As we promised our readers last week, we have published a more detailed presentation of our views on internal Iranian developments and their implications for U.S. foreign policy, in an Op Ed, “Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely”, in today’s The New York Times.
The article offers an analysis of the Ashura protests on December 27 and the vastly larger demonstrations on December 30 in support of the Islamic Republic (see also our post on this earlier today). We argue:
[A]ssertions that the Islamic Republic is now imploding in the fashion of the shah’s regime in 1979 do not hold up to even the most minimal scrutiny. Antigovernment Iranian Web sites claim there were “tens of thousands” of Ashura protesters; others in Iran say there were 2,000 to 4,000. Whichever estimate is more accurate, one thing we do know is that much of Iranian society was upset by the protesters using a sacred day to make a political statement.
Vastly more Iranians took to the streets on Dec. 30, in demonstrations organized by the government to show support for the Islamic Republic (one Web site that opposed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election in June estimated the crowds at one million people). Photographs and video clips lend considerable plausibility to this estimate — meaning this was possibly the largest crowd in the streets of Tehran since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s funeral in 1989. In its wake, even President Ahmadinejad’s principal challenger in last June’s presidential election, Mir Hossein Mousavi, felt compelled to acknowledge the “unacceptable radicalism” of some Ashura protesters.
The focus in the West on the antigovernment demonstrations has blinded many to an inconvenient but inescapable truth: the Iranians who used Ashura to make a political protest do not represent anything close to a majority.
In this regard, it is remarkable how many Western analysts have overblown the Ashura protests and underestimated the significance of the December 30 rallies for the Islamic Republic. With regard to U.S. policy, we argue that
The Islamic Republic of Iran is not about to implode. Nevertheless, the misguided idea that it may do so is becoming enshrined as conventional wisdom in Washington. For President Obama, this misconception provides a bit of cover; it helps obscure his failure to follow up on his campaign promises about engaging Iran with any serious, strategically grounded proposals. Meanwhile, those who have never supported diplomatic engagement with Iran are now pushing the idea that the Tehran government might collapse to support their arguments for military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets and adopting “regime change” as the ultimate goal of America’s Iran policy…
The Obama Administration’s half-hearted efforts at diplomacy with Tehran have given engagement a bad name. As a result, support for more coercive options is building across the American political spectrum. The President will do a real disservice to American interests if he waits in vain for Iranian political dynamics to “solve” the problems with his Iran policy.
As a model, the president would do well to look to China. Since President Richard Nixon’s historic opening there (which took place amid the Cultural Revolution), successive American administrations have been wise enough not to let political conflict—whether among the ruling elite or between the state and the public, as in the Tiananmen Square protests and ethnic separatism in Xinjiang—divert Washington from sustained, strategic engagement with Beijing. President Obama needs to begin displaying similar statesmanship in his approach to Iran.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Look every claim and counterclaim of election fraud was analysed at IranAffairs.com and the bootomline is that there simply is no evidence of fraud. Sorry.
I couldnt find the article “Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely ” published in New York Times.
I am a young Iranian citizen. I am not disputing if there is going to a revolution or not. But your article is more than a joke to Iranians than reflecting an aspect of truth. It honestly shows how you have no insight on Iran , the regime and the people at all. I am also sure you are connected to a limited source feeding you what the Iranian regime lobby is to do and you just reflect what you get from them. I do not mean that you necessarily represents the regime propaganda but you have been manipulated to do so and your article ridiculously is showing the what regime struggles to persuade people with, something they already fail to do due to losing people’s trust.
Let me bring some highlights of funny comments you mentioned. It is redicuously wrong that you barely can find an unbiased Iranian to buy it:
“On Dec. 27, large crowds poured into the streets of cities across Iran to commemorate the Shiite holy day of Ashura; this coincided with mourning observances for a revered cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who had died a week earlier. Protesters used the occasion to gather in Tehran and elsewhere, setting off clashes with security forces.”
