes Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami and Mousavi); "globalized" students; urban, educated women; and the urban intelligentsia.
Even fighting a cascade of political and economic setbacks, for the past three decades the regime has always been proud of the Islamic Republic's brand of popular democracy, and its alleged legitimacy. Now the revolution enters completely uncharted territory as thousands of people have taken to the streets in protest against the result.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
GUAM PDN > seems PALAU may not only accept GITMO Uighurs, but also a similar number of MYANMAR REFUGEES???
#2
"A Basiji center in north Tehran seems to have been captured by protesters on Sunday night. This means the green revolution having access to weapons. "
Key graf.
As for the stolen election in 2000 in the US? Fuck you. It was a narrowly averted stolen election by vote fraud Democrats.
TEHRAN, Iran -- Violence flared across Iran on Monday with the first reported death from anti-government riots, as hundreds of thousands of defiant Tehranis took to the streets demanding "Where is my vote?" after Friday's disputed presidential election.
The unrest, possibly Iran's worst political crisis since the 1979 Islamic revolution, confounded predictions that the regime would be able to contain the fallout from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's unexpected claim of a landslide victory. Iranians who were feeding the Twitter online social-networking service reported clashes between Mousavi supporters and security forces and the Basij militia in Shiraz, Mashad, Babool and Tabriz.
Unknown gunmen killed one person and wounded others in Azadi (Freedom) Square, the Associated Press reported, citing a photographer who witnessed the shooting. Photos posted on the Internet showed that at least four people had been shot, and there were reports that clashes were spreading across Tehran and raging in other cities, including Isfahan.
Dramatic video aired by Britain's Channel 4 television showed a crowd throwing rocks and setting fire to a building that belonged to the pro-government Basij militia. A helmeted militiaman on the roof fired his AK-47 rifle into the air before retreating from a shower of stones. As flames licked from the building's windows, the militiaman returned to the front of the roof and fired multiple shots into the screaming crowd. The video showed at least one young man, reportedly dead, being carried from the scene.
The bulk of the protests - held despite warnings by the Interior Ministry - were peaceful, with anti-Ahmadinejad crowds honking car horns, flashing victory signs and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" - "God is great" - from rooftops well after dark.
The size and persistence of the protests appear to have caught the regime off guard, and it's vacillated between using force to put them down and trying to appease the mostly young protesters. Special anti-riot forces and motorcycle-riding Basiji militiamen have beaten and chased Mousavi supporters through the streets. At times, though, the protesters have fought back.
Thousands of Tehranis streamed down wide boulevards on foot and motorbike into Enghelab (Revolution) Square anyway, as riot police in helmets and shields stood immobile on the square's rim. Fashionably dressed women wore signs that read, "Where is my vote?"
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11145 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Where is my vote?" > On a separate note, 'tis weirdly and mysteriously the same questionne' mainstream Amerikans + World should be asking as per OWG-NWO = GLOBAL GOVT.!
holding a recount for what its worth , in contested areas .
No dount will just adjust figures slightly and then continue down the dinnerjacket path of enlightenment .. /facepalm
Posted by: Big Foot ||
06/16/2009 4:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Today, the government of Iran, dispatched a contingent of mullahs to consult with Senator-elect Al Franken on recount and political recovery techniques, after it was learned that the actual electoral count for Amenajenadad was three votes.
"Ahmed is an unemployed graduate in Shiraz who has joined a pro-Mousavi rally every day since the results came out. He told the BBC the authorities were shipping in guards from outside the city to deal with the protests.
"The Basijis [volunteer militia] are very organised, armed with batons and sticks and they basically attack without warning".
He said the mood of the crowd had been volatile: like "Sparks of fire under the dust".
Ali, also from Shiraz, emailed the BBC Have Your Say to describe his experiences at Monday's rally in his city.
There were lots of police on motorcycles attacking people
Ladan, Shiraz
He said tear gas was fired and then "Police on motorcycles attacked the protesters". He described taking refuge in someone's house but police broke windows to follow them in.
"They also arrested three young men and attacked another two. They started to hit them with batons ruthlessly. We could see blood running down their heads".
