yesterday afternoon, and an article which responds, in part, to some
of Mr. Lee's concerns, particularly in the **''d 7th paragraph. I don't
know John Lee but respect his clear sincerity and knowledge of Iran's
economic and social program for the poor. However, the total - as in
total-Italian control of the government, the election, the vote counting,
the media, cabernet, police, dress, education, etc., the brutality often
used against women, dissenters, the non-religious, and much more,
indeed are elements in my own political biases.
That said, I strongly oppose the covert CIA, now Obama's stated
program throughout the Middle East, the Israeli even more directly
threatening one, and so on. As I did think much the same when
Tienemin Sq. happened, 20 yrs. ago, I compared them. Anyway,
the subject is complex and ongoing and we need differing opinions.
What should be anathema is trying to control the world.
I do welcome other critiques and should not feel compelled to answer
each one. Still learning,
Ed
From: John Michael Lee
To: Ed Pearl
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: VIDEO: Violent Clashes Erupt In Iran After Election
I think some better analysis should be done before conclusions are drawn. If
you have followed the policy decisions of the present Iranian regime, you
will find that they have spent large amounts of oil money on rural medical
and educational resources, and development in rural areas. Pensions have
been raised for elderly and disabled, and rural job development has been the
focus. Note that ALL of the coverage has been from Tehran, where the middle
class western educated, and privileged groups dominate. One of the election
complaints by the "reformers" was a to cut the investment in the rural areas
because it causes inflation and lack of investment capital in the Tehran
area. I think we will find that rural votes, and the poorer areas of Tehran
will be overwhelmingly Ahmadinejad. We made the same mistake in 79, when we
read our own prejudices into the revolution, and never recognized the
influence of Islam among the rural and urban poor. We call ourselves
Marxists, and for the poor, and yet we make judgments based on our media,
and those who know how to influence it, As usual, suits and ties, and
English speakers become our sources, and they do not represent the people we
claim to be interested in supporting. I will wait for the CIA haze to unfold
before drawing conclusions. JOHN MICHAEL LEE
http://www.alternet.org/world/140626/has_the_election_been_stolen_in_iran/?page=2
Has the Election Been Stolen in Iran?
By Stephen Zunes
Alternet: June 13, 2009
If it is true that Ahmadinejad's victory is fraudulent, it'll be a dream
come true for those pushing a more confrontational approach with Iran.
It is certainly not unprecedented for Western observers to miscalculate the
outcome of an election in a country where pre-election polls are not as
rigorous as Western countries, particularly when there is a clear bias
towards a particular candidate. At the same time, the predictions of
knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the
political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading
challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would defeat incumbent president Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad decisively in yesterday's presidential election, certainly in
the runoff if not in the first round. This also appeared to be the
assumption among independent observers in Iran itself.
So overwhelming were the signs of imminent Ahmadinejad defeat and so massive
was the margin of his alleged victory, the only reasonable assumption was
that there has been fraud on a massive scale. What polls did exist showed
Mousavi leading by a clear majority and Ahmadinejad well under 40%, a margin
roughly similar to what most analysts had suggested based on anecdotal
evidence. Instead, the official results show Ahmadinejad winning by an
overwhelming 63% of the vote.
The unmistakable political trend in Iran in the past four years has been
toward greater liberalism and moderation, particularly with the addition of
millions of new younger voters who are overwhelmingly disenchanted with
Ahmadinejad's ultra-conservative social policies and failed economic
policies. The very idea that he would do substantially better than he did
in the election four years ago, therefore, is ludicrous at face value.
Indeed, in municipal and other elections held over the past couple of years,
Ahmadinejad's preferred slates lost heavily to moderate conservatives and
reformers.
Ahmadinejad won a tight presidential race four years ago campaigning as an
economic populist, gaining wide support among the poor for his calls for
reducing inequality and fighting endemic corruption. However, his
administration has been at least as corrupt as his predecessors, his
economic policies have resulted in high inflation and high unemployment, and
he has been ruthless is suppressing labor unions, such as the bus drivers
strike in Tehran. As a result, his popularity has plummeted, making the
idea of substantially greater popular support today particularly
questionable.
There are also more direct indications of fraud.
In past elections, there have been substantial variations in the vote of
various candidates based on ethnicity and geography, but the official
results show Ahmadinejad's vote totals being relatively uniform across the
country. Mousavi, an Azeri from the province of Azerbaijan who has been
quite popular there, did poorly, according to official results. This is
particularly striking since even minor candidates from that area had done
disproportionately well in previous elections. Similarly, Mehdi Karoubi,
the other reformist candidate and an ethnic Lur, supposedly fared poorly in
his home province of Luristan. Nationally, Karoubi went from 17% in the
2005 election to less than 1% this year with no apparent reason for such a
precipitous decline. Meanwhile, the much-despised Mohsen Rezaie, the other
hardline candidate, allegedly got twice as many votes.
**Among the most implausible part of the official results is the claim that
Ahmadinejad won a clear majority in the capital of Tehran. In reality, most
knowledgeable observers have estimated that he has the support of barely
half the population in his stronghold in the southern part of the city while
he is overwhelmingly despised elsewhere in that city of 12 million. Had
Ahmadinejad somehow been able to eke out a legitimate victory, it would have
come from the rural areas, not urban strongholds of the opposition like
Tehran and Tabriz.
Iran's Electoral Commission, rather than waiting the customary three days
before having the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei certify the results of the
election, instead had Khamenei approve the alleged results immediately,
presumably as early returns showed the likelihood of a substantial Mousavi
victory. While in previous elections the results were announced by each
voting district, which would allow at least some degree of follow-up
regarding their validity, this time the results were announced only at the
citywide of provincial level. Already, Interior Ministry employees are
beginning to speak out about witnessing the fabrication of phony vote
totals.
The electoral system under the Islamic Republic has always been tightly
controlled to the point that the Guardian Council pre-screened potential
candidates for what they considered to be appropriate adherence to their
theocratic order. However, within that rather limited range of legitimacy,
previous elections were deemed relatively free and fair. This massive
fraud, then, is unprecedented. Indeed, as security forces seized newspapers
and other media election night to ensure the fraud would not be reported and
government has shut down much of the country's electronic communication,
Iranians spoke in terms of what appears to be nothing less than a internal
coup.
While there is much to criticize about U.S. policy towards Iran over the
years as well as the double-standards of the U.S. government regarding
election-rigging and autocratic rule among its allies, there should be no
denial that yesterday's presidential election in Iran involved fraud on a
massive scale.
The stealing of the Iranian presidential elections is a dream come true for
American neo-conservatives and others pushing for a more confrontational
approach with Iran. It is imperative that we not allow the hard-liners of
either country an illegitimate victory and give our support to Iranian
democrats in their struggle to reclaim their country.
No comments:
Post a Comment