Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett appeared on The Charlie Rose Show last night.
The video can be viewed here.
– Ben Katcher
Video of the Leveretts on Charlie Rose
About The Race for Iran
Archive Highlights
The Authors
Flynt Leverett
Hillary Mann Leverett
Key Documents
- Turkey-Brazil-Iran Nuclear Agreement
- UNSCRs
- IAEA Reports
- Iranian Proposals
- Western And P5+1 Proposals
- Energy and Economics
- Resources on US Policy
- Videos
- Rules and Regulations For www.RaceforIran.com
Archives
Please Contribute
We would be grateful for any contributions to help support the work of RaceForIran.com. Please Click the buttons below to make a secure donation. Or, please send a check for any amount to: New America Foundation, Attention: Simone Frank (for RaceForIran), 1899 L Street, NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036 (please write for RaceForIran.com on the memo line of your check).
| $20 | |
| $50 | |
| $100 | |
| $250 |
Eric,
If your have trouble following the post above let me know. The issue I had was the formatting would not translate on the post. I have a word copy that is much easier on the eye and if you email me I can forward over a copy. You can email me at wdavit@gmail.com.
Thx
Bill
Eric , your last post so perfectly to the point
Reverend,
We are getting side-tracked on non-election issues – important issues, but not what I have focused on. Though it may appear otherwise to you (and that mistaken appearance may be entirely my fault), my purpose in writing about the election has not been to challenge the Green movement, or anyone else in Iran or outside Iran, on issues unrelated to the election itself, including the treatment of post-election protesters. I tried to make that very clear up front in my article:
“Charges that the Iranian government brutally mistreated protesters after the election must be taken very seriously. A protester’s human rights should not depend on the merits of his position, just as our respect for a soldier should not depend on the merits of the war he is sent to fight. The question considered here, however, is not whether the government mistreated those who protested the election result, nor whether Iran’s government ought to be run by different people with different policies. Nor is the question whether more candidates ought to have been declared eligible to run – a complaint made by many critics but not by Mousavi. Obviously he made the list, and the exclusion of other candidates probably improved his chances. The question here is simply whether Ahmadinejad won the election, fair and square.”
Nor do I mean to suggest that those who challenge the 2009 Iran election are the same people who shouted down the WMD-doubters before the Iraq invasion in 2003. To the contrary, I recognize that many election-doubters today were WMD-doubters back in 2003. Unfortunately, the potential consequences of their doubts are quite different this time: last time, they opposed war AND they opposed those who pressed for war; this time, they oppose war but tacitly SUPPORT those who press for war. They don’t intend to, but they do.
A good example is Justin Raimondo, webmaster of the Antiwar.com website. He has strongly challenged the fairness of the 2009 Iran election. Does Raimondo exchange holiday cards, or play tennis on Saturday mornings, with John Bolton, Max Boot, Alan Kuperman, Joshua Muravchik or any other member of the “bomb-Iran” crowd? Probably not. Nonetheless, all of them probably are grateful to Raimondo for his fervent support of their position on the “stolen election” issue. They consider themselves fully capable of fashioning the appropriate remedy (bomb Iran) without further assistance from Raimondo.
In short, just as fabricated claims of WMD – accepted uncritically by most Americans and many others – played into the hands of those who wanted the United States to bomb Iraq in 2003 (many of whom probably knew the WMD claims were false), so do baseless claims of a “stolen election” play into the hands of those who want the United States to bomb Iran in 2010 (some of whom probably know those claims are false).
To participants in the Green movement, I suggest this: Read my article. If you disagree with me, don’t change your behavior at all. If you agree with me but you nevertheless believe you have sufficient reasons for protesting apart from the baseless “stolen election” claim, by all means protest. But if you agree with me and do not believe you have sufficient reasons for protesting apart from the baseless “stolen election” claim, consider carefully the possible unintended consequences of your protesting. You may well further the aims of people with whom you do not agree at all: the bomb-Iran crowd. You probably will not intend or want to do that, but you may be doing so nonetheless.
To leaders of the Green movement, I suggest this: Read my article. If you disagree with me, ignore what I have to say. But if you agree, tell your followers the truth about the 2009 Iran election. If you believe they ought to be protesting even so, make your best arguments to that effect and let them decide. Just don’t use false claims about the 2009 election to influence their judgment.
It’s really as simple as that.
“Both Eric and Fiorangela criticize me for not providing proof, or at least evidence, of the Saudi lobby’s greater influence over American foreign policy than Israel’s. Both lobbies operate in an atmosphere of great secrecy and so such evidence, much less proof, is very difficult to obtain. I happen to believe that the Saudis, as Guardians of Islam’s holiest sites and masters of the oil cartel, outclass the Israelis by far in this contest. You believe otherwise.”
Thanks, Tom.
Reverend,
“It’s irrational to expect that Mousavi and Karroubi themselves would list out each of these violations in detail as you request.”
My focus has been on the election (as I sometimes need to remind myself). So let’s stick here to election-related violations. Imagine again that the result was different, and consider these two questions:
1. If Ahmadinejad claimed fraud, would you think it was “irrational” to ask Ahmadinejad to detail his complaints?
2. If Ahmadinejad claimed that Mousavi’s election was invalid because the Guardian Council treated Iranian like “children” by excluding many candidates, should Mousavi have declined to take office?
Eric A. Brill,
To answer your question about our hypothetical UN investigator, I would assume that this investigator would have the intelligence to see Mousavi and Karroubi’s broad public statements indicating that abuse is happening as a signal to dig deeper into the documented specific cases monitored by the numerous human rights organizations, some dedicated to Iran, some global, which keep careful track of each reported violation of human rights in Iran.
In addition I would expect this investigator to realize that both Mousavi and Karroubi keep records of the complaints they receive from citizens, which, while not incorporated in detail into their public statements, would be available for the UN investigator to see. Or at least these documents would have been available had they not been confiscated from their offices by security forces.
It’s irrational to expect that Mousavi and Karroubi themselves would list out each of these violations in detail as you request. Would you expect Obama to have read out the name of every uninsured child to make his case for health care reform? You are being disingenuous and attempting to perpetrate a logical fallacy, that since Mousavi or Karroubi might say “those who have been arrested for their political views” or some such general phrase, without listing the specific names of hundreds of detainees each time, that therefore no such specific cases exist.
Human rights organizations have been listing specific cases of abuse in Iran for decades now, and if you want to make the case, as some have done, that these abuses are justified by religion, that’s one thing, but to say you don’t believe they exist, because two politicians didn’t give you enough specific detail, is ridiculous. We don’t judge human rights abuses by the rhetoric of politicians, we judge them by the registries of abuse victims created by Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog groups.
If you want to make a case that these groups are conspiring to tell lies to make the Islamic Republic look bad, well, frankly I will not engage in that argument because it is simply not credible on its face. One would have to accept the premise of an international Zionist conspiracy to defame the Islamic Republic as a whole, and rational people know that such a thing does not exist.
Since you apparently have not yet taken the time to Google any of this, here is just one of the many registries of human rights abuses to get you started:
http://www.iranrights.org/ It has a searchable database for your convenience.
Eric A. Brill and Fiorangela Leone:
Sorry for the delay in responding. I find the blog form difficult to keep up with; I’ll try to do better in the future. And I’ll try to keep a civil tone!
This debate is not about me. But since you have brought it up, yes, I did once contribute articles to the American Thinker. Quite a while ago I was banned from publication in that venue, mainly though probably not exclusively because of my article on Iran. In fact, the article cited by Fiorangela, “The Balance of Terror in the Middle East,” was written to support Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear deterrent.
Do Boeing advertisements appear in American Thinker? Well, so what? This blog is sponsored by Flynt Leverett, a proud former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Well, so what? In my lifetime I have cheerfully associated with Communists, socialists, reactionaries, liberals, spooks of various (and probably multiple) loyalties. Some were persons of integrity and some were not. (I’ve actually learned more from the shadier among them than from the decent ones.) Such is the way of the world.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Neoconservative.
As for my email to Fiorangela citing Max Boot, I tipped no hand by referencing it; you completely missed my point, which I shall now attempt to reinforce. Please note that my email also cited an attack on Boot’s defense of General Petraeus by Andrew C. McCarthy, appearing in (horrors!) National Review. The subject of their controversy? Petraus’ alleged criticism of Israel as a detriment to relations with the Arabs. Here are the links I supplied to Fiorangela: article[dot]nationalreview[dot]com/430708/petraeuss-israel-problem/andrew-c-mccarthy, and www[dot]commentarymagazine[dot]com/blogs/index[dot]php/boot/274061
Fiorangela, I don’t agree with any of the parties to this dispute. I only invoked it to provide evidence of a new development in American politics: the looming disintegration of Neoconservative support for Israel. If you are not interested in this subject, please forgive me for troubling you about it. By the way, who is Mike Evans? His article sounds interesting. Can you provide a link? But, let’s move on.
Both Eric and Fiorangela criticize me for not providing proof, or at least evidence, of the Saudi lobby’s greater influence over American foreign policy than Israel’s. Both lobbies operate in an atmosphere of great secrecy and so such evidence, much less proof, is very difficult to obtain. I happen to believe that the Saudis, as Guardians of Islam’s holiest sites and masters of the oil cartel, outclass the Israelis by far in this contest. You believe otherwise. But I don’t think any of us would deny that both exercise substantial influence over this government and have for a long time. How do we know that? Not so much by actual evidence (although it is out there, if we care to look), as by its effects. The U.S. does all kinds of things that can only be explained by reference to these influences. As Mr. Leverett would no doubt say, “just walk the cat back.” (To which I, not being so polite as he doubtless is, would add, “…to the litterbox.”)
Could I ever convince you of the Saudi’s greater influence, no matter what evidence I might bring? Could you ever convince me of Israel’s? I doubt it. But one thing on which we can agree is that the combined influence of both has been most detrimental to Iran’s interests. Therefore, if the President of the United States decides, for whatever reasons, that he must choose between the claims of these two lobbies, should we not sit up and take notice?
Here is a fact: Obama is about to stage a nuclear non-proliferation festival from which Iran has been excluded, and Israel has felt obliged to exclude itself.
And here is an inference: the above fact is the 2010 equivalent of the “ping-pong diplomacy” of 1971 between the U.S. and China. Sooner or later, it will eventuate in a rapprochement between the world’s two pariah nations. And that will certainly separate the Sunni Arabists from the Shi’ite Iranists in the Middle East, if not on this blog!
Eric A Brill,
Regarding your statement that Khamenei did not forbid demonstrations at the Friday Prayer when he announced the election results were final, that is simply wrong. I listened to the speech live while reading a simultaneous translation, and I have gone back and read the translation again, and it is quite clear that Khamenei says that anyone who continues to protest the election results is “mohareb”.
Perhaps you are unaware of exactly what that means. The literal translation is “waging war against God,” but in practice it means that vigilante mobs are allowed to enter your dorm while you are asleep and beat you to death. People who are mohareb are worse than infidels, and not entitled to any consideration as human beings. Declaring that the protesters are mohareb is definitely saying that people are forbidden to protest, in fact it is saying that anyone who protests the election results is not a person at all, they have forfeited all rights as a human being.
Eric A. Brill,
Regarding the seven Baha’i, the exact charges against them are: espionage, “propaganda activities against the Islamic order,” the establishment of an illegal administration, cooperation with Israel, the sending of secret documents outside the country, acting against the security of the country, and “corruption on earth.” So you are correct, the charges against them are not literally “being Baha’i”, thus maintaining the veneer of compliance with the constitution.
However, the actual specific acts characterized as “espionage” and “propaganda” which these people committed were acts of religious observance in their Baha’i faith; it is the actual practice of that religion which is considered to be establishing an illegal administration, propaganda against the Islamic order and corruption on earth, and it is normal religious correspondence which is considered as espionage, cooperation with Israel, and sending secret documents.
It’s important to remember that these seven are only the most recent in a pattern of abuse directed against many other Baha’i, and that espionage is the catch-all crime which Maziar Bahari the Newsweek reporter, and our own American hikers are also charged with. You can read more about the international condemnation of the consistent persecution of the Baha’i here: http://news.bahai.org/story/749
The lawyer for these particular Baha’i is Shirin Ebadi, who won the Nobel Prize for her work in this area, so if you’re going to make the argument that the Baha’i are not singled out for persecution, you’ll have an uphill battle convincing the international community of it. Many others before you have looked at this situation and found a clear pattern of abuse, which they have honored Ms. Ebadi for fighting against.
Reverend,
You’re making my case. I just read (reread) the Mousavi statement on the Facebook link you provided. Maybe the best way to clarify this is to ask you to imagine that you’re an eager-beaver, top-notch, independent investigator brought in by the UN to check out Mousavi’s allegations. Your boss hands you Mousavi’s statement and tells you to get out there immediately and find out if what Mousavi says is true. You read Mousavi’s statement and you notice that it doesn’t contain a SINGLE verifiable statement — it doesn’t say WHO, WHERE and WHEN. You ask your boss if Mousavi has presented any more details so that you will be able to investigate. Your boss replies, “No. You have all you need. Get to work!”
Tell me, Reverend: if you were that hapless young investigator, where would you start?
“In fact, Khamenei went out of his way to openly and clearly violate the constitution when he announced at Friday Prayers after the election that the election question was now settled and no one would be allowed to demonstrate to express a contrary opinion. That is not constitutional in Iran. People have the absolute constitutional right to gather whenever they wish, without any special permission, as long as when they gather they do not violate the principles of Islam.”
Actually, you’re being too generous with the last sentence. The constitution doesn’t say anything about demonstrations violating the principles of Islam.
More important, Khamenei didn’t say what you claim. He said the election result was official, decided, certified, over with; Ahmadinejad had won. People nevertheless were free to gather and express their disappointment peacefully. What they were NOT free to do, however, is what they had been doing almost non-stop for the preceding week: gather to throw rocks through windows of government buildings, beat policemen and militiamen, and set police cars on fire. And if they did, they’d be arrested and held responsible for their actions. In other words, they’d be treated exactly the way they’d be treated in the United States. Bill of rights or not, I can guarantee you that if a crowd of angry Muslims (or Christians, or Buddhists, or whatever) march through downtown Washington, beating up policemen, setting police vehicles on fire, and chanting “Death to Obama!”, the Washington police and National Guard will not behave exactly as you suggest they ought to.
Consider this imaginary scenario. Suppose MOUSAVI had won the election by 11,000,000 votes. Ahmadinejad and his supporters promptly claimed “fraud, fraud, fraud” and staged several violent rallies in which they threw rocks through windows of government buildings, beat policemen and militiamen, and set police cars on fire. The police and militia responded very harshly, wounding and even killing Ahmadinejad supporters, and arresting many of them. Ahmadinejad and his supporters offered no evidence of fraud, despite numerous requests to do so — no documents, no testimony, no evidence at all — just broad allegations of fraud, but no who, what, where or when that would make it possible to investigate his complaints. Ahmadinejad’s representatives even stopped attending Guardian Council meetings held to discuss his hundreds of minor election complaints. The Guardian Council nevertheless investigated those hundreds of minor complaints with whatever information it had despite Ahmadinejad’s lack of cooperation, conducted a 10% recount (which Ahmadinejad was invited to observe, but he declined), and certified the results — a little bit later than required by law, in an effort to give Ahmadinejad some extra time to substantiate his allegations. Despite the certification, Ahmadinejad’s supporters continued to hold “rallies” at which they continued to throw rocks through windows of government buildings, beat policemen and militiamen, and set police cars on fire. Finally, Khamenei delivered a speech in which he declared that the election was settled, pointed out that Ahmadinejad had not presented evidence to back up his allegations of fraud, and firmly declared that Ahmadinejad’s supporters must stop holding so-called “rallies” at which they throw rocks through windows of government buildings, beat policemen and militiamen, and set police cars on fire. If they continued to do so, Khamenei warned, they would be held responsible for their actions — meaning they would be arrested, prosecuted, tried and punished — just like other people who throw rocks through windows of government buildings, beat policemen and militiamen, and set police cars on fire. Ahmadinejad nevertheless urged his supporters to continue holding rallies, and they did, and many of them indeed were arrested. When they were, Ahmadinejad claimed their human rights had been violated, and vowed to sacrifice his own life if necessary to ensure that the will of the people was respected. Six months later, his supporters were still holding “rallies”, chanting “Death to the Leader,” lighting police vehicles on fire and beating up police and militia.
Would you still strike the same balance between security and freedom of assembly?
Eric A. Brill,
I find it hard to believe that a researcher as capable and intelligent as yourself would be unable to locate the writings of Mousavi, as they are released on facebook by one of his supporters on a regular basis, with English translations. Here is a link to one of his most detailed and poignant calls for a return to constitutional rights in Iran: http://www.facebook.com/notes/mir-hossein-mousavi-myr-syn-mwswy/bynyh-smrh-17-mwswy-bh-mnsbt-wqy-swr-w-rwzhy-ps-z-n-mousavis-statement-17-regard/231350482605 Many people have only read the summary of this statement and do not realize how much detail it contains, laying out very specific complaints of unconstitutional activity.
Karroubi, of course, has had trouble getting his words out to the world, as his newspaper, Etemad Melli, has been shut down. He has successfully appealed and won the right to reopen the paper, but security forces have declined to honor the judicial decision, and the paper is still shut down. I would think that would be a pretty specific unconstitutional act right there, something actually happening to Karroubi himself at this very moment.
In addition, of course, Karroubi is well known to have presented to the Majlis the specific details of a number of unconstitutional prison abuses, including the cases of several individuals who say they were raped as part of their interrogations. In fact, this is the issue that has caused Karroubi to be summoned to court and have his newspaper shut down. Publishing the claims of these individuals and asking that they be investigated was considered a threat to national security, so the newspaper was shut down. Does that sound like the Iranian Constitution you read?
It’s true that these two prominent figures rarely use their public podium to read off a specific list of constitutional violations, preferring instead to make more general statements encompassing the whole pattern of abuse, and I think that’s entirely appropriate and normal for politicians and religious leaders to do.
For specifics and long detailed lists, we turn to those organizations that dedicate themselves to keeping track of these things, who make this type of information available to everyone. I would refer you to specific sites, but I would rather not try to shoehorn more links into this post, so I will just tell you to Google search the term “Iran human rights” and you will find several sites devoted to human rights in Iran, some with searchable databases, containing the names, dates, and all other information you could wish to know about Iranian human rights abuses, which are all unconstitutional because, as you have pointed out, the Iranian Constitution does actually contain a number of provisions to protect people from this kind of abuse.
“I urge you to read the portion of the Constitution which details the qualities the Leader must exhibit in order to keep his post. If he fails to demonstrate any of those exceptional qualities, such as by lying in any way about anything, he has demonstrated unfitness for office.”
Can you be specific about his lies?
“seven Baha’i were scheduled to go on trial just today for the crime of being Baha’i.”
Can you point me to the actual charges?
“I think you must be joking when you say you think Americans might prefer the Iranian Constitution.”
I didn’t say that. I was comparing the preferences of hypothetical Iranian and American leaders. I concluded that the Leader had a better deal in Iran — until one took into account that the US president really doesn’t require Congressional permission to go to war (my mother was picking out her prom dress the last time any American Congress declared war), upon which a hypothetical leader would choose instead the US president’s set of powers.
For the record, to make it perfectly clear, I consider PMOI/MKO/MEK/etc a dangerous terrorist cult, and I would never advocate that anyone support them. I have thoroughly researched that organization, and all I can say is that if ousting the Shah and installing the Islamic Republic was, in terms of human rights, out of the frying pan into the fire, going from an Islamic Republic to whatever MKO would put in would be like going from the fire to the ionizing plasma chamber. Cults are nobody’s friend.
“If you take the time to read what Karroubi and Mousavi have written, they lay out the constitutional violations in great detail, far better than I can.”
Can you point me to some of those detailed writings? I’ve looked very hard for them, with no luck. I’m not looking for details such as “The government has systematically denied [fill in description of fundamental right].” I’m looking for actual details — names, dates, places.
Thanks. I’m really eager to hear some details.
Eric A. Brill
I have, in fact, thoroughly read the Iranian Constitution. That was one of the first things that Green Movement activists asked Western human rights activists to do, familiarize ourselves with exactly what unconstitutional activity was going on.
I think you must be joking when you say you think Americans might prefer the Iranian Constitution, though it does have some nice language in it about protecting minorities, which as far as I can tell has been completely ignored in practice, given that seven Baha’i were scheduled to go on trial just today for the crime of being Baha’i. There are countless other examples, but I would think that one would be enough to prove the point. How many such trials do you need to see before you say, okay, the constitutional protections on minority religions are not being honored?
The fact that the Supreme Leader gets to personally appoint the members of the Guardian Council, who preselect which people may be allowed to run for office, is a huge red flag that any American should take issue with. It is a fundamental American principle that everyone, no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate, has a right to run for office. The People of Iran are not children, to need appointed guardians to decide for them who is appropriate to serve in their government.
As for the Supreme Leader, I urge you to read the portion of the Constitution which details the qualities the Leader must exhibit in order to keep his post. If he fails to demonstrate any of those exceptional qualities, such as by lying in any way about anything, he has demonstrated unfitness for office.
You also point to Khamenei’s lack of intervention in government affairs as if it were a good thing. Inaction can be more deadly than action. The Supreme Leader has a responsibility to ensure the Constitution is being upheld, and yet he has not intervened in any way to remove from office the people who have unleashed vigilante mobs on peaceful protesters as they slept in their dorms, or the people who issued live ammo to those same volunteer militiamen to put down protests, or acted in any other way to protect his people’s human rights, as is his duty.
In fact, Khamenei went out of his way to openly and clearly violate the constitution when he announced at Friday Prayers after the election that the election question was now settled and no one would be allowed to demonstrate to express a contrary opinion. That is not constitutional in Iran. People have the absolute constitutional right to gather whenever they wish, without any special permission, as long as when they gather they do not violate the principles of Islam.
This is why the Green Movement activists were eagerly interested in the latest meeting of the Assembly of Experts. There was hope among some that Rafsanjani would call for a vote to remove Khamenei and replace him with someone who would uphold the constitutional protections for Iranians, but the meeting ended with a resounding vote of confidence in Khamenei, leaving Iranians with only a referendum as a possible means of restoring their Constitutional rights.
If you take the time to read what Karroubi and Mousavi have written, they lay out the constitutional violations in great detail, far better than I can. I urge you to consider their writings when you go to assess how well the Iranian Constitution is observed in practice.
M. Ali,
I know it sounds confusing when we say that democracy means the will of the majority, but that democracy also means the majority is restricted from oppressing a minority. I can see how those seem like two contradictory things, however they are actually both the natural consequences of adopting the first principle that all people are created equal. I am curious to know, since you say you don’t believe in inalienable rights, whether you believe that first principle? And if so, how can fundamental equality be reconciled with eliminating any of the inalienable rights? Western philosophers have thoroughly debated these matters and concluded that all the rights in the Universal Declaration follow logically from the first principle of the equality of all persons, which of course we just accept on faith, as I said.
When we go to apply the principle of the fundamental equality of all persons to the question of government, it’s clear that a government based on that principle must have government officials who are chosen from among the people by a voting system in which everyone’s vote counts the same. It’s clear that laws must be passed that conform to the will of the majority, as determined by fair votes.
However, it inevitably arises when we go to set up such a system, that at some point a majority will take a notion to dislike some minority among them, and the will of the people may truly be to oppress that minority. Going back to our same first principle of fundamental equality, we find that in this situation the will of the majority must be prevented from being carried out, because to do so would violate the first principle of the fundamental equality of all persons.
It’s like a virus that causes an operating system to destroy itself so the entire computer cannot function; allowing a majority to oppress a minority destroys the equality that democracy seeks to protect, so a check must be put in place to balance the power of the direct will of the people, to ensure that at no point does that majority rule violate the equal rights of minorities, because to allow that to happen would be to violate the protection of rights which was the whole point of having a democracy in the first place.
You’ve mentioned several times the dire economic conditions in Iran, and say these are more important to average Iranians than questions of human rights. I can’t help but point out that there has been a massive “brain drain” out of Iran, as the nation’s best and brightest choose to leave and make their homes elsewhere. I believe one of the major factors causing this brain drain is the abuse of human rights in Iran. Highly intelligent people are often “misfits” in their personal lives, and out of all Iranians they might be the ones who feel the most agony at not being able to speak freely. These people are huge contributors to the economies of the countries they move to, and all that money is money lost for the economy of Iran itself.
In general as well, an oppressive atmosphere demoralizes people, and that causes harmful economic effects. This is why US economic analysts are always looking at the consumer confidence index, a number that reflects the general satisfaction of consumers. The happier consumers are, the more likely they are to spend money and create a robust economy. Unhappy people are less likely to ambitiously pursue higher salaries, or spend money on anything beyond basic necessities. Because of this demoralizing effect, I believe human rights abuses may be deeply tied to Iran’s economic problems, even if that is not apparent to struggling Iranians who just want to make ends meet.
Reverend,
Reverend,
“…exactly what sort of constitution he was favoring, with its lack of checks and balances?”
Several years ago, I wondered why so many apparently intelligent and educated Iranians even bothered to participate in Iranian political life when the Leader could, on a whim at any moment (according to countless Western writers), do such things as decree laws, invalidate laws, nullify an election, remove a president or a judge or a legislator and name his or her replacement, and on and on. Why would anyone spend all the time and effort to run for president, or for any government office?
Finally, my curiosity got the better of me. I sat down and read the Iranian constitution, very carefully. I was surprised. It doesn’t give the Leader any of the powers I just mentioned, nor many others ascribed to him nearly every day in the Western press. Nor was there any appearance of Western writers’ favorite phrase — “final say in all matters of state” — or anything like it. In fact, I concluded, if an individual had a choice between the constitutional powers of a US president and those of an Iranian Leader under the countries’ respective constitutions, he’d pick the latter by a whisker, but that, if one were to “adjust” the US president’s constitutional powers by acknowledging that he doesn’t really (despite what the US constitution says) have to ask Congress’ permission to take the country to war, he’d pick the US president’s set of powers in a heartbeat.
But perhaps that was even worse, I thought. Here the Leader was doing all of these things and he hadn’t even bothered to force his people to approve a piece of paper that formally gave him those powers! So, from then on, each time some major political event occurred in Iran, I pulled out my copy of the Iranian constitution to see whether the the action taken was consistent with the constitution. Had the Leader removed and replaced a judge? Nope. He’s never removed a judge — nor, for that matter, ever appointed one. How about a legislator? Nope, not even once. A president? Nope. Ever decreed a law? Invalidated a law? Nullified an election? No, no and no. (The constitution does give the Leader power to remove a president, for example, AFTER the president has been found guilty of certain bad acts by the legislature, but that and various other “powers” assigned to the Leader are clearly ministerial acts, to be taken after some other government body (usually the legislature) has acted, not discretionary powers. And the Leader has never claimed (much less acted) otherwise.)
But perhaps the Leader effectively has these powers because he can remove any member of the executive branch at will, and he’ll do so if they ever cease to do his bidding. That’s a bit more complicated question, I learned, but in nearly all cases, the Leader lacks that power too, and has exercised it very rarely, if at all, even when he arguably does have it. Who knows, perhaps he fears that the popularly elected Assembly of Experts, who can remove him at will, will become upset. Some members of that body have been known to grumble about him from time to time, after all.
I could go on, but I think it’s best just to suggest the following, because your comments suggest to me that (1) you haven’t done this yet; and (2) it would be as illuminating for you as it was for me:
1. Read Iran’s constitution, very carefully, and compare it to the US constitution.
2. From then on, examine every major political event in Iran and ask yourself this question: “Did that event occur as the constitution provides that it should?”
I think you’ll gradually develop a somewhat different impression of how things are done in Iran. Not overnight, but gradually you will.
@REV MAGDALEN
Its you who don’t understand the role of the monarchy in the UK. The Queen is the figurehead for an unelected “Establishment” and aristocracy – The Royal Court, The Guards, The House of Lords, law courts etc….through her they can exercise the “royal prerogative” and manipulate affairs from behind the scenes.
I doubt very much that an anti-royalist demonstration would be approved by the police: In the 1970s MI5 would routinely keep files on and try and infiltrate leftist groups – they may even had exerted pressure on Labour leader and PM Harold Wilson to resign.
As for Iran, I think its pretty clear that your “sources” are from expat opppostion groups – possibly the PMOI. The demonstrations that accompanied Montazeri’s funeral at the end of 2009 were not violent and the government did not intervene or arrest anyone in Qom. If the authorities don’t give permits for rallies it is because of the threat of sedition and national security:Same thing happened back in the Vietnam war days – remember the Kent state massacre? the pro-regime rallies in Iran have been peaceful whereas we all saw the rioting and assaults on the police that happened at Ashura.
You keep going on about the 1979 referendum, but there is no evidence of fraud or coercion despite what your “eyewitnesses” claim…..in the 25 elections held since 1979, when the people didn’t like what was on offer they boycotted the poll…when the felt they had a choice and there was something at stake, they flocked to the polling station, as with the presidential election of 2009.
Also chants of “marg bar Khamenei” are an indictment of the current “Vali-e-faqih” and not the position of “Velayat-e-faqih” which Montazeri thought Khamenei cheated him of.
Btw, the 1988 execution of Mojahdeene Khalq prisoners was approved of by Mousavi and Karroubi.
Rev,
Thanks for continuing this debate.
I think my personal issue about all of this is trying to seperate myself from what sounds “nice”. Inalienable/natural rights is something most politicians talk about, yet they mean different things at different times to different people. For example, you mention, “The American Founders probably struggled with this problem during their long debates, but in the end they chose to say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and that’s that. We believe that, deep inside, every person feels him or herself to be equal to everyone else, and deserving of dignity and human rights, even people who hold unusual and unpopular opinions.”
However, in reality, this so-called, belief was never really put fully into practice. Africans were enslaved, women had no votes, and American imperaliasm exists to this very day. American policy in regards to the world does not seem to indicate any sort of equal rights, nor does it seem that it views certain members to deserve dignity and human rights.
But that is understandable. A lot of political keywords (equality, freedom, etc) are so vague and complex that I have since decided that they do not really lead to the right path. We should focus on explicit solutions that are best suited for the society.
All nations are still struggling to find the correct path to follow. None are now placed in a perfect position for it to preach its morality to other countries. You mention America, so I will again go back to it. Yes, there are a lot of things to be respected about America, its military, geopolitical, technical, and economical might can be ignored. One often assumes that if a country is in such a superpower level, then they must be doing something right. Yes, but doing something right does not mean doing everything right.
USA, in some areas, has less freedom than some other countries, but it has more freedom than others. American is always have internal debates to find a better balance, something a lot of other countries are also doing.