Ladan got in touch with BBC Persian TV: "My sister and her friends went to Molla Sadra Street in Shiraz. There were lots of guards and police on motorcycles attacking people."
Azarnoush in Shiraz tweeted: "Students are being surrounded in Shiraz University, civil police is in fight with people".
People have emailed the BBC from across Iran, in Yazd, Rasht, Esfahan and Tabriz to describe pro-Mousavi rallies. "
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I saw where current Iran government plans to have a "limited vote re-count." They are going to count the ones that go their way and dump the rest.
#6
You'd think that idiots on motorcycles would be easy meat for organized street fighters. Get a long stick & three or four friends with long sticks, and play pike & pole-vault on any of these thugs who dare to charge you. A motorcycle isn't a horse, and a couple guys on a motorcycle isn't the cavalry. They're dynamically unstable and easily smashed up by somebody with a hoe or shovel who's willing to stand his ground.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/16/2009 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Basijis [volunteer militia] are very organised, armed with batons and sticks and they basically attack without warning".
Yes, we saw it as it happened.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/16/2009 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
There is now first hand, perpetrator evidence that proves that ballots were NOT counted. I watched BOTH major presidential debates on the Live Station feed, and both the clerical and semi-secular candidates slaughtered Ahmadinejad. He was accused of misuse of over 1 billion dollars, and refused to account for same. The Ayatollah's candidate - former speaker of the Iran parliament - blasted Ahmadinejad for lying about the angelic presence during his UN speech.
There is no freaking way that anyone could win a free election in face of a refusal to either account for cooking the economic books or to apologize for blasphemy. Ahmadinejad is under effective condemnation for blasphemy.
Unfortunately, the faux-president owns the military and civil service. And, in spite of clerical opposition, they have now fatwahed against use of protests for "counter-revolutionary" purposes. They prefer the status quo to free elections. Civil war is certain. It will likely start in the ethnic areas to the east, and gain Persian support. And there are professional soldiers who would like to have a go at the Basij parasites, who strike break for the Ayatollah' family companies.
#9
Unfortunately, the faux-president owns the military and civil service.
In the end, the election will go the way the ayatollahs want it to, Black Bart Sliter4867, because the game was rigged from the start, when the ayatollahs picked which potential candidates they would permit to run. The election was neither free nor fair, just like every election since 1979. What happens after the final results are announced is the interesting bit.
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Iranian leaders will probably take decisive action to quell opposition protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads re-election, said Richard Bulliet, an Iran expert at Columbia University.
Hundreds of thousands of people demonstrated today in downtown Tehran at a rally led by Ahmadinejads defeated opponent, Mir Houssein Mousavi, who charges widespread fraud in the June 12 vote. A pro-government militia fired at opposition protesters, killing at least one person, the Associated Press reported, citing one of its photographers, who was a witness. There was no immediate confirmation. The rally took place in defiance of an official ban on public protests.
The regime will quell the discontent, Bulliet, a professor of history at Columbias Middle East Institute, said by phone today from New York. It will be dampened down and the U.S. and foreign governments will have to resign themselves to dealing with the Ahmadinejad regime.
No, we don't have to 'resign' ourselves: we can declare Short Round and Khamenei to be illegitimate and the election to be a fraud. That would align ourselves both with our best values and with the truth.
Irans Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who endorsed Ahmadinejads election June 13, calling it a glittering event, has ordered an investigation into allegations of irregularities. Bulliet predicted that the Guardian Council, the elections supervisory body, with the authority to review the results, will still endorse the outcome within the next week.
Because they have no choice; if they throw out the election they endanger their own rule.
If the protests continue after then, Khamenei could respond to street unrest by declaring martial law and imposing curfews, he said.
And also by working to disappear a lot of protesters.
CAIRO (AP) - How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner?
Have a million ACORN volunteers do the counting?
That's a key question in Iran's disputed presidential election. International polling experts and Iran analysts said the speed of the vote count, coupled with a lack of detailed election data normally released by officials, was fueling suspicion around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory.
Iran's supreme leader endorsed the hard-line president's re-election the morning after Friday's vote, calling it a "divine assessment" and appearing to close the door on challenges from Iran's reformist camp. But on Monday, after two days of rioting in the streets, he ordered an investigation into the allegations of fraud.
Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's reformist challenger, claims he was robbed of the presidency and has called for the results to be canceled. Mousavi's newspaper, Kalemeh Sabz, or the Green Word, reported on its Web site that more than 10 million votes were missing national identification numbers similar to U.S. Social Security numbers, which make the votes "untraceable." It did not say how it knew that information.
Mousavi said some polling stations closed early with voters still in line, and he charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location. He has not provided evidence to support the accusations.
His supporters have reported intimidation by security forces who maintained a strong presence around polling stations.
Observers who questioned the vote said that at each stage of the counting, results released by the Interior Ministry showed Ahmadinejad ahead of Mousavi by about a 2-1 margin. That could be unusual, polling experts noted, because results reported first from Iran's cities would likely reflect a different ratio from those reported later from the countryside, where the populist Ahmadinejad has more support among the poor.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11138 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Iran vote will go fast if you don't have to count them in the first place, that is the outcome is determined before the election.
Iranian women come to the aide of a man being beaten, allegedly by the Basiji. (c) Flicker.
Reuters summary of the previous day's events, useful if you're just now getting to the story.
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranian demonstrators called for more mass protests on Tuesday, a day after hardline Islamic militiamen killed a man during a march by tens of thousands against a presidential election they say was rigged.
The Iranian capital has already seen three days of the biggest and most violent anti-government protests since the 1979 Islamic revolution after hardline incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner of last Friday's vote.
"Tomorrow at 5 p.m. (8:30 a.m. EDT) at Vali-ye Asr Square," some of the crowd chanted at Monday's march, referring to a major road junction in the sprawling city of some 12 million.
Further protests, especially if they are maintained on the same scale, would be a direct challenge to authorities who have kept a tight grip on dissent since the overthrow of the U.S.-backed shah after months of demonstrations 30 years ago.
"We fight, we die, we will not accept this vote rigging"
People on the streets of Tehran
U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday he was "deeply troubled" by post-election violence in Iran. "The democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected," he told reporters. Obama said he would continue pursuing tough, direct dialogue with Tehran but urged that any Iranian investigation of election irregularities be conducted without bloodshed. The world was inspired by the Iranian protesters, he said.
Demonstrators filled a broad avenue in central Tehran for several kilometers (miles) on Monday, chanting "We fight, we die, we will not accept this vote rigging," in support of Mirhossein Mousavi, the defeated moderate candidate.
Mousavi said he was "ready to pay any price" in his fight against election irregularities, his Web site quoted him as saying, indicating a determination to keep up the pressure for the election result to be annulled.
Some formed a human chain in front of a building of the Basij Islamic militia, but others broke through and the hardline volunteer paramilitaries opened fire on the crowds sending thousands fleeing in havoc. One man was killed and many wounded, said an Iranian photographer who witnessed the shooting. Television footage showed one man, his leg covered with blood, being bundled onto the back of a taxi and driven away.
"Tanks and guns have no use any longer," chanted the protesters in a deliberate echo of slogans used leading up to the 1979 revolution.
Members of Iran's security forces have at times fired into the air during the unrest and used batons to beat protesters who have pelted police with stones.
One of the more interesting series of photos I saw was a Mousavi supporter helping a Basij officer get away after the latter had been seriously injured and was bleeding on the ground.
The Basij militia is a volunteer paramilitary force fiercely loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has the final say on all matters of state in Iran.
Gunfire was also heard in three districts of wealthy northern Tehran on Monday evening and residents said there had also been peaceful pro-Mousavi demonstrations in the cities of Rasht, Orumiyeh, Zahedan, and Tabriz on Monday.
Continued on Page 47
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
This is long but I'm not sending it to Page 49. I'm unhappy with my President and you should be too. The man has to stand for freedom and human rights or the United States doesn't mean anything anymore. The woman in the photo showed more courage today than my government, and that is simply shameful.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama for the first time voiced his concerns about the way Iran's election was conducted, though he fell short of calls from some democracy activists that he formally denounce the vote.
He's picking and choosing his words, "voicing concerns", because he doesn't know what to say. He doesn't know what to say because his moral core doesn't have the words for "freedom" and "human rights" and "liberty".