You still are ignorant of this absolute fact that the people have no way to gather up to protest but on the days there are some occasions. That day was one of those occasions no matter if it was the 7th day after the death of Ayatollah or not , It would have happened. It wasnt due to that.
“Antigovernment Iranian Web sites claim there were “tens of thousands” of Ashura protesters; others in Iran say there were 2,000 to 4,000.”
The regime does block all the major streets in order to evade the stream of people getting together. any gathering over three instantly would be smashed by the anitoriot cops and even in such condition under a totally militarized condition, you see the protesters. If what you claim which is exactly the regime’s propaganda, they shouldnt have bothered on letting the journalists report the situation but the banned any journalist activity.
“one thing we do know is that much of Iranian society was upset by the protesters using a sacred day to make a political statement.”
Man, youre a big joke with what you said above! Are you kidding me?!!!
What you wrote has no analytical value and is one of the most misguiding and false representation of Iranian situation. By the way that state fabricated so called supporting Demonstration with the close up fixed shuts that you mentioned, including around 20 to 100,000 people( based on the area measured and fitting 2 to 3 people per square meter) they have brought by the bus and subway from suburbs and the cities and villages around, was just a show for the regime in a small square in a city with over 12 million population. Iranians name it as “The Fruit Juice Support”. If you dont know what it means, it means you dont know whats going on. If the regime had the support, they would have let the world report directly their show. Do not also bother with those closed-shut photo which most of them also get edited by photoshop. Go thru some Iranain blogs to see some of them.
Whenever you saw the Iranian regime let a secure demonstrations for the opposition, then you can judge like what happened after the rigged election in few hours.
I recommend you do not bother with IRAN. You yourself know you know nothing on Iran. I bet you have not even been there. Also if youre in touch with some one providing these false picture, manipulating you for the regime propaganda, I bet he or she is the regime hand over here paying you.
If regime knew that they had the people support, a competitive demonstration could have solved their problem, every one knows they barely have the support of even 5% of people. They can not. that is why they oppress people. shoot them, assassinate them. hit then by the police cars and run and on the top ban and journalist activities there. You dont have to be a genius to get who is right and if the regime is still in control or not…
Good luck :)
I do not even want to bother for the rest of your so called article.
Pay:
Mousavi’s supporters and/or the Green Movement can only claim to speak for the country if they are a majority. There is no evidence that they are and the elections provide good evidence that they are not. Which a post-election poll confirms.
What you want looks like it is not what the country wants. What you’re fed up with does not look like it is what the country is fed up with.
Sorry.
Arnold
I will spend one more sentence on you: read my previous post and keep your brain open.
Good Luck
Pay,
You’ve been emphasizing your own opinion, I’ve been doing the same. Where our opinions disagree, I’m willing to show the reasoning that leads to mine. You say it is clear that Ahmadinejad’s margin was fabricated. It is clear to me that the opposite is true.
The votes were counted by hundreds of thousands of election workers all over the country, if the country really has a pro-Mousavi majority, very likely there would also be a pro-Mousavi majority of the vote counters.
Mousavi had over 30,000 election monitors all over the country. Between him and the other opposition candidates, there were more opposition election monitors than there were ballot boxes.
Mousavi has issued a formal list of his complaints with how the election was conducted. His election monitors obviously did not give him information to support a claim that votes were not counted by the people who were supposed to count them, otherwise he would have made that claim.
The results were published so that every person who counted, and everyone who monitored the counts can see if the numbers used to make Ahmadinejad’s margin fit with what they did. Nobody yet, six months later, has come forward to say those numbers are wrong. Mousavi says he’s willing to die. Why is he not willing to say he got more votes that Ahmadinejad?
It is not clear that Ahmadinejad’s margin was fabricated. It is clear that it would nearly be impossible, given what we know now, for Ahmadinejad’s margin to have been fabricated to the degree that Mousavi could be the rightful President of Iran.
If you refuse to engage the argument, it is more likely that you have no reasonable response than that you refuse on principled grounds to discuss the matter with someone “pretending to be asleep” or something.