You also bring up the point about majority vs the minority which is a great point to make and I want to run with it a bit. I agree the majority sometimes wishes to oppress the minority. Unfortunately, this is one of the aspects, and I’d say even DRAWBACKS, of democracy. Democracy is about the majority’s desire, therefore one can not attack Iran for claiming not to be democratic enough and by the same token, claiming that they take the majority’s desire to much into consideration.
Some of the issues you mention are not really the leading concerns of the majority of the Iranians.
My personal opinion is as follows: I do think certain protection and tolerance for minority has to be given. I speak as a minority myself. However, I will concede that Iran’s government is still relatively new, its under threat from certain powers, it has a lot of enemies in the neighbours who don’t want to see a powerful Iran, its economic, scientific, and military powers are still in need of improving, its internal government crisis needs stablizing, and so on. Each of this issues to me are the real crucial factors of Iran that first needs to be addressed. Once these are resolved, space could then be opened for talking about other issues.
M. Ali,
Thank you very much for your insight, I really appreciate it. I will not go into the topic of the 2000 election, it could lead to a huge digression from the issue at hand! ;-) But I’m glad to know that you followed those issues and understand those details of American history; that was a very exceptional time in American history well worth studying.
You have hit upon what I believe is the crucial issue in what some have called a clash of civilizations between the West and Islamic countries. You say, “Firstly, I do not think there is any such thing as “inalienable rights”, specially when it comes to things like freedom of speech,” and this echoes what the Iranian representative to the United Nations gave as his explanation for why Iran no longer accepts the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is simply contrary to the interpretation of Islamic law currently in force in Iran.
This is America’s true dark secret: we have no evidence to prove that human rights are inalienable and belong to every human at birth. The American Founders probably struggled with this problem during their long debates, but in the end they chose to say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and that’s that. We believe that, deep inside, every person feels him or herself to be equal to everyone else, and deserving of dignity and human rights, even people who hold unusual and unpopular opinions.
You bring up an excellent point that most Iranians may not care very much about human rights one way or the other. I can definitely relate, as most Americans don’t care very much either, and the vast majority could not even find Iran on the map. Most people will live their whole lives without ever needing to have their human rights defended, because they are happy to go with the flow and do whatever’s necessary to stay out of trouble, without once considering whether their situation is unfair. As long as life is relatively good for them, they have no interest in changing anything.
It is for the unpopular small minorities that human rights exist. The 350,000 Baha’i with their unique philosophy. The Zoroastrians with their ancient heritage. The differently-sexually-oriented. The atheists. The UFO-believers. The misfits of every type. They are never the majority, but they must always be protected, because they are like the canary in the coal mine. If their rights are trampled, then nobody is really free.
In Western philosophy, the majority has no right to impose laws that violate the rights of the minority, even if the move is popular. As I’ve said before, many times in history a large majority would have liked to oppress or completely wipe out a minority; it happens all the time. Western belief in inalienable rights means that we have a duty (which we clearly often neglect, to our great shame) to stand up for the minority being oppressed. There are certain rights that we believe may not be transgressed no matter how large a majority would like to do so, because those rights are inalienable, and any law alienating people from those rights is illegitimate.
I have absolutely no idea how this dispute can be resolved. It seems like an impossible situation, but I hope more dialog will somehow find a way. There are many clerics who have proposed interpretations of Sharia law that conform to the Universal Declaration, perhaps they might be able to find a path to resolution. I know the Western world is never going to accept that there should be a different declaration of rights for certain people; that’s just not going to happen. I look forward to any insight you have and thank you again for the chance to talk about all this.
Dan Cooper,
With respect, I believe I have made myself clear already that when we go to assess the human rights situation in a country, we do not compare it to other countries and say “Well it’s better or worse than so-and-so.” We have an objective standard called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the pre-Islamic Republic government of Iran was a signatory to, but which the current government of Iran has explicitly rejected as being contrary to their interpretation of Islamic law.
I posted the Persian-language version of this document a few posts down, but here is its English equivalent for your benefit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTlrSYbCbHE. Please note that I am not affiliated in any way with the group that created these videos, I just think they’re incredibly good works of art as well as informing people of their inalienable rights.
The topic of this blog is not human rights, it is whether or not the United States should engage Iran and normalize relations. In the course of considering that question, human rights arises as a natural factor in assessing whether or not it would be a good idea for the US to lift sanctions and accept the current IRI government as an equal trading partner and friendly ally.
Although the US human rights record has sometimes been abominable, policy shifts with each new administration, and as President Obama campaigned largely on a policies of human rights and progressive issues, I don’t see it as likely that he would normalize relations with a severe human rights abuser, although he may be constrained by trade conditions to tolerate continuing alliances with abusive nations who gained status as US favored nations before he took office. I believe President Obama actually cares about human rights, and is very concerned with this issue, so in the effort for Iran and the US to engage one another, the human rights abuses in Iran are going to be a major issue blocking engagement even if the nuclear issue is settled amicably.
Eric A. Brill,
Thank you for your reply. I’m afraid I must disagree with your assertion that an unfair voting situation in 1979 has no bearing on Iran’s current situation. As many have pointed out, the revolution was carried out by a variety of different groups working together, and I find no evidence to support the assertion that because the Khomeinist faction was apparently the most popular, therefore the vote to approve his constitution was the will of the majority.
It’s entirely plausible that many people who supported Khomeini did not realize that he intended to set up a theocracy with himself as absolute ruler for life, or exactly what sort of constitution he was favoring, with its lack of checks and balances. I find it entirely believable that many people who had been photographed carrying Khomeini’s picture in mass demonstrations not long before, still might have wanted to vote “no” on the proposed referendum if they had felt safe doing so. The crowds in the streets during the revolution were shouting “death to dictator,” not “we want velayat-e faqih!”
These claims of voter intimidation in 1979 have every relevance for Iran today, because if the truth is that Khomeini’s faction forced itself into power unfairly, then the current IRI constitution and government is fundamentally illegitimate and thus not a government the United States should normalize relations with.
Reza Esfanidari
I believe you may have a mistaken impression about the monarchy in England. The queen has absolutely no powers anymore; her role is entirely ceremonial. She is “head of state” in the sense that she hosts state dinners and presents ceremonial gifts to people on behalf of the United Kingdom, but that is the extent of her role in policy. There is no veneer of royal approval hiding anything; she has no say in what the government does. If she ever did try to get involved in actually running the country I’m sure the anti-monarchy movement would become much more popular and lead to her speedy removal, which is probably why she stays out of things. ;-)
As for the assertion that the IRI government “largely let it go” when people called for an end to velayat-e faqih and even “marg bar Khamenei,” with all due respect we both know that isn’t true. A new list of detainees was released just yesterday, and there are many other anonymous people in prison for their political speech, whose families did not choose to report their detentions to the Western media. Etemad Melli is still banned. HoDer is still in prison. Karroubi’s request for a permit to demonstrate in an empty space outside the city, so there could be no possibility of civil unrest, is still denied.
Of course I suppose if you compare it to the massacre of approximately 4,000 political prisoners in 1988 you could indeed say this response has been mild, perhaps even the mildest in the region as some suggest. But it’s still nowhere close to conforming to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I urge you to watch this Persian-language video explaining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to understand what the ideal for human rights would be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85EaZIjen68
As for the 1979 referendum, your statement that those who did not like the proposed constitution did not vote is very worrisome for me. A constitution, if it truly going to express the will of the people about their government, should not be presented to the people as a finished document for an up or down vote. The people themselves must draft their constitution through some form of national debate, usually a constitutional convention. If that did not happen then we have no evidence, no collected arguments of the convention, to fall back on to prove that the things that ended up becoming the law of the land are actually things people wanted.
It’s possible the recent mass unrest indicates that even if a majority of people did want the IRI constitution in 1979, the majority of Iranians (who were born after 1979 and had no say in the matter) now no longer want this constitution, and only a national referendum, with complete free speech and debate beforehand, can truly settle the matter.
Rev,
I think you think the wrong meaning from my posts and changed in a way that somehow seems to indicate I put Iranains in a lower standard than westerns.
Firstly, I do not think there is any such thing as “inalienable rights”, specially when it comes to things like freedom of speech.
In Iran, I do not think there is a large prioity put by the majority of the people for more freedom of rights. I’m even sure one of Eric’s article links actually has a poll on that. I’m sure if you are interested, you could ask Eric to point you in the right direction in the article.
There is a segment of western people that defend Iran by saying “they are just like us”. While ultimately this is good for the Iranian people, I’ve always found it slightly distastful assertion to make, as if one can only defend a nation if he/she can feel the group is similiar to themselves. Yes, there are some clear similiaraties everywhere one goes. However, when it comes to a topic like advertising athiesm, most of the population, at the moment, probably do not want this. And if they do, they want it less than many other more important issues they would want to be resolved first.
Please do not view Iran by the microscopic view you have had the last few months. In 2000, as an Iranian in the Middle East, I had read a lot of US web sites & had a lot of online US friends. I was certain that in the elections Bush would lose by a large percentage. He didn’t and it was only later that I realized that I saw the American people through a tiny hole.
@ERIC
Well, if it helps prevent another war in the region, your report could be priceless.
You could even be nominated for the Pen award.
Bill Davit,
“Reza was correct and thanks to Reza for defending me.”
Bill, I didn’t think otherwise. No apology necessary.
@BILL DAVIT
The difference between Eric’s and my own is that I include lots of nice pretty tables, with figures, and I use various colors for each of Iran’s ethnic groups….don’t make me explain why I chose pink for Baluchis and blue for Kurds!
@ERIC & Rev MAGDALEN
There was a lot of unity among the various revolutionary groups for 2 years – what set them apart was the following.
1) The War: The elected president, a secular liberal by today’s standards, was mismangaging the defense of the country and the parliament was baying for his blood.
After he was removed ,in 1981, Iran actually began pushing Saddam back.
2) Insurrection: The Mojahedeen-e-Khalq started a campaign of violence in 1981 when it became clear their attempts to gain power had failed.This created a security crisis.
3) Treason: The communists (The Tudeh party) were found to have conspired with the USSR back in 1983 and this effectively ended their participation in politics.
4)Shariah law: The imposition of Islamic rules (particularly penal provisions) in 1981 was the final straw for many secular nationalists who decided to abort.
There is never going to be a government in Iran that is supported by all groups. Even within the Islamic Republic, the competing factions are just as bitterly divided.
However, the trend over the last 13 years has been towards a more democratic society..it is sure to continue…the French revolution took a long time to settle.
Eric and Reza,
Reza was correct and thanks to Reza for defending me. My comment was a light hearted one complimenting you on the work you put into nothing else. By the way after reading Reza’s for the third time “I hope he got paid for that as well” because it was a well researched and written paper. And, yes I am still working through my replys–however it will be delayed by the Bulls game I am going to watch!!
Thx
Bill
Turkey: World is turning a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear weapons
Turkey’s prime minister said Sunday that the world is turning a blind eye to Israel’s nuclear program and that he intends to raise the issue at the nuclear summit in Washington.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan remarked that Iran’s nuclear program is being scrutinized because of its membership in the International Atomic Energy Agency whereas Israel, which has not signed a nonproliferation treaty, is free to do what it wants.
“We are disturbed by this and will say so,” Erdogan told reporters before his departure for Washington on Sunday.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162220.html
Rev. Magdalen
Iran’s human rights is far from perfect but comparatively speaking, is one of the best in Middle-East and in some ways far superior to US & Israel(bearing in mind what these two countries have done to other countries during the past 60 years).
I have noticed that in almost every post, you have analysed the human rights in Iran in depth, but when I asked you about “the violation of Human- Rights by Both USA and Israel, during the past 60 years”, all you mentioned was “Abu Ghraib”, and not a word about Israel’s atrocities.
60 years is a long time and there have been many violations of human rights.
When you analyse the human rights in Iran, USA and Israel, you ought to adopt a fair and even-handed approach, and do not allow the ideological and emotional agendas result in distancing you from realities.
You have said a lot about human rights in Iran and I have a respect for your capacity for details but you have been uncharacteristically economical with details about US & Israel’s violations.
Since the core of your argument is Human Rights, It is important that you describe the full details of “human rights violations” by both US & Israel too.
Rev. Magdalen,
“I think it would be [useful for you to consider] the issue of the 1979 vote count which created the Islamic Republic, giving control of the nation to the resident self-defined experts in Shi’a Islamic law.”
It’s a bit late to devote time to that question. And pointless: whether or not the percentage was exaggerated, I have no doubt that a very high percentage of Iranians approved the creation of the Islamic Republic that day, without any need for coercion. Your suggestion that the present-day dissatisfaction of some Iranians (including many expatriates, with whom I suspect most of your conversations with Iranians occur) casts doubt on the validity of that referendum brings to mind a comment I made about a week ago in this thread. It was directed to a different observation, but I think my point applies here too: in the heady post-revolution atmosphere, today’s grumbling secular liberals set aside their differences with the Islamists long enough to approve the Islamic Republic, but soon thereafter focused again on their differences.
I’ll repeat my earlier comment here; please bear in mind that it was aimed at another observation, and so doesn’t respond exactly to your current comment, and please forgive its length:
Your raising of this issue reminds me of Charles Kurzman’s book, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (highly recommended to me by Dr. Gary Sick, an astute Iran analyst now teaching at Columbia – though I don’t mean to suggest that Dr. Sick and I agree generally on Iran). Dr. Kurzman explained that the overthrow of the Shah required the combined effort of several groups – secular liberals, Islamists, students, striking (and other) workers, and others. That was hardly an original or profound observation, though that did not matter since it was not Dr. Kurzman’s central point (which, instead, was that the revolution happened largely because the various participants gradually came to believe that it COULD happen, and thus participated in greater and greater numbers and with greater and greater zeal, so that it DID happen).
Dr. Kurzman’s account nonetheless was interesting. He explained that many prominent liberals in Iran had long hoped/believed that the Shah could be persuaded peacefully to ease up a bit, and they had had some limited success with their peaceful approach. The Islamists, of course, harbored no such illusions. Many liberals eventually concluded that they ought to hitch their wagon to the Islamist star, at least long enough to get rid of their common enemy, and that is what happened.
When the dust cleared, however, as nearly always happens after a revolution, the liberals were yanked back to reality: they didn’t really see eye to eye with their temporary allies on a lot of issues. They were disappointed, for example, to learn that the draft (and eventually the final) Iranian constitution had all this Islam stuff in it – who had asked them? In short, they were shocked, shocked – and remain to this day shocked, shocked – that the Islamists, who had been by far the strongest group in the ad hoc coalition formed to oust the Shah, had insisted on writing the rules once the Shah was gone. Some participants in the overthrow of the Shah (the liberals, for example) felt they were just getting rid of the Shah; others thought they were participating in a revolution; still others (the Islamists) thought they were participating in an Islamic revolution. And – guess what – it was this last group that got to write the rules — not to mention the official history books.
And those rules are still in place. I am not saying this is how it ought to be in Iran but, as most Americans’ once-favorite news anchor, the avuncular Walter Cronkite, used to say at the end of his evening newscast: “That’s the way it is.”
@REV MAGDALEN
The fact remains that the British people have not had any choice in whom they have as head of state. I think they would still opt for a monarchy, but one that is reformed and does not serve as cover for the Establishment to do what it pleases under the veneer of royal approval.
As reported on Enduring America, there were demonstrations and protests in Iran that called for Ayatollah Khamenei to resign – even calling for his demise. This was also true 11 years ago during the student riots. The authorities largely let it go.
As for the referendum of 1979, I don’t know any party (secular or religious) that disputed the result – those who didn’t like the proposed constitution didn’t vote.
Remember that for the first 2-4 years of the revolution, all of the anti-royalist factions united ( communist, marxists, nationalists, fundamentalists, liberals etc) and participated in the elections – indeed, the first government of the Islamic Republic, the Bani-Sadr adminstration, would be seen as secular by today’s standards.
Eric A. Brill,
I would like to say that I have a tremendous amount of respect for your intellect, and your capacity for research and logical reasoning, and your meticulous attention to detail. I think it would be a great benefit to humanity if you would turn your powerful skills to the issue of the 1979 vote count which created the Islamic Republic, giving control of the nation to the resident self-defined experts in Shi’a Islamic law.
As you can see, the Wikipedia entry for this matter is merely a stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Islamic_Republic_referendum,_March_1979 needing serious attention from an experienced election scholar like yourself.
As I mentioned previously, I have been told by people who claim to be eyewitnesses to the 1979 referendum, and who have verified credentials to back that up, that when they personally went to vote, it was an open ballot and men with guns were there, and they were personally frightened to vote “no.” They say the few who did vote “no” did so as a bold and reckless political statement, and that many more would have liked to have voted “no” but were afraid to because of the intimidation at the ballot box.
The world deserves to know who is telling the truth about this matter. I mentioned that based on my knowledge of human nature, I don’t find it credible that 98.2% of people agreed on anything as major as adopting an Islamic Republic, especially since approximately 10% of the Iranian population is not Shi’a, and I find it hard to believe they would vote for rule by Shi’a authority. I could be wrong. We need an investigator and number cruncher to look into this matter, and I think you are the man to do it!
To me, this vote, even though it was so long ago, is the one that matters most. If this vote wasn’t fair, then the Iranian people are in serious need of a fair referendum to figure out what it is that they actually do want their government to be like. This time, secret ballot and no guns.
Reza Esfandiari
Thank you very much for your reply. I would repeat that the situation of human rights in other nations has no bearing on the human rights of Iranians; each situation must be looked at individually.
However, to answer your question, yes, the movement to abolish the monarchy is completely free and open in England. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom which states that the last time the movement introduced a bill to parliament on the topic was 1991. Based on my experience having visited Britain and knowing many citizens, my assessment is that the majority of British citizens simply don’t care enough one way or the other to get rid of their monarchy, and also many people think of the royals as a sort of equivalent to America’s Hollywood stars; beautiful people with no real power who are always in the news doing entertaining and/or shocking things, giving everyone a bit of amusement in their day, so they have a fondness for the institution.
I am 100% certain that if anyone in England wanted a permit to organize a rally to call for a referendum to abolish the monarchy, they would be permitted to hold such a rally. If they gained enough public support, they could elect members of parliament to introduce a bill for the referendum to abolish the monarchy, and nobody would be intimidated or arrested for any of this.
If, in the course of the anti-monarchy rally, anyone were to disturb the peace, throw stones, break windows, or assault police officers, they would be arrested, charged, and released on bail within a few days at most. The maximum punishments they would face would be no different from any other person charged with vandalism or assault; no special punishment would be attached because the crimes occurred at a political rally. If at any point during their incarceration the detainees were molested or harmed in any way, they could immediately go to the newspapers, tell their story, have it investigated by impartial investigators, and receive a huge compensation check from the government to apologize for the mistreatment.
The right to make major changes to your government, including getting rid of a monarch or jurisprudent guide, is absolutely a right that people in a representative government have. It is a false argument to say that people who advocate completely changing the government are a “security risk” to the nation. They’re a security risk to the entrenched existing power structure and those who are empowered by it, for sure, but not a security risk to the nation, which consists of a collective of sovereign citizens who have the inalienable right to change their government whenever they wish.
Eric A. Brill,
I apologize, I’m afraid I must not have made myself clear. I agree with you 100% on this issue! I find no flaw at all in any of your argument.
I was merely stating that when governments try to justify infringing freedom of speech, they usually give the explanation (which we both know is false!) that there is a public danger that requires the infringement on free speech.
I was asking whether that is in fact the explanation the IRI is using to justify their infringement on atheist free speech, and if so, what is the specific danger to society that this infringement is meant to protect against.
I submit that if the “danger” that justifies the infringement on free speech is solely that people’s souls will be endangered, that is a matter that cannot be touched by government in any way, because it is a completely religious matter, and thus, by definition, part of the private sphere protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
M. Ali,
Thank you very much for your reply, you bring up some excellent points that I used to believe. For 30 years, I paid no attention to Iranian human rights at all, specifically because, as you said, I believed that “The cultures are different, freedom is a different concept and practiced differently everywhere.” I believed that the original 98.2% pro-theocracy vote count in the 1979 referendum was the will of the people, and that Iranians are simply different from Westerners, and do not want to exercise the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
I believed Iranians did not want those rights, because the culture of Iran was so different from the West that those rights were simply not something people wanted to exercise, even though they do have the rights no matter what any statute says, since they are inalienable. Of course I had met many Iranians here in America who were no different from anyone else, but I assumed these were Iranians who were “misfits” among their own people, who sought out Western values just as there might be Americans who are moved to go adopt another nation’s culture.
Then I saw the aftermath of the 2009 election and saw actual real Iranians for the first time out on the streets speaking loudly and clearly. Even after the Supreme Leader informed them that the matter was settled, they kept on speaking out loudly and clearly. That’s when I realized it was possible I had been fooled all this time, and actually Iranians are exactly like Westerners, in terms of wanting their basic human and civil rights.
I asked questions. I met Iranians. I found out that during that amazing 1979 landslide referendum that convinced the West to recognize the IRI government, the voting was done by open ballot, not a secret ballot, and men with guns were there to see how people voted. And I thought to myself, my god, we should have questioned that. Vote results like that NEVER happen naturally, people simply are not that much in agreement on any major political issue. Western observers should have said, if this frankly unbelievable result is true, let’s see you do it again with UN observers and a secret ballot. We should have stood up and questioned a vote result that was really not credible, but our Orientalism blinded us, and we accepted that a result that would never be believable in the West was totally believable among these “exotic” people.
So, from this perspective, I simply don’t believe anymore that Iranian culture is so different from Western culture that Iranians do not want their human rights, especially as in 1948 the Iranian government signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of course we all remember Cyrus the Great, who is the first known ruler to give civil rights to his people. In 1982, the IRI representative to the UN declared that Iran no longer accepts the Declaration, as it “trespasses” Islamic law, but Iran was an Islamic country in the Shah’s time, and still supported these rights. I believe that forbidding Iranians their rights is not truly part of Iranian culture, it is a new development within the past 30 years, and I don’t believe a majority of Iranians truly support these changes. I believe most Iranians want to have the same freedoms their grandparents enjoyed, and their ancient forefathers before them in Cyrus’s time.
@REV MAGDALEN
“I wonder if you could elaborate for me whether there any currently publishing newspapers that call for an immediate referendum to peacefully and fairly settle the question of whether or not the Iranian people still want velayat-e faqih?”
Yes, the newspaper “Mardomsalari” has called for the use of referendums to resolve major political issues. As for “velayat-e-faqih”, the debate in Iran is over the specific authority and powers invested in religious leadership, not the principle itself.
When was the last time the British people were given the opportunity to vote in a free referendum over whether they still want an unelected, hereditary head of state?
Reverend,
In your response to Iranian@Iran, you wrote:
“The second problem I have with your conclusion is that denying the Holocaust is a specific activity related to the study of history…Having any opinion about the Holocaust is a completely optional activity, but everyone, everywhere, wonders what will happen to them after they die. This is a question that is settled in the heart of every human…No study of a historical question can be in the same category, because…historical disputes are settled by presenting and evaluating evidence. Belief is not settled by evidence, it arises or departs spontaneously in every heart.”
There is no justification for imprisoning a human being merely because he or she expresses a belief that a historical event did not occur. Period. To outlaw the expression of a certain belief — not behavior, not even promotion of a belief, but the mere expression of a belief — based on whether one can present “evidence” to support that belief is outrageous. Even to suggest that Holocaust-denial laws are defensible for that reason is morally reprehensible. You do acknowledge that Holocaust-denial laws are “controversial” and mention that you personally disagree with them, but you nevertheless contrast them favorably with laws against the promotion of atheism.
If Iran were to imprison anyone who denied that the Ayatollah Khomeini ever lived, would that pass muster under the distinction you draw? If you wake up tomorrow morning and proclaim that the world was created on January 1, 2004, may we imprison you because your denial of all pre-2004 evils (including the Holocaust, among many others) might induce our wayward youth to shave their heads and tattoo swastikas on their chests? If I visit you in prison and assure you that I do not agree with the law under which you were convicted, but I nonetheless contrast that law favorably with a law prohibiting the promotion of atheism, would you doubt whether I really believed what I had told you?
Rev. Magdalen,
Its possible that Iranian@Iran might side-step this particular issue, but let me inject myself in this conversation and say, yes, none of those are allowed. Other things that would not be allowed would be content that is explicitly sexual.
The cultures are different, freedom is a different concept and practiced differently everywhere. Such issues are not currently a big priority for the majority of Iran, it still has bigger issues to tackle, such as better self-sustainable home-grown industry, better economy, better defense system, improved stability, and so forth.
It is like the West’s big hoopla over Ahmedinijad’s minor comment about “there being no gays in Iran”, ignoring everything else the President said at the university and just focusing on that, which frankly is not something that keeps Iranian awake at night.
In due time, when & if a strong social need arises for such issues, then the public will start demanding for it. This is essentially what a democracy is supposed to be, democracy is not supposed to be, let’s take the concerns of the west and make sure it is implemented in Iran.
Iranian@Iran,
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate your forthrightness and clarity on this issue. I wonder if you could elaborate for me whether there any currently publishing newspapers that call for an immediate referendum to peacefully and fairly settle the question of whether or not the Iranian people still want velayat-e faqih? Of course I realize you and most of the others here think the answer to that question is obvious, and such a referendum would be a waste of time and money, but are there newspapers for sale on Enghelab Street that daily call for such a referendum regardless of it being a foolish idea? Can you give me your personal assurance that if my friends in Iran start to publish such a paper, nothing will happen to them?
As to the question of the promotion of atheism being illegal, I confess I have trouble understanding your conclusion that “just as their are laws in Europe about denying the Holocaust, there are laws in Iran against propagating atheism,” and that this is justified because Iran is an Islamic Republic.
The trouble I have with understanding this is threefold. First, there are many nations which have official religions and are technically theocracies. For example, the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church, the official state religion of England. And yet, no one in England is punished in any way for propagating atheism or any other religion, even newly invented ones with no books. The state religion is just a formality for the purposes of protocol, such as which clergy will give the blessing for important official functions. Citizens are free to speak and propagate whatever their heart moves them to. Thus it seems to me that the mere fact of Iran having an official religion does not give the government the right to forbid citizens from propagating any other religion, or atheism.
The second problem I have with your conclusion is that denying the Holocaust is a specific activity related to the study of history, a topic which many people never choose to bother their heads about one way or the other. Having any opinion about the Holocaust is a completely optional activity, but everyone, everywhere, wonders what will happen to them after they die. This is a question that is settled in the heart of every human, usually on a moment to moment basis, based on emotional feelings. No study of a historical question can be in the same category, because not everyone studies history, and historical disputes are settled by presenting and evaluating evidence. Belief is not settled by evidence, it arises or departs spontaneously in every heart.
Third, the laws against Holocaust denial enacted by Europe are very controversial in my own country, where we firmly believe in even Nazis having a right to free speech. However, the explanation given by the Europeans for this law is that there are active groups seeking to essentially reform the Nazi party and carry out its goal of exterminating all Jews, and because of this special situation of public danger, the infringement on free speech is necessary. Myself, I don’t buy it, but that’s their explanation.
What is the Islamic Republic’s comparable justification for forbidding the propagation of atheism? Are there active atheist groups anywhere in the world causing a public danger for other citizens? They seem like a mild-mannered bunch from my experience, but if Iranian officials know of atheist terrorist groups intending to harm people, please share this information. The world has a right to be told of these dangers, if they exist. If they don’t exist then, again, you have made a false comparison.
You may say that leaving Islam harms a person, but if that is true it’s not the kind of harm a government has the right to get involved in. It’s for each person’s heart alone to decide. I believe it would be Orientalist to say that Iranian hearts are different from other people’s hearts, especially since we’ve had similar situations right here in America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement The right to advocate that people should leave any religion is a basic human and civil right recognized by the United Nations, and it doesn’t matter where people live, they still have that right.
I was musing today that if the US truly functioned as a democracy, we would have a rotating set of representatives, chosen at random from among the populace to serve for 6 months or until a given problem was resolved, then return to their families/work/career. No openings for buying or influencing elections, no media circus that is mislabeled as an election.
Reza
You mean the one party name is RepDem
@ERIC
That’s Chomsky’s argument – the gerrymandering of congressional seats, and the institutionalized bias of the corporate media to the two main parties ensures that there is no challenge to the political system.
Its would you like Pepsi or Coke?…..every 2 years.
Some people have argued that there exists only party: Democratic-Republican.
Reza,
We don’t have a government “screening” of candidates in the US, but we do have a screen. I live in California, where two candidates for the Republican nomination for governor have muscled out all other contenders. Both are extremely wealthy. According to an article I read yesterday, Steve Poizner has so far spent $19 million of his own money in the race. Meg Whitman, the former EBay CEO and billionaire, has spent $59 million of her own money, and there’s a lot more where that came from. One can hardly walk down the street without tripping over an advertisement from one or the other of them. The presumptive Democratic candidate, Jerry Brown, is husbanding his meager $14 million campaign war chest for the time being. And we’re still several weeks away even from the primary elections, seven months away from the general election.
In short, we have different methods of pre-selecting candidates in the US.
@ERIC
“Since the election, of course, Mousavi’s supporters have expressed great concern about this defect of Iranian democracy, suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s election was invalid because so many would-be candidates were excluded. The best answer may be this question, posed to them: “If Mousavi had won, would you have argued that his election was invalid?””
Of course, they wouldn’t if Mouavi had been elected – they would see it as a trimumph for democracy.
About the “exclusion of candidates”: 475 people registered with the Interior Ministry – most of them political nobodies. The Constitution of the IRI allows for a fair campaign where all eligible candidates receive equal TV & radio time: you can’t do that for 475 people. The question is not whether there should be any screening of candidates, but who’s doing the screening. Some people say the Guardians council, invested with this responisbility, is partisan but in this election we had 2 conservatives and 2 reformists. In 2005, there were 3 conservatives, 3 reformists and a centrist.
85% of Iranians voted – if they didn’t think they had a choice, they wouldn’t have bothered. As long as you have a contested election, the candidates have to reach out to the electorate and their demands. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi have appeal beyon their principle constituencies.
Fiorangela,
Further on Tom Milstein (who, one must note, has yet to respond to my expressed and genuine desire to learn more): His effort to shift the focus to the Saudi lobby reminds me of this old joke:
A man was walking through a park and came upon another man on his hands and knees, evidently searching for something in the tall grass.
“Lose something?” the first man asked.
“My keys,” replied the second man.
“I’ll be glad to help,” said the first man. “Where exactly were you when you dropped them?”
“Over there,” said the second man, pointing to a shady spot about 20 feet away.