Mr. Obama said he was deeply troubled by the violence surrounding the election, but also stressed it was up to the Iranian people to choose their leadership.
No, it isn't and it hasn't been, and that precisely is the problem. Does the man not understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship? Iran is ruled by a Guardian Council. They pick and approve of the presidential candidates. They approve of all other national leaders. They veto government legislation. Iran has billed itself as an 'Islamic Republic', sovereignty coming from Allah and not from the people. Therefore it isn't up to the people in the first place. Now that the people are rising up Khamenei is moving to make clear to the world what perceptive people have always understood -- Iran is ruled by thugs.
Does Obama not understand this?
He said he would maintain his policy of directly negotiating with Iran's leadership on its nuclear program, irrespective of the current vote.
There is nothing to negotiate. The 'leaders' may not be there next week. And if they are, they are certainly not going to compromise with you -- not after they slapped their own people down. Khamenei is arresting the very people he hand-picked to run in the election. The smart thing to do is to get on the side of the people, so that if and when they throw out (and execute) the Guardian Council, we'll be able to say, "we were on your side when it mattered." Obama is throwing that away.
"It is up to Iranians to decide who their leaders may be. We respect Iranian sovereignty," Mr. Obama said following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. "I think it would be wrong to remain silent about what we've seen. ... The world is watching and is inspired by their participation, regardless of the outcome."
So don't be silent. Take a stand, man, and pledge the United States to being on the side of the common, ordinary people of Iran who are rising up.
The fluid political developments inside Iran are placing Mr. Obama in an increasingly difficult diplomatic position, U.S. officials and regional analysts said. Mr. Obama has pledged both to support democracy in the Middle East and to engage directly with Tehran's clerical rulers over the future of Iran's nuclear program.
The former should take precedence over the latter. Dump the clerics.
Any push by Mr. Obama to overtly support Iranian opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi could make diplomatic talks more difficult, while also potentially painting Mr. Mousavi and his supporters as American puppets, these officials and analysts said.
They will be painted as puppets regardless. It's already happening. The key is to get out in front and use the inspiration of the Iranian people to make clear where you stand as a world leader, and in turn to inspire the Iranian people to dump the thugs.
Still, a gathering number of Iranian opposition leaders, both inside Iran and out, are calling on Mr. Obama to lend more direct public support for those Iranians challenging the vote that re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These activists fear that any near-term dialogue between the Obama administration and Mr. Ahmadinejad or Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could result in legitimizing the Iranian regime while also validating the election results.
Absolutely correct, and Short Round would use such talks expressly to smack down the internal revolution.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Monday ordered a probe into alleged voter irregularities in the country's presidential election. This was a shift after his strong endorsement of Mr. Ahmadinejad's re-election over the weekend.
It's a sham -- it is what thugs do when they're trying to placate the people. Call for an investigation and then bury it.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday joined world leaders in supporting an inquiry into the disputed presidential election in Iran. "My position and that of the United Nations is that the genuine will of the Iranian people should be fully respected," Mr. Ban told reporters in New York. "I am closely following how this investigation into this election result will come out."
Don't follow the 'investigation', follow the people. Put the U.N. on the side of the people and you'll send a message to thugs all around the world. That would be legacy worth having as Secretary-General.
"We view the implications of recent events in Iran with serious concern," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.
Mr. Miliband said the long view from London on the election outcome was its impact on Iran's nuclear program. "It is the implications of the decisions that are being made at the top levels of the Iranian regime that are of most concern," he said. The foreign secretary said the West's diplomatic overtures should be "answered by Iranian willingness to sit down and negotiate."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he was "profoundly troubled by the political situation in Iran" and "condemns the violence against the demonstrators." He condemned the arrests of opposition political leaders and called for an end to restrictions on freedom of expression.
That's better -- Nick gets it. France can't do a lot, practically, to help the demonstrators, but France can take their side.
The French foreign ministry on Monday summoned the Iranian ambassador to the ministry to explain his government's actions, but the ambassador sent his press counselor in his place, according to an official at the French mission to the U.N. in New York.
A clear demonstration that Iranian officials plan to weather this and don't give a damn what the world thinks.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. was still evaluating the claims of election fraud, but reiterated the administration continued to have "doubts about the returns, which showed Mr. Ahmadinejad winning 63% of the vote.