Arnold Evans
After reading your last response I see that you are not here to find the truth, but to emphasize your own opinion. It is said that it may be hard to wake up those who are sleeping, but it is impossible to wake up those who pretend to be asleep. I will not continue this discussion any longer.
Regards
Jan Harrison
I too fear the consequences of an attack on Iran, both as an Iranian, and as a person living in the West. I hope those with cooler heads will prevail.
Pay,
I have to say that I agree 100% with the sentiments expressed in your last post directed to me. I personally believe that we should let the Green movement take its course (although I would, frankly, be willing to aid it if I thought it could win through and establish a popular regime in Iran). If it were in my power, America would not be involved in the Middle East at all. But let’s face it, we are not operating in a vacuum. There are people, nations, interests that have enormous influence on American policy; these seek to direct that policy towards their own particular objectives. Therefore America cannot simply say “we will not interfere in the region.” I wish it were not so, but there it is.
I do have a particular interest in Iran because of our disastrous intervention in 1953 (disastrous both to us and, above all, to the Iranian people), and because I also believe the two nations are natural allies. Most of all I am concerned that we will be dragged into another war in the Gulf, this time against Iran. In my opinion this would be a disaster for America, one that could have consequences even more far-reaching than those that flowed from Vietnam. That is the only reason I spend time writing and blogging on the subject. Nevertheless, I have great sympathy for the Iranian people and wish them the best. I don’t dismiss their legitimate claims and concerns at all.
The Leveretts should be really proud that the Iranian pro-government hardliner propoganda machine (Kayhan newspaper) is using your hallucinated comments in a recent “article”. With regard to your 1/5/10 NYT piece, I still don’t know where you got your supposed statistics and analysis from, but I really hope you will open your eyes to truth rather than using iamginary numbers and analysis for such an important issue. Everyone knows that in a repressive regime like Iran, there are no proper statistics about anything – the government is very good at making sure that people are too afraid to express their true desires. Not only is it impossible to measure actual election returns, we lack accurate statistics about very basic health and demographic issues. We don’t know HIV/AIDS rates, the number of gays, rates of drug use, sex abuse statistics, or any other issues that might be damaging to the false image sought by this regime. Even a 5 year old child in Iran knows that you are not in a position to know anything about the internal situation in Iran.
It is interesting that Musavi recently himself retreat his ask for nullifying the election knowing there is no proof of evident. Other reformists retreat before. Even persons like Abtahi who are now free on ball have not reject his statements during the so called show trial. Myself listed all claims against the election and confute every single one, hopefully it will be released soon in English.
By the way the interior ministry never released the result of every single ballot box, in this election it did, so absolute transparency was observed. The post election conflict arose rather of the polarizing the society by the candidates, the conflict was for many political scientists in Iran foreseeable.
Pay, weren’t the votes counted at ballot stations all over the country, and the ballot box tallies released publicly?
I don’t see how the margin could have been fabricated without a lot of people, including Mousavi supporters knowing.
What you say about three million votes takes me back to June. I’m not going to explain it, but there is a fully reasonable explanation, as I think you should know, and that number is not an indication of any stolen votes at all.
Listen, six months later, the case that the election results were fabricated is very weak. When I see a poll that says 80% of Iranians do not buy it, that sounds about right to me.
If an Ahmadinejad opponent like you can’t say affirmatively that Mousavi won and why, then I think it is reasonable, until your side can produce some form of evidence, to say Ahmadinejad won. The ballot box counts were in the newspaper.
A lot of Iranians don’t like the ruling system, but every indication is that even more do find the government acceptable.
Arnold Evans
there is no way to prove Mousavi won, just as there is no way to prove Ahmadinejad won. It is however almost clear that the margin announced for Ahmadinejad is fabricated. There are several indicators why the regime had completely planned to crackdown on the protests (unlike past elections) which means they knew the results will certainly not convince enough people for some form of relatively widespread protest to take form. What they miscalculated was its extent.