“Then why are you looking here?” asked the first man.
“The light’s better here,” replied the second man.
The light may be better when one discusses the Saudi lobby than when one discusses that other lobby. But I don’t think that’s the spot where we’ll find our keys.
I often think of this same joke when people express their great concern with Iran’s defective method of pre-selecting presidential candidates. While some Western writers — for example, Thomas Friedman, who raised this point in an early February 2009 column entitled “Ballots Over Bullets” — raised this concern before the June 12, 2009 election, I certainly don’t remember Mousavi raising the point before the election. And what rational candidate WOULD have clamored for another reform candidate to be added to the list, predictably siphoning votes away from himself?
Since the election, of course, Mousavi’s supporters have expressed great concern about this defect of Iranian democracy, suggesting that Ahmadinejad’s election was invalid because so many would-be candidates were excluded. The best answer may be this question, posed to them: “If Mousavi had won, would you have argued that his election was invalid?”
Fiorangela,
Thanks. I always prefer, and I think you do too, to read what someone writes and figure out whether it’s well-argued and well-supported. Even if it comes from Max Boot, much less Tom Milstein. After a while, of course, one stops reading a writer who has too often failed the “well-argued” and “well-supported” tests, but Tom Milstein hasn’t yet had his fair shot.
Eric, on April 9 at 3:15 your wrote a response to Tom Milstein re (relative) power of Saudi lobby vs. Israel lobby:
“Maybe Fiorangela …
If we can set that question aside, where it belongs, I too would be interested to hear more from you on the Saudi lobby’s influence on US policy toward Iran.”
Don’t hold your breath.
Milstein appears to be part of The American Thinker blog, http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/12/the_balance_of_terror_in_the_m.html , which sports adverts by Boeing, among other name-brands. More importantly, he seems to purvey a decidedly neoconish pov, with an accent on killing as a means of solving problems.
In an email, he suggested I read two articles wherein Max Boot, HISTORIAN, was seriously discussed. I thought Boot’s job was in the marketing department of a major pharma firm selling hi blood pressure medication: he frequently inflames and provokes, seldom informs.
In short, in my opinion, Milstein is an hasbarist, a propagandist. His attempts to shift the conversation to take on an anti-Saudi cast are subtle, as compared to Mike Evans’s outrageous ranting in “The Final Move Beyond Iraq: The Final Solution While the World Sleeps ” whose breathless title would, you would think, tell you all you need to know about the strident ideological bent of the author. Reading the first few pages is even worse: Evans insists that the United States recognize that, as a Christian nation, it is on the side of Isaac; it should take that stand more seriously and wage war on Ishmael…..
Evans is a former speechwriter for and consultant to Bibi Netanyahu. He writes for The Israel Project and, as I recall from the flyleaf of “Beyond Iraq,” is part of a “charitable” organization called “Project David” or “Project Daniel…” something like that.
By associating Milstein with Evans I may be tarring Milstein with Evans’s apocalyptic-cum-warmongering style. Mr. Milstein can defend against the association if he cares to.
In discussing their biography of Harry Truman, Allis and Ronald Radosh are quite clear about the efforts undertaken in the years immediately after WWII to cleanse the US State Department of “Arabists” and to replace them with persons symapthetic to Israel. One suspects Milstein fits at least that mold.
There is no doubt that the United States has a strong relationship with Saudi Arabia — a lot of Saudi money flows through the American financial system, as well as its energy grid. I remain interested to read an objective analysis of how Saudis influence the US, but my skeptic’s antenna is raised high, Mr. Milstein; referencing Boot has tipped your hand.
Americans should be proud of people like Eric.
@ERIC
I don’t think Bill is implying you were paid.
But the effort you put into your article is staggering when one considers you were not commissioned to write it.
I am also somewhat baffled – An American like yourself investing so much time to defend the authenticity of an Iranian election is impressive, but still startling.
Bill,
“I hope you got paid for writing that article.”
I didn’t interpret your remark to suggest that someone with a bias paid me to write this, and I seriously doubt that is what you intended. In any case, no one paid me, offered to pay me, or encouraged me to write the article (for which I’ll provide a link again, since it’s now several hundred messages down in this interminable thread: http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/)
If Abbas Abdi really said this, it’s pretty sickening:
http://saharnews.ir/view-11119.html
@SCOTT LUCAS
Your daily press review
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=217012
Take a look at Ebtekar’s headline: Ayatollah Shirazi’s remarks.
@BILL DAVIT
Neither Eric nor myself are paid apologists for anyone.
The Chatham House report was sponsored by the institute itself (the RAND corp of the UK) and the university of St Andrews.
Oh yeah, and while I think I attacked Liz a bit for her posting style, let me quickly backpeddal a bit and acknowledge that I like her latest post (the one under mine), which I think is a crucial point to make regarding Iran’s democracy.
Some posters here, when their back is placed against the wall regarding good points about the election’s legitimacy, they only attack back by trying to ignore all of that and instead changing the argument by claiming that Iran is not a legimitate democracy anyway!
However, each country has the right to choose their own style of democracy. If anything, Iran’s democracy, in certain areas, is more democratic than US. In the latter, for example, votes are not counted per person, but per state. While in Iran, it is counted per person…
I have read through this thread but this will be my first comment here. I have made several comments in EA, but due to the structure of the site there, it is difficult to continue discussions, as they get trailed off as new entries are posted on the website.
A brief background first on myself: I voted for Mousavi in the elections (in Dubai, but I have shifted residency to Tehran recently) and after the results, I was disappointed and angry by the results. I was sure there was a widespread fraud and considered myself as part of the Green movement, even going as far as attending a protest in front of the Iranian consulate in Dubai (wearing a mask too!). As months passed by, I started to feel disillusioned by the movement and the movement’s supporters, as I saw they had no clear plan, no real objective, they have an inability to weigh the complexities of the situation, and they seemed to lie a lot. I met Greenies who claimed that the number of deaths were “in the thousands”. I read online Green reports and websites that eventually proved to be almost all heresay and rumors. Green analysis so exagerrated, that I fully expected the Green revolution to be right around the corner.
But worst of all, was the arrogance, stubbornness, and close-mindness of a large portion of the Green movement that turned me off. The Green Movement is not about Iran, but about a certain minority in Iran. A specific group of politicians that felt sidelined and pushed away by the Ahmedinijad government and certain group of middle-class Tehranis, that with their stomach full, cars under their feet, and a nice house, with no real financial worries, had a desire for more changes. Which is fine, of course, but they did not ask, “What about the rest of Iran?”
The GM has become so feverishly anti-Ahmedinijad, that one would expect to see Hitler at the podium. If it was any other leader (specially some of the “reformists”…), the crackdown could have been more brutal. Ahmedinijad has handled the situation fairly well, aside from the initial mishaps. He has wisely tried to ignore the attacks from the reformists and gone forward with doing his job.
Anyway, I want to thank Eric’s article, which was what probably finally made me accept the legitimacy of the elections. After a while I felt the GM was not for me, but I still had many questions regarding the elections, however, thanks to Eric’s article, I have to say I have firmly changed my mind.
I now want to make some comments regarding the discussion here:
To the anti-GM people:
(a) While I agree with some of the things you say, I do not agree with some of your tone. Every third line does not need to be a direct insult for your view point to come across. I want to specially point out Liz, that has no contributed anything worthwhile aside from tireless and constant attacks on Scott.
Others have been more respectful, but I can see some are losing their patience, and are resorting to more uncivilized manner. I understand the frustration involved, guys, but it would be a shame to see the thread, which has so far been excellent reading material, turn into a mudslinging contest.
(b) I notice that some of you don’t admit to any wrong-doing from the IRA. I think a person can be both pro-IRA and still not shy away from critizing it. You don’t need to go “…but what about USA/Israel!!” whenever the comment is about Iran. There is a lot of things to be proud about Iran and sometimes shifting the discussion to other countries shows weakness on your part to a reader like me. Of course, there are a lot of times comparisons need to be made, to make a point, but bringing about The Usual Suspects, somehows undermine your argument.
To the Pro-GM Guys:
(a) You guys start with a clear agenda and everything you read or digest is used to support your initial preconceptions. You do not objectively look at the facts. Case in point, Scott.
Scott likes to claim that his site is unbiased and he only reports news as it comes in, but go through the website, and find any articles that in any way supports Ahmedinijad. After several months of anti-Ahmedinijad reportings, what effect will this have on EA’s readers? Now take this style of “unbiased” reporting and multiply it with the number of pro-GM websites that do the same thing and you have a passionate group of readers that are certain that Ahmedinijad does no good and has no supporters in Iran.
(b) You guys do not accept valid arguments made by the anti-GM sidesand you refute them by either changing the subject or claiming you don’t trust the source, whether the source is Iranian news, Iranian politicians, Iranian IRA groups, pictures, etc, etc. By casting doubt on any source, it makes it impossible for the anti-GM group to be able to make any arguments. For example:
(1) Statement: Huge rallies show a sign of support for Ahmedinijad/IRA
Green Answer: Pictures were photoshopped OR they came for cake and orange juice.
Allow me a bit of time to talk about this. If all pictures are claimed to be photoshopped, how can the other side respond? The burden of proof is on the group that says it is photoshopped and should show how it is, not just say it is, and close the file.
But what I found more distasteful is the second argument, which is one of the reason I got turned off the Green Movement. They discount the emotions and opinions of thousands of people by claiming they only come to a rally for cake and orange juice, as if only the Green Movement has the right for legitimate political thought and everyone else only does it for free, cheap edibale items. This is more than just a simple statement, but it is the defining mindset of the Green Movement that is elitist and classist in its makeup. I have talked to Tehranis here, to them only certain areas of Tehran exists. There is no other Iran aside from this certain areas of Tehran, the poorer areas of Tehran they look at with suspicion, mistrust, and distaste. The other cities exist as only stereotypes.
—-
I wanted to write some more, but I think I’ll leave it to be this much for now…
Scott Lucas:
If you don’t know, say you don’t know. His question was about Khatami and he told you to provide evidence that he supported the greens.
Bill Davit:
Steer clear of the offensive and arrogant debating styles of ChrisE and Scott Lucas and we will all be friends. Iran is a democracy and in genral Iranians are satisfied with what they have. The mistake people in the west make is that they think democracy is an ideology. For example, Liberalism and Socialism are ideologies that frame society, while democracy is a method of rule. In Iran the broadly accepted ideology (I will not go into the never ending debate about the meaning and definition of ideology) and alongside that they have accepted democracy as a method of rule within this ideological framework. All important officials in the country are elected by the public through direct or indirect elections. For example, the leader can be removed at any time by the Council of Experts. Of course, it is a limited democracy, because MPs, the president, and CEs must accept the constitution in order to run. However, there is no unlimited democracy in the world anyway, because they must all be framed by some sort of ideology. In a capitalist society, obviously, you have limited democracy as well. However, the important point is that when western countries try to interfere in any countries internal affairs or fund TV channels, terrorist groups, and political bodies, the state naturally becomes defensive. In addition, if they are truely worried about human rights, they can worry about Israel, Saudu Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.
Eric,
I hope you got paid for writing that article. I can’t imagine the amount of work you put into it. Got my notes down and will take into account to focus on senses other than my “sixth” imaginary sense. By the way I am going to send you a bill for the time I have spent just trying to digest it and follow many of the links!!
Thx
Bill
Bill Davitt,
I look forward to your careful review of my article and your promised comments. I doubt this needs to be said, but just in case: be specific, stick to the facts, and use only two of your five senses. No Roger Cohen: “Sometimes you have to smell the truth, breathe it.”
@ ALL AMERICANS
I think its fair to say that >95% of Americans love their country, flag and Constitution with a passion.
But if there was a referendum on the health of their political system, what should one expect to find?
Do Americans really feel they have a stake in the running of the affairs of the United States or do they resign themselves to that corporations and special interests are in charge? Eric Brill, for example, speaks a lot about the Saudi lobby – he’s right. The Saudis own 7% of America through their investments.
Given that a substantial minority believe that JFK was not killed by a lone madman or that the goivernment had some role in the 911 attacks, is there not a lot of resentment at the political system?
@SCOTT LUCAS
Aren’t you somewhat taken in by some of the claims and statements made by the likes of Mousavi, Khatami, Rafsanjani and Karroubi.
These are desperate men who are fighting for their political survival and relevance within the Islamic Republic.
Karroubi, in particular, who got less than 1% in the election, and who admitted being corrupt in the debates, has really no place to go on the political scene….that’s why he was so quick to talk about rapes and the like.
It may seem to you that there is a “crisis”, but the reality on the ground is that there is none…just some nasty mud-slinging.
@BILL DAVIT
Eric’s paper is important as far as some of the specific claims of fraud are concerned
,together with the whole question of the legitimacy of the election.
My paper is just a rebuttal of the Chatham House report and its incomprehension of the figures.
Salam Iranian,
“As expected, you have not answered the question.”
That’s probably because I didn’t see one, just as I haven’t seen any support for your claims with which I can engage.
Scott
Liz,
Thank you for your reply. “Comparing Iran to Egypt shows that you either know little about Iran or that you know little about Egypt or both.” Why in the world must you attack when you have no idea what I truly know or don’t? Try stating your point objectively and you might be surprised people like me would agree with you. As for my reference to Iran and Egypt it was only brought into the context of how neither are true liberal democracies in the Western sense. Having said that I agree Iran’s electoral process is leap and bounds above Egypt’s and in general way better than the majority of the Middle East. I largely attribute this to the Shia disposition towards the acceptance ijtihad in modern times and the fact they did not reject early Greek thought (critical thinking.) The same cannot be said for the Sunni world (i.e. Egypt and Saudi Arabia for example) who still accepts the gates ijtihad were closed over a thousand years ago and still largely adheres to the teaching of Al Ghazali whose work “The Incoherence of the Philosophers” clearly demarked the time critical thinking was declared heresy. As pointed out the electoral process in Iran is a stark example of this–the majority of the Sunni states are fully fledged dictatorships while Iran is not. Another good example is the fact the Iranian educational system, in my opinion, is the most advanced in the Islamic world. Unlike the Sunni world Iran’s education system teaches a broad range of subjects, it does cover topics Islamists view as a threat, and most importantly it is not a rote learning system(Prof tells and the student can only listen accepting it as truth.) Ironically it is why I believe the Leveretts approach for engagement is a good idea because unlike the Sunni world Iran is much more aligned with the west ideologically. It is why of all the Islamic diaspora across the world the Iranians have always been the best at blending in with their host countries. It is also why I believe Saudi Arabia and its extremist ideology is the bigger threat than Iran. Stinks of hypocrisy that Iran is the target while in fact the ideology of the wakos across the world can be directly traced back to Saudis wouldn’t you say?
In closing my reference was to highlight the fact Iran’s electoral process, while very democratic in terms of the entire Middle East, is not a true democracy. It would only be a true democracy if all were free to run based on popular vote and didn’t have an essentially unelected individual with over 75% of the power. The Iranian electoral basis is a selection based on autocratic principals with a blend of democracy to elect those selected. I hope this explains my point. Have a good weekend.
Thx
Bill
Thx
Bill
Eric and Reza,
Have not fogotten you guys. I read both of the well written documents. Along that vein I am going to spend a bit more time on each and put together a somewhat detailed response. I think I owe it both of you to spend the time doing this knowing the work you both invested in both. I am about a 1/3 of the way responding to Eric’s paper and once done I will will work on Reza’s. I would anticipate everything being done by the end of the weekend–I have to balance this with work that pays the bills. By they way thanks you knuckleheads for making me feel like I am working on a term paper back in my days at Valparaiso univeristy–you know all nighters charged by Mountain Dew!! :) Take care and have a good weekend.
Thx
Bill
Scott Lucas:
As expected, you have not answered the question. Of course, President Khatami would attack President Ahmadinejad, they are rivals. However, that has nothing to do with the so called greens.
Rev:
Iran is an Islamic Republic and not a liberal democracy. Hence, just as their are laws in Europe about denying the Holocaust, there are laws in Iran against propagating atheism. However, if someone is just an atheist, as some are, nothing would happen to them. Regarding the concept of the Velayate Fagheeh, there are many published books in Iran that are opposed to it. Just take a walk on Enghelab St. and you can find many such books.
@SCOTT LUCAS
@SCOTT LUCAS
ASRAR’s website:
http://www.asrarnews.ir/
Just put in Khatami(خاتمى) in the search(جستجو) box.
The fact that Khatami is more prominent these days is a sign that Mousavi and Karroubi are fading fast, and the Green movement with it.
Tom and Fiorangela,
Tom wrote: “I also think you grossly underestimate the power of the Saudi lobby in America, and the world, even compared to the Israel lobby, but never mind.”
Maybe Fiorangela does (and I and others do), though Fiorangela did mention the Saudi’s important role in ending the Iran-Iraq war. You’ve offered to provide more details. I more or less told you I wasn’t interested, but only because of your insistence that the Saudi lobby had a greater influence over the US than the Israeli lobby.
If we can set that question aside, where it belongs, I too would be interested to hear more from you on the Saudi lobby’s influence on US policy toward Iran.
Eric
Tom and Fiorangela,
Tom wrote: “I also think you grossly underestimate the power of the Saudi lobby in America, and the world, even compared to the Israel lobby, but never mind.”
Maybe Fiorangela does (and I and others do), though Fiorangela did mention the Saudi’s important role in ending the Iran-Iraq war. You’ve offered to provide more details. I more or less told you I wasn’t interested, but only because your insistence that the Saudi lobby had a greater influence over the US than the Israeli lobby. If we can set that question aside, where it belongs, I too would be interested to hear more from you on the Saudi lobby’s influence on US policy toward Iran.
Eric
Liz, Iranian@Iran,
I am eagerly awaiting any reply as to the question of whether or not those adult Muslim citizens in Iran whose hearts are moved to leave Islam, and to advocate the abolition of velayat-e faqih, and to promote these beliefs in writing and speech to others, are now free in Iran to do so without any negative consequences. The Western media has quite a lot to say on this topic, and if it is propaganda I would like to help dispel the myths.
Is it true, as Western media has said, that there are Sharia authorities in Iran who would punish someone for doing these things? A yes or no answer is fine if you are pressed for time.
Salam Reza,
Thank you. I’ll try and find the Asrar article.
This is what we have today from Khatami, drawing from Kalemeh:
“In a meeting with Tehran University students, Mohammad Khatami said that, if nothing is done, this year will be one of social crisis.
Khatami, criticising the people in charge of the Ahmadinejad Government, said that the political atmosphere of Iran is very disappointing; as the government has chosen the strategy of lying, many young Iranian people are now questioning the Revolution itself.”
Scott
@SCOTT LUCAS.
Apologies….the link was bad.
The Tehran Times publishes a daily review of the Iranian press, from both conservative and reformist newspapers.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=216921
Its worth taking a look at.
Scott Lucas:
Try to be less arrogant. It’s obvious that you have no credible Iranian sources, because your lack of information that is common knowledge in Iran is pretty extraordinary.
Good response Iranian:
Scott Lucas:
“We’ll consider it”.
:-)
Are you joking? Who do you think you are? We are the Iranians and Persian speakers. We don’t need an orientalist like you, especially one like you who doesn’t speak a work of Persian, to teach us our language.
You go find the link and in addition go find a link showing that Khatami supports the dead green movement and we’ll consider it. You are the one who needs to prove something. Remember?
Kooshy,
I have replied to your question about “western propaganda war” on the US-Palestine-Iran top thread, since there is a bit more space (given 466 replies and counting here!) there.
I apologise for the delay in response,
Scott
Salam Iranian,
And when you feel better, do feel free to exchange ideas rather than polemi. I know you realise that when I reply on this board, I do so after discussing the points and going over the evidence raised with a number of people. Most of these colleagues are Iranians, some of whom are in Iran.
Scott
Salam Reza,
Your link didn’t work for me. Can you confirm me.
Iranian,
I sense you’re having a very bad time. I’m sorry — if you feel better soon, do read what I have already posted about Khatami.
Scott
@IRANIAN
Khatami is a cautious man. I think he realises that the best thing the reform movement can do is to divorce itself from the Greens.
Mousavi and Karroubi are both political “dead-enders” within the system….but Khatami is still the godfather of the reformists and he wants them to compete when the next election cycle begins in 2011.
Scott Lucas:
“We’ll consider it”.
:-)
Are you joking? Who do you think you are? We are the Iranians and Persian speakers. We don’t need an orientalist like you, especially one like you who doesn’t speak a work of Persian, to teach us our language.
You go find the link and in addition go find a link showing that Khatami supports the dead green movement and we’ll consider it. You are the one who needs to prove something. Remember?
Tom Milstein, Thank you for your courteous and intriguing reply.
You wrote:
“The authorities and theories you cite in defense of these propositions are certainly intriguing, but hardly convincing. I could present much more cogent explanations — some much more “anti-Zionist” than yours — but will refrain. I also think you grossly underestimate the power of the Saudi lobby in America, and the world, even compared to the Israel lobby, but never mind.”
If you could be persuaded to mention those “more cogent explanations” re Israel, as well as to spend some time educating us (me) on the Saudi lobby’s power and how it is manifested, I, for one, would be grateful.
Your repetition of the point about the power of the Saudi lobby has resurrected from the memory-grave Giandomenico Picco’s comments at a Wilson Center conference, US – Iran: Lessons from the Past for the Present and Future. Picco mediated the ending of the Iran-Iraq war (it was not ended with a treaty since Iraq refused to be present at the negotiating table). Confronted with that situation, Picco said that he summoned lessons from Italian history in which bankers were the controlling parties in matters of war and peace — he contacted Saudi Arabian financiers on whose behalf Iraq waged war on Iran, and negotiated with them an end to hostilities between Iraq and Iran.
Americans, like me, who lead with their anger rather than their brains, blaze away at the US for its role in Iraq’s war on Iran, but it’s more likely the case that the US was only a player in a larger game, and that US played its role with an incompetence that seems to be a hallmark of American relations with Iran-Iraq-Saudi Arabia since WWII.
You also wrote, Tom:
“Instead, I’d like you to consider a rather new fact of international relations which bears on both of our “biases.” Its implications are deeply subversive of the common assumptions of most people on this blog; indeed, of most partisans of the America-Iran-Israel triangle. It is simply this: the foreign policies of both Iran and Israel are in tatters. Both have been turned by “the world’s only Superpower” into pariah nations. Both have lost their allies in the world, and this is an extremely dangerous posture for any small nation. I’m much more interested in debating this recent development — both as to its factuality and its possible consequences — than I am in whipping the exhausted horses of Zionist “crimes” against the Arabs, or of Iranian “terrorism” and alleged oppression of spoiled college students.”
Now you got my attention; this is a fascinating train of thought and I’m very interested to pursue it.
Several very large shoes have dropped in the last few days: Erdogan stated the obvious from a European podium: it is not “logical” for Israel to do ‘anything it wants to do’ with its nuclear weapons BECAUSE it is not an NPT member (to mix a metaphor, Turkey’s PM said, emperor Israel is wearing no clothes). Lebanese PM Saad Hariri similarly attempted to shift attention from Iran’s nukes to Israel’s occupation of Palestine; and as the Leveretts pointed out, Basher Assad is flexing Palestinian muscle. This morning’s news that Netanyahu will not attend a nuclear conference in Washington because Middle East entities intend to demand that Israel’s nuclear posture be considered is a move that is only slightly more stupid than the US’s refusal to invite Iran to the table: Obama cannot simultaneously declare from Prague: “We reached out to Iran but they refused to respond,” and refuse to invite Iran to the table to discuss Iran’s nuclear activities. As you suggest, both Israel and Iran’s tatters are being exposed.
@SCOTT LUCAS
The point is that Khatami sensed that the Green movement was jeopardising the case for political reform within the context of the Islamic Republic by becoming associated with sedition and rioters, some of whom were members of the Mojahedeen e Khalq (they admitted they had a hand in the Ashura unrest as well as back in June).
What Khatami has called for is a revision to the election law, which is actually being discussed, and the release of all political prisoners – most of whom have been released since he gave his statement.
There simply is no crisis of legitimacy in Iran. Currently, the most contentious issue is the subsidy reform program proposed by the government – there is disagreement between the Majlis and the Administration over how to implement it. Most Iranians are focused on the effects of this on their daily lives rather than on anything else.
Just look at the Persian Press review (in English) from the Tehran Times.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=216852
Pay particular attention to the leading articles.
Salam Reza,
“Mousavi released his 5 point plan for national reconciliation , Khatami criticised those who wanted to undermine the Islamic Republic as a system and even Karroubi said that he was no longer questioning the legitimacy of the administration ( even if he thought the election was rigged).”
As Mousavi, Khatami, and Karroubi did not challenge the concept of an Islamic Republic before Ashura — and indeed the general line, amplified by Mousavi’s 5-point plan of 1 January, was for a “fulfillment” of the Islamic Republic through adherence to the Constitution — I don’t see the significant shift you are claiming.
Khatami’s statement of 8 February:
“Our expectation from all the influential figures of the country is fairness. We defend people’s rights and selections. For all of us, as we have announced before, the goal is to achieve a mechanism for holding healthy elections without any dispute so that people could trust that they can reinstate their rights.
We believe that the government should stop the insults, destructions and arrests. Those who are detained care for the establishment and should be released immediately, and in a less intense environment the pressure on independent media should be eased.”
I also note Khatami’s meeting at the end of Nowruz with “hundreds of reformists” who paid him a visit, and this week he, as well as Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rafsanjani, met membetrs of the reformist coalition in Parliament.
Scott
@SCOTT LUCAS
It was widely reported in the Iranian press that Khatami denounced the Ashura rioters as not being of the people and said that the Islamic Republic should be defended.
I’m not going to dig up all of his statements over the last 3-4 months, but there is no doubt that Ashura was a turning point. The Green movement has been in decline ever since. After the mass demonstrations against the riots, Mousavi released his 5 point plan for national reconciliation , Khatami criticised those who wanted to undermine the Islamic Republic as a system and even Karroubi said that he was no longer questioning the legitimacy of the administration ( even if he thought the election was rigged).
Had you asked me at the time, I would have provided you with the articles.
Iranians have moved on, Scott….why can’t you?
Salam Reza,
“I notice that Khatami has recently distanced himself from the Green movement and Mousavi, especially after the Ashura unrest.”
Evidence?
Best,
Scott
@PAK
You say the system is undemocratic. Why then did 85% of the electorate participate in the last election and a majority in all 25 nationwide elections over the last 30 years? If the Iranian people thought they had no choice, why bother voting?
The reform movement had its successes, but the hardliners felt confident to crush it because it failed to deliver on its promises, especially to the poor and working classes. The election of 2009 was a turning point for me…..I was inclined to support Mousavi and Khatami before it, but when I saw them lie through their teeth and cry “FRAUD!”, I lost all confidence in their ability to lead..how can you have such men running the country who refuse to accept the will of the majority?
I notice that Khatami has recently distanced himself from the Green movement and Mousavi, especially after the Ashura unrest. Evidently, he feels his integrity is at stake – he was always regarded as honest and humble.
Sorry, but I see things completely different from you – if you can’t accept the outcome of the ballot box, you can forget about any claim to believe in a free and democratic society that respects human/civil rights.
Salam Iranian,
Send the link to the Aref statement and we’ll consider it just as we have the Kavakebian and Tabesh claims.
Scott
Scott Lucas:
What they have been saying is more than enough. The problem is that you are an activist rather than an analyst and that nothing can change your mind. I am assuming that you know you are wrong, but that you will not admit it. The issue raised about Dr. Aref is also proof that mainstream reformists are trying to rebuild the movement after the destructive and dishonest approach pursued by the Mousavi team.
Salam Liz/Iranian@Iran,
Because I adore both of you, I still look forward to any substantive response to the analyses of the Kavakebian statement or the thorough dissection of the claim on Tabesh.
Scott
Liz:
It is useless to discuss things with Scott Lucas, especially when he tries to teach us what things mean in Persian! His interpretation of Kavakebian is rediculous. On the other hand his greatest fan (which used to be ChrisE), repeats all the propaganda that we hear in the mainstream “free press”. Notice how the free press has already forgotten about the Iraqi film outrage. The fact that Khatami’s own first vice president Dr. Aref, who used to be the president of the University of Tehran, has attacked Mousavi and said that Mousavi has almost destroyed the reform movement, is telling. Aref is creating a new reformist party without extremists and he utterly rejects the green thugs. Of course, if we look at his past Scott Lucas could possibly say “provide a link, now another,…well he was being ironic.” lol
Rev:
Engaging in propaganda will not change anything. Those who live in Iran and who saw the post-election green violence, know that the so called movement was basically a phenomenon in parts of the northern part of the city of Tehran guided by an elite upper class and upper middle class group of people.
It would be better for you to watch the authentic footage of American helecopters slaughtering civilians as the soldiers laugh. I mean the footage that has been hidden for years by the US government.
Scott Lucas:
To be honest, I don’t trust your explanation about your blog, especially since you have not been honest in the past. They way you claimed you would deal with evidence and the way you actually dealt with it is itself evidence enough to prove this. It seems that a stong majority of the people who write posts here do not accept your claims and that many of them are fluent in Persian. When you try to tell a Persian speaker what Kavakebian actually meant through a dishonest intrpretation of his statements, you lose even more credibility. You do not understand a work of Persian, yet you are trying to tell us that we don’t understand Persian.
Bill Davit:
Comparing Iran to Egypt shows that you either know little about Iran or that you know little about Egypt or both. Iran is not a closed society and the elections process in the country is very sophisticated. It has worked effectively in the past and it will work effectively in the future. Contrary to what Pak says, their is no reason to believe that there will be any major problem with any future elections. People no longer trust the greens because they were violent, they made false accusations, and because it became clear that many elements among them were foreign funded or linked to terrorist organizations like the MEK, etc.
*if the regime refuses to loosen its grip
Dear Reza,
The difference between me and you is that I no longer believe the current regime is democratic enough nor willing to embrace a reform movement (I never really did believe, but I did have hope). The way in which the core of the regime handled the reform movement from 1997 – 2004 was a sign of things to come (as acknowledged at the time by Rafsanjani and Karroubi among others). The true face of the regime emerged with Ahmadinejad and peaked last June. With these thoughts in mind, I truly see no hope for the reform movement or free and democratic elections in 2011; I can’t even imagine how the regime will handle the next presidential elections. The reform movement as we know it has been crushed and its supporters disheartened. Eventually, if the regime refuses to its grip (which I am certain they will), the Green Movement will evolve with the hope that, through civil disobedience and pressure from below, true reform will be implemented. And I am hopeful that in 2011 the regime will demonstrate to people like you just how incapable they are of running a democratic, tolerant and free Iran.