Oh come on, we're not 'investigating' election fraud in Iran -- we have no such ability whatsoever. It's not like we're going to be examining voting machines. Kelly is stalling for time because Obama and Hillary do not know what to do. And they don't know because they don't have a moral core.
Ongoing demonstrations could force the Obama administration to take a firmer line on Tehran's handing of the election in the days ahead, said a number of Iranian activists and former U.S. diplomats. These officials said the political uprising in Tehran could represent a rare generational shift in the country, where a rising pro-democracy movement is seeking to uproot the founders of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Not to support these reformists, said these officials, could have a much broader impact for democracy promotion across the Middle East.
In his outreach so far to Iran, including in a speech on the Persian New Year, Mr. Obama has generally demurred from democracy and human-rights issue while formally recognizing the rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thus ripping the heart out of democracy movements around the world. If the President of the United States won't support democracy, no one will.
Former U.S. officials said the Obama administration is walking an increasingly delicate line between supporting democracy in Iran while pursing the abolition of Tehran's nuclear program. Any rupturing of a dialogue between Tehran and the West could have major implications for global security, these officials said. Israel has vowed to attack Iran's nuclear research sites if there isn't progress diplomatically to contain the nuclear program.
That's the 'realists' talking, the one who don't want to 'upset' things. Right now upsetting Short Round and Khamenei is exactly what needs to be done.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11139 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sorry, I cannot hold back.
What will the price in Iranian blood be for your fecklessness? What about American and Israeli and other innocent blood down the road when this squandered opportunity ends up in Mullahs with Nukes, Barry, you ignominious dickhead?
Obama is simply a dumbfuck Chicago Pol; a narcissist who thinks his shit don't stink, and who thinks he can finesse anything. The ignorant bastard has never had to work for anything in his life, from his ivy league scholarship to his dirty tricks to win the Senate seat, to the GOP leadership's utter incompetence nominating McStain who refused to hit him hard, and the national press handing him this election with their Bias, then the press becoming as slanted as state owned media in old Communist eastern europe in order to cover the huge errors he has made so far.
All Obama has to do is be brave enough to speak a few words of respect for democracy and the will of the people, that's all the minuscule amount of courage that he needs to take a stand. It could be as few words as Reagan use "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". Compare that small act of speaking to the Iranian people putting their lives on the line against the regime of thugs. And these are thugs who, if left in place, will have nukes, and don't give a crap about anyone's population including their own.
If this fool sides with the Mullahs and Amadhinejad, he deserves to be thrown out of office for cowardice and incompetence, for his endorsement, by inaction, of the thugs.
A quote for that vacuous preening shithead we have in the Oval office:
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
#3
I suspect he's a little nervous about the prospect of street protests when the tea parties gather steam ahead of the 2010 elections here. When it becomes clearer the power nakedly grabbed, the debt gathered, and the economy still tanked, Teh One may not be enthusiastic about a people expressing their will against an unpopular regime
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2009 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Maybe instead of 3 AM they should wake him up around 10 AM. I hate to say this but Hillary got this one right. He must not trust anyone other than Ayers, Marshall and Wright or either Jim Jones, Bob Gates and other responsible thinkers are lethargic also. I suspect this is his Carter moment and he is acting accordingly.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/16/2009 7:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Didja ever notice that almost all bullies are actually cowards?
#6
Obama is more confrontational with Israel then with Iran.
Instead of saying, "It is up to Israelis to decide who their leaders may be. We respect Israeli sovereignty."
He said, "endorse a Palestinian state or else."
Posted by: Lord garth ||
06/16/2009 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Leftists despise individual freedom, and obambi is a leftist. He was probably choking on bile just making the lame utterances he's made thus far. He'd be a mullah himself if he could get away with it...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/16/2009 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Obama is simply a dumbfuc* Chicago Pol; a narcissist who thinks his shi* don't stink, Old Spook
I believe the appropriate term is "uppity." It is a colloquial term used during the presidential election by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland. Not heard much anymore in "polite" society.
#9
Besoeker, we don't need that, especially today. Don't do it again.
