Iran (cue singing of 'Tehran is On Fire' to tune of Sex On Fire)

[Govinda]

The lovely people at HuffingtonPost have a liveblog with updates, the best I can find: Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising


Right, so. For those of you who are new to this, the reformist candidate in the Iranian elections, Mr Mousavi, lost in the election. This has sent Iran into a kind of spree which really does resemble the fervour of their last revolution. I can't really say I blame them.

The turnout was massive. Most people knew something was wrong when Mousavi and Ahmadinejad both declared vistory at the same time. The dust settled from that, and official sources declared Ahmadinejad the winner with 63% of the vote, which is huge.

Swiftly following that, foreign media had their cameras and so on confiscated and were detained in a hotel. They're still there. The lack of actual TV footage surrounding this is because Ahmadinejad has put the country on some kind of communications lockdown. The BBC have been ordered out immediately, a German techinician is still missing, a Canadian journalist was beaten by police.

So the city is rioting. Young people, usually wearing something green, are angry and saying that this is the tipping point. The university is being attacked by Ahmadinejad supporters after 120 of its faculty resigned over the 'sham' election. Mousavi himself is under house arrest, apparently, though is planning a major rally soon.

Ayatollah Khomenei, Iran's totally undemocratic but super-powerful Grand Leader, has declared the election a-ok. But he wanted Admadinejad to win anyway. Still, his word means a lot, and is final.

So, questions.

How do you think the West should react? Should we declare our support for Tehran's rioters, but in doing so risk making it seem as if the riots are supported, or inspired, by the West? Doing so could be dangerous, because Iran doesn't look kindly on forgien influence, and the support of Obama/Brown/Sarkozy etc could just give more fuel to Ahmadinejad's supporters.

Do you think the election was rigged?

Is this going to be another revolution?

Would you rather Mousavi were in charge? Bear in mind that he still wants to pursue nuclear enrichment, though perhaps it'd be easier to believe him when he says it's for civilian purposes, but therefore also harder to justify an attack if governments don't believe him but we do.

What impact do you think this will have on world politics if there is some kind of revolution? What consequences for the Middle East, for Israel, and for us?

[RagnaToad]

This is way to complicated for me to analyse right now.

I find Iran the most nauseating country in the world as it is, and I feel sorry for (apparently) 36+ % of the population there. Keeping the media out is so typical and raises the question of whether it was a genuine fair election.

I'm not going to go further into this for now, cause I'll just complain about "everything Iran". I despise the country as it is, and this news flash isn't exactly making it better.

Once again, I really feel sorry for the University students who live in a country where parts of the internet are illegal to go to and women can't be a judge in a court of law. But it's still what I associate with Iran, so too bad for them, but I really can't stand the way things are going around there.

I'll try and respond to your questions when I'm feeling less annoyed.

peace,

Rags

[rJ floW]

It will not matter...this is why CNN puts this garbage on, to get "introspective" thoughts...

but seriously

corruption will remain cause it won the election, either it was corruption due to authoritative power or the manipulation of that. so why worry?

Just worry about YOUR life and bettering YOUR stance!

thats how the "system" thrives" the best

[Walter Sobchak]

Ideally, the Iranian protesters will kidnap Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, and Rafsanjani. They should take them to the street and behead them. Hell, do it to Mousavi as well, because the funny thing is that the entire West thinks he is this great reformer, yet was allowed to run within the framework of the Iranian theocracy. He is one or two notches better than the tyrant, but the President of Iran is largely symbolic.

We could be seeing a transformation in the region, from the results in Lebanon to a possible overthrow of government in Iran. It is pretty stunning what a speech can Cairo can help accomplish.

[Govinda]

We could be seeing a transformation in the region, from the results in Lebanon to a possible overthrow of government in Iran. It is pretty stunning what a speech can Cairo can help accomplish.

Do you really think Obama's speech had something to do with this? Isn't it more the fact that 70% of the population are under 30 and pissed?