My thoughts are that engagement will pressure the regime into accepting change, at minimum to guarantee their own survival.
Mr. Milstein,
I dare you to look this woman in the eye and tell her to her face that you think her son was a spoiled college student who was only allegedly oppressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH33aCNfsyI
Fiorangela Leone:
By the way, if you are anyone else wishes to privately discuss these or other matters (civilly) with me, I can be reached at tmilstein@optonline.net.
Fiorangela Leone: I do have my biases, and am perfectly able to argue on their behalf, quite as passionately as you do yours. But in my little essay I tried to put them aside, at least to the extent of trying to assess what the objective factors were in the U.S.-Iran relationship. I appreciate the fact that for the most part you have tried to do likewise, and will respond to some of your points in the same civil and courteous manner you have displayed.
Israel certainly does label its vulnerabilities vis-a-vis Iran in existential terms. This is what I meant by “noise.” Dispassionately considered, an Iranian nuclear capability does not represent an existential threat to Israel. In defense of the Israelis, may I submit that the same “noise” regarding Israel’s supposed existential threat to Iran is emitted by the Iranian leadership. It too should be discounted.
You discuss at length Israel’s supposed psychological and economic needs to dominate and exploit the Middle Eastern environment. The authorities and theories you cite in defense of these propositions are certainly intriguing, but hardly convincing. I could present much more cogent explanations — some much more “anti-Zionist” than yours — but will refrain. I also think you grossly underestimate the power of the Saudi lobby in America, and the world, even compared to the Israel lobby, but never mind.
Instead, I’d like you to consider a rather new fact of international relations which bears on both of our “biases.” Its implications are deeply subversive of the common assumptions of most people on this blog; indeed, of most partisans of the America-Iran-Israel triangle. It is simply this: the foreign policies of both Iran and Israel are in tatters. Both have been turned by “the world’s only Superpower” into pariah nations. Both have lost their allies in the world, and this is an extremely dangerous posture for any small nation. I’m much more interested in debating this recent development — both as to its factuality and its possible consequences — than I am in whipping the exhausted horses of Zionist “crimes” against the Arabs, or of Iranian “terrorism” and alleged oppression of spoiled college students.
Best regards,
Tom
Iranian@Iran,
Thank you for your reply. As for me not knowing much about Iran you are partially correct because I am an American. However, my two best friends are Iranians with the bulk of their family still in Iran. We literally talk about Iran daily with me often requesting they translate articles in Persian for me. Doesn’t make me an expert but I would have to say it does offer me enough information to make informed comments. I would also point out you seem to offer quite a bit of opinion of the US and I could make the same arguement in kind. In both cases the arguements are in themselves false because they discount the others opinion based on a unproven perception the other does not know what they are talking about. This kind of malaise is something very indactive of neocons and the current regime in Iran. They don’t see and are basically incapable of seeing any other truth than their own. Sorry but this stance is the wrong way to have any kind of constructive debate and is frankly the reason why the US and Iran have been at odds for so long.
As for the election if you read my post again I did not discount the importance of the election. My point was everyone seems to fixate on it and the perceived notion it was correct. I have several problems with this:
1) It assumes the election was free and the results valid
2) It is largely based on Regime controlled information with no credible outside verification possible
3) Completely ignores the fact Iran is a closed society and much more so today. I liken it to Egypt(while not as severe) when Mubarak got 99% of the vote. Essentially it was forgone conclusion
4) Most importantly ignores the human rights violations the regime is employing to stay in power
In all sincerity if the election was truly “free, open, and transparent” why do the following exist:
1) For all intesive purposes Iran is a police state akin to old Soviet Block states(I’m Lithuanian and know a police state when I see it)
2) Thousands still imprisoned
3) Champions of womens and human rights contintually targeted and imprisoned
4) Purges in full swing across the Universtites, military, and government
5) The rapes and killings would have been a top story in any free society but by in Iran there is government mandated black out on them
6) The pleas of most of the clerical establishment for restoring the rights guranteed in the constitution are still being ignored
7) Much of the established journalist community under siege with many behind bars
If Iran truly had a free and transparent election one would think they would have nothing to hide. Yet their actions to oppress and obscure the information is in itself the most damning evidence that something did not go right. So when people keep trying to prove the validity of election without addressing the human rights violations I am going to raise a stink because I smell a rat. By the way my best friends mother and brother still live in Iran. Both were paid a vist by the secret police and eventually detained. Netheir protested or were part of the Green Movement. There crime was that they had both worked for reform papers YEARS AGO.
Thx
Bill
Reza Esfandiari,
Thank you for your reply. I have not read your report and will do so later tonight. Hopefully I will put a response together later tonight or tomorrow for you. In the interm I think it is quite presumptive to declare another individual “wrong” or other papers as “junk” because you don’t agree with their stance. Frankly the terminology you use seems to indicate your prone to dismissing a report or alternate view if it does not support your stance. I would also countenance your stance is indicative of the regimes in Iran’s solipsistic world view in which it only regards its truth as its own. Ironically this is also a view I think many neocons are afflicted with(mind you not claiming your a neocon by any stretch of the immagination. :) ) However, maybe it is out of frustration and I can understand that. God knows I do this myself at times!! I will get back to you shortly and all the best to you.
Thx
Bill
Eric A. Brill,
I have read your article but frankly I need to look at it again to digest it. Once I do I will put a response together. I will say it was well done and you presented your points well. However, as mentioned, I need to look at it again to formulate a direct response. All the best to you.
Thx
Bill
Eric,
My apologies for belated reply.
The only thing we moderate comments at EA is for offensive language and/or personal attacks on other posters. I am certain your comment fell into neither category so the non-appearance is probably due to it being caught up in spam filter (which can happen in error if there are links in the post).
Because I was away much of today, I wasn’t able to catch this. If you re-post the comment (send a copy to EA e-mail as back-up), I’ll ensure this is not caught up in error again.
Best,
Scott
Salam Kooshy,
I am very sorry that I was unable to keep my promise and give a reply today. I had academic duties that ran from early afternoon until late this evening, so I had no opportunity to respond.
I do look forward to continuing our conversation tomorrow.
Scott
Dan Cooper,
I view the atrocities committed by my own country and its allies with the same loathing as those committed by anyone else. When I think of the unspeakable acts of cruelty that have been done “in my name” as an American citizen, I feel deeply ashamed. I try to stay aware of what my government is up to, and speak out whenever I see it violating the principles it claims to stand for. I vote for candidates I think will uphold true American values and condemn rights abuses. I advocate that the abuses my government committed at Abu Ghraib and at any other sites anywhere in the world should be treated as war crimes, and I believe prosecution should not be delayed but should begin at once with those at the very top who authorized the conduct.
It would be a mistake, though, to say that since both Iran and America have committed human rights abuses, both nations have the same level of personal freedom for citizens. Having the freedom to write what you wish, believe as you wish, associate and gather as you wish, these are precious. It matters when they are taken away. When you are not free to say what you really think, it’s like an iron bar driven through your heart. It weighs on you all the time. You cannot truly pursue happiness without being free to enjoy your inalienable rights.
A country that does not have those rights at home, but that is pure as driven snow outside its borders, is still not a nice place to live. If I see citizens of a country like that fighting to get their rights, I feel it my duty to support them, speak out for them, and make sure the world hears their story, because that’s what I’d want them to do for me if our situations were reversed.
@PAK.
“I understand your position and your animosity towards the Green Movement. But, if you are a reformer, surely you should understand more than others the pressure put on your movement by the regime? Your own leaders and supporters are in prison because of their reformist agenda.”
I do seek political reform – I want a new press law, a new elections law, an improvement in human rights, accountability of the security forces etc…
In the past, the reform movement were morally in the right – I protested when many reformists were disqualified in 2004 – but this business of lying about the election result of 2009 and urging supporters to take to the streets to bring down the administration has created an intolerable situation where the government has had to react harshly.
The reform movement needs to accept the result, and move on with a view to winning the municipal elections in 2011. And many reformists have been released from prison.. I hope that the rest can be pardoned as part of national reconciliation and normalization….that’s what I really want to see happen.
I just angry when people talk of a “stolen election”: It insults the effoerts of 500,000 election workers and the 24m who voted for Ahmadinejad.
Eric
“On this website, Flynt, Hillary and Ben do not “moderate” comments”
This is one major reason why I stick to this site, besides, majority of the commentators are knowledgeable with current Iranian and international affairs
I also do agree that everyone most hesitate to profanity and vulgar language.
Rev. Magdalen
Thank you for your post.
I will reply in due course.
In the meantime, I am interested to know your views about the violation of Human- Rights by USA and Israel, during the past 60 years.
Liz,
Thank you for sharing your family’s experience with me. However, my question was not whether or not the issues of apostasy or change in governmental system are allowed to be debated at universities in Iran, though of course that’s good to hear.
The question was, if you are an adult Muslim in Iran and you wake up one day and realize that you no longer believe in Islam or any religion, can you freely say so, and officially change your designation to “atheist”, then go on to publish writings teaching atheism and advocating atheism, along with advocating the elimination of veleyat-e faqih, with no fear of reprisal?
The Western media has many stories indicating that apostasy is currently a crime in Iran under Sharia law, and that Ahmadinejad has sought to make it a civil crime as well, punishable by death. Is that untrue? Or is it true that apostasy is a crime under Sharia law, but Sharia courts have no power to imprison or punish anyone, so in practice people can do as they please? You would have no fear at all if your daughter did these things?
Hello Scott
My point for asking you the question (which so far you have chosen not to answer) that if you think there is a current propaganda war by western media aimed to demonize Iran was, that if you indeed think there is a propaganda war and the answer is YES, then there would be no merit to continue debating if the Iran’s elections were fair and just. The logic becomes what would exclude you from not being part of this said propaganda war. Questioning the Iranian elections, wouldn’t be a perfect tool for this propaganda war of demonization? I frankly did not think, that you will chose to respond to my question with a, NO, since you very well know that will discredit you entirely and you become irrelevant to any further discussion about Iran. So perhaps you decided to take the fifth instead to preserve your standing, since we are on the subject of Iran and Shih Islam this is similar to “Tghieh” that has been ridiculed in western press and academia.
Good luck with your endeavor.
I must add that the hostility began with Scott Lucas. It was pretty awful the way he attacked the Leveretts after they did such a good job. In fact he was so obsessed that he did the same on the Charlie Rose website. lol
Rev:
Your statement shows that you know little about Iran. Yes, in classes at universities such debates take place. My daughter recently finished her degree at Allameh Tabatabaee University.
Scott,
Though I disagree with a great deal of what you write here, I think you’re doing a pretty good job of maintaining your civility, especially since you’ve been the focal point of attacks for about a week now. You’ve slipped a few times, but I can hardly claim to be innocent of that myself.
Your efforts here have caused me to pay attention to your Enduring America website — an objective that you’ve frankly acknowledged at times. I’ve noticed one very important difference between this website and Enduring America:
1. On this website, Flynt, Hillary and Ben do not “moderate” comments (though I’ll venture a guess that they wonder about that policy after seeing how far this discussion has digressed from their Charlie Rose interview). I’ve at times strongly disagreed with their position on certain matters, but my comments nonetheless get posted instantly (provided I remember not to include more than one link).
2. On Enduring America, you “moderate” comments and, to be frank, I have some doubt that your criteria are free of bias.
This suspicion arises from my personal experience on your website. Yesterday I posted a comment on your Wikileaks massacre piece (the one with the video). My comment included a link to a piece I’d written on the lamentable tendency in the US to sweep massacres under the rug and attack those who suggest they should be looked into. I focused principally on the Bob Kerrey/Thanh Phong incident, but also discussed Haditha. I consider what I wrote (especially my soap-boxing toward the end) to be highly relevant to your discussion of the Wikileaks massacre coverage. Neither my comment nor my linked piece included any profanity or other objectionable language.
Nonetheless, it appears my comment has not survived the censor’s cut at Enduring America. Several comments posted considerably later than mine have appeared, but mine remains nowhere to be seen.
Just to show you how easy it is on THIS website, Scott, I’m going to post a link to my rejected piece. If it doesn’t show up on this website within 5 seconds of when I click the “Submit Comment” button, I’ll promptly let you know. (To others on this site, I’ll warn you that my piece is off-topic — nothing to do with Iran):
http://kerreythanhphong.blogspot.com/
Dear Pak. The neo cons pushing for a confrontation with Iran do not give a rats ass about human rights in Iran. Remember the U.S. overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran
Bill Davitt,
Have you read my article?
http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/
I don’t anticipate it will change your mind on very much, but maybe on a few points. I’ll appreciate your comments.
Masoud, human rights have everything to do with how the US should deal with Iran, and with all other nations as well. In the past, for decades now, we’ve abandoned our Founders’ hard-won vision of ever-expanding liberty and human rights, and focused exclusively on destroying the USSR and gobbling up as much oil as possible. I know that. I’m sorry. If I could take it all back and do it over I would, but I can’t.
All we can do is start from today, taking a stand, one issue at a time, to restore our nation to what our Founders wanted it to be. They would never have approved turning a blind eye to human rights abuses just to get some sort of precious fuel. In addition, as I’m sure you could relate in great detail, every time the USA has treated a human rights abuser like a favored nation, it’s ended up in disaster. It should have been obvious to us from the start that people who don’t believe in good governance also don’t believe in keeping deals and fostering a win/win business environment. They’re more into taking the money and running, and sometimes coming back to attack us with the very weapons we sold them.
Human rights is central to the issue of how the USA interacts with Iran, because it’s time for us reassess our priorities as a nation. Do we really want oil so badly that we can ignore the cries of the Mourning Mothers, or ignore it if Isa Saharkiz starves to death in Evin? And do we really think that the same people who treat their own citizens this way will be completely honest and forthright in making deals with us?
War is not the answer, but turning a blind eye to human rights abuse isn’t either. These things are crimes, and they ought to be treated as crimes, with no special privilege “I have oil” immunity card.
“If Scott Lucas is a troll, then what are you?”
There is no “If”. Read his comment, he seems quite satisfied with himself. What am I? Merely someone responding to his repeated calls for “dialog”,”engagement” and “sources”, even though it is quite evident that he really doesn’t crave any of these things. As he himself details, his goal is sidetrack discussions of the “US government’s approach” and focus instead on “consideration of Iran”.
He is offended that anyone anywhere would actually engage in practical discussions instead of issuing the garden variety, morally empty, condemnations and “analysis”(which over here means basking in the warm glow of those condemnations) of Iran’s theocracy, or military junta, or whatever it is the cool kids are calling it these days.
Look, no one over here spams his blog, or the Huffington Post, or Powerline or daily Kos simply because we don’t approve of what they are discussing. Live and let live. If the flying monkeys want to grow up and contribute anything mildly relevant or marginally enlightening on the subject of how the US approaches Iran, I’ll be the first to welcome them with open arms. If they keep on pursuing their current course, then they are earning the mild abuse they receive.
If you want to debate the relative merits of the IRI from an Iranian standpoint, i’d suggest doing so on Iranian forum in Farsi or at the very least one that explicitly caters to expats. What’s the point of doing it here? Human Rights has absolutely no consideration in US foreign policy, except that waxing poetic about it serves as some kind of strange masturbatory release for the US intelligentsia.
Are you Iranian? Was Kavakabian really being ironic or sending secret persian signals? Has he shared anything at all in this forum, that was either true, or that everyone here did not already know?
“Iranian”,
I have heard something about life in Iran, and being an ignorant Westerner, I of course don’t know whether or not it is Zionist propaganda. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me? My question is:
Supposing you woke up tomorrow, and in your heart of hearts, for some reason you don’t even know, you just don’t believe in Allah anymore. Don’t believe in any divine being at all, just not feeling it. The belief is gone, and you are an atheist.
And supposing, after having that realization, you then conclude that the system of veleyat-e faqih is not the best and most expedient system to provide for the welfare of the Iranian people.
After coming to these conclusions, would you feel free to go online and set up a blog explaining your new views to your fellow Iranians, without any fear of losing your job or getting into any other kind of trouble? Could you go into a coffee shop and casually mention you’ve decided Islam isn’t true and you are now an atheist, and furthermore you advocate that the system of Islamic Jurisprudence be abandoned, without any negative consequences?
I would seriously like a true answer to this question so if anyone else would like to answer too, please feel free.
Iran: 3 jailed Americans linked to US intelligence
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_american_hikers
Elham,
There was a time in America when the “will of the people” as expressed in law and enforced by authority was that people of a certain race had to be discriminated against and forbidden to attend the best universities, eat at the best tables in restaurants, ride in the front of a bus, etc. Interracial marriage was forbidden by law. The majority of the people at one point in time voted for those things. It was only through the hard work of a dedicated civil rights movement that the unjust situation was overturned.
It is entirely possible for a majority to vote for things that violate the civil and human rights of a minority, it happens all the time. This is why nations have Constitutions that specify the rights that may not be transgressed, even if the majority wants to do so.
Iran has a Constitution that gives citizens the right to peacefully assemble, print newspapers, and follow any religion they choose, yet these rights have been systematically denied to people on a chronic and ongoing basis with no signs of changing. I defy anyone to point to real signs of any sort of “evolution” towards restoring these constitutional rights. They’re not actually the sort of thing you can have a “little bit” of, with shades of grey. Either you can publish a newspaper saying any critical thing you want, and not get arrested or shut down, or you can’t.
If you say people can have newspapers as long as they don’t print anything “insulting” to the leader or anything advocating a change in government systems (a perfectly legal and reasonable thing to advocate in a democracy), that’s not freedom of the press at all. It’s not an improvement over having no newspapers, it’s worse, because it allows people to create a false impression that freedom exists when it really doesn’t.
People’s rights are not a little thing to be swept under the table. Protecting those rights is the whole point of having a government in the first place. There is no comparison between the West and Iran; if any American politician tried to shut down a newspaper for insulting him, he’d be laughed out of the courtroom. In Iran, the most basic freedoms are denied to citizens. That is not what the ‘79 Revolution aspired to create, and if the people of Iran are not satisfied with their current government, they have every right to change it.
Dear Reza,
I understand your position and your animosity towards the Green Movement. But, if you are a reformer, surely you should understand more than others the pressure put on your movement by the regime? Your own leaders and supporters are in prison because of their reformist agenda.
The regime has shown it will violently crush any attempt to reform the system through legal and constitutionally sanctioned means. Therefore, the Green Movement is an evolved version of the reformist movement. It will use civil disobedience to eventually have its voice heard by the regime. If you believe that civil disobedience is akin to “causing trouble”, then the 1979 revolution was one massive riot, with streets full of infidels and foreign backed agents causing damage and overthrowing a legitimate regime (legitimate according to the Shah’s “official reports”).
Dear Masoud,
If Scott Lucas is a troll, then what are you? Scott is a very busy man yet he has the time to return to the forum and respond to your questions. Is that some kind of sin? Would you prefer him to ignore his opinions, shut up and agree with you? That sounds very similar to the regime’s philosophy.
Dear Others,
The Iran dilemma is Iranian. It has nothing to do with the United States, Israel or the west. Human rights abuses occur everywhere; that does not justify human rights abuses in Iran. We have fought for over 100 years to eradicate tyranny from our soil yet tyranny still exists and is accelerating. International politics is a dirty game; the regime is very good at it indeed. The regime is not the innocent little child being bullied by the older boys and nothing – absolutely nothing – can justify their cruel, medieval actions. The regime is undemocratic, extremist and corrupt. If you are so wooed by the election result statistics you should also take a long, hard look at the economic statistics, the reports of corruption and of course the human rights abuses. We must work together to improve our nation by bringing real representation, tolerance and basic human rights. History will judge those who stand in our way.
Dear Leveretts,
I commend your efforts to promote engagement. However, turning a blind eye to the tyranny that exists in Iran is a fatal mistake and will be detrimental to the progression of Iranian politics. Engagement should be promoted on the basis that it will empower the people and erode the oppressive grip of the regime.
Hi Scott don’t forget me
kooshy says:
April 6, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Scott,
Good morning, I hope all is well there in London
As an informed scholar of Iranian current events, I just wanted to ask you, one question, if you chose to answer.
My question is, do you believe, the western and like-minded media is currently conducting a propaganda war directed against Iran?
If the answer is yes, than how is done, for what goal, and for what result. I really appreciate your insight on this subject.
Scott Lucas says:
April 7, 2010 at 7:59 am
Salam Kooshy,
Thank you for your question. It has been a very busy news day between developments on the Iraq video, the US nuclear review, Afghanistan events, and the latest from Iran, so it may be this evening before I have a chance to respond.
Best wishes,
Scott
It seems that the debate is winding down, so I thought maybe I should light up another fire… :-)
But seriously, I think that we should accept the will of the Iranian people and accept the results of the election, unless the opposite is proven. Human rights violations are being carried out on a regular basis, by the United States and its western allies, so it is not acceptable to many Iranians for westerners to preach about such issues and to call on their “civilized” governments to put pressure on Iran. The recent video of an attack on Iraqi civilians was very painful for many of us to watch and God knows how many thousands of such videos exist in US military files.
I also think that we should all focus on preventing the situation in the Persian Gulf from deteriorating and call upon the US government to be more reasonable.
“for days, the agenda on Race for Iran has shifted from the one set by the Leveretts — set aside any consideration of Iran; focus only on the US Government’s approach — to one set by this discussion amongst readers. The two later pieces of the Leveretts have faded”
-Scott Lucas on his own blog, bragging about what an effective troll he is.
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/04/05/the-latest-from-iran-5-april-repression/#comments
I have to admit though Scott, you got me on that last response. Here I thought I had thought of every possible you could weasel your way out of the position you took, and had tried to preempt you, even though you sensed the danger and quite understandably remained silent on the issue of Kavakabian’s credibility in the reformist movement. “Irony” is something i did not expect. I tip my hat to you.
But come on, tell us, is it 1 or 2? “Persian Signals” or “Irony”?Maybe your claims themselves were meant to be Ironic? Or maybe your entire post was some kind of contradictory “Troll Signal” to the other flying monkeys on this thread that you really don’t know what your talking about and it’s time to shift the focus again from “election legitimacy claims” to “human rights abuses”.
Here is a homework project for you Scott, why don’t you write to your buddy Marandi, and ask him what the proper interpretations of both the Tabesh and Kavakabian passage is, and report back? This really isn’t the forum for Farsi lessons, even if you were being serious.
But seriously guys, please stop feeding the trolls. If this last episode doesn’t prove the world these guys live in has nothing to do with objective reality nothing will.
Masoud
Israel had to openly humiliate the US as a show of its power.
Given Israel’s strategic domination of the US political system and the Zionist Power Configuration(ZPC) control over mass media and their enormous wealth, a Zionist-controlled administration, like Obama’s, would have to capitulate.
Israeli and US Zionist pressure forced the American leaders to subordinate their international image and national self-respect and accept the unlimited expansion of Jews-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, no matter how this might undermine US standing in the region and jeopardize US troops.
By ‘whipping’ the Obama Administration into line, Israel has set the stage for the launching of its top priority: Forcing a direct US military confrontation with Iran in Israel’s strategic interests.
It is clear that the entire ZPC will stand with Israel as it promotes its militarist agenda against Iran, regardless of the consequences to the United States.
It has been proven beyond a doubt by the recent events, that the ZPC has the ultimate say with the Obama Administration, against the advice of top US military officials and against the basic interests of the American people.
In plain English, we are a people colonized and directed by a small, extremist and militarist ‘ally’ which operates through domestic proxies, who, under any other circumstance, would be openly denounced as traitors.
Can the ZPC be defeated? They are the “most powerful lobby in Washington”, to whom Presidents, Administration officials, Generals and Congress people must submit or risk having their careers ruined and being ousted from public office.
Meanwhile,outside of the United States, the international community openly despises Israel as a brutal, racist colonial state, a war criminal and chronic violator of human rights and international law.
The Middle East Quartet, made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, has condemned Israel’s plan to build another 1,600 homes exclusively for Jewish extremist settlers in Arab East Jerusalem.
The Quartet demanded “the speedy creation of a Palestinian state and the end to provocative actions”. But the ‘Quartet’ is powerless to stop Israeli plans.
The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations tell their followers that global “anti-Semitism” motivates the ‘Quartet’. The huge AIPAC “Hail Israel” Conference in Washington D.C. in late March celebrated the triumph of unfettered Israeli expansionism.
Nevertheless, some Israelis are beginning to express unease.
After their initial euphoria over Netanyahu’s slap-down of Biden and face-up to Clinton, there is growing fear of Israeli being ‘weaned’ away from the American treasury and losing their unfettered access to the US latest military technology.
A poll published on March 19 in Yedroth Ahronoth, one of Israel’s biggest dailies, revealed that 46% of their readers responded that the government should freeze settlement building in East Jerusalem, much to the chagrin of the US Israel Firsters, who might in other circumstances, have labeled these Jews anti-Semites.
Fissures in the Zionist monolith are beginning to appear.
These would deepen if and when the American public realizes that Israel’s’ dispossession of Palestinians is raising havoc with American lives and with American interests in a vital part of the world populated by 1.5 billion Muslim.
As more issues arise, the critical choice between following the lead of the ZPC in pledging unconditional allegiance to Israel and enduring its provocations and humiliations, or standing up for the dignity, basic interests and integrity of America, will have to be made.
More fissures will appear and the AIPAC and other members of the ZPC will be seen for what they are: Swaggering bullies acting on behalf of a foreign power.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25162.htm
Iran is demonized as ‘the enemy’ by Israeli agents within the US because Tehran opposes Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Israel’s Fifth Column churns out hundreds of articles a month demanding brutal economic sanctions against Iran and a pre-emptive military blitz aimed at destroying the Iranian economy and a nation of over 70 million.
Every US military commander in the Middle East has acknowledged that an attack on Iran will expand the war, cut vital shipping of oil in the Persian Gulf plunging the world economy into recession, and threaten the lives of scores of thousands of American soldiers.
They also are aware that the prospect of thousands of American casualties would not deter the 51 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations, the AIPAC-controlled US Congress members, or the likes of Undersecretary of Treasury Stuart Levey from promoting or provoking a war with Iran.
The leading Israel-First advocates for war with Iran are unconcerned with the inevitable thousands of US military casualties and the millions of American jobs lost, as they promote the expansion and supremacy of “Greater Israel” in all its arrogance and glory throughout the Middle East.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25162.htm
@PAK
“I know around 100 Iranian men and women who support either the Green Movement or its general principles. I am one of them and spend the majority of my time in discussion with them. None of them live in the United States and none of them have ever mentioned the United States. Most of them can’t even speak English. Are you telling me they have all been deceived? They have all been “deceived” into wanting an improvement of current conditions in Iran?”
Let’s get this clear. The Green movement hijacked the legitimate reform movement that issupported by up to 40% of Iranians. It turned a movement for greater civil rights into one of civil disruption and disobedience. The people who came out on the streets on June 15th 2009 were deceived by Mousavi into believing their votes had been stolen.
The Green movement has no goals other than causing trouble in society …the Reform movement, however, has been persevering for over a decade and has contributed to Iran’s political evolution.
Scott Lucas:
I don’t know where you got that from, but it was an insult to me as an Iranian and it shows that you think like orientalists do.
The Leveretts are fighting a difficult battle during some very dangerous times and you should commend them not attack them.
Tom Milstein: First, I’ve got to acknowledge, I am opposed to the zionist ideology, and have spent too much time reading about it; that means I have to make a deliberate effort to maintain reasonable balance. I don’t much care for Israel and I’m among those who think that Israel lobby has too much influence over US policy, and that Israeli influence has caused harm to US interests. I also confess I’m an Iranophile: I find the country and the people extraordinarily beautiful. I also have a tendency to root for the underdog, and the demonization of Iran sends up red flags: WHY do people feel compelled to lie about Iran? That’s my disclosure of my biases.
Nevertheless, you make several very good points:
You wrote:
“Netanyahu certainly makes a lot of noise on this issue … but objective factors suggest that the Saudis have a great deal more to lose from an opening to Iran.
Israel’s worst case scenario — Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons — would be no worse for them than was China’s nuclear capability for the U.S., as the Leveretts have pointed out. M.A.D.-based deterrence would still rule in the region.
But Israel has nothing to compare with the Saudi vulnerabilities.”
Israel labels its “vulnerabilities” vis-a-vis Iran in existential terms: “a nuclear armed Iran will cause Jews to LEAVE Israel,” says Ephraim Sneh; an ascendant Iran threatens Israel’s sense of its preeminent westernizing role in region, says Ian Lustick of U Penn; Israelis need to wage war on Iran to relieve the psychological tension created in Israeli society by constant reference to holocaust; victimization is part of Israeli identity; to remind Israel that holocaust is over is to destabilize core of Israeli identity.
Israel also has significant financial incentives to seek to dominate Iran, or to displace Iran from taking a large chunk of the competitive environment in the region: Israel benefitted greatly from Iranian-origin revenue streams (oil, arms) from the early 1950s until the late 1980s. In the late 1980s, as arming Iran to fight Iraq was winding down and the Iranian oil taps were closed to Israel, the Jewish state faced an economic slump, coincident with arrival of hundreds of thousands of Russian Jewish immigrants. Eventually, those Russian immigrants formed the core or Israel’s current technological & bio-pharmaceutical economic powerhouse. Israelis know that won’t last forever, and Israeli leaders — led by Dennis Ross — are already planning for Israel’s economic future: alliance with and investment in China. The dollar value of US – Israel relations may be small from the US perspective compared to US need for Saudi oil, but it is 100% from Israel’s standpoint.
Finally, as to why Israel grabs more attention that SA, several reasons: Israel has an unmonitored nuclear arsenal that it has used to blackmail enemies as well as allies; Israel has a real-time history of deploying heinously deadly force with complete moral abandon; US taxpayers and US administration support, enable, and finance Israel in these vicious undertakings.
Saudi Arabia treats its own people abominably, but to my knowledge SA does not have expansionist visions, and the “Saudi” lobby does not deploy operatives to sway US elections and meddle with US domestic politics; Israel lobby does.
Tom Milstein wrote:
“The Saudis uphold the scepter of Sunni hegemony within Islam; they are the Guardians of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina; and they manage the international oil cartel. The Khomeini Revolution, from its very inception, has posed a mortal threat to the House of Saud, and has been so viewed by them.
This last feature — kingpins of the most lucrative monopoly in the history of the world — is what confers upon them an enormous political influence. It is the real “elephant in the room” of American foreign policy, notwithstanding the preference for exposes of Zionism by those with a penchant for easy targets.”