AoS
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The clinched fisted Communist (opps...forget that his advance people changed it to Community) Organizer strikes again.
Posted by: jack salami ||
06/16/2009 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#11
In fairness to BHO, part of the reason he is holding back has to do with the political situation in Iran. As I have said before, Moussavi and his reformist supporters are NOT necessarily on the same wave length. Moussavi has been PART of the regime, and is no western liberal, albeit (like Rafsanjani) he is more sane than dinner jacket. The reformers are trying to use him, and he them.
Moussavi has NOT called for the US to support him, and probably wont. A few reformers have asked for support, in tweets, and occasionally in interviews with MSM. But can it be proven they speak for the entire movement? There is no leader of the true reformists, only Moussavi for now. No Walesa here.
And will it strategically make sense to call for US support? This isnt Poland. Granted, dinner jacket will call moussavi a puppet anyway. Will fence sitters beleive him? And who are the fence sitters who count, anyway? Moussavi voters who havent come into the streets yet? dinner jacket voters having regrets? Or more importantly, the regular Army? (which some say resents the influence of the Rev guard/pasdaran) I dont know.
I give BHOs speech a b-, or at worst a C+. He understood what he needed to do, and he more or less did it. But this is a guy whose rhetorical skills should have given him an A. He should have managed to avoid saying anything risky, and STILL have been more inspiring, instead of checking the boxes.
I dont think this is cause he doesnt have the words for freedom and liberty. If it was a matter of reconciling two sides, in order to achieve freedom and liberty, he would do it just fine. What he seems to lack is a core for revolutionary confrontation. The Bushies had the core in words, they just had a tendency to apply the rhetoric excessively and with inconsistent or incompetent follow through. Clinton was a born compromiser, but he could at least empathize with someone elses aspirations and articulate them.
BHO, derided as a messiah, and worshipped by some as a messiah, is singularly LACKING in messianic qualities. Thats good on domestic policies (and has disappointed many of his backers so far) and is good on many for policy issues. But faced with a democratic revolution like this, it leaves him tone deaf.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
as for the contrast to messing with the Israeli coalition - sure, if Im bibi (and I AM someone with more respect for Bibi than a week ago) I pocket that.
But that doesnt do a thing for folks in Teheran.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I actually would rather BHO didn't say much here...
If anything makes a mass protest uncool in Iran, it's having a US Presidential backing to it. That partly explains why the previous protests over there in 2003 (albeit of smaller magnitude) didn't quite catch on, irrespective of how good President Bush's intentions were. The Iranian politicians were too afraid to endorse the protests, lest they be seen as America-influenced traitors
There is a massive unrest in Iran (at least 100,000 took part in a mass rally yesterday)The best we can do (for RIGHT NOW) is to sit back, be quiet and watch the fireworks.
That's precisely the problem isn't it? They can't since Iran is an islamic dictatorship. What a weasel the US has for a president. America: the #1 friend of dictators since Jan 20, 2009.
Posted by: ed ||
06/16/2009 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Until the protestors hold signs that say "forget '53, we want US support anyway" I fear Obama will be too worried it would be counterproductive.
Michael Totten has a good essay on why BHO is wrong to worry about that.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#16
LH, I hear you and understand the concern. I don't want Obama pledging to send the Big Red One into Tehran.
But he CAN say, loudly and simply, "we stand with all people in the world who want democracy, liberty and human rights. We stand with all brave people willing to fight for their families, their children and their rights to live in freedom."
That's all he has to do.
And wear a green tie.
The Iranians will do the rest.
The Poles didn't ask Ronald Reagan to send the army through the Fulda Gap. But every time Reagan spoke for liberty and freedom, dissidents everywhere behind the Iron Curtain took heart.
Heart. That's what it is about. When people lose their fear, an evil regime's days are numbered. Obama can give the Iranians heart without committing the US to a dangerous course, and that's all I ask him to do.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/16/2009 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Zero has already spoken forcefully about the struggle for freedom - in Cairo. He said that no country should impose its politics or values on other countries. He isn't going to now contradict himself by getting embroiled in this kerfuffle. No, he is a man of his word and his word is "back-off".