But all that is immaterial now. The point is that many people in Iran have put up with the regime’s undemocratic ways for many years. For example already before the election happened, its process had become grossly unfair. As an example, consider the ultimate authority on elections, the Guardian council (which eventually approved the results by deciding that since, in their view, there were at most 3 million irregularities, the election must have been fair!); half of the Guardian council had publicly endorsed and supported Ahmadinejad! The access of Ahamdinejad to TV/Radio/Newspapers was not comparable to the rest of the candidates, and so on.
Now these issues have always existed, but people have turned a blind eye as they have had no easy way to fix such problems. After the recent elections and especially after the brutal nature of the regime became clear to many Iranians, they are demanding for a reform/change of the system so there can be some clarity/accountability/due process. The issue is no longer who won the vote. For all practical purposes Ahmadinejad might have won. But what people are asking, and rightly so, is we want a system that is capable of running fair and clean elections and then we will see who wins. A system which will punish candidates who go to city after city and bribe people to vote for them. A system in which the national TV does not decide to assign 1 hour of free time to its favorite candidate in prime time to come and lie without any challengers. A system in which working for a candidate’s campaign does not present the risk of being imprisoned.
The thing is that people have realized, after all the murders and rapes and beatings, that they can no longer turn a blind eye to the flaws of a system which have enabled some people in the top to do whatever they want without any any any fear of retribution. The issue is not who won. The issue is let’s have fair elections and see who wins.
And the issue is that some people have spilled blood and they need to be punished. The problems have changed. No one is shouting “where is my vote” anymore. People are chanting against the crimes of the regime now.
John Harrison
I agree that America must put its interests first in designing its foreign policy. But there are two caveats to that statement: first of all, this interest should not be viewed in short term, and secondly America has to stand
at least partially (but genuinely) for some of the values it advocates. I don’t believe it does America any good in the long term to go around shaking hands that have spilled blood and legitimizing those who have ordered rape and torture. It simply is too inconsistent with America’s declared values. In fact had America been more careful about this, she may not have been in so muc trouble around the world right now.
I personally don’t want a revolution to happen in Iran. But dismissing the genuine bottom-up dissatisfaction, anger, and protest that exists in Iran right now would be detrimental to an eventual Iranian-American relationship, and would not serve the long term interests of America.
There is a lot of goodwill towards America among the Iranian people. It is a capital that needs to be protected, as I believe Iran and America are natural allies. To go behind the people and negotiate in a way witht he regime that gives them legitimacy, would be viewed as a betrayal by the people.
Here is the thing: we don’t want America to help. What we want is for this movement to take its natural course. Maybe it takes time; let it be so. People’s understanding of democracy and the democratic process is getting deeper with every action of the regime. It is a learning experience first and foremost, and we hope it will transform the political scene in Iran. What we are afraid of is that foreign intervention will derail it. We already have Russia and China directly affecting the events in Iran. It is natural to hope America’s role would not be destrctive to this process.
What angers me personally is the fact that Neocons prefer the Islamic regime to stay in power as it is because they believe it serves their short term interests well, especially with regards to the nuclear issue. Their quick-fix philosophy and short-sighted approaches are much more easily justifiable when a regime is in place whose image can be defined in most negative terms.
Pay,
Neither knowledge nor wisdom is advanced by engaging in ad hominem attacks. When you argue on this level, you make it difficult for me to pay serious attention to what you have to say.
We can argue all day about what percentage of Iranians support the regime, or the Green movement, or who fall somewhere in between. The point is that the Green movement is not going to replace the regime. For their own good they should lie low and wait their time (admittedly, this may be decades away).
Please understand that I am an American, and my main concern is simply: what policy best serves the American people? It’s very clear to me that engagement is the best policy we can adopt toward Iran; therefore I support such a policy. To paraphrase Palmerston: America has no friends, only interests.
I could certainly debate in detail the specific points you raise. However, as my time is not unlimited and my writing here is unpaid, I will continue to be brief, and make such points as I think are important.
I would be very happy to read and reflect on your comments, assuming you can adopt a more civilized tone.