These are powerful point, and well taken. I would add one other point, one that I cannot quantify or even verify — it’s just a hunch, based on patterns: It is my hunch that Saudi Arabia pulled out of the US stock market in a serious way, sending US pensioners into a frenzy of fear and wiping out paper fortunes. I suspect SA and other Arab states can do much the same in the future. That gives Arab states enormous leverage over US policymakers. SA has been whining for some time that “oil is running out,” and with it, SA’s leverage over the West. But finance trades on air in an empty box; it is an unlimited commodity.
otoh, Bankers in the US have similar reins over US political power. The bankers want access to Iran’s economy: “predatory capitalism NEEDS to expand.” Iran’s self-contained — or worse, Iran’s financial system allied with Arabian wealth — can sink the US and western economies.
Lots of Clintonians in Obama’s administration; Clintonians are the great triangulators: Petraeus/DoD and MIC are selling all the weapons they can to Saudi Arabia, flagellating Arabs with “fear” of “nuclear Iran.” Is US doing this because “the President is… obviously constrained by the SAUDI lobby?”
“My question remains: how can a President so obviously constrained by the Saudi lobby — but no longer the Israel lobby, as recent events amply demonstrate — come to the Iranian table with clean hands?”
I’m afraid it’s not yet “obvious” to me that the President is “so obviously constrained by the Saudi lobby.” Influenced, yes; triangulating SA against Iran? Indeed. But to my mind, Israel is the elephant in the room.
Erdogan thinks so too.
So does Bashir.
Salam Iranian,
“The Persian way of giving political signals to the rivalling faction, while making clear one’s own positions….”
The sentence comes from an Iranian, not from me. Cheers…
Scott
The fact is that there is no evidence of fraud (and you know it), tens of million of people went to the streets to condemn the greens (and you know it), mainstream reformists in Iran accept the results (and you know it), 11 polls taken by different institutes both before and after the elections are in line with the election results (and you know it), Iran’s human rights record is better than all the other countries in the region (and you know it), the greens and their western supporters tried to overthrow the legitimate government through deceit and violence and they must bear responsibility (and you know it), and if Scott Lucas really cared about the human rights of all human beings he would be spending all his time attacking Obama for the crimes being carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza today. The recently leaked footage and Obama’s silence is sickening.
What the Leveretts are doing is that they are trying to ease tensions between the two countries by telling American officials the truth that they don’t want to hear. The interview, which went very well, made Scott Lucas and his green people very angry and…go and read his rantings for yourself.
The last sentence was the sort of thing that you see in Orientalist texts such as that of Bernard Lewis.
Pak:
Regardless of the fact that they have a lot more knowledge and experience in the field than Scott Lucas does, The Leveretts do not make the absurd claims Scott Lucas does. One obsurd example is the sentence: “The Persian way of giving political signals to the rivalling faction, while making clear one’s own positions… Hillary Mann Leverett apparently speaks Arabic which is significant in its own way and it gives her access to a great deal of material on Iran, Lebanon, Iraq,…which simply doesn’t exist in English. They have actually traveled to Iran after the elections and have spoken to a diverse set of people. Unlike Scott Lucas they have not surrounded themselves with a small group of like minded of people who are not after facts, but rather who have an agenda.
The Persian way of giving political signals to the rivalling faction, while making clear one’s own positions.
“The Green movement, orange revolution, tulip revolution are all part of the same axis of evil – originating in Langley, Virgina.
Most of us here can see right through of it.”
Dear Reza,
I know around 100 Iranian men and women who support either the Green Movement or its general principles. I am one of them and spend the majority of my time in discussion with them. None of them live in the United States and none of them have ever mentioned the United States. Most of them can’t even speak English. Are you telling me they have all been deceived? They have all been “deceived” into wanting an improvement of current conditions in Iran?
My friend, I believe it is you who has been deceived by the regime because it is you who is blinded and cannot see the disaster that this regime has become, so please don’t say. You may have some shady election statistics; well I have a pile of economic statistics and Iranian human rights statistics, though I am sure you’re too blinded by hatred to care.
Do all the talking and be as unrepentant as you want, but history will be the ultimate judge. Good luck!
The Leveretts are illiterate in Persian. Their arguments are irrelevant. Therefore, anybody supporting their cause is also irrelevant.
It’s so much easier arguing without logic! No wonder there are so many lemmings here.
Salam Reza,
With the situation clarifying, we should have an analysis soon — a correspondent is working on it but — with respect to “The Green movement, orange revolution, tulip revolution are all part of the same axis of evil – originating in Langley, Virgina.” —- I think one point may be that events in Bishkek, given the economic and political concerns of the Kyrgyz people, may be beyond the control or significant influence of an “axis of evil”, from wherever it originates.
Scott
@SCOTT LUCAS
I just loved the US response to the crisis in Central Asia.
The US national security council spokesman, Mike Hammer, said yesterday: “We are monitoring the situation closely. We are concerned about reports of violence and looting and call on all parties to refrain from violence and exercise restraint.”
In other words, the US is condemning the rioters amongst the demonstrators who have ousted “their man” in Bishkek.
The Green movement, orange revolution, tulip revolution are all part of the same axis of evil – originating in Langley, Virgina.
Most of us here can see right through of it.
Salam Iranian,
I should add, with respect that your assertion, “Much more disturbing is your weak response to US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan”, shows little or no cognizance of what I have written over the last nine years.
Scott
Salam Iranian,
“Kavakebian, Tabesh, Akhoundi, Khabbaz, and others have been clear in there statements.”
Repetition is not argument, especially when it’s a repetition that wilfully ignores 1) the specific points put regarding the Kavakebian and Tabesh; 2) the lack of evidence put forward to discuss the other assertions.
I think at that point we can suspend the discussion and agree to disagree.
Scott
Salam Reza,
Forgive me, but there’s not much of a point in your post, merely an assumption that the West is pro-Bakiyev and thus not condemning the events.
In fact, the first call for “domestic stability” — a stability which presumably would have been to limit the protests against a sitting Government — came from Tehran. That is not to excuse “the West”, just to point out your rather sweeping framework.
As for your initial declaration that all would just look at Tehran and look away from Bishkek, well, I think EA’s coverage of developments — thanks to the excellent overnight work of Josh Shahryar — takes care of the “look at Bishkek, stop looking at Tehran” line.
Best,
Scott
@BILL DAVIT
“Not one credible statistical analysis has been able to explain the anomalies and disparities from the 2005 to 2009 elections. ”
WRONG…..you didn’t read my report.
http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/52959/Report_on_the_Iranian_presidential_election_2009
Read it and then tell me that I didn’t debunk the junk of the Chatham House paper.
Scott Lucas:
There is no debate. Kavakebian, Tabesh, Akhoundi, Khabbaz, and others have been clear in there statements. If you are illiterate in Persian, then you should stick to discussions on the United States. Regarding the events that have been taking place in Central Asia over the last few days there is a clear difference in the way you portray them. However, much more disturbing is your weak response to US crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contrary to what you said earlier, you have a lot more in common with John Bolton than you may think.
@SCOTT LUCAS
You didn’t address my points, did you?
You did mention the uprising on your blog, but apparently an amateur youtube video from Iran is deemed to have more relevance.
Btw, do you know any Persian beyond “salam”?
Salam Reza,
LiveBlog of the events in Kyrgyzstan:
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/04/08/update-on-kyrgyzstan-uprising/
Scott
Salam Iranian@Iran,
You will note that 1 of the 2 analyses takes Kavakebian’s statements at face value and does not argue they were ironic. If we are to have a productive discussion, please address the interpretations directly.
And I am sorry but Kavakebian is the only case which comes close to an acceptance of the election which has been established in this discussion, not “a number of leading reformists”. I would be happy to address any other substantiated case.
Scott
@SCOTT LUCAS
40-100 people were killed yesterday and up to 400 injured in Bishkek in clashes between demonstrators and police.
There are some shocking photos of the violence:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1264307/Kyrgyzstan-President-Kurmanbek-Bakiyev-flees-country-bloody-revolution.html
When 7 people died in the Ashura riots of last December in Tehran,where the Mojahedeen e Khalq claimed to have been involved, the Western media condemned the Iranian government as “bloodthirsty”.
But since Bakiyev was installed by the West as part of the “Tulip Revolution”, there is no condemnation, only “concern” is offered.
This is the utter hypocrisy and double standards that most of us are sick to death with.
Scott Lucas:
Again you are being dishonest. I have seen the debate and there was no irony in the statements. Who are your experts? Can you name them? Do you speak Persian? You twist the truth in a pretty shameless way. Nevertheless, evidence has been provided here that a number of leading reformist have stated specifically said that the election results were completely valid. There is a lot more evidence out there, but you are not so important that for me to waste so much time on you and your twisted logic prevents you from being reasonable any way. :-)
Bill Davit:
The problem is that you and Scott Lucas know very little about Iran. What you have written is basically a caricature of the reality in the country, whether you like it or not. Also the validity of the election results are extremely important. It shows that people like Scott Lucas were completely wrong and that it is the greens and their supporters who bear ultimate responsibility for their violent actions and their futile attempt to overthrow a popularly elected government.
I have seen his website and I’m not impressed. His coverage of the events in Kyrgyzstan as well as his tone regarding the Obama regime and Obama’s disgusting silence regarding the leaked footage on Iraq, reveals his world view, his double standards, and shows that his concern for human rights is not something that I can believe.
Salam Liz,
I continue to look forward to your response to my dissection of the claim regarding Tabesh.
Scott
Salam Masoud,
As “trolling” appears to be Masoud-speak for “asking for information, providing a challenging response, offering analysis, questioning gaps in logic and exaggerations in claims, and encouraging dialogue”….
I thank you.
I thank you also for finally providing the 2nd source for the claim on Kavakebian. I won’t trifle with the note that it is not a 2nd source for the claim made by Fars, but deal with this on its merits.
Before responding, I checked with other specialists on Iran to discuss the claims. Two analyses emerge
ANALYSIS 1
Kavakebian accepts in fact that the elections were not rigged. “I said before, with this system, with this nezam and this Supreme Leaderthere cannot be riggings. And the protests of 25 Khordad [15 June] were wrong, after all we all participated in it [the election], and we knew the rules of the game before [i.e. that it might not be a completely fair process]. If there were riggings, I would not have been elected. BUT a news agency like IRIB, attached to Government shouldn’t say Ahmadinejad won 63%, and then Elham [as a member of the Guardian Council] shouldn’t have talked [before the election in favour of Ahamadinejad]….
For the next elections interior ministry must make new laws to prevent this. But we must see both sides….Both sides have committed faults, but we cannot exclude all others [Moussavi, Karroubi, Khatami etc.] by claiming they are attached to the USA”
In short, a sort of bargaining to arrive at a certain compromise between the two factions deeply opposed to each other. This time everything was OK [with the elections], but next time we should do it better ;-)
The Persian way of giving political signals to the rivalling faction, while making clear one’s own positions.
ANALYSIS 2
Kavekebian states (rather ironically) that he does not doubt that rigging did not take place in the elections, given the SL-supervision mechanism in place, but he claims that the Guardian Council was heavily on the side of Ahmadinejad before the elections and states that Elham, a member of the GC, actually took part in a pre-election AN campaign speech, break impartiality rules. Kavekebian’s statement is ironic, and once again, he is small fry.
This last point should be emphasised — almost all of the top reformists continue to stand against the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad Government. It should also be remembered that MPs were cherry-picked by the Guardian Council in 2008. The most docile/tame ones went past the veto, the more noisy ones were all blocked by the GC.
SUMMARY
The claim of “all major reformists” endorsing the election has now, after days, come down to 1 reformist — not in the top ranks — making a statement which is, in 1 view, driven by a search for compromise and hedged with conditions and, in another view, being expressed with more than a touch of sarcasm.
Even leaping to the view of many here that Kavakebian is very happy with the 2009 election, this is little more than a footnote to the continuing challenge by reformists and the opposition — if and when figures like Arab Sorkhi, Abtahi, Aminzadeh, Tajzadeh, Beheshti, Mousavi, Karroubi, Ebrahim Yazdi, Ramezandedeh come out and state clear support for the elections and a legitimate Government, then you may have a case which is more than a thin, feel-good rationale for Victory, both then and now.
Best,
Scott
Liz,
Scott and Chris abusive? Frankly it has been you that has been abusive. Your posts have been nothing but cheerleading for the other side, with absolutely no substance behind them, and laced with attacks. Even after Scott’s credentials were provided you continued the attack. Why? Is it so hard for you to accept another individual has a different world view? Instead were all neocons, Zionists, and imperialists bent on world domination–right? Maybe for a change why not check out his blog to find out what Scott is all about. Somehow I don’t think you will because that would entail too much work and god forbid you might find your wrong about him.
Thx
Bill
I am quite amazed that the focus of this discussion has been myopically focused on the validity of the election. It seems to me that many, excluding Scott and gang, have completely missed the gross human rights violations before and after the election. It would also seem in the efforts of “engagement” the Leveretts have chosen to also ignore this. Ironically I liken this to the US administrations ambivalence toward two of the world’s worst human right abusers, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in its effort to maintain “control and stability” in the region. Having said that here are some facts on recent events in Iran to digest:
1) Thousands remain illegally in prison in direct violation of the constitution. In a few cases some of the most prominent detainees found out their warrants were issued prior to the election
2) 72 and most likely hundreds more are dead and buried lost to their families forever
3) The regime will continue to intimidate, beat, and rape its way into staying in power
4) Iran today is the preeminent jailer of journalists and bloggers in the world having more behind bars than most of the world combined
5) The regime will continue to “privatize” industry making sure select government entities namely the IRGC and Bonyads will control the economy
6) Big brother will further its surveillance and censorship of all. Note it was the IRGC that acquired Iran’s largest telephone and internet provider recently
7) The regime will continue to ignore the bulk of the clerics including all the Grand Ayatollahs who came out in favor of the Green Movement
8) The universities and government will continue to be purged of those to “liberal” and not in line with the regime
9) Thousands of “starred” students will be kept from attending university because of their political affiliation
10) The brain drain will continue in Iran as the best and brightest will find their way to freedom outside the country
11) The elections were never fair from the beginning because anyone with knowledge of the process will be quite aware it was a selection. Democracy is simply used as a veneer to fool the people and the world into thinking it was truly “free”
12) Not one credible statistical analysis has been able to explain the anomalies and disparities from the 2005 to 2009 elections. Nor have they been able to specifically explain how Ahmadinejad carried votes is such greater quantity than he did before. From a statistical standpoint based on trend analysis it is highly unlikely to have been possible. Please read the Chattam House statistical analysis for some perspective: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
13) Numerous papers, news organizations, and blogs have been shut down. Those that remain open now have minders
14) The regime continues to blame outside sources without providing any tangible evidence. They continue this charade despite the fact the majority of the Western world was caught by surprise when the protests broke out. The regime has even gone as far as to coerce statements from detainees to air to the world in an effort to “manufacture” evidence supporting this claim. Even this evidence is again only a claim with nothing tangible backing it up
15) In a fit to show the world its legitimacy the regime had to manufacture one successful rally after they failed several times. Note the Green Movement rallies were largely spontaneous and done under the cloud of heavy regime oppression. Just imagine how many would protest if they were not met by a harsh crackdown. Now ask yourself how many of the pro regime rally would show knowing they risked arrest, beatings, and the possibility of rape
16) Specifically the rights of religious minorities and women have gotten even worse. The unrest ironically provided the regime the cover to further crack down on these groups. The Bahais have been hit especially hard
The fact so many seem to miss is the green movement is first and foremost a human rights movement. The election was only the catalyst for a fire waiting to ignite after decades of oppression. At the end of the day how can anyone trust a government that literally “eats its own” to stay in power. While I applaud the Leveretts actions I think it’s a bit misguided to ignore the human rights violations in the spirit of engagement. Would you honestly trust the other party when they are violating the rights of its citizens enshrined in its very own constitution? I can’t and it is folly to engage with a regime that places a higher value on the system than the people. For some perspective of what the regime thinks of its people here is Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisors, Mohammad-Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, take on the people: “It doesn’t matter what the people think. The people are ignorant sheep.”
At the end of the day, regardless of the veracity of the election, it is important to understand the true motive of Green Movement is simply all about human rights nothing else. They want a fair shake and the litany of rights abuses clearly demonstrates they are not a dead movement but very viable. After all if the Green Movement was dead why would the regime still have thousands imprisoned, purges ongoing, and heavy censorship?
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Thomas Jefferson
Scott Lucas and his raging friend ChrisE have been very abusive towards the Leveretts and others from their first posts on this thread. We have all tolerated them and argued with them, even though they have not been honest or objective. Some people are not used to people giving powerful and reasonable responses to western propaganda and one sided views and this angers you.
I am frankly shocked at the rude behavior of some of the users on this forum. Even though I deeply disagree with much of the Leveretts’ analysis, I have never seen them engage in this type of impolite behavior, and I’m sure it pains them to see visitors to their website behaving in that fashion. There is no need to call people names or accuse them of having bad intentions simply because they disagree with you. Civil debate is good for society, but name calling just makes a website look like a place that’s not worth spending time at.
Thank you Masoud! That is the one I saw! Scott Lucas, being the dishonest person who he is, though, will make up some new excuse.
Scott Lucas:
Sorry, but people have things to do. They don’t have the time to search for for all the evidence just to convince you. If you knew Persian, you could have done your own searches, but you don’t know any Persian do you (and you call yourself an expert on Iran!)? each time they provided evidence, you were surprised and then you tried to find excuses. Many of the reformists have said the same thing on televised debates. I remember watching two, personally. Khabbaz said it on a Friday afternoon a couple of months ago in a debate with another MP on the news channel (which you can easily watch in the US and UK). On another occassion Kavakebian was debating Shariatmadari on another channel. However, I didn’t jot down the dates or times, because I didn’t think I would be discussing things with such a mule headed person. You have nothing to say.
Well, I thought so. The silent treatment. Doesn’t look like Scott wants to play anymore.I think we know what your answers to my questions would be if you were being honest anyway.
Just as well, I can’t take the suspense. My source is none other than Kavakabian himself, in a debate opposite Shariatmadari broadcast on national TV:
http://www.youtube.com/user/mosayeb1#p/u/12/eD2o9z75DLU
Check time index 7:05. I’d translate it for you but you won’t believe it until you hear it from your own people.
All hope is not lost though, you can always argue he was pressured to say what he said, or at least that we can’t rule out the possibility, him being in Iran and all. We probably won’t ever get a straight answer out of him until he ‘defects’ to some Western nation and is ‘debriefed’ by Western ‘intelligence experts’, the results of which will be ‘leaked’ to ‘reputable newspapers’ and echoed by outfits like EA.
Or you could just as easily ignore him, and try to minimize his significance, as compared to ‘reformist leaders’ which seems to be how you place Mousavi. Either way I suppose you’ll have ample grounds to justify continued trolling.
Oh, and if you are going to be a troll, it’s just plain stupid to direct your targets to your own forum were you brag about how effective your trolling has been.
@KOOSHY
As they say in America, SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS….thus always to tyrants.
I hope the CIA learns some lessons in promoting revolutions in other parts of the world.
Of course, the one color they will never support is “RED”.
Come on now Sott,
I offered you a kavakabian reference, all you need to do is answer the questions:
How was my characterization of your position on Fars’ credibility on this issue inaccurate?
How credible is Kavakabian? Would his skepticism regarding these charges be about as important as his supposed support for these charges? If no, why is this issue important, if yes how would you go about reevaluating your impression of the charges made?
Upheaval in Kyrgyzstan as Leader Flees
Another of the color revolutions goes down the tube?
Someone is going to lose job, Richard, Dennis, I guess we will have to wait
Reza, we’ll have a round-up of the situation in Kyrgyzstan in the morning when the situation has clarified.
Meanwhile, here is the Iran Government’s position:
“Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Wednesday that Iran
‘wants the immediate restoration of domestic stability’ in Kyrgyzstan and the prevention of the spread of insecurity to this sensitive region of Central Asia.
Kooshy, haven’t forgotten your question and will reply tomorrow.
(corrected)
Salam to all,
So let me get this right. From the claim that “all major reformists” now accept the election as legitimate, the following has been presented:
1. A claim from Fars of a Kavakebian statement for which there is no corroborating source.
2. A claim of a Tabesh statement from Tabnak in which…
A. Tabnak did not actually interview Tabesh but is quoting second-hand from an interview Tabesh supposedly had with Jahan, an interview which was never mentioned by Tabesh’s Parleman News.
B. A reader pulls out the line “”We do not accept the line concerning fraud, the way it was portrayed so far”, which is not say as saying “no fraud at all” but that Tabesh differs from the specific claims made by (unnamed) others.
C. And ignores everything else in the article, including Tabesh’s references to “election doping” by Ahmadinejad.
And that’s it. Two reformists who aren’t even amongst the leading players in the Parliament or outside it (do Mousavi, Karroubi, Nabavi, ArabSorkhi, Tajzadeh accept the election?), one whose statement isn’t established, the other whose statement is taken out of context and distorted.
And you call me “stubborn”? Y’all would shame a mule with this dogged defence of the non-existent and unreliable.
Later!
Scott
And you
Salam to all,
So let me get this right. From the claim that “all major reformists” now accept the election as legitimate, the following has been presented:
1. A claim from Fars of a Kavakebian statement for which there is no corroborating source.
2. A claim of a Tabesh statement from Tabnak in which…
A. Tabnak did not actually interview Tabesh but is quoting second-hand from an interview Tabesh supposedly had with Jahan, an interview which was never mentioned by Tabesh’s Parleman News.
B. A reader pulls out the line “”We do not accept the line concerning fraud, the way it was portrayed so far”, which is not say as saying “no fraud at all” but that Tabesh differs from the specific claims made by (unnamed) others.
And you call me “stubborn”? Y’all would shame a mule with this dogged defence of the non-existent and unreliable.
Later!
Scott
C. And ignores everything else in the article, including Tabesh’s references to “election doping” by Ahmadinejad.
And that’s it. Two reformists who aren’t even amongst the leading players in the Parliament or outside it (do Mousavi, Karroubi, Nabavi, ArabSorkhi, Tajzadeh accept the election?), one whose statement isn’t established, the other whose statement is taken out of context and distorted.
And you
@IRANIAN
Lucas is having a bad week with videos showing US forces killing journalists in
Iraq and US-backed regimes firing on demonstrators.
Liz
“A picture of Ahmadinejad today in west Azerbaijan:”
That is an illusion, they are all bused in Sundaes drinking cake-eating bunch of hungry Iranians that wanted to vote for Mousavi, if you do not believe me ask Scott and the reverend
But I asked Scott a question earlier, I guess he is in between all events is finding time to answer
1. kooshy says:
April 6, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Scott,
Good morning, I hope all is well there in London
As an informed scholar of Iranian current events, I just wanted to ask you, one question, if you chose to answer.
My question is, do you believe, the western and like-minded media is currently conducting a propaganda war directed against Iran?
If the answer is yes, than how is done, for what goal, and for what result. I really appreciate your insight on this subject.
1. Scott Lucas says:
April 7, 2010 at 7:59 am
Salam Kooshy,
Thank you for your question. It has been a very busy news day between developments on the Iraq video, the US nuclear review, Afghanistan events, and the latest from Iran, so it may be this evening before I have a chance to respond.
Best wishes,
Scott
I knew Scott Lucas would find some ridiculous excuse to keep his eyes closed…
@KAMRAN
Where is the “outrage” about today’s events in Bishkek???
The Army is firing into the crowds and the neocons in America stay silent.
This whole human rights agenda of people like Lucas is just a political tool
with which to attack their enemies.
A picture of Ahmadinejad today in west Azerbaijan:
http://www.farsnews.com/plarg.php?nn=M607311.jpg
GOOD POINT REZA!
Scott Lucas:
There is no question that the reformist MPs accept the results of the elections. You must admit, your ignorance regarding these issues is pretty strange. I think your team only translates certain texts for you and they do not translate texts that don’t serve their interests.
@SCOTT LUCAS
People are being slaughtered in the streets of the Bishkek by the “Tulip revolution” regime of Bakiyev and Enduring American has nothing to say on the matter.
Why? Because Bakiyev is “America’s man” in Kyrgyzstan.
Scott Lucas:
Congratulations! You have lost debate after debate. You are extremely stubborn almost like a John Bolton. I really can’t quite understand why you are so unwilling to accept that you were totally wrong. Will you lose face in front of friends or are you scared that your green friends will leave you, or worse, turn against you (I must admit they are a ruthless bunch)?
Liz,
As it is my words that you find illogical, I will be happy to explain that I believe the ongoing IRI persecution of the Baha’i alone, whether or not the recent charges of systematic prison rape and torture are true, qualifies as a crime against humanity.
It is a systematic, government endorsed campaign to eliminate the Baha’i faith, which is considered a heresy against Islam, both by incarcerating and killing persons and by destroying Baha’i sacred sites. Please see this website for more information: http://iran.bahai.us/overview/
There may even be Baha’i in your local area who would be happy to meet with you and discuss the conditions their relatives in Iran are facing every day, if you would like more corroboration than online human rights reports can give. I urge you to research the situation and determine for yourself if it meets the criteria for crimes against humanity which Professor Lucas posted.
Scott Lucas:
You can’t get anything right. This is the key sentence. If you want to pretend to be an expert on Iran and if you have the intelligence, learn the language like me and many others.
ما بحث تقلب را آنگونه که مطرح میشود، قبول نداریم،
Salam Liz,
Bless you — you can’t even get your insults right. I never wrote “serious crimes against humanity in Iran”. Rev. Magdalen did.
Scott
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Thank you again for the Tabesh article.
Tabnak claims that Tabesh told Jahan that he (Tabesh) attributes Ahmadinejad’s “success” in the elections more to “electoral doping” than to fraud. He defines doping to be handing out cash to people, raising salaries of government employees, etc. However, he does not rule out fraud altogether.
That is not the same, in my opinion, as accepting the legitimacy of the election.
Scott
Dan Cooper,
You bring up an excellent point which I have heard echoed by many of my fellow antiwar activists. However, the Neda video is not the only one out there. I refer you to the collection of 2000+ citizen journalism videos I posted yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/user/NedaSoltan#g/u This is just one of many such collections containing thousands of these videos shot by different people in different locations on different phones, showing hundreds of thousands to millions of other people protesting peacefully and being suppressed, in what appears to be a sustained civil rights movement.
No one is saying the IRI ordered Neda shot, which you are right to point out would be a stupid mistake on their part. Greens don’t allege that anyone ordered Neda in particular to be killed, just that the poorly-trained volunteer security forces, who were unconstitutionally ordered to suppress the demonstration on that day, were issued live ammunition, and then a shot, whether stray or aimed, killed someone, and no one was ever held accountable for it even though eyewitnesses say that bystanders apprehended the shooter and confiscated his ID.
Neda’s mother has stated that she was offered money in the form of a lifetime stipend for relatives of IRI martyrs, if she would publicly state that she believed Neda’s death happened the way you suppose, as part of a Western plot. Neda’s mother refused the money and has since faced harassment including the defacement of her daughter’s tombstone, but she sticks by her story. She believes her daughter was killed by her own government’s callous disregard for human life in its suppression of the protests.
Neda’s death was not even the only shooting documented on video that day; there are several other videos showing people screaming and running for cover as they realize security forces are using live ammo. There is video from rooftop levels in various locations clearly showing men with guns aiming, and the sound of firing. In addition there is also a video of a child known only as “Mohammad” whose parents did not want to be exposed to the press but who uploaded a video of him bleeding to death on his way to the hospital, so the world would know what happened. If you have never heard of Mohammad then this must be a pretty ineffective propaganda campaign. If the US were behind the Green Movement I think Mohammad would be more famous than Neda, as he was a beautiful little boy, and he suffered far longer than Neda, having been shot in the gut.
New videos come from Iranian citizens every single day, and Iranians also call in daily and speak their minds to a variety of international radio shows that are simulcast online and by satellite. Listening to these calls, seeing these videos, reading the blogs, twitter, and Balatarin, there is simply too much evidence that the Green Movement is an actual grassroots Iranian movement for me to believe it’s all just Western propaganda.
I am familiar with the kind of propaganda you refer to, and as I have said before it is a judgment call everyone must make on their own. I respect your right to reasonably suspect that the Green Movement is a highly organized propaganda campaign, but in my humble opinion, the Green Movement is not astroturf. It’s the real deal. I base this on talking to members of it online every day, studying the citizen journalism that comes out, and my own understanding of human nature and the difficulties that would be involved in coordinating thousands of independent information sources to make them all conform to the same internally-consistent story.
The way I see it, a war with Iran has been planned by PNAC & Co for well over a decade. When I look at a map and see where Bush placed American forces while he was in office, it looks like an obvious attempt to put Iran between pincers. To me it appears that invading Iran was the intended neoconservative goal all along during their reign of power, and they simply ran out of time before they could achieve it.
Obama doesn’t need to create a fake color revolution in order to get congress to permit him to make war on Iran. The contingency plans for war with Iran were already on his desk when he took the oath of office. Setting aside all the oil-related reasons PNAC & Co had for wanting to invade, by now most Americans believe Iran plays at least some role in the insurgent attacks against American forces in the region, and that’s a perfectly acceptable excuse to go to war in the minds of most Americans. Obama could say “Iran is the real culprit that’s secretly kept us in the Mideast so long, and if we take them out the troops can come home,” and be believed by a large majority.
Heck Iran even dropped an excuse for war right in Obama’s lap by arresting the three American hikers last year. They’re still in prison, still have not had a trial for the crime of allegedly wandering across an invisible line in a forest. They’ve been allowed one phone call home since last summer. Obama could say “The Iranians are kidnapping Americans again and we have to nip it in the bud this time,” and he would easily gain public support for a war.
Keep in mind too that there is a powerful faction of American society that is ALWAYS up for war, because they invest in war industries. Setting up the Green Movement and coordinating all these diverse sources to make them match each other is just far more work than necessary to do the job of convincing Americans to go to war with Iran.
Occam’s razor, while not an infallible principle, is worth considering, and IMHO in this case, the simplest explanation is that the Green Movement is a real Iranian grassroots civil rights movement. For one thing, if the USA could have caused an uprising like this to happen, it would have done so 30 years ago. It’s true that the US Congress has frequently authorized large sums of money to be spent on regime change from within in Iran, but for 30 long years, not a dime of it worked. Suddenly in June 2009, it works? I just don’t believe that. Either the Green Movement is real or the USA very recently made some huge breakthrough in remotely controlling people to make them face death for their civil rights (perhaps HAARP is involved? ;-).