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/16/2009 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#18
And I hear you Steve. Obviously no one is talking about armed intervention. We are talking about presidential statements. And when I said Iran isnt Poland, that is what I had in mind. In 1989, in Poland, there was, afaik, no one who had ANY particular reason to dislike or mistrust the United States. Maybe FDR and Yalta, but I think most Poles didn't really think there was much FDR could have done. Whereas in Iran there is '53, and the support for the Shah over the years. Whether thats as important as folks like Sullivan and John Judis think, or as unimporant as someone like Michael Totten thinks, I am not in position to say, which is why I am fence sitting on this one.
is what you have written that much stronger than "The world is watching and is inspired by their participation " ? Its a matter of subtle differences in wording.
As I said, I give BHO a C+. I dont know about you, but when my kid comes home with a C+ its not cause for celebration. But I dont think it means BHO is against freedom. He may be so "realist" that he has no stomach for any US support for freedom abroad (rather than simply forced to abandon such support out of a belief we are too overstretched at this time). Or maybe not. But whether he is that "realist" or NOT, he clearly is not one with stomach for confrontations for freedom. He likes to see the other guys side. In some instances that may well work - we are going to get farther with Russia, say, by acknowledging where Putin is coming from than by cheering for the Yelstin era. But Iran is different, in ways that dont comfortably fit BHO's world view.
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#19
"The Poles didn't ask Ronald Reagan to send the army through the Fulda Gap. "
but they did ask him to speak out.
have the iranian protestors aske BHO to speak out? If not, why not? Lack of leadership? Fear of the alienating Iranian fencesitters? Higher priorities?
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#20
LH, BHO IS against freedom. This is all a part of his makeup along with sucking up to every dictator in the world from Venezuela to China. He despises freedom in the US because it interferes with the control (aka power) he craves.
This is shown by every thing he does and says. Total government control be it of GM, banks, healthcare, media, etc. all screams of BHO's fascist nature.
My study is a bit littered, I've just ripped the entire "U" section out of my Websters. I was aware of the recent injunction regarding discussions about birth certificates. Please let me know if there are other prohibited words or phrases. I'll get right after them as well!
#22
That the man is neutral between the wolf and the sheep is all that needs to be said about him, and all that will be remembered, if there are aught to remember afterward.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/16/2009 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Looks like the admin did something practical
Reuters:
The U.S. State Department contacted the social networking service Twitter over the weekend to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that could have cut daytime service to Iranians, a U.S. official said on Tuesday.
We highlighted to them that this was an important form of communication, said the official of the conversation the department had with Twitter at the time of the disputed Iranian election. He declined further details
Posted by: liberal hawk ||
06/16/2009 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#24
It may appear a bit counterintuitive, but if Barry plans to 'do nothing' he should probably 'say nothing' as well. On the other hand, if he plans to take some sort of action, it would be well advised to 'say nothing' of it as well.
#25
This is shown by every thing he does and says. Total government control be it of GM, banks, healthcare, media, etc. all screams of BHO's fascist nature.
In a very loose sense "Government total Control" is desirable, there's no blame shifting, we know just who to blame.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/16/2009 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with this upset in Iran, but he couldn't create a better diversion from our financial woes if he tried.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/16/2009 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Respect for "sovereignty"? Israeli Jews would be slaughtered if a belligerent paleosaur entity was formed on their eastern border, which is only 9 miles from the sea at one point. Hussein O has an agenda that goes beyond preserving life and liberty.
I don't suppose Big Media would corner the Enlightened One on his position-of-weakness' diplomacy?
#28
Obama is going to go with his strength on this one; wait for the worst to happen and then apologize. He is working with Charlie Gibson in the Whitehouse on crafting an emotional filled apology to be delivered in Primetime.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
TEHRAN, Iran -- Violence flared across Iran on Monday with the first reported death from anti-government riots, as hundreds of thousands of defiant Tehranis took to the streets demanding "Where is my vote?" after Friday's disputed presidential election.
June 15 (Bloomberg) -- Iranian leaders will probably take decisive action to quell opposition protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejads re-election, said Richard Bulliet, an Iran expert at Columbia University.
CAIRO (AP) - How do you count almost 40 million handwritten paper ballots in a matter of hours and declare a winner? 