From the US embassy report: Musavi’s formal complaints include: the heads of governors’ offices sabotaged the issuance of identification cards to electoral observers before the ballots were collected and counted manually; ballot papers were not distributed properly in Shiraz and Tabriz; additional television campaigning was allowed for Ahmadinejad; the headlines of agencies including Rajanews, Fars, and IRNA focused on Ahmadinejad’s victory in the election; and Article 40 of the Criminal Code regarding army-related crimes was broken through the involvement of Basij members in Ahmadinejad’s campaign meetings.
In my opinion, Mousavi’s formal complaints do not support a contention that stuffing the ballot boxes with over 10 million votes for Ahmadinejad could or did occur. Mousavi’s complaint did not contend that contrary to standard practice, in this election the votes were not counted locally. He still deployed over 30,000 election observers who would have at least given him a basis to make a formal complaint if on a widespread basis votes were not counted locally. If votes were counted locally as they always are, then a whole lot of people would know about any fraud in the reporting of ballot box totals that were printed in newspapers.
Mousavi supporters: Do you believe Mousavi got more votes than Ahmadinejad? What makes you believe that?
@Arnold Evans
“We also have the election results themselves. The ballots were counted in local polling stations and hundreds of thousands of people all over Iran were involved. The results were reported for every ballot box. It seems to me impossible that the results were falsified in a way that nobody has come forward to at least say that the polling station they counted reported the wrong result in the newspaper.”
There have been several such allegations, including a “leak” from Interior Ministry. None of this can be verified however because it’s been impossible for objective journalists to operate in Iran during the past 6 months. That doesn’t mean the other position is right, however. There are many irregularities surrounding the June Elections. I would suggest starting with the Wikipedia article for some general background Also, see page 7 of this report from the U.S. State Department:
http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/R40653.pdf
@Arnold Evans
“All of the objective evidence indicates that the regime is more popular than the opposition.”
What objective evidence might this be? Please do share.
Pay,
You are striking a very non-confrontational tone that I very much appreciate and that hopefully will make discussions more productive and beneficial. Thank you for that. I’m going to try to emulate your tone which I admire.
If it is true that Ahmadinejad and the regime have more support than the opposition, then I think you’ll agree that it is very unlikely that the opposition will prevail and force the regime to make substantial concessions, much less overthrow the regime. I imagine you’ll agree that if the opposition has less popular support than the regime, the opposition should not, as a moral issue, be able to impose its ideas on a greater number of people who disagree.
So the question of which side is more popular is very important. The observations of supporters of candidates are extremely unreliable measures of popularity. It is quite plausible that a Mousavi supporter not know any Ahmadinejad supporters, but Ahmadinejad supporters are still a substantial majority of the country overall.
Generally, polls are much more reliable indicators of popularity than observations of an individual’s circle of family and friends. We can wait for an new poll that corrects any errors you think the WPO poll made, but until then, the only poll result we have matches the reported results very well.
We also have the election results themselves. The ballots were counted in local polling stations and hundreds of thousands of people all over Iran were involved. The results were reported for every ballot box. It seems to me impossible that the results were falsified in a way that nobody has come forward to at least say that the polling station they counted reported the wrong result in the newspaper.
Maybe you can point me to the most convincing explanation you can produce of how the fraud was committed. Mousavi filed a report of election irregularities. From what I understand, he did not assert that the ballots were removed from polling stations before they were counted.
So Pay, do you think Mousavi won? What makes you think so?
Dear Arnold
I am sorry but I can’t stop smiling about your comment. The innocence of the pro-active assertive American mind :)
I am sure you will interpret most Iranians as quite illogical if you saw our actions and reactions. It would be very helpful if Americans were capable of interpreting events NOT based on their own understanding of life and matters.
John H and Lysander
I appreciate your careful approach towards the issue. And given the past history of your government you should exercise care. But just because something happened a certain way a few times is no proof that it will always happen that way.