Another reason I believe the Green Movement was a surprise to everyone is that if Obama had wanted to use it as an excuse for war, he would have immediately pounced on its existence. Every American would know of the brave Greens fighting the dictator. There would be green ribbons everywhere. There would be no Green refugees waiting to try to get visas out of Turkey, they’d all be in the US talking on The View about how important it is to bomb the Iranian nuke facilities, because the poor Greens need American military help to overthrow their oppressors. Instead, every Green I’ve ever talked to has urged America to stay out of it and let them do their thing their own way.
Basically the way I see it, the war with Iran might have already been underway by now if the Green Movement had not arisen. I say this because I’ve been trying in my own small way, as just one voice, to help stop the approach of this war a very long time, but frankly I never saw any possibility of avoiding it until the Greens rose up. I don’t think anyone in power believes in pursuing the Grand Bargain, for a variety of reasons, but even the most ardent hawks will stand aside and stay their hands if they believe there are modern day Jeffersons, Washingtons, and Gandhis trying to win freedom in Iran. I have seen with my own eyes conservatives who formerly supported “bomb, bomb Iran” become antiwar activists after interacting with the Greens, because they believe Iranians deserve a fair shake at achieving freedom on their own.
I don’t see the Green Movement as an excuse for war, I see it as a shield against war. The stronger the Greens become, the more the hawks will retreat and hold back. In my humble opinion, those who want to avoid war should support the Greens for this reason, and also because standing with people asking for their basic human rights is just the right thing to do.
Scott Lucas:
When someone calls your government’s actions in Iraq (such as the helecopter attack and the cover up) “crimes against humanity” you respond:
Logic: Try it sometime. Try it instead of resorting to a scare word like “orientalist”. Don’t cheapen “crimes of humanity” by tossing it around like a plaything because when you do…
Then you go any say:
There are serious crimes against humanity being committed in Iran right now…
Don’t you see what a hypocrite and Orientalist you are?
Scott Lucas:
Of course, Tabesh is not going to support the government. He is opposed to the government! However, like most other mainstream reformists, a long time ago he accepted the results as valid. None of us thought you had the honesty or honor to accept the facts, so we weren’t expecting anything new from you. However, the fact that you did not know these people made these statements shows your utter ignorance about Iran and show that your green people lead you around like a blind person.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Thank you very much for the link, which I have just noted. We are checking out the story, both in the context of the event reported in Tabnak and of Tabesh’s recent statements, such as his declaration at a meeting with Hashemi Rafsanjani on Monday:
“Although right now different issues are being discussed in the country, especially the the subsidies bill and the economic situation, we must not forget that these issues are secondary and the primary issue at hand is the stability and security of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
“We must not see further distancing of the ruling establishment and the people. And we hope that the ruling establishment will use wisdom and foresight to fill the distances [that have been created].”
Best,
Scott
Reza Esfandiari
Thank you.
I had read so many articles about Neda but yours was the most comprehensive one.
You wrote and I Quote:
“It is inconceivable that an Islamic regime, which understands the power of martyrdom in its own culture, would sanction the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and ordinary young woman on the streets of Tehran.
However it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran [11] – would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.
The ruthless exploitation of the death of Neda for political purposes is an egregious example of a propaganda war being waged by the enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran – everyone should be concerned, however, since the manipulation of the media and public opinion is a feature of domestic news coverage in the West as much as it is of reporting on a Middle Eastern state.”
http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/Opinion/?id=35869
Scott Lucas:
I know that you will find some sort of excuse not to accept the truth. However, this is for the record. The link is to a 5 month old piece in the Tabnak website. Tabnak states that the head of the reformist faction in parliament Dr. Tabesh has said specifically that there was no fraud or cheating in the presidential elections.
http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=69843
Salam Kooshy,
Thank you for your question. It has been a very busy news day between developments on the Iraq video, the US nuclear review, Afghanistan events, and the latest from Iran, so it may be this evening before I have a chance to respond.
Best wishes,
Scott
@DAN COOPER
You might want to read an article of mine on Neda
http://www.middle-east-online.com/English/Opinion/?id=35869
I think its obvious that the GM needed a “Joan of Arc” martyr figure.
Rev. Magdalen , Scott Lucas
Re: Neda
The tragic death of Neda and its vivid capture on film was deliberately used as a propaganda tool by American, British and Israeli media outlets to harden western opinion against the Islamic republic and grease the skids for a future invasion.
Who really benefitted from killing Neda?
In my opinion, Neda was “killed to order” for maximum publicity by a western agent to tarnish the image of the Iranian government.
CIA and Mossad are famous for this type of operations.
They deliberately chose a “beautiful girl” in order to get maximum exposure.
Neda was a few streets away, from where the main protests were taking place.
She was with her music teacher, sitting in a car and stuck in traffic.
She got out of the car for just for a few minutes and was shot.
She was not wearing any green clothes.
She was not participating in any demonstration.
She was an innocent bystander.
Why a Basiji would wants to kill her anyway?
Why would a Basiji fire on someone in a street where there is no demonstration?
What would a Basiji gain by killing her?
Now ask yourself this; what would a “Foreign agent or the enemies of IR” gain by killing her?
Eye witnesses and video footage of Neda clearly showed there was no demonstration on that area where she was shot.
It is alleged that a “Basiji” killed Neda and according to eye witnesses he was immediately arrested and then released but no video evidence of the arrest has been produced.
If the story is true, why there was no video evidence of the Basiji’s arrest?
There were so many people with mobile phone who witnessed the incident but not a single shot of the Basiji’s arrest was captured.
If we don’t heed the lessons of history and understand how sophisticated PR campaigns are routinely crafted around such events by western governments in collusion with their establishment media fronts, then;
The tragic death of Neda will be the catalyst for a million more tragedies in the years to come – the only difference being that you won’t see the deaths of those victims being broadcast on the BBC, Fox News or CNN.
The propensity for western governments to manufacture or exploit intensely emotional stories such as Neda’s death, and tragic events involving young women and children in general, in order to hoodwink populations into supporting phony wars of “liberation” has been proven time and time again.
The hypocrisy is almost impossible to stomach.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children have been slaughtered in similar fashion by coalition forces during the bombardment and occupation of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of these deaths have been caught on camera.
Yet the establishment media has blindly refused to broadcast any of it.
Indeed, it could be claimed that the footage of Neda’s death has already been broadcast more times by the corporate media than the thousands of victims whose deaths were caught on film in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last eight years.
There is no doubt that Neda’s vivid and shocking death is tragic to witness and a terrible loss for her family. However, the repercussions of the video circulating the globe via You Tube and its propaganda-driven exploitation by the west to demonize the Iranian government could have tragic consequences for many more innocent Iranians in the years to come.
Scott Lucas:
You are being absurd. As most people here guessed, you will not accept evidence or logic. I’m surprised that you have a job at a university. Indeed, you ARE like the neo-cons, because you always stick to your guns and continue with your propaganda even when the evidence clearly shows that you are wrong.
Scott,
Good morning, I hope all is well there in London
As an informed scholar of Iranian current events, I just wanted to ask you, one question, if you chose to answer.
My question is, do you believe, the western and like-minded media is currently conducting a propaganda war directed against Iran?
If the answer is yes, than how is done, for what goal, and for what result. I really appreciate your insight on this subject.
Eric A. Brill:
“I am not confident that the US can improve its relationship with Iran quickly and substantially.”
Few are. The question is why? The conventional wisdom, as you have implied, lays the principal responsibility at Israel’s door, which is certainly the appearance of things. Others would blame Ahmadinejad’s “polarizing” political style, which is another appearance.
I’ve suggested the real responsibility lies beneath appearances, with the Saudis, which you reject for being based “a whole lot of carefully made uphill arguments (all of which, frankly, are beyond my imagination).” Well, good arguments should lead uphill — and thanks for the “carefully made” — but imagination is no substitute for clarity, I guess.
Tom,
“My question remains: how can a President so obviously constrained by the Saudi lobby — but no longer the Israel lobby, as recent events amply demonstrate — come to the Iranian table with clean hands?”
Your premise strikes me as awfully shaky. To say that the US, in dealing with Iran, is more constrained by the Saudi lobby than by the Israeli lobby strikes me as a conclusion that one can reach, if at all, only after a whole lot of carefully made uphill arguments (all of which, frankly, are beyond my imagination). It is very far from a premise that is so “obvious” that one’s listeners can fairly be expected simply to accept it as a starting point.
Of course the US takes into account Saudi Arabia in its dealings with Iran, just as it takes into account other countries — Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Russia, China, the Gulf States, for example (and many other countries to some extent). But if the US only had to take into account the countries just named, I am confident it could improve its relationship with Iran — quickly and substantially.
I am not confident that the US can improve its relationship with Iran quickly and substantially.
Eric A. Brill:
“This is not intended as a comment on your post generally, but I will note that many do not find it “obvious” that the US’ “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia is the special relationship that presents the biggest obstacle to a modus vivendi between the US and Iran. There’s another one that comes to mind for most people.”
If not the “biggest obstacle,” than certainly “an obstacle,” and therefore worthy of being tackled by anyone racing for Iran — which, by the way, is also not an objective that “comes to mind for most people.”
Your coy insinuation that Israel’s lobby is a bigger obstacle to rapprochement with Iran than Saudi Arabia’s should not go unchallenged, however. Netanyahu certainly makes a lot of noise on this issue (in the Leverett’s language, he is certainly a “polarizing figure”), but objective factors suggest that the Saudis have a great deal more to lose from an opening to Iran.
Israel’s worst case scenario — Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons — would be no worse for them than was China’s nuclear capability for the U.S., as the Leveretts have pointed out. M.A.D.-based deterrence would still rule in the region.
But Israel has nothing to compare with the Saudi vulnerabilities. The Saudis uphold the scepter of Sunni hegemony within Islam; they are the Guardians of the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina; and they manage the international oil cartel. The Khomeini Revolution, from its very inception, has posed a mortal threat to the House of Saud, and has been so viewed by them.
This last feature — kingpins of the most lucrative monopoly in the history of the world — is what confers upon them an enormous political influence. It is the real “elephant in the room” of American foreign policy, notwithstanding the preference for exposes of Zionism by those with a penchant for easy targets.
My question remains: how can a President so obviously constrained by the Saudi lobby — but no longer the Israel lobby, as recent events amply demonstrate — come to the Iranian table with clean hands?
“Masoud
Apology accepted.”
I guess that’s 6-12 trutherspeak for ‘No’?
Masoud
Apology accepted.
“I merely state the fact that the current government of Iran does not even live up to its own Constitution, let alone the principles of true democracy, which are incompatible with a Guardian Council to preselect approved candidates, or a Supreme Leader who can suspend the right to free speech at his sole discretion.”
Sure. So you’ve stated that opinion for the upteenth time. Now do you have anything even mildly relevant or marginally enlightening to say on the issue of Iran-US relations?
Masoud, I just hit Control+F and ran a search on this page for the word “evil.” It has been used by four people, including me and you. I used it once in one post in which I said the IRI “use the [US embassy] building as a museum to display exhibits criticizing America as an evil nation.”
I never said anyone was evil, I merely state the fact that the current government of Iran does not even live up to its own Constitution, let alone the principles of true democracy, which are incompatible with a Guardian Council to preselect approved candidates, or a Supreme Leader who can suspend the right to free speech at his sole discretion.
I appreciate your concern for my feelings, but I am not bothered by the coldness of internet commentators, so please do not trouble yourself on that account.
Scott, please don’t break off our discussion now, we are so close to an understanding, I can feel it.
Please clarify how my characterization of your position on Fars News if inaccurate. If your position and it’s justifications are credible, you just might open some eyes over here! Wasn’t that the point of your entire field trip?
Again I have to ask, in you or your associates’ view, how credible is Kavakabian? If it turns out that he does not support the election fraud business, what does that mean? Would his skepticism regarding these claims be about as relevant as his supposed support? If no why bother about what he thinks anyway?
I thought I was asking some fair questions?
Your reception is cold because you insist on imposing yourself on the discussion, and that other condemn this or that event, or agree with you that this or that actor or government is Evil.
–>
Your reception is cold because you insist on imposing yourself on the discussion, and demand that others condemn this or that event, or agree with you that this or that actor or government is Evil.
I know i make a lot of typos, but this one really took the cake. Apologies.
This is definitely not my house. I did not command, I merely asked that you either contribute something substantive or quit trying to impose yourself on the discussion until you have had the opportunity to ‘ educated’.
Your reception here is not cold because most people on the forum disagree with you(which I think is an accurate assesment). Your reception is cold because you insist on imposing yourself on the discussion, and that other condemn this or that event, or agree with you that this or that actor or government is Evil.
This used to be a serious discussion board. No one here(new arrivals possibly excepted) is interested in discussing who is or is not going to hell. You think IRI is Evil? Fine, you’ve said that. Although, some would dispute the value in that judgment, no one really cares. Now, do you have anything grown up to say? If yes, then say it, if no then just take a time out until you do.
Masoud,
No, your characterisation of my position — on the specific story as reported on Fars or on the political significance of Kavakebian and his position in the reformist movement — is not accurate.
No 2nd source, no further discussion.
Scott
Masoud,
With all due respect I don’t believe this is “your house.” By what right do you command others to leave? I don’t think that’s the sort of behavior the Leveretts want to promote to the world; you do them a disservice by saying such things. I am sure if the Leveretts wish to close the discussion on this topic, they will simply close the comment option, and frankly at this point nobody would blame them, it’s really getting exceptionally long.
Come, if I am ignorant than educate me. Here is a collection of over 2,000 of the videos I speak of, which I believe to be true videos actually sent by Iranian citizen journalists. http://www.youtube.com/user/NedaSoltan#g/u If you think I am mistaken in believing that, please show me the evidence.
Ok Scott,
You’ve made your position on Fars quite clear. I’ll take it that my characterization of your position was accurate. I will also take it that should the source I cite be credible you will not reevaluate your position that Fars is essentially as unreliable as Fox or CNN. That’s a fair enough position to have, though a little misguided in my opinion.
What you haven’t clarified is your impression of this man’s credibility. Is his opinion only relevant if he echoes Mousavi? How deeply will you re evaluate your impression that the claims of fraud are prima facie credible?
Masoud,
Given that Fars has been inaccurate on major stories in the past, 2nd source needed for this to run.
Scott
“I am not in any way affiliated with Enduring America, except as a frequent reader. It turns out that not everyone who disagrees with the Leveretts is secretly working together in a massive Zionist plot to undermine the purity of the IRI. Sometimes people just see things the same way and agree in the regular fashion.”
I don’t care how you are affiliated with them. Neither scott, nor you, nor chirs, has contributed substantively to the serious discussions that transpire here If you have nothing to contribute go away. Save the sermons(and Zionist plots) for the congregation.
Masoud
“I don’t feel like playing word games. Based on sources, we would consider Kavakebian as as a relatively minor reformist, when it comes to leadership, with statements that are neither coordinated nor representing views of leaders such as Mousavi and Karroubi.”
With respect, word games seem to be the bulk of what you do. But this is good we are starting to get some answers. But as you may realize, my question wans’t about ‘leadership’ but about ‘credibility’. If it turns out that Kavekabian does not believe that election was rigged, how much credible do such claims remain?
With respect to Fars, I take it your position is that it would indeed invent such a statement out of thin air and attribute it to a newspaper editor who is supposedly known to be on the record with statements completely contrary to the attribution, with the justification being it claimed that a certain statement by Karoubi amounted to “recognition” when it did not(i thought we weren’t playing word games), and that it inaccurately or incompeltely reported details of some sort of ‘reconcilliation plan’?(of course i don’t know that it did either, i just want to get inside your head a little)
Masoud,
I am not in any way affiliated with Enduring America, except as a frequent reader. It turns out that not everyone who disagrees with the Leveretts is secretly working together in a massive Zionist plot to undermine the purity of the IRI. Sometimes people just see things the same way and agree in the regular fashion.
Masoud,
To clarify: the view that Kavekabian is relatively “low-key” in the reformist leadership is one based not just on Mousavi’s and Karroubi’s position but on the positions of others in the reformist coalition inside and outside the Majlis.
Scott
Masoud,
I don’t feel like playing word games. Based on sources, we would consider Kavakebian as as a relatively minor reformist, when it comes to leadership, with statements that are neither coordinated nor representing views of leaders such as Mousavi and Karroubi.
Fars has put out information in the past that was exaggerated or wrong — an example was its claimed version of a National Unity Plan last autumn, and then there was the episode of misinterpretation with Karroubi “recognising” the Ahmadinejad Government. With such a public meeting, I would presume that a 2nd source could easily corroborate Fars’ specific report that Kavakebian recognised the election.
Yours,
Scott
Apologies, I of course mean the video from Iraq, not Afghanistan. I was confused by the release of another story of American atrocities involving three women in Afghanistan, which also is not relevant to any discussion of atrocities in Iran.
Rev. Magdalen,
I don’t mean to cause you any offense, but you are completely ignorant. There is actually much more lively debate in Iran around substantive policy matters than there is in the US. This debate is more wide-reaching, sustained and effective than anything that passes for ‘policy discussions’ in the US.
Please peddle your polemics elsewhere, I don’t think that either you or your associates from ‘EnduringAmerica’(an entirely obnoxious name, if you are contemplating a change please consider a clean break from playing off of the ridiculous victim complex most americans are afflicted with) have contributed anything insightful to the discussion on Iran.
“No. Kavakebian should be identified by the credentials he has established. The one proviso would be how influential Kavakebian is within current reformist/opposition circles — is he considered a leading voice in the Parliament coalition? Are his views shared by other prominent reformist MPs, if not Mousavi and Karroubi?”
I thought so. We can spend weeks debating what this politician or that politician said, but in the end the measure of what’s important is whether the views of the person in question are echoed by Mousavi or Karroubi.
Is this important because you instinctively believe that whatever these two jokers say is the position of a significant portion of the population? Or is your position that these two are accurate embodiments of the reform movement of the past decade and half?
Whatever the case, why spend time on what other people say or think if these are your ultimate measures of ‘credibility’?
You still haven’t answered my questions, just rearranged them. Do you actually know what ‘credentials Kavekabian has established’, if yes, then why not come out with a straight yes or no answer, if no, why are you so adamant his statement quoted by Fars is suspicious?
Whatever the headline of the article chosen, either the article lies or it doesn’t, if you are suggesting it is lying, I want to why you think it would lie about something so easily checked?
Nothing that happens outside Iran, even if it proves without a shadow of a doubt that the United States of America is just the wickedest nation that ever existed and everyone who ever took the oath of office ought to be burned at the stake, has any relevance to whether or not people in Iranian prisons are being raped, or nonviolent Iranian activists are deliberately beaten bloody, hit by police cars or shot at with live ammunition.
US atrocities have nothing to do with whether or not Iran routinely arrests the family members of detainees, to coerce a confession from them, or whether or not the whole world recently witnessed Stalinist mass trials that spectacularly defied all rules of due process, openly broadcast over the internet for anyone who cared to watch. No matter what happens elsewhere, nothing can make conducting surprise executions without informing family members, or forbidding people from holding funerals and placing headstones, seem like reasonable acts.
American soldiers’ actions in Afghanistan have nothing to do with whether or not the Supreme Leader of Iran has violated his nation’s constitution by asserting that because, in HIS opinion, the election was fair, NOBODY can have a permit to nonviolently state an opposing opinion. US atrocities have no impact on whether or not the supposed constitutional check on the Supreme Leader’s power, the Assembly of Experts, declined to remove the Supreme Leader for this offense against the Constitution of Iran, leaving Iran’s people with no further official means, except a national referendum, to pursue justice for this crime against their constitutional rights.
If you want to discuss videos, new ones come from Iran every day, recorded by ordinary citizens with their cell phone cams. YouTube has archived hundreds and hundreds of them. I would think any of those videos would be more relevant to this discussion than a 3-year-old video from a completely different country involving no Iranian people at all.
Salam Masoud,
All fair questions.
1. What sources have told you Kavakabian dismisses the legitamacy of the elections?
It’s not that Kavakebian has dismissed the legitimacy of the elections rather that he has been focused, from the information we have and from the public record, on post-election concerns (including the economy) rather than the election.
2. Why is it that you beleive Fars woulld lie about such an easily verifiable claim?
I am always careful with Fars as a source, since the agency has put out suspect stories on a number of occasions (similarly, I won’t use certain “Green” sites or expatriate sites as sources without cross-checking). In this case, though, you’re right: I find it hard to believe that Fars could “create” a statement at a large public gathering. My question would be more whether Kavakebian said clearly that he accepted the election — the Fars headline — or whether this was an interpretation beyond what he declared (hypothetically, he said that all should now move beyond the election — not exactly accepting it but saying that other issues should now be the priority).
3. If the source i cite is found by you to have sufficient credibity as to allay your concerns abot the accuracy of Fars’ report will you resort to claiming that Kavakabian not ‘really’ a reformist or that he is a traitor to the movement or he only represents a ‘certain faction’ or someother similar excuse as an excuse to continue trolling on this issue?
No. Kavakebian should be identified by the credentials he has established. The one proviso would be how influential Kavakebian is within current reformist/opposition circles — is he considered a leading voice in the Parliament coalition? Are his views shared by other prominent reformist MPs, if not Mousavi and Karroubi?
4. If the source I cite is found by you to be sufficiently credible, how will you to be sufficiently credible will you re evaluate the assumptions (likeley) underlined by your answers to questions 1 and 2?
News is news, and here I have to be a journalist. If Kavakebian said it, it should be reported. Full stop.
Best,
Scott
hi scott
I have a second source for the Kavekabian claim.
I am not prepared to share it with you though.
If you want my source you will have to answer me the following questions in an honest fashion
1.What sources have told you Kavakabian dismisses the legitamacy of the elections?
2. Why is it that you beleive Fars woulld lie about such an easily verifiable claim?
3. If the source i cite is found by you to have sufficient credibity as to allay your concerns abot the accuracy of Fars’ report will you resort to claiming that Kavakabian not ‘really’ a reformist or that he is a traitor to the movement or he only represents a ‘certain faction’ or someother similar excuse as an excuse to continue trolling on this issue?
4. If the source I cite is found by you to be sufficiently credible, how will you to be sufficiently credible will you re evaluate the assumptions (likeley) underlined by your answers to questions 1 and 2?
I would also ask other posters to refrain from answering scott’s call for more sources
unitl he gives us some answers to these questions.
Masoud
Salam Reza,
Since my views are not the same as Richard Dalton, that point is a red herring.
You ask what “I want to see happen”. That’s not my starting point, which is to provide news in a context where those in power have tried to restrict news-gathering and dissimenation. It is to evaluate that information so I have an understanding of what is occurring.
Beyond that, what “I want to see happen” are the basic rights that I would want to see in any country. I appreciate your opinion that post-election detainees should be released and should not have the threat of renewed detention hanging over them, that publications should be unbanned, that abuses should be investigated. I would also hope that in Iran, as in any country, there is freedom of assembly and of political activity. I would hope that the Constitution would be upheld, respected, and adhered to by all, including those in power.
But beyond those basics, it is not for me to say “what should happen” in Iran with respect to political, economic, cultural, religious, and social matters. That is for Iranians to decide.
Yours,
Scott
Salam Iranian & Iranian@Iran,
“Reason, evidence, and logic” — since, gentlemen, you have chosen to substitute invective and chest-thumping polemic, let me help you.
Evidence: Within hours of Wikileaks revealing this video — a video we knew about for weeks and which we supported Wikileaks in disclosing — we posted it. We did so as a provider of news but we also did so as a long-time critic, in our analysis, of US foreign policy.
Reason: This is the definition under international law of “crimes against humanity”:
“Acts part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion.”
It may well be that this action will be established as “part of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority”. I hope that it is considered and investigated as such, not by the US Government, but by an independent tribunal. I hope so, just as I supported a movement in 2003 trying to get referral of Britain to the International Criminal Court (the US, of course, is not a signatory) to try not only British actions in Afghanistan and Iraq but also de facto if not de jure, given Britain’s role as a “junior partner” in the conflict, US actions.
I will follow the process of what happens with this video and report on it responsibly as a journalist and as an analyst.
Logic: Try it sometime. Try it instead of resorting to a scare word like “orientalist”. Don’t cheapen “crimes of humanity” by tossing it around like a plaything because when you do, you discredit those — from all of those trying to ensure justice in Gaza to those untangling what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s to those seeking some resolution for the conflicts that have taken millions of lives in Africa to those defending the innocent, the slain, and the crippled in Iraq — who are diligently trying to ensure that the strongest possible case can and will be heard.
The funny thing is that we actually start out on the same side here — we all are repulsed by the wanton killing of civilians by military actions. But you apply a pre-condition: anyone who has dared provide news and analysis of Iran, and done so without following your lines of what is acceptable to report and argue, is to be lumped with your demons.
And that’s a pity.
Yours,
Scott
I still can’t fathom what Scott Lucas actually wants to see happen in Iran.
He thinks there is a crisis of legitimacy in Iran when no such crisis exists. There are clearly deep divisons over the direction of the Islamic Republic, but this has always been the case.
Scott, isn’t it revealing that your views are basically the same as those of the former ambassador to Iran ,Sir Richard Dalton – someone at the centre of the British Establishment?
Scott Lucas:
“crimes that might be covered up”…How absurd. Did you mean crimes against humanity that have been covered up?
Iranian@Iran:
Thank you for that. However, as you said, Scott Lucas will not accept reason, evidence, or logic…
Scott Lucas:
“crimes that might be covered up”…How absurd. Did you mean crimes against humanity that have been covered up?
Scott Lucas:
These are not crimes, they are crimes against humanity that are being carried out on a regular basis even today. Your troubling double standards are what reveal you as an Orientalist.
Liz,
It was precisely because of our concern over crimes that might be covered up that we supported Wikileaks’ efforts for months to release this video.
Scott
I’m sorry Scott Lucas, that is simply not enough. It is your government and the UK government commit crimes against humanity on a regular basis and then they go and cover up their crimes.
Tom Milstein — I couldn’t begin to untangle the threads of US-Iran-Saudi Arabian interrelations.
bits of information gathered along the way: Bob Gates and Gen. Petraeus consider SA and the Arab states to be their prime customers for produce of the US military industry. NPR reported on the most recent US presentation at the 2009 Manama Dialog under the title, “Petraues applauds Arab states arms buildup” www dot npr dot org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121498041
Gates attended the 2007 and 2008 Manama dialogs for a similar purpose — to sell US military hardware, and with a similar ‘marketing’ tactic — Iran is a threat to your security.
Some discussion of Mossad’s assassination of a Palestinian leader in Dubai claims that the act was deliberately obvious, that is, allowed to be captured on camera, as a warning to Dubai to stop acting as Iran’s off-shore banker.
a young Palestinian professor participates in a large Democratic blog. He wrote this extensive study of US-Saudi relations and their implications for Israel-Palestine: How the War on Terror was Lost: Setting the Stage
Liz,
With respect, it might be useful if you got out a bit beyond the comfort zone of RFI. We posted the video last night and have followed up with reaction to it. We also have the latest on this morning’s bombs in Baghdad.
Best,
Scott
Scott Lucas:
I agree with Iranian@Iran. We should keep the debate on this website. It is far more credible.
Also, since you have no idea what crimes against humanity mean, it would be good to take a look at just one of the many thousands of crimes committed by the US and UK:
http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Rev. Magdalen (and others, re the video from Baghdad)-
I believe you cited an article by Claudia Rosett, in support of your position the Iran’s leaders consider the US ‘enemies.’
Rosett writes for Foundation for Defense of Democracies; scratch its surface a bit, it’s not what its title would lead you to believe.
Here’s what FDD has to say about the video of US Marines killing unarmed civilians as well as their rescuers: Collateral Murder in Baghdad is anything but:
“Wikileaks … made a splash today with a video claiming to show that the U.S. military “murdered” a Reuters cameraman and other Iraqi “civilians” in Baghdad on July 12, 2007. But a careful watching of the video shows that the U.S. helicopter gun crews that attacked a group of armed men in the then Mahdi Army stronghold of New Baghdad was anything but “Collateral Murder,” …”
the website is copyrighted. read the rest of the article at the the link.
We report, you decide.
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Thank you for the link re Kavakebian. Do you have a 2nd source to verify the Fars claims and interpretation?
Scott
Tom Milstein:
“It seems obvious that this ’special relationship’ [with Saudi Arabia] is by far the weightiest factor in hamstringing American efforts to reach a modus vivendi with Iran.”
This is not intended as a comment on your post generally, but I will note that many do not find it “obvious” that the US’ “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia is the special relationship that presents the biggest obstacle to a modus vivendi between the US and Iran. There’s another one that comes to mind for most people.
Scott,
“Re QLine, feel free to stop by the EA discussion board and put this to him — I’m sure he will appreciate the dialogue.”
As others have pointed out, this website works just fine as a discussion place. QLine knows where to find us if he’d like to participate.
Eric,
Thank you for the answer re the data. Re QLine, feel free to stop by the EA discussion board and put this to him — I’m sure he will appreciate the dialogue.
Scott
Salam Iranian@Iran,
I am sorry that you are feeling unwell.
Given your interest in Afghanistan, you may wish to read the analysis on EA today by Josh Mull, “The Humanity Missing from Our Debate” (http://enduringamerica.com/2010/04/06/afghanistan-the-humanity-missing-from-our-debate/)
Mull concludes: “Respect for Afghans is sorely lacking on all sides of the Afghanistan debate. It’s 2010, nine years into the war, and we’re still talking about Afghanistan in orientalist terms. Yet it confuses and bewilders us when stories of war crimes and cover-ups seem to go unnoticed. We know why nobody wants to hear about the massacre. We don’t want to think about them as human. This has to change now.”
Scott
@MILSTEIN
Saudi Arabia is indeedworried by Iran’s influence in the region, but it is the United States that shattered the bolts that “contained” Iran for more than a decade by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Saudis are a vassal state of the American empire….their concerns don’t really matter to policy makers even if they own 7% of the US Economy.
Dear Mr. & Ms. Leverett,
I have been following your thoughtful and creative views on the “Iran problem” for some time. I recently viewed Mr. Flynt’s debate with Michael Ledeen, and your joint appearance on Charlie Rose’s program. I’d like to raise with you a question which seems to me critical to any successful attempt to cut through the Gordian Knot which this problem poses. This question has to do with Saudi Arabia , which you rarely mention in your assessment of regional affairs, notwithstanding the fact that any “grand bargain” such as you repeatedly call for (and which you analogize to Nixon’s achievement in relations with Communist China) would necessarily impact U.S. relations with that country. Why is this subject, so pertinent to the aims you pursue, off limits, so to speak?