Yes your media is biased, and will definitely project the happenings of Iran in a biased way. But the proof of bias in your media coverage could not be taken as proof that nothing is happening.
So I say, by all accounts, stay doubtful and follow the events to see how they unfold, but please don’t write op-eds which are based on unsupported assertions.
if you want to make an opinion, you are welcome to check out sources apart from your biased media. There are plenty, and if you are really interested to write op-ed pieces you could learn Persian or hire someone who knows Persian and follow the news from a different perspective. Then you will see why so many are upset with the skewed coverage the iranian protests are getting even in “pro-green” American/British outlets.
Best Wishes
Lysander is right. We may not know Iran. But we know our own government and its propaganda operations. So when we see Iranian protests splayed all over the media, we know that we must take the “information” with a gigantic grain of salt. Demonstrations during the Democratic and Republican national conventions are not shown. Student demonstrations in Kabul are not shown. Joint Israeli/Palestinian protests of the Gaza blockade are not shown. Protests in Iraq are not shown.
Only protests the support the conventional foreign policy narrative are shown. And it obviously feed the credulous wishful thinking of some of the posters here…
All of the objective evidence indicates that the regime is more popular than the opposition. If the election results and poll are wrong, what’s right? People saying that everyone they know supports Mousavi? That is a common and well understood to be misleading phenomenon.
For me the most convincing indication that Mousavi is not as popular as Ahmadinejad is that Mousavi isn’t saying he is. Mousavi is willing to say he may become a martyr and his blood is no redder than those who’ve already died. But he isn’t saying he is the rightful president of Iran. From what I’ve read of his statements, I don’t get the impression that he believes he beat Ahmadinejad in the June election.
Does anyone have links to images and video of the pro and anti-regime demonstrations?
I do think the Leveretts need to be careful here, because comparing the protests is not comparing apples with apples for a variety of reasons.
However, this just doesn’t feel like a revolution in the making. It seems as though there is huge dissatisfaction amongst a substantial chunk of the population at both the way Ahmadinejad was re-elected, and the thought of 4 more years of him. This has been fired up by the fact that big regime figures like Moussavi, Khatami and to a lesser extent Rafsanjani were also outraged by the elections and prepared to say so.
However, it seems the debate is more to do with who leads the Islamic Republic as opposed to whether or not to have an Islamic Republic. The net result is a split in the elite, and that has exposed what seems to be the real risk here: that the old elite are usurped by a rather frightening combination of hardline clerics, the IRGC, and a younger generation wedded to their ideas (e.g Ahmadinejad).
Both sides need to sort out their differences, or they could all become irrelevant.
Pay, its not so much that we silly westerners know so much about Iran, its that we know so much about the west and what it does.
In 1953 we had
1) A west that was angered by Iran’s oil nationalization.
2) An economic embargo against Iran that caused unemployment and public discontent
3) A western press that accused, in a loud and wide chorus, Mossadegh of being a tyrant and communist sympathizer, if not a communist himself.
4) Anti government demonstrations, organized by the CIA
5) Alliance between the CIA and elements of Iran’s government, leading to an eventual coup.
This looks eerily like what is happening today. That does not mean it is. It may be the west has nothing to do with the demonstrations or no control over it. I have no idea. But you can’t blame us for seeing the pattern. Especially when;
1) US government policy is openly to overthrow the IRI
2) The US has openly committed large sums of money to aid pro democracy groups in Iran.
3) The western press openly supports the protesters. That is not a benefit conferred to protesters everywhere. They did not notice anti-coup protesters in Honduras, for example.
4) US government officials (Hillary Clinton) have said they are doing a lot behind the scenes to help the protesters.
Nor is this pattern unique to Iran. It has happened in Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc…
So its not the we know so much about Iran. But man oh man, give us credit for knowing something about uncle sam.
Lastly, there is no need for you to be angry at the Leverettes. First their site really has no affect at all on what is happening in Iran (its been banned, anyway) and second, its drowned out by the pro green movement press.
Best wishes to you and your extended family.
Jon Harrison
Iran is a big country. Don’t be overwhelmed by numbers. And learn some mathematics.
If the regime allows the protesters to have a rally you will see how many people will now show up on the streets. 95 percent of my extended family opposes the regime (a traditional family, by the way, and quite big). I know only 2 members of my family who have set foot on the streets for recent demonstrations. Why? they are not as brave as the ones you discount. But assure them of their safety and they will happily express their opposition to the regime. (you wouldn’t even have to promise them goodies).
The kind of comment you have made is symptomatic among ignorant and arrogant westerners who think reading a few articles and watching some footage/pictures qualifies them to voice their opinion. The point is no one is interested in your opinion. We are interested in the truth.
The Leverettes are in the same boat, though one gets the feeling that they know better, but simply have an agenda.
Like it or not (and I don’t like it), the anti-government forces in Iran are a minority. The fact that they were willing to protest in the face of government hostility is admirable, but that doesn’t mean they can win. The pro-government demonstrations were not just a show put on by the regime. If the people were truly on the side of the Greens, the government could not have put a million of them in the streets of Tehran. The fact that the regime aided and encourged its supporters to come out doesn’t mean that most of those supporters wouldn’t have done so anyway.
We would do better to encourage the opposition to lie low and wait for their time to come. Encouraging them will only lead to their being crushed. In the meantime we should pursue engagement with the current regime, because it is in the U.S. national interest to do so.
This is absurd. Other readers have raised the issue “clear to a 12-year old” that there should certainly be no comparison between the number of crowds who come out to face death, with those who are out for a fun day filled with juice and hot chocolate.
Apart from that:
1. Don’t apply your limited western mind to matters you don’t understand. If you had lived in Iran (or had any substantial information on it) you’d know that the government always does bus people in from work and for many people refusal to join has repercussions. If you looked at pictures, you’d see that demonstrators are organized into men and women groups. No self-organized demo on that level can be so neatly divided along gender lines like that.
2. Where did you get the estimate of millions from? Let me guess Press TV? Or IRIB? Fars News maybe…
3. You remind me of those people who called Iranians from abroad polling them on whether they approved of the supreme leader. The result: 80%.
The result we read from it: you are simply idiots who simply don’t understand the notion of repercussion in a system run by a brutal regime.
Take your propaganda elsewhere. And let your bosses know people are not idiots.
Lysander,
Thank you for your remarks. I did accept that the government has a lot of supporters. But, at the end of the day, we will never know which side forms a majority without transparent, free and fair elections. The keyword there is transparent.
NGOs from 5,000 kilometers away can’t arrange bus trips or protect protesters from bullets and batons.
leveretts,
in your attempt to “sort through the facts” you conveniently omit the ones that do not support your views, as outlined by the commenters above regarding the pro-government protests. the anti-government protestors are gaining strength with each new event; the chants of “death to the dictator” have widely been replaced with “death to khamenei,” something previously unthinkable within iran. there certainly is desire for regime change in iran, with rampant unemployment, a negligent government and a demographic time bomb.
furthermore, your advice to the obama administration to take a more china-like approach to engaging iran neglects the vast human rights abuses committed by the governments of both those countries.
those government protests were all fake! The government forced all government workers to attend, gave metro passes for free, forced children in school to attend, and gave free food to any people who showed up. So these so called, “government supporters” might all be part of the opposition.
Another element to take into consideration is the fact that opposition groups are usually far more motivated to demonstrate, than those representing the status quo.
For example, the anti-Obama crowd can usually assemble a far larger sized gathering anywhere (even in San Francisco) than pro-Obama supporters, often far in excess of approval ratings provided by pollsters. In fact, Nancy Pelosi’s personally attended public outdoor rallies in her home district don’t compare in any way with those assembled for President Ahmadinejad. And Ahmadinejad is almost entirely depicted by Western analysts as being seen as illegitimate by Iran’s electorate, despite the results of pre-election and post-election polling conducted by WPO.
Such interpretations cut both ways, so Dezner’s characterization of the Leveretts’ perspective is, in itself, over the top.