It seems obvious that this “special relationship” is by far the weightiest factor in hamstringing American efforts to reach a modus vivendi with Iran. Indeed, to invoke the analogy of which you seem fond, the US-China rapprochement, that consummation was frustrated for decades by the shadowy role of a “China Lobby” whose power, in retrospect, was puny in comparison to that of the Saudi Lobby. Can you really deal with realignment of American policy toward Iran without tackling this subject?
Nixon and Kissinger, it is true, avoided a direct confrontation with the China Lobby by keeping the mechanics of their initiative a deep secret and then springing it on the world almost as a fait accompli. But they had grounds for such geopolitical secrecy not available to current and former administrations: the Superpower menace of the Soviet Union. I believe you have pointed out this difference between the two situations yourselves.
It is possible, of course, to argue that Saudi Arabia would not oppose an improvement in US-Iran relations. So too did the Soviet Union claim to support an improvement in US-China relations. But I think we can agree to be skeptical of such arguments.
Rev. Magdalen,
You can leave replies here even if they have multiple links — IF you change the second (and third, etc.) link so it doesn’t look like a link. For example, change:
http://www.website.com
to:
wwwDOTwebsiteDOTcom
Otherwise, your comment will be “in moderation” forever and we won’t get the benefit of your contribution on this site (which I have appreciated very much).
Eric
P.S. Incidentally, I’m so good at doing this that it has taken me three tries just to get this very comment posted. I discovered your second (and third, etc.) link cannot have EITHER dot in the example above, nor the http (etc.) characters in front of the www
Encouraging folks to call the Chinese embassy. Encourage them to vote against counter productive sanctions against Iran. Contact the Chinese embassy.
202-625-3380
Scott Lucas:
I stumbled upon this by chance and while I am pretty certain that you are unwilling to listen to reason, I’ve decided to give you the link. It’s a debate that just took place a few days ago and Kavakebian states that he accepts the elections:
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8808181512
Scott,
“There has also been a constructive engagement with your work in comments on our 5 April LiveBlog, including a lengthy comment from QLineOrientalist.”
I read QLine’s comment, and he strikes me as very intelligent. Please ask him to re-read my article carefully and then reconsider his comments. I recognize this might sound condescending and that authors often dodge serious criticisms with such a comment, but sometimes it’s justified. I think he’ll find that many of his points are already dealt with, and he’ll at least provide tougher targets for my responses if he hones his argument a bit.
Scott Lucas:
I don’t bother checking your website any more. To be honest, the double standards there are somewhat nauseating. If you have anything to say, say it here.
Scott,
Your reader asks:
“The ministry of interior released voting data by town and province rather shortly after the election. This was the data set analyzed by lots of western analysts. But then the ministry of interior released the voting breakdowns polling place by polling place. This data set is available on the MoI’s website, yet I have seen no one download it and crunch it. Why hasn’t anyone bothered to do that, given that all we have so far is an accumulation of circumstantial evidence and various accusations by candidates and their supporters?”
Please tell your reader: I have indeed crunched the data. I encourage him to do the same. I suggest he check the sources in footnote 1 of my article.
Salam Reza,
EA is covering this morning’s news from Iraq, as well as the release of the 2007 video.
Scott
@IRANIAN
It will be interesting to see what Scott Lucas makes of this video from Iraq and
reported in The Times of London of all places.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7088548.ece
Maybe the footage is not a crime but just a routine operation.
Scott Lucas:
Crimes against humanity?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
This website is much better for debates and discussions, because it is a serious website.
@SCOTT LUCAS
The vast majority of those arrested in the unrest have been released. Those still in detention should be released as part of a general amnesty, including Mr Panahi.
The 8 periodicals closed since the election should also be allowed to republish.
Any abuses of human rights should be investigated and individuals prosecuted – as with Kahrizak.
But let’s not lose sight of this: The Green movement, unlike the earlier reform movement, is the foreign-backed “color revolution” that neocons like Mike Ledeen have been threatening Iran with for over a decade now.
What do you want to see happen in Iran? Do you think the current government ought to resign and stand down? Do you want to see tough new sanctions? What exactly is your interest and agenda in all this?
Eric,
An EA source from Iran, who knows your work, has asked us:
“The ministry of interior released voting data by town and province rather shortly after the election. This was the data set analyzed by lots of western analysts. But then the ministry of interior released the voting breakdowns polling place by polling place. This data set is available on the MoI’s website, yet I have seen no one download it and crunch it. Why hasn’t anyone bothered to do that, given that all we have so far is an accumulation of circumstantial evidence and various accusations by candidates and their supporters?”
Any thoughts?
There has also been a constructive engagement with your work in comments on our 5 April LiveBlog, including a lengthy comment from QLineOrientalist.
Best,
Scott
There is a world of difference…
Salam Iranian@Iran,
Take a look at EA and you’ll see how we are covering the news from Iraq, including the video of the 2007 US military’s “collateral murder” of civilians.
Scott
Scott Lucas:
The people of Iran don’t believe that extreme human rights abuses are taking place in the country. You are the one who is supporting human rights abuses, by aiding those who are attempting to overthrow the elected president.
I’d like to see how much time you will be spending on the news about the helecopter attacks in Baghdad. Your president, I assume will soon be taking strong action against the murderers who carried out the attack and those in power who prevented the release of the footage.
Let’s see what you do now…
Rev. Magdalen, thank you for your response and kind wishes for a happy Easter.
Regarding your four paragraphs that explained your beliefs about the obligations and rules governing the situation, including your statement that:
“I am certain that simply forgetting it happened and normalizing relations, while allowing the invading country to retain the captured territory, is not an option in any of those books. That is just not how nations are legally bound to operate, even if it’s how you or I might treat an offense by a neighbor, just letting bygones be bygones.
If the IRI would like the United States to forgive the invasion of the embassy, they have to return the territory and express regret. And really, is that so much to ask? Shouldn’t it raise a red flag that the IRI still has no intentions of doing this? I would think that would be the first thing they would do if they were truly making a serious effort to make friends with the US.”
Rev Magdalen, this situation was not one of “simply letting bygones be bygones,” it was settled by a negotiated settlement mediated by the Government of Algiers and evidenced by a 14-page written and signed document known as the Algiers Accord of 1981. The terms of the Accords define the contingencies and obligations of the parties, including extensive discussion of the obligation of the US to return to Iran assets of the Iranian state, totalling in the billions of 1979 dollars, that Carter froze in the immediate aftermath of the embassy takeover. It is my understanding that the US has not fully complied with those terms; that is, the US still retains possession of Iranian assets that US pledged to return upon the release of the hostages.
In addition, Point I. of the Algiers Accords states:
The US has failed to honor that crucial term of the Algiers Accords.
Thus, Rev. Magdalen, it seems to me that the US government has done its duty towards its citizens and its property by negotiating a settlement of the matters that concern you. Unfortunately, it has failed to keep its word to carry out the terms it bound itself to in that negotiation.
You wrote, “If the IRI would like the United States to forgive the invasion of the embassy, they have to return the territory and express regret. And really, is that so much to ask? Shouldn’t it raise a red flag that the IRI still has no intentions of doing this? I would think that would be the first thing they would do if they were truly making a serious effort to make friends with the US.”
To which I am ashamed to have to reply: If Obama’s rhetoric of “extending a hand” to Iran was “truly a serious effort to make friends” with the Islamic Republic of Iran, “shouldn’t it raise a red flag that the US still has no intention of” fulfilling the obligations it agreed to when it signed the Algiers Accord?
My second question was:
Your response to that question was: “As for why I feel I have the right to express my opinion when the Leveretts have already expressed a contrary opinion, I don’t think you really meant that as a serious question so I’ll just skip to the next one …”
You must be a politician, Rev., you answered — rather, declined to answer — a different question from the one I asked. And the question I asked was, indeed, a serious question. I was NOT challenging your right to have an opinion, I was attempting to discern what knowledge and judgment you had that you considered superior to the knowledge and judgment the Leveretts applied to the matters at hand, inasmuch as you stated they may have been “sweet talked” by their contacts. I wanted to know if YOU had knowledge or contact with Iranian policymakers or influence shapers, and how you evaluated those interactions such that you were NOT misled by “sweet talk”. It was a serious question, and it remains on the table.
Regarding the three links you provided, to Iran Press Service, to a video (a cartoon, really) produced by MEMRI, and to a Huffington Post item: the Iran Press Service is not the most solid source I would rely upon: Iranian expats in Paris are more likely than not to be monarchists and would tend to slant criticisms of the Islamic Republic. I do recall reading other, similar reports that Rafsanjani said that IF Israel attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate very harshly, and that Israel is so small that Iranian retaliation would do far more harm to tiny Israel than Israel could do to much larger Iran. Its pretty ugly, but it is a contingency statement, and a defensive statement, not a threat of aggressive or pre-emptive action such as Obama will issue today, or that US and Israel have uttered against Iran on far too numerous occasions.
I tend to dismiss out-of-hand information purveyed by MEMRI. Please review the people who form MEMRI’s Board of Directors; they are the same names as those who write op-eds in LA Times and Washington Times, urging the US to bomb Iran. They do not have the best interest of the United States as their goal. That being said, though I did not watch the entire YouTube, it IS more likely than not true that the US and Israel are spying on Iran. Israel makes no secret that Mossad is operating somehow, somewhere in Iran; the US and Israel have Iran under constant satellite monitoring; the CIA has either kidnapped or ‘turned’ and Iranian scientist; the Bush administration budgeted $400 million to infiltrate Iran, and there’s no word that Obama has dismantled those efforts….
Please permit me to break off at this point. I will continue this response later.
Reza,
P.S. However, I do look rather fetching in a mask and black cape….
Scott
Salam Iranian,
To the contrary, I am not only happy to face facts but have been engaged in exchanging them with many in this discussion. (Indeed, I am still hoping to resume our discussion about supposed reformist support for the legitimacy of the election.) I suspect you’re far too shrewd, given your vocation, to believe that “in bed with the neo-cons” charge and are using it as a smoke screen.
Reza, you don’t have to turn super-spy to track me down. My career is laid out across the Internet and in publications. Smacks of desperation to bring out that CIA LINE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
Scott
James,
I had no time for the “neoconservative” approach to Iran during the Bush years and I have no time for it now. I have often criticised it on EA and will continue to do so.
Carrying news and analysis about the current political and legal situation in Iran, and ensuring that news continues despite attempts to suppress it, is not the same as supporting the imposition of “democracy” from outside, especially by force.
Iran’s future should be determined by Iranians.
Best,
Scott
Eric,
I think you’re grasping at some shaky straws to try and defend the WPO poll.
Supporting good relations with the US and/or expressing dissatisfaction with the Government’s policies (e.g., economic policies) are not exactly out-of-bounds views inside view, given that such sentiments have been expressed not only by opposition and reformist politicians but also Rafsanjani, Ali Larijani,a wide range of “conservative” legislators, and much of the Iranian media.
And some Iranians — despite the political atmosphere of August/Sept. — may have still tried to answer WPO’s questions honestly. The extrapolation is to claim, in those conditions, that all answered forthrightly. And once again, your answer tries to seal away this poll from context.
(Reza, your answer is confused between pre-election polls, exit polls, and post-election polls, as well as oblivious to the political environment, so there’s little to engage with. I will go back, however, to the GlobeScan poll which — unlike the discredited WPO effort — deserves more attention.)
Scott
Fiorangela Leone,
I posted a detailed reply to you at the same time as my replies to Mr. Brill, but because I included a high number of links, in response to your request for sources that have influenced me, my reply to you was held up in moderation. I had assumed that it would shortly be available so I did not check again, but I see it seems to still be in moderation and you have asked again for this reply so I have posted it in a third party text space to make it available to you. I regret, however, you will have to copy and past the links in this plain text version if you wish to open them. The link is: http://sharetext.org/CDQZ
You bring up an excellent point on the ethics of imposing democracy on countries by force. History has indeed shown that does not work, and it’s possible that some countries could have a lot of difficulty implementing democracy, for example if a large majority of the population is illiterate or nomadic. However, that is not the case in Iran, a nation whose people have been struggling to install democratic principles for over a century now.
Iranians are highly educated and communicative, the most blogging nation of the MidEast, and Persian is one of the top 10 languages spoken online. We do not need to worry that the Iranian people would not be capable of the responsibilities of handling a democracy, such as informing themselves of current events, debating the issues, and making good judgment calls.
Essentially it comes down to whether or not you believe these educated, communicative people truly are asking for democracy, or if such talk is a propaganda illusion, and Iranians are happy with the demonstrably nondemocratic system they now have. This is a judgment call each of us has to make on our own. In my humble opinion, there is too much evidence that Iranians want democracy for me to entertain the notion that all of the countless small, independent sources saying so are propagandists.
I completely respect your right to disagree and believe instead the IRI explanation that this is only a few insignificant troublemakers using some sort of trickery to appear more widespread than they really are, and I only ask that you please do look into the significant human rights abuses going on in Iran, and simply be aware of those as you weigh the info and opinion you come across regarding the IRI.
The problem is that these people (Scott Lucas, his angry friend,…) are not willing to face the facts. You can’t reason with them. They have an agenda and that has now made them bedfellows with the neo-cons.
Kathleen, thanks for the link and the call.
there’s a discussion on Iran-rapprochement taking place on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/tag/history/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_up_redir?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2MI40J0Y109GN&newContentID=Mx1VACC7T88BW6O#Mx1VACC7T88BW6O
some interesting exchanges
Fiorangela
You got it; this is why we have new distinguished visitor scholars, asking us to ignore the pools and sentiments, etc.
I had posted on the other tread that we may soon even see the likes of honorable first line offense trooper Michael Rubin pay us a visit.Will look forward to that, I am glad that Scott is hanging on with us. Exchange of ideas is always good.
The Leveretts must be doing something right if their blog has become the target of attempts to distract and derail dialogue advocating FOR US-Iran rapprochement.
Last Friday was able to get a plug in for the Leveretts view on Iran on the Diane Rehm show
News Roundup 2nd hour
My comment about the Leveretts at 38:02
I was not able to ask my question.
Where is the verifiable intelligence from more than one source that Iran is enriching uranium beyond what they are legally able as signatories of the NPT.
Why not keep bringing up Israel should sign the very NPT agreement that they demand their neighbors abide by
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-02/news-roundup-hour-2
Claims about repression and fear in Iran are highly exaggerated. It is largely green and western propaganda, just like the inflated numbers of people killed in the riots (the police officers and baseej volunteers don’t count as human beings to people like Scott Lucas and other new Cold Warriors). Any unbiased person who has been in Iran over the last few months would know that people on the streets, in taxis, at work, and on campuses freely criticize and attack the government. In any case, most of the polls were carried out before the elections.
@JAMES
While I don’t have any thing to support this, I suspect Scott Lucas may well have ties to the CIA just as Professor Eric Hooglund, an adjunct professor at the university of Shiraz, clearly does. His expertise on Iran makes him a prime target for their covert intelligence gathering and propaganda activities.
He is doing all that he can to discredit the Ahmadinejad government in a bid to reduce its regional influence….the CIA’s policy of “containment”.
If anyone has a copy of Scott’s CV/resume please post it here. It may offer us some clues….I am off to watch the movie SPYGAME to get some ideas about what to look for.
The name’s LUCAS…SCOTT LUCAS.
One of Lucas’s colleagues from EA has an astonishingly ignorant essay on HuffPo, which was in turn amplified with increasing ignorance on a large political/’liberal’ blog.
First do no harm, Mr. Lucas. Ignorance is harmful. To give ignorance a forum is not that much different from poisoning a well.
Eric A Brill,
Interesting pst (5:02pm April 3rd). I doubt many Americans are aware that Mousavi got more than six times as many votes as Ahmadinejad, cast by Iranian expatriates.
Scott Lucas,
I’m trying to identify your precise point of view. Are you arguing that because Iran’s democracy is perhaps not the equal of Switzerland’s, neocon efforts to discredit the Iranian government (to set up a potential third war in the Middle East/South Asia), should be reinforced by your comments?
KALEH NADARI, SCOTT?
Let’s dissect your arguments from ignorance:
“There were a high number of refusals and of “Don’t Knows” in the WPO poll, probably because of the political tension you want to dismiss.”
Only in the WPO poll of September was there a largish number of refusniks (27%).
Whether this is a sign of self-censorship or privacy, 55% of respondents nonetheless said they voted for the incumbent.
“The results weren’t “congruent” with the electoral outcome (if they were, it would be even more damaging to your case, since polls rarely match up with final results — “congruence” would raise suspicions of massaging the figures). But that’s tangential to the points I made earlier, which aren’t addressed in your post.”
What? Polls rarely match up with final results????????
What planet are you on??? In the USA, exit polls and post-election polls can be as accurate to a tenth of a percentage point!
Take a look at the Globescan poll. This is a reputable Canadian research firm for crying out loud…are you saying they were working for the Iranian government and massaging the numbers??
Its almost exactly the same as the official figures:
Ahmadinejad: 56%
Mousavi: 32%
Rezai: 2%
Karroubi:0%
Refused: 10%
“Personally, if I was in Iran in late August — weeks after nationally-televised mass trials and “confessions” denouncing Iranian contact with foreign groups — and a foreign organisation called my home, I might be a bit less than honest in my response. Personally, if I thought my phone was being tapped by security services, I would say very loudly that I thought the election was A-OK.”
I don’t buy that at all. Mousavi was approved by the Guardians council to run. Why would people lie about who they voted for when when all they did was choose one of the approved candidates? There may be some questions which they might give a less than truthful reply, like what they thought of the Islamic system or of the SL, but not about who they voted for.
Scott Lucas:
11 polls were carried out by credible institutes both inside and outside Iran, no evidence has ever be produced to show fraud at any level, tens of millions of people rallied throughout the country on the anniversary of the Revolution…There is no debate. You, of course, will continue to be a mouthpiece of pro-western, wealthy, anti-democratic elitists. Perhaps you feel that you have no other option. You knew little about Iran, yet you pretended to be an expert. You had your 15 minutes of fame and now your lack of expertise has been revealed for all to see. You are on the side of a regime that is occupying two countries, has supported the invasion of Lebanon, and whose president not only supports Israeli racism but was silent as Israel slaughted people in Gaza and continues to make them suffer today. You may think of yourself as a fredom fighter, but others see you for what you really are.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has dismissed Obama’s “extended hand” approach to Iran as empty rhetoric, will “announce a new nuclear achievement” on Friday, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, told ISNA news agency. He gave no details.
Iran `still ready to negotiate solution to nuclear stand-off`
“We told them that you are not honest and it seems like you do not want to provide (us) with the fuel and you are cheating,” he said, according to Alalam’s website.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1160968.html
Scott,
“Personally, if I was in Iran in late August — weeks after nationally-televised mass trials and “confessions” denouncing Iranian contact with foreign groups — and a foreign organisation called my home, I might be a bit less than honest in my response. Personally, if I thought my phone was being tapped by security services, I would say very loudly that I thought the election was A-OK.”
Would you have been reluctant to say you believed the Supreme Leader had too much power? That you favored better relations with the United States?
Roughly one in six of the respondents said “yes” to both questions. More than half (as I recall — I haven’t looked back at the poll, I’ll confess) said they were dissatisfied with their present system of government.
Not ideal responses if one is indeed worried about a knock on one’s door in the middle of the night.
Another good thing NOT to do if one has that worry is to march through downtown Tehran during the Muslim holiday of Ashura, setting police vehicles on fire and chanting “Death to the Leader.” But protesters did just that on December 27, 2009. Many of them. None of them wore masks, or otherwise tried to hide their faces, in the photos and videos I’ve seen.
I certainly don’t claim to know how repressive the Iranian government is, and I do not condone any form of brutality or unfair treatment. I emphasize that. But I must note that protesters at least do not hesitate to take the actions I just described. Perhaps the dozens of young protesters shown in those videos are all in prison now, or dead. I don’t know. I do know there were quite a number of them, and they made no effort to hide their faces. That’s all I know, but it did make an impression on me.
Rev. Magdalen,
My use of “liberal” was not meant to apply to anyone, including the Leveretts, in the present-day US (or anywhere else today). It was meant to apply to the well-educated, generally secular, politically active, non-radical, generally well-off, not terribly religious, dissatisfied-with-the-Shah group of Iranians that Dr. Kurzman was describing in his book. (Indeed, I’m not entirely sure Dr. Kurzman used the term “liberal,” but I’m confident he’d agree with my description of the group’s general characteristics, and probably would agree that that label would work as well as any other).
Rev. Magdalen, please pardon me for intruding in your conversation with Eric, in which you wrote:
“I agree entirely with you that the question of whether the overall Iranian political system is democratic is an important question, though that question ought to be raised as well for other countries.” I refer you to my previous comments regarding the “Johnny did it too” defense. Each country is independently responsible for pursuing democracy, regardless of what other countries do. ”
If, indeed, “Each country is independently responsible for pursuing democracy,” doesn’t that presuppose a consonant right to exercise free choice, a democratic principle? If so, by what right or mandate may country A impose democracy on country B? Wouldn’t that be a violation of Country B’s right to “independently” pursue democracy?
How can one logically impose freedom of choice on another?
nb. I read your explanation to Eric that you prefer to respond to questions one at a time, so I will patiently await your response to my questions of April 3 at 6:22 pm.
Apologies — the last two paragraphs of my reply to Reza on polls are from his original post and not from the column by Persian Umpire!
@Reza,
I had no interest in “300″ — not my type of film — and Victor Davis Hanson is a pundit who is best ignored (and, fortunately, appears to be receding from US public view, except for a fringe following). I would much prefer to consider a text like Satrapi’s “Persepolis”, which I think is far more interesting and has had more cultural resonance in the US.
But, as we’re discussing film, here is some news I noted — a letter from the wife of Iranian director Jafar Panahi, detained on 1 March:
“After a whole month in limbo, we were finally able to meet Jafar. I found him very pale, thin, and weak. Though he didn’t like to worry us and talk about his psychological and physical condition, through his words we found out that he has been moved from his previous cell to a smaller cell, or I’d better say a smaller crypt.
In his old cell he had enough space to spend some time daily on exercising, but in his new cell with a cellmate this is no longer possible, as there is only space for two people to sleep in the cell and there is no room for moving around. Also, since he was arrested a month ago, he has not been allowed to go to the prison yard for fresh air (and it has happened that he has stayed in his cell for 7-8 days without seeing anyone).
Every possible way has been used for breaking his spirit. He is deprived of his basic and legal rights. Can all of this be called anything but torture? Does a regime have he right to treat one of its artistic elite so shamefully and inhumanely on the basis of a film that has not yet been made?
During a phone call, they allowed me to take him fruits, nuts, and cookies for Nowruz [New Year], but when I went to see him, they wouldn’t let me give the items to him and only allowed me to give him some money. Jafar said he has never gone to the prison store during this time and, as such, it makes no difference to him whether he has money or not.
Though he has been strong in his interrogations and has not bowed to his interrogators, maintaining a good spirit, his face and words brim with sadness. During our meeting, for a moment, Jafar put his hand on his chest and his face contorted. Soulmaz [their daughter] and Jafar’s mother were there, so I couldn’t ask him about it.
In the past, twice he has suffered severe chest spasms and has been moved to emergency room. [Back then] his physician said the reason for the spasms was psychological and a result of his work-related problems, advising us that a continuation of this condition is dangerous and could lead to a heart attack. Aside from his holding crypt and the lengthy interrogation, I am really worried about Jafar’s physical condition. I hope all prisoners are released.”
Best wishes,
Scott
Salam Reza,
There were a high number of refusals and of “Don’t Knows” in the WPO poll, probably because of the political tension you want to dismiss.
The results weren’t “congruent” with the electoral outcome (if they were, it would be even more damaging to your case, since polls rarely match up with final results — “congruence” would raise suspicions of massaging the figures). But that’s tangential to the points I made earlier, which aren’t addressed in your post.
Personally, if I was in Iran in late August — weeks after nationally-televised mass trials and “confessions” denouncing Iranian contact with foreign groups — and a foreign organisation called my home, I might be a bit less than honest in my response. Personally, if I thought my phone was being tapped by security services, I would say very loudly that I thought the election was A-OK.
I leave it to the Iran-based blogger Persian Umpire, in an October 2009 column “Fear Factor”, to make the case with a bit of humour….
I wanted to mention the report by worldpublicopinion.org when it was first published but didn’t get a chance. Since it was referred to by Mr. Marandi – considered by many here to be on the academic front of the mouthpiece industry – in a CNN discussion on Sunday, it might be a good time to revisit the topic. The report stirred up controversy here, causing us much vexation and digestive upset.
In all honesty, I don’t know anything about polls and statistics, I am even forgetting my basic math, but to accept the results of this poll is tantamount to believing that the post-election chaos, on the streets and in the corridors of politics, must have only been a figment of our imaginations.
I don’t want to hurt their feelings, so let’s give worldpublicopinion.org A+ for effort. As for publishing the results of the effort, maybe they should have considered the health hazards and slept on it. So, they left me with no choice but to correct parts of the poll and repeat it. Unlike the original survey, the refusal rate for this one was a little less than 52%, so you can take this as solid information.
How much confidence do you have in US President Barack Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs?
I found the answer consistent with the WPO report: 16%. Then last night I asked myself the question and didn’t get a wink of sleep. I got on the internet to find out what “World Affairs” really meant.
Six hours later, I realized I wasn’t any wiser. After perusing the 38,700,000 results and getting familiar with terms such as “socioeconomic”, “geopolitical”, “interdependence”, “trade”, “foreign policy”, “global economy” and many more, I think I have to refine the question and call all those people again. In fact the question may need to be broken down, because I spent another six hours thinking about “doing the right thing”, which led me to concepts like “ethics”, “political philosophy”, “interests”, “utilitarianism”, and “eye of the beholder”.
In light of this development, I decided to leave the foreign stuff until I can further specify what I am asking these people.
Considering everything that has occurred before, during and after the elections, do you consider Ahmadinejad to be the legitimate president of Iran?
Of the 50% who answered the question, 12.5% said they belonged to either the Basij or the Sepah, and 87.5% said “considering everything that has occurred before, during and especially after the elections” they are willing to consider Ahmadinejad as higher than president if he wanted them. Hence, in post-weighing procedures I up-weighed this group and added the excess to the refusals. So the total for this question should really be “yes”.
Note: one respondent misunderstood “legitimate” as the opposite of “bastard” for which he is in trouble as his phone was wiretapped.
In general, how satisfied are you with the process by which the authorities are elected in this country?
Now this question in the report was very interesting to me, but I thought it required further probing. Here, I initially got the same numbers: a very large majority (81%) said they are satisfied with the general process, though only 40% said they were very satisfied. Sixteen percent said they are not satisfied. But when respondents were asked if they were very very satisfied, 20% said they were, and then only 10% said they were very very very satisfied.
My assistants are still on the phone with this question, incrementally adding a “very”. I will publish the results once the question is over.
In Iran how free do you think people are to express controversial political views, without fear of being harassed or punished?
To me this question should have been binary. Free, or not free. Combining “how free” with “without fear” was just confusing. Let us look at the response with a 71% rating in the WPO report: “I am somewhat free to express, without fear.” Perhaps it is just me, but I don’t understand what this phrase means. I can handle “I am free to express without fear”, or the opposite “I am not free to express without fear.” I can also process “I am somewhat free to express” and its opposite. Let me say it another way: I am either free of fear to say something, or not. I cannot be “somewhat” free of that fear.
Before going insane, I decided to rephrase the question:
Do you agree with Mr. Ahmadinejad that Iranians have “almost complete freedom”?
Lo and behold, 100% said “yes”.
Are you comfortable answering silly political questions over the phone in Iran?
I squeezed in this last but essential question to assess the reliability of my survey. 14% refused to answer because they were offended, 5% said they were comfortable, 50% said they were not comfortable and 31% responded with a single tut. I marked them as “freaked out and afraid even to say so”.
It is simply not an argument to dismiss the findings of the 3 independent polls of the Iranian public because there was “political tension” at the time. There was no one pointing a gun at the respondents – they didn’t have to agree to participate in the survey or to answer all of the questions, let alone to lie.
The results of all 3 are congruent with the official figures for ALL 4 CANDIDATES, as well as for turnout. That makes them very compelling evidence.
@SCOTT LUCAS
It is simply not an argument to dismiss the findings of the 3 independent polls of the Iranian public because there was “political tension” at the time. There was no one pointing a gun at the respondents – they didn’t have to agree to participate in the survey or to answer all of the questions, let alone to lie.
The results of all 3 are congruent with the official figures for ALL 4 CANDIDATES, as well as for turnout. That makes them very compelling evidence.
You claim not to be an orientalist, racist or western supremacist. Do you agree with myself ,and I would think all the Iranians on this forum, in condemning the movie “300″ as a particularly nasty piece of anti-Iranian propaganda, disparaging what most of us regard as a glorious past and depicting Persians as monsters (literally). Scholars close to the the Bush administration, such as Victor Hanson, praised the movie but a few also spoke out against it. I didn’t notice your comments at the time.
Scott Lucas:
The problem is that you are quite an Orientalist yourself.
Salam Rezam,
Many thanks for the opportunity to read your article on Orientalism and the Western Approach to Iran. I found much common ground between us, as well as with Dr Marandi, who takes a similar approach in his academic work and political commentary.
I am a great admirer of Said’s work, and I think Orientalism is using in explaining aspects of US political culture and foreign policy. It lies underneath work such as Huntington’s clash of civilizations and Lewis’ representations of Islam and underpins approaches such as the US policy on Israel and Arab States.
I would add three provisos:
1. Orientalism offers a general framework but it is too sweeping to say that it determines all cases. For example, in the current approach to Iran, there is a major debate within Washington circles between those who want to take an aggressive approach against Iran and those who advocate a “grand settlement” with Tehran — the latter include not only the Leveretts but also former officials such as Robert Hunter and scholars such as Juan Cole.
2. A focus on Orientalism should not be exclusive, failing to note that there may be constructions of the “West” (Occidentalism) which also affect foreign policy. Any consideration of US-Iran relations has to consider Iranian perceptions of “America” as well as American perceptions of Iran.
3. Most importantly, Orientalism should not be used as a pretext to decline any engagement with political, legal, and social issues beyond that conception. For example, consideration of issues in Iran should not be met solely on the basis of a declared “foreign intervention/manipulation/construction”.
Speaking truth to power should not be limited to speaking truth to American power.
Best wishes,
Scott
Eric A. Brill
I prefer to read and reply to posts one by one, so I did not see your second post to me on candidate pre-selection and miscellaneous details of Iranian history when I first replied to you. Thank you for refreshing my memory of those events and contributing your perspective. I regret I am unable to fathom the connection to candidate pre-selection, but your use of the word “Liberal” did remind me of something that has been bothering me for over nine months now.