It cannot be overemphasized that there is a preponderance of wishful thinking going on amongst Western foreign policy analysts, resulting in many a skewed perspective and analysis.
Correct me if I’m wrong: It was Montazeri’s office that leaked information to Al-Shiraa about the Iran-Contra dealings, the improved climate in the U.S.-Iranian relations and the support by the Israelis. In other words, someone who was responsible for an act of high treason in the midst of a war that his country was almost losing was the hope of the reformist movement? Dear me …
Khamenei is a threat for the world
Khamenei is a threat for the world & Ahmadinejad
In reference to this post and the previous one–why not show a photo of the Ashura protests which demonstrates the total number of people who came out? Your photos are rather misleading in that they make the Ashura protests appear like a small number of “hooligans” causing damage on the streets of Tehran, rather than any sort of larger rally. While you suggest that other Western analysts have overblown the Ashura demonstrations, it appears that you have overlooked what role the regime played in getting the kind of turnout that it did during the pro-government rallies.
In his blog over at Foreign Policy, Dan Drezner asks the pointed question,
“What Color is the Sky in Leverettland?
Drezner is right to wonder.
Comparing the number of people who turned out at the ‘Ashura demonstrations with the number of people who turned out for the pro-regime demonstrations organized by the Iranian government is absurd and the Leveretts are surely smart enough to know it.
The ‘Ashura demonstrators turned out in the streets knowing that they were putting life and limb at risk. Based on the regime’s behavior after the elections and during the “Jerusalem Day” demonstrations, the protestors knew that they would be physically attacked and if they were arrested they might be raped, tortured or even murdered in jail.
They also knew that all of the brutal instruments of the Iranian State were likely to be utilized to deter demonstrations in the first place and if they could not be deterred, to physically defeat those participating in “illegal” street rallies. The regime’s arsenal of thugs included club wielding Basij militia on motor scooters, fanatically religious revolutionary guards as well as Iran’s more traditional police force. If tens of thousands of Iranians were willing to risk being beaten or killed, how many would have turned out for the antigovernment rally if there was no need to be afraid?
The New York Times reported that the regime ordered all government employees to participate in the counterdemonstrations. It is also perfectly obvious that everyone who showed up at the counterdemonstrations knew that they not be subject to attack and that they would be protected by the security apparatus of the State.
Tens of thousands (or more) people marching in the street even though they knew that they might be injured or killed is far more impressive than tens of thousands of people taking the day off from work to participate in rallies that they knew would be perfectly safe.
The ‘Ashura demonstrations were revolutionary in nature and the chants of “Death to Khamanei” were unprecedented. . The demonstrations organized by the government were akin to the rallies held in North Korea where tens of thousands turn out to laud the “Dear Leader.”
Do the Leveretts think their readers are so dumb that they don’t realize this?
I appreciate UNN’s point, but I would add the following. No other middle east government could have gotten that size a rally. I can tell you Mubarak could never bring together a million Egyptians to sing his praises with all the juice and cake in the world. Nasser could have, but not Mubarak. Neither could king Abdullah of Jordan. And another point that a 12 year old might notice is that anti government protesters have tremendous outside support of nations and NGOs trying to overthrow the IRI, whereas progovernment supporters are derided as a paid mob or brainwashed nuts.
While I agree that there is wide spread anger at the government, and that people have every right to protest, the IRI has vastly more public support than any other government in the Mideast.
I don’t think anybody is denying that the government has a lot of supporters. The point is that (and you probably have been notified of this several times) pro government protesters had several days of prime time TV advertisements, transportation facilities, paid leave, governmental ‘encouraging’ to civil servants to attend the rallies, and they were welcomed with juice and cake. Of course they didn’t come for juice and cake, but I’m sure far fewer would have attended if they were instead welcomed with bullets, batons and ramming police vans, imprisonment, rape and torture.
It’s commendable that you try to portray an independent, realistic (rather than wishful) view of the situation, but your posts fail to address a point that a 12 year old would notice.