Prior to the 2009 Iranian elections I had never heard of the Leveretts as far as I can recall. Of course by now I have researched them and familiarized myself with their recent analysis regarding the current situation in Iran. I read everything they write, and read transcripts of their appearances. I am always surprised to note that they are frequently introduced as “leftist” or “liberal”, apparently because they advocate not immediately bombing Iran and instead making business deals with the current leaders.
This troubles me because I am a Liberal, and my understanding of my political principles is that it is my duty to stand with the people asking for their civil rights, and not the people beating them with batons, even if, as the World Socialists insist, the boss of the baton wielders has given out many free tractors and potatoes, or even if, as the Leveretts insist, the boss wants to be friends with America. I hope the press can find another term to describe the political position of the Leveretts to reflect this distinction, though I have no idea what it would be, likely a new term should be coined.
Eric A. Brill
Thank you for your thorough reply and for bringing my attention to the sections of your report that you found pertinent to the question of whether or not Iran has democracy.
You said “I agree entirely with you that the question of whether the overall Iranian political system is democratic is an important question, though that question ought to be raised as well for other countries.” I refer you to my previous comments regarding the “Johnny did it too” defense. Each country is independently responsible for pursuing democracy, regardless of what other countries do.
You worried that, “Though true democracy clearly calls for it, I’m not sure that an election with dozens of candidates would really be best for the people of Iran or any other country.”
I myself am very relieved that true democracy means that no single person, even one as clever and dedicated as yourself, has the right to impose what he thinks would be best, instead of the thoroughly hammered out and time-tested principles of true democracy. With all due respect, I will stick with those ancient principles, although you do make a good point. Too many candidates can really create a problem; people should learn to put aside small differences and work together with others who share their main values.
You drew the comparison: “One also wonders whether Al Gore, in 2000, might have been willing to set aside his unquestioned love of democracy for just a day in order to exclude Ralph Nader from the Florida ballot. Many of his supporters were.” I can assure you, as a person who proto-liveblogged the 2000 election over IRC and Usenet, I followed every development of the election in detail, and this statement makes no sense whatsoever. I cannot actually even tell what it is meant to imply, no doubt due to my ignorance of sophisticated political intrigue.
In conclusion, you summed up, “Insistence that the Guardian Council should have approved more reform candidates brings to mind the old saying: “Be careful what you ask for.” I am not sure if that was meant to be included in your reply to me, perhaps you mistakenly pasted to the wrong user. At no point did I ever suggest the Guardian Council should approve more candidates.
I am of the opinion that having any sort of vetting council to preselect candidates in any way is the complete opposite of everything democracy stands for. It doesn’t matter what number of candidates the Guardian Council allows, because its very existence is a fatal error for democracy. All citizens must be free to offer themselves to the nation as civil servants, and be selected for office only by the choice of their peers in an atmosphere of free and robust debate.
In case you’ve read somewhere that that is not the case in America, I can assure you we have many, many candidates for nearly every election who would never pass any sort of serious inspection by any reasonable people, and sometimes they even get elected and do incredibly crazy things while in office. Then we have to kick them out and hold a special election. Democracy is a messy business, but we like it. Most people do. I’ve found that if you give people a free choice, and then ask them, “Would you like to have free choice or would you like someone else to decide for you?” they generally choose having free choice.
Salam Reza,
The WPO poll was a bad poll in the way it was conducted at a time of political tension within Iran. Full stop.
The pre-election Tehran University polls may have been most excellent surveys. There is almost no way to tell, however, because their methodology and even results were not published at the time. Indeed, they only surfaced in January when a PR event was held to re-promote the WPO poll, although there was nothing new to report.
Scott
Reza
“3 of the 4 presidential candidates were from ethnic minorities (Azeri, Lor and Bakhtiyari). This made Ahmadinejad the only Persian candidate on the ballot and it is no surprise that he did so well in the Persian heartland of Iran.”
Reza I truly do not believe ethnicity had anything to do for the votes Ahmadinijad revived in the election, except in the Baluchistan. It was all about a vigorous well-prepared grass root campaign, with a final touch of Roveian debates that nailed the outcome for Ahmadinijad.
No one knew or remembered Mousavi, he had a poor planed campaign that only went to few large cities, his programs were not well explained, his programs papers was not even published till couple of weeks before the election. Worst of all he got himself associated to Rafsanjani (he needed to be founded), everywhere in Iran wrong, or right he is the doyen of corruption. After all, he had a real poor performance in his debate ill prepared for a vigorous debater like Ahmadinijad, whom heroically seats and debates every western reporter on the horizon. Therefore, it was obvious from the set go Ahmadinijad will win, what that was not known to the reformers
was, how much the system, and Ayatollah Kahamenie is willing to tolerate their known tactic of Pressure from Bellow Negotiation on the Top.
Ayatollah Khomeini’s first Friday prayer speech made it clear that the greens have gone too far by denouncing the GC, now they are questioning the constitution.
I completely support and agree with Mr. Khameni’s stand in that point, this was a red line too far to cross. This exact point was the precise aim of the foreigners’ agenda for a color revolution. If he had budged at that point for sure, they could not stop what would have fallowed. I am glad for a good call by him.
The Israeli regime plans to send its top military strategist to China this week to convince Beijing to back sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program.
Head of Tel Aviv army’s planning directorate Major General Amir Eshel intends to serve Beijing with ‘renewed’ threats of military strikes against Iran, wishing to persuade China to follow along with the US-led push at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to impose a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, British weekly newspaper The Sunday Times reported today.
According to the weekly, a subsidiary of the multi-national press conglomerate The News Corporation owned by Jewish media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Eshel will warn officials in Beijing that an Israeli military attack on Iran could disrupt oil supplies to China and its rapidly.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122430§ionid=351020104
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103266122457&s=107098&e=001Fmnlho3-86mxgR7-hrxaqtpIQdytdi_iS0uqfgNhARabJWwuhqEthVf3sABPmlP_VQzQHl5XmbNyE0mx5m2VhSKg5OCztf7KKUatb0277rW5NGtXRQ10Fz41o6FSO3lWncpCaSXiE09tEGJj1sCl8ltkThnwxKvlPWrmux9Q6mPTBn9kiO-qsQ==
Ahmadinejad condemned Israel’s continued crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, stressing that the Tel Aviv regime is the sole obstacle to the establishment of peace and security in the region.
He dismissed US accusations regarding an “Iranian intention to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels,” adding such claims are highly ironic coming from countries which possess and continue to develop vast nuclear arsenals that have been tested and even used in military confrontations.
Under international law, Ahmadinejad said, Western countries are obliged to provide Iran — without out preconditions — with the specified amount of fuel it requires for the Tehran research reactor, which plays the vital role of producing medical isotopes.
Due to their refusal, Ahmadinejad continued, Iran reserves the right to domestically enrich uranium up to 20 percent in order to meet the demands of thousands of Iranian patients, who desperately need post-surgery drug treatment with nuclear medicine.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122339§ionid=351020101
Is SCOTT LUCAS claiming what I think he is claiming?
“2) “multiple polls” which turn out to be the even shakier WPO September 2009 survey and the University of Tehran polls that suddenly turned up seven months after they were supposedly compiled; 3) the Leveretts’ assertions, which in fact rely on 1) and 2).”
That would appear to insinuate that the Tehran university polls were cooked up because they were not published immediately….this coming from an “adjunct professor” of the university!
Let’s just see what the 3 independent polls gave.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/652.php?lb=brme&pnt=652&nid=&id=
——————————————————————–
GLOBESCAN (June 19-24, 2009)
Did you vote?
86% YES (85% officially)
Who did you vote for?
AHMADINEJAD:56% (62% officially)
MOUSAVI: 32% (34% officially)
REZAI: 2% (2% officially)
KARROUBI:0% (1% officially)
REFUSED/NA: 10%
————————————————-
WORLD PUBLIC OPINION (August 27-September 10, 2009)
Did you vote?
87% YES (85% officially)
Who did you vote for?
AHMADINEJAD:55% (62% officially)
MOUSAVI: 14% (34% officially)
REZAI: 3% (2% officially)
KARROUBI:1% (1% officially)
REFUSED/NA: 27%
————————————————-
UNIVERSITY OF TEHRAN (June 18-25)
Did you vote?
89% YES (85% officially)
Who did you vote for?
AHMADINEJAD:61% (62% officially)
MOUSAVI: 30% (34% officially)
REZAI: 2% (2% officially)
KARROUBI:0% (1% officially)
REFUSED/NA: 7%
Now, does anyone see these as “shaky” in any way…I see them as “compelling and consistent evidence of an authentic outcome”.
Salam Pirouz,
I think it’s fair to say that “objectivity” lies in the eyes of the beholder. Your assertion that we have clarity beyond doubt rests on 1) a “thoroughly investigated” election which rests on 1) a very shaky (in process and in its selection of evidence) Guardian Council report which has not been accepted by all opposition candidates, many leading politicians, and senior clerics as well as activists; 2) “multiple polls” which turn out to be the even shakier WPO September 2009 survey and the University of Tehran polls that suddenly turned up seven months after they were supposedly compiled; 3) the Leveretts’ assertions, which in fact rely on 1) and 2).
But you’re on firmer ground when you argue that “legitimacy” depends on “a specific audience” which has to find the post-election Government “relevant”. That’s an important point which takes us beyond 12 June. Significant sections of the Iranian public have not accepted this Government or challenged its authority on judicial and legal issues, Constitutional matters, and economic policy as well as its political claims.
That’s why the Government continues to keep hundreds, if not thousands, of post-election detainees in prison without charge or with lengthy sentences imposed with little or no evidence (or, in other cases, to allow release on bail on strict condition that the detainee not utter a word of criticism or political comment). To let those people go free would risk the escalation of public challenge.
Throwing out the line — you’re biased; we’re not — is the Emperor’s New Clothes in the face of such post-election realities.
Best wishes,
Scott
Salam Reza,
Thank you for the link to your article. I look forward to reading it and will respond tomorrow.
Scott
“I have argued that it was not transparent and thus the process has raised persistent questions over the legitimacy of the Government.”–Scott Lucas
Well, the issue of transparency has been clarified to the point where it must be conceded, the June 2009 election was more thoroughly investigated and analyzed than perhaps any other in Iranian history.
And the question of legitimacy actually refers to a specific audience- does it not? The relevant questions which should be asked are 1) Does this audience constitute a majority or a vocal minority? 2) Is this audience actually relevant to the ongoing workings of the IRI government? 3) Has this audience decreased in scope over the past nine months?
These questions (and more) the Leveretts have addressed, as have multiple polls.
Scott, you can continue to beat the drum of legitimacy all you like, but like America after its election in 2000, actual relevancy becomes the greater issue.
I submit that many in the West got so caught up in the moment that they overextended their expectations of the GM, and in so doing lost all sense of objectivity. As such, their forthcoming analyses are biased and flawed, to the point where they are unreliable. Scott, you appear to fit neatly into this category.
Kooshy,
Thanks for the Yazd link.
Eric
@KOOSHA
Don’t forget that Ayatollah Khamenei’s father is an Azeri Turk (from the same village as Mousavi) and his mother is from Yazd.
3 of the 4 presidential candidates were from ethnic minorities (Azeri, Lor and Bakhtiyari). This made Ahmadinejad the only Persian candidate on the ballot and it is no surprise that he did so well in the Persian heartland of Iran.
I agree with you that the improvements in the country’s infrastructure have been incredible over the last 4 years. My family is from the Delijan-Tafresh area near Arak, and its obvious that people have facilities now they didn’t have in the past.
But the people of Shemiranat and Vanak think that all the government money, and all the votes, should go to them.
Reza
“I think most people, myself included, expected Mousavi to do better and Ahmadinejad to do worse. What was surprising was not so much the margin of victory, as the 24 million votes the incumbent received. But we forget that this man has been in “campaign mode” for the last 4 years, touring every district across the country, and an official election campaign lasting just 3 weeks was hardly going to cause an upset.”
Reza, last April I circled and crossed the central parts of Iran for over a week, south to Yazd east to Semnan and west to Hamadan, we did not visit or even stopped in large cities, just small villages and towns, and no highways just rural roads. On this trip I accompanied, two well-known Iridologist scholars, who have traveled every corner of Iran in last 70 years, both emeritus past professors of UT department of History, with us was also a, US practicing Azeri Iranian medical doctor.
In my opinion, its notable to notice that the social structure of villages in Iran are completely changed, this is mostly due to new roads, TV, land lines, cell phone, water, health clinics and electricity, above all the working young are more likely working in the cities. Girls not only are going to school but they are dormed and bossed away from home if their village does not poses a high school, and that is cool with their elder parents something that was unthinkable back in 70’s at our summer house village near Gachsar just 2 hours north of Tehran.
Coming back from the trip, I knew that Ahmadinijad will win the coming summer election, with large margins, nearly everyone I meet, some old villagers and farmers were going to vote for the first time. All this because Ahmadinijad had personally showed up in the village, or had sent one of his ministers and promised to build or do something for them. I got the sense that he recognized a silent majority, which in past, was not considered in the Iran politics, as we knew it. I personally believe he has changed the Iran’s political dynamic forever. Mr. Khatami being a Yazdi realized the dynamics early on and pulled back; guess what, he sent in the Turk and Mousavi still cannot believe it.
Reza sorry if you are Turk no intention to insult just the usual hummer, any relations to Dr. Kaveh Esfandiari
My regards
Eric, Here is Yazd
http://virtual.yazdchto.ir/en/cities/yazd/scene/jame/jame01.html
Scott, thank you for the link.
Eric, No, Rev. Magellen has not responded to my questions.
Came across two items of interest: WSJ reported yesterday that valves used in uranium enrichment are being shipped to Iran, in violation of sanctions. US Treasury dept will investigate. http online dot wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303450704575160242131138472.html?KEYWORDS=iran
my thoughts: 1. US machine makers used to make those parts.
2. Does anyone else find it ludicrous that we are paying our government (Treasury Dept/Stuart Levey) to BLOCK the shipment of goods and services to a country that supplies a vital commodity that the world needs, thereby increasing the cost of that commodity to Americans, while simultaneously denying unemployed Americans the opportunity to compete in manufacturing those goods and services to a young and dynamic market?
second item: Avner Cohen has written an op ed, published in Haaretz (I saw it on CASMII’s site www dot campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9727) about Israel’s incoherent and simplistic nuclear policy and Israel’s fulminations about Iran. iirc, Ian Lustick named Avner Cohen as one Israeli who was forced to flee to the US from Israel because he researched Israel’s nuclear program. In Israel, Lustick explained, mention of the “third temple” is strictly forbidden; it is the only offense for which Jewish Israelis can be punished as harshly as Arab Israelis (www dot edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv )
Kamran,
Was it you who posted the link on Yazd for Fiorangela? If so, would you mind reposting it? Thank you.
Eric
@SCOTT LUCAS
I think you ought to read my article in Al-Jazeera magazine of last year.
http://aljazeera.com/news/articles/39/Dealing-with-Iran.html
It helps explain where I am coming from.
Scott Lucas:
We all see your double standards.
Fiorangela,
You had asked Rev. Magellan:
“What is your source for this information? It’s a very serious charge; please share with us the evidence so that we can share your concern and throw our weight behind righting this wrong, if it is warranted.”
Did Rev. Magellan ever respond?
Liz,
When you have looked at the news and analysis on the site — we pay a great deal of attention to Gaza and were one of the few outlets to LiveBlog the Gaza War in 2008/9 — get back to me.
Scott
Kooshy,
Thank you. The logo is meant to raise questions about what “America” is — note also the bottletop — rather than an endorsement of the Pentagon or an America is Right position.
Scott
Scott Lucas:
All of your information is one-sided and biased. You assume whatever your green friends and green websites state to be true, despite the fact that they’ve been proven to be dishonest time and time again. You should stick to American and Canadian studies. However, it seems that you can’t be trusted on that front either. Obama was silent on Gaza when Israel was slaughtering people and you have the audacity to say that Iran is carrying out crimes against humanity!
Scott
Beside the name change, you may also want to, reconsider that pentagon shape Logo you have on the site,
god forbid some may think that you are part of the “Department of Disney” and connected to magical world.
Good luck
Salam Fiorangela,
The blog is Enduring America (soon to be renamed EA WorldView): http://www.enduringamerica.com.
Scott
Salam Reza,
Thank you very much — I did not know about the Buddhi case. Am beginning to look into it, including a search for court records, but would be grateful for any links you have available.
Scott
Iranian @ Iran, with respect, I think the statements you cite should be attributed to Rev Magdalen.
Scott Lucas, do you have a web-site or blog of your own?
SCOTT.
Simple question: Do you think the US government is illegitimate over the arrest and continuing detention of VIKRAM BUDDHI (not to mention Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Buddhi
I emailed Joel Simon of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) about Mr Buddhi’s case – I asked why CPJ was so engrossed with the situation in Iran but not with American bloggers marched off to jail by the FBI and CENTCOM for opposing the “War on Terror” and “jeopardising national security”. He declined to comment.
Salam Reza,
Simple repetition of your assertions are not responses in a discussion, even if you put them in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
Pejoratives like “mealy-mouthed”, rather than addressing the points I have set out in response to Eric’s work and comments, are no more than shouting in an echo chamber.
Yours,
Scott
These are SCOTT LUCAS’ mealy-mouthed words:
“I have argued that(the election) it was not transparent and thus the process has raised persistent questions over the legitimacy of the Government.”
Nonsense. The election was monitored by candidate representatives, as well as those from the Interior Ministry, Guardians council and the judiciary’s national inspectorate.
The results of all 45,632 ballot boxes were made known FOR THE FIRST TIME in Iran’s electoral history. You don’t get more transparent than that. A Partial recount of 10% of those ballot boxes was also conducted as well as an investigation into the various claims of fraud.
As Eric has pointed out to you, repeatedly, this makes looking for any fraud dead easy – also, if Mousavi really wanted, the handrwriting and fingerprints of all 40 million voters are on the stubs of the ballots.
Why can’t you just admit that you were wrong and concede that , while some may well question the legitimacy of the election (including my own cousin living in Tehran), they are just an embittered minority and sore losers?
Salam Iranian@Iran,
An example of the information from inside Iran that comes to us:
“Last week the family of detained journalist Emaduddin Baghi met him at Evin prison. He is suffering from “exacerbation of his respiratory disease”. On the first day of Nowruz (Persian New Year) on the 20th March, Emad had been moved to hospital thanks to another heart attack. After a few hours in hospital that night, he was transferred to his solitary confinement.
According to his wife, “prison authorities are well aware of his medical history and ill health, but take no consideration of it”. She also maintained that interrogation branches of the Revolutionary Court have been transferred to Evin Prison which has made it “impossible” for the defense attorneys “to access their clients’ files”.
Meanwhile, the security agents invaded Emad’s home and insulted his family and beat Mr. Ghochani (his son-in-law).”
Best,
Scott
Salam Reza, Iranian@Iran,
Almost all of my information, and that posted on EA, comes from reliable sources inside Iran.
And if you’re going to be bitter-mouthed, at least get my argument straight: I have never claimed, here or on EA, that the election was stolen. I have argued that it was not transparent and thus the process has raised persistent questions over the legitimacy of the Government.
Iranian@Iran, your last post should go to Rev. Magdalen, who made both of the statements you quote.
Best wishes,
Scott
Scott Lucas:
You said:
“I don’t accuse the Leveretts of deliberately misleading people, but I think it’s possible that even though they are highly intelligent scholars, they may be deceived themselves by Iranian contacts who deliberately sweet-talk them with promises of international friendship that the actual decision-makers may have no intention of honoring. ”
Do you mean your “old friend” Professor Marandi? You are quite a hypocrite, aren’t you? In any case, the Leveretts have a great more experience that you do and they have actually worked on Iran and they have recently been to Iran.
You also said:
“There are serious crimes against humanity being committed in Iran right now, and to suggest that the United States ought to look the other way and make nice to the regime committing those crimes, ”
Crimes against humanity? Are you in charge of propaganda now? Perhaps you meant England, the US, and Israel? Perhaps you were thinking about Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, theWest Bank, and Gazza?
Scott. This is really pathetic to claim that an election is invalid because your preferred candidate didn’t win and that you are frustrated and disappointed as a result.
A principle of democracy is accepting the will of the majority.
It is obvious that you would be happy to impose a minority-based tyranny on the Iranian nation.
Now, make up your mind:
Was the election stolen or not? If not, the current government is legitimate..end of story.
Scott Lucas:
How do you know? Have you been in Iran since the elections? The overwhelming majority of Iranians believe that the results were valid and it is only obsessed foreigners like you as well as a group of extremists in Iran who say otherwise. Most of those who voted for Mousavi gradually saw that he had no evidence and they do not accept your claims. You can go on claiming whatever you like. I’m sure you are making some people in DC happy.
Salam Kooshy,
I share with you the perception that there was great, perhaps unprecedented, excitement and enthusiasm over the June Presidential elections. I can recall the images of thousands of Iranians watching big-screen coverage of the debates and of mass rallies for all candidates. An 85% turnout reflected the hope and enthusiasm that the Republic was opening up a political space for all Iranians to make their voices heard.
However, I think that may have made the disappointment, frustration, and even anger greater in the days after the election. If many in that 85% feel that their participation was minimised or dismissed because of the process on 12/13 June, then the promise of the Republic and democracy is dashed. And, in some ways, wouldn’t that be a greater disappointment than never having had the hope of participation?
In short, I think that 85% figure can be used by regime defenders to claim Iran fulfilled the promise of democracy. It can be used by others to demand to this day, “Where is My Vote?”
Thank you for the link, which I look forward to viewing, as Dr Marandi is an old friend of mine.
Have a wonderful Sizdeh Bedar.
Scott
Scott
Since the last June elections, I have read a few dozen reports and analysis about the election by Iranian and non-Iranian analyst, like yourself.
What substantially is missing in majority of this last June’s presidential election analysis is, that no one is focusing or willing to mention, there really was a fifth candidate that took all the votes from nearly 85% of all the eligible voters of Iran, that is the regime itself, the current Iran’s form of government, that currently is represented by the supreme leader.
I have not yet seen anybody debating that election; we may argue for months that the vetting system is undemocratic and unfair,however, there was no vetting system for the regime itself, folks that had problem accepting the regime should not have bothered to participate in the election and apparently just 15% did not, a far less than any US or UK elections. If I remember correctly, you and I do not participate in US elections, perhaps because we do not agree with the way elections, are conducted here. Nerveless a weaken 50-55 percent form of democracy is in place and is governing.
One of the Green movement / Reformist fundamental mistakes, that substantially weaken their position, was none other than Mr. Khatami’s call for a referendum.
Like me, Mr. Khatami is from Yazd, I know for fact that because of this wrong call his favorable standing there has been substantially weaken, in his home province and one the only provinces that Mr. Mosavie won because of him. Therefore calling for a referendum on the legitimacy of the regime by the greens and in particular by Mr. khatami was ill advised since nearly 85% participated to vote for the regime.
Now the question in this forum is, if the US, does accept the democratically chosen form of Iran’s current government, which just recently got votes of 85% of eligible voters of the country, a far bigger percentage that what Mr. Obama and Mc Cain could have attracted in their election,. If it does then as Fiorangela said it is none of their business who is in charge of the government in Iran.
Regarding the new media and reporting
“At the same time, there is the emergence of a media culture — whether it is called alternative media, social media, or new media — which both challenges and goes beyond the “mainstream”. I’m proud that EA is part of that culture.”
I totally agree with you that, internet and bloggers/ occasional reporters like us in a few more years, will make the likes of BBC, Reuters, AP, CNN, FOX or NYT totally irrelevant. I have stopped reading or viewing, the western press since without needing to read, I know what likes of David Sanger or Roger Cohen will report, for me they are already irrelevant.
Dr. Marandi has made a very interesting live interview in Persian with internet questioners, The main topic is western media, in Alef.ir web site, here is the link http://alef.ir/1388/content/view/67031/
Sorry I did not have time to translate tomorrow is LA’s Sizdeh Bedar
Rev Magdalen, I am interested to learn some context for your repeated argument concerning the US embassy in Tehran, and your insistence that Iranian leadership hold attitudes of enmity towards the US. What is the source of your impressions, your thoughts, your information?
Specifically, you wrote: “I don’t accuse the Leveretts of deliberately misleading people, but I think it’s possible that even though they are highly intelligent scholars, they may be deceived themselves by Iranian contacts who deliberately sweet-talk them with promises of international friendship that the actual decision-makers may have no intention of honoring. ”
What contacts, sources of information, etc. do YOU have that cause you to consider your assessment of realities and attitudes among the Iranian leadership to be more accurate than those of the Leveretts?
You stated, “There are serious crimes against humanity being committed in Iran right now, and to suggest that the United States ought to look the other way and make nice to the regime committing those crimes, ”
What is your source for this information? It’s a very serious charge; please share with us the evidence so that we can share your concern and throw our weight behind righting this wrong, if it is warranted.
I should point that my article only deals with making sense of the figures…it is fundamentally a rejonder to the Chatham House report which was hurriedly prepared in the wake of the poll.
Eric’s report includes all of the other pertinent issues associated with the election such as the various claims of fraud etc, in addition to the numbers. Its an astonishingly well-researched and detailed piece….but then it was authored by a Harvard-trained lawyer.
Unfortunately, I think the mainstream media will choose to ignore it….but I think we should bring it to their attention when the anniversary of the election comes about in June and they start talking again about the “stolen election of last year”.
Reza,
Interesting observations, especially about the strong pro-Mousavi slant of Iranian expatriates. (82% of Iranians who voted outside Iran voted for Mousavi. 12% voted for Ahmadinejad.)
By the way, if you haven’t read Reza’s “Rejoinder” to Dr. Ali Ansari’s Chatham House “Preliminary Analysis…,” I highly recommend it (http://www.iranaffairs.com/files/iranian-election.pdf). Reza has been a great help to me, and I think his “Rejoinder” was the best of the many post-election analyses.
Rev. Magdalen,
“Democracies don’t pre-select candidates based on the rules of one particular clique’s interpretation of one particular religion.”
Most democracies don’t. Iran’s does. Other democracies have their own flawed ways of pre-selecting candidates. If they did not, after all, many or most elections in such countries would often have dozens of candidates on the ballot. Can you think of any democracies that typically have elections like that? I can’t. The closest I can come, in fact, is Iran, which has had as many as 10 candidates running for president. Many approved presidential candidates have not been what I would call religious zealots (Mousavi comes to mind).
And, in “come one, come all” elections, the usual result is that one or two candidates get all the votes -– usually the same one or two candidates that would get all the votes if no other candidates were on the ballot. The lesser candidates either fight meaninglessly over the spoils or, worse, actually thwart the will of the voters by siphoning off votes from a candidate who would have one if fewer candidates had been on the ballot. I’m not at all sure that’s the best result for the people of the country, but that’s what “true democracy” can produce.
I emphasize that I do not mean to say that I agree with Iran’s method of pre-selecting candidates. I merely hesitate to lurch to the other extreme without considering very carefully whether the predictable consequences would be preferable in practice.
Your raising of this issue reminds me of Charles Kurzman’s book, The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran (highly recommended to me by Dr. Gary Sick, an astute Iran analyst now teaching at Columbia – though I don’t mean to suggest that Dr. Sick and I agree generally on Iran). Dr. Kurzman explained that the overthrow of the Shah required the combined effort of several groups – secular liberals, Islamists, students, striking (and other) workers, and others. That was hardly an original or profound observation, though that did not matter since it was not Dr. Kurzman’s central point (which, instead, was that the revolution happened largely because the various participants gradually came to believe that it COULD happen, and thus participated in greater and greater numbers and with greater and greater zeal, so that it DID happen).
Dr. Kurzman’s account nonetheless was interesting. He explained that many prominent liberals in Iran had long hoped/believed that the Shah could be persuaded peacefully to ease up a bit, and they had had some limited success with their peaceful approach. The Islamists, of course, harbored no such illusions. Many liberals eventually concluded that they ought to hitch their wagon to the Islamist star, at least long enough to get rid of their common enemy, and that is what happened.
When the dust cleared, however, as nearly always happens after a revolution, the liberals were yanked back to reality: they didn’t really see eye to eye with their temporary allies on a lot of issues. They were disappointed, for example, to learn that the draft (and eventually the final) Iranian constitution had all this Islam stuff in it – who had asked them? In short, they were shocked, shocked – and remain to this day shocked, shocked – that the Islamists, who had been by far the strongest group in the ad hoc coalition formed to oust the Shah, had insisted on writing the rules once the Shah was gone. Some participants in the overthrow of the Shah (the liberals, for example) felt they were just getting rid of the Shah; others thought they were participating in a revolution; still others (the Islamists) thought they were participating in an Islamic revolution. And – guess what – it was this last group that got to write the rules — not to mention the official history books.
And those rules are still in place. I am not saying this is how it ought to be in Iran but, as most Americans’ once-favorite news anchor, the avuncular Walter Cronkite, used to say at the end of his evening newscast: “That’s the way it is.”
@KOOSHY
I read somewhere that 87% of Iranian-Americans believe the election was rigged. Not surprising, as >80% of those who voted in the election did so for Mousavi.
Unfortunately, I think this exposes something about we Iranians ourselves – we are too emotional ,regardless of what our political views are, and find it difficult to be rational and calm.
If anything good can come out the mess of last year, its that cooler heads need to prevail in a crisis where one side feels it has been wronged.
@ERIC
I think most people, myself included, expected Mousavi to do better and Ahmadinejad to do worse. What was surprising was not so much the margin of victory, as the 24 million votes the incumbent received. But we forget that this man has been in “campaign mode” for the last 4 years, touring every district across the country, and an official election campaign lasting just 3 weeks was hardly going to cause an upset.
But, you’re right. The disaggregated polling data was released, and this makes it easy enough to verify whether the results are authentic based on what the monitors signed off and declared as valid. I didn’t mention it in my report, but in some parts of the Sunni province of Sistan va Baluchestan, Ahmadinejad actually came THIRD in the results of some of the ballot boxes and Mousavi was getting 80-90% of the vote. So, if they did make the numbers up, they clearly did a good job of it.
Kooshy,
“Since the election, here in LA I have debated this issue couple thousands times, even with my own close friends and relatives. To sum up and conclude, for those Iranians that they disapprove the system, regardless of how persuasive and factual your argument is, they refuse to accept the results.”
Thanks. I gathered that about the LA crowd from my email exchanges with Muhammad Sahimi, who, as you undoubtedly know, teaches at USC and writes for the Tehran Bureau. I think I speak for both Muhammad and I when I say that Muhammad does not consider me to be his best buddy.
Eric
Since the election, here in LA I have debated this issue couple thousands times, even with my own close friends and relatives.