[Casanova[OCAU]]

All I have to say is. DANG Iranian women are hot. Almost worth moving down just to hook up with one. Iran's Presidential Election - The Big Picture - Boston.com

Anyway, to all of those that speak crap about 'hating Iran'. What can I say. At least the people there have the balls to go out onto the streets, protest and force change. Quite unlike another country where their previous president was elected over what was essentially election fraud. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran 'to hold election recount'
Also, to those that still bang on about build nukes, obliterate Israel bla bla bla, Learn something.
Informed Comment

[Sasquatch]

Ideally, the Iranian protesters will kidnap Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, and Rafsanjani. They should take them to the street and behead them

Yes, because an "ideal" situation would be the beheading of their potential leaders, instead of a peaceful transfer of power.

Hell, do it to Mousavi as well, because the funny thing is that the entire West thinks he is this great reformer, yet was allowed to run within the framework of the Iranian theocracy. He is one or two notches better than the tyrant, but the President of Iran is largely symbolic.

So they should kill the guy that's better, because he's not good enough?

We could be seeing a transformation in the region, from the results in Lebanon to a possible overthrow of government in Iran. It is pretty stunning what a speech can Cairo can help accomplish.

As has been mentioned, you don't honestly think that Obama's speech had a damn thing to do with this, do you? Surely, you're not that much of an ignorant sheep.

All I have to say is. DANG Iranian women are hot. Almost worth moving down just to hook up with one.

They are for a while, sure. 16-30 or so. Once they hit 35, though ... it ain't even like they go downhill, it's more like falling off a cliff. It's no wonder they make 'em wear the robes and veils.

Anyway, to all of those that speak crap about 'hating Iran'. What can I say. At least the people there have the balls to go out onto the streets, protest and force change. Quite unlike another country where their previous president was elected over what was essentially election fraud.

I'm sure you're smart enough to be talking about a country other than the United States, but I'm not sure which you're referring to. Considering the fact that, despite how many recounts have been done, the previous President of the United States won fair and square in both of his elections, including gaining the majority of the popular vote in 2004, something no Democrat had done for nearly thirty years.

Also, to those that still bang on about build nukes, obliterate Israel bla bla bla, Learn something.
Informed Comment

Hahahahah -- yes, because a liberal making unprovable accusations against "agents of the Right", completely refusing to give any evidence to support them, is completely credible.

[Walter Sobchak]

Do you really think Obama's speech had something to do with this? Isn't it more the fact that 70% of the population are under 30 and pissed?

Of course the demographics were more of an effect. I leave the notion of speaking in absolutes to superheroes and clergymen. However, when you look at the results in Lebanon versus what many people expected (a takeover by Hezbollah), a variety of observers have given Obama's speech some credit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/wo...09lebanon.html
Lebanon feels the Obama effect | Simon Tisdall | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

So you logically have to take it one step further. Anyone who has followed the riots knows that the youth who have supported Mousavi have been connected through technology, whether it has been texting or the Internet. Surely such a savvy group has been a witness to the speech, as well as the results in Lebanon.

After all, the only real public opinion poll done in Iran had Ahmadinejad leading by a margin of 2 to 1, but as time went on analysts began to expect a Mousavi victory. Some of that was due to campaigning, as Mousavi's name spread across the country, but the President from the West who was not threatening to bombard them with belligerent soldiers, kill their sons, and rape their daughters had a hand in such an outcome.

Iran election scrutinized for 'Obama effect'
Wildcard in Iran election: Obama | csmonitor.com

Your Scottish standoffness may lead you to deny such ideas, but surely the high spirits that come to you as a result of your birthday will help you understand my conclusion.

[RagnaToad]

Anyway, to all of those that speak crap about 'hating Iran'. What can I say. At least the people there have the balls to go out onto the streets, protest and force change. Quite unlike another country where their previous president was elected over what was essentially election fraud.

If you are referring to me, I believe it was very clear that I was criticising the Iranian government, not the population, and certainly not the 37% that voted for change (ha, where've I heard that before).

And I hope you are just joking when you're comparing the situation in Iran with really anything in Western society. The comparison is totally out of proportions.

And about the fraud thing. Yes, George W. Bush (who you're referring to, I assume) has made a mess of the past 8 years, but that is exactly why people are still talking about election fraud. Granted, Bush wasn't the better president, but if the election wás fair (though I'm not one to confirm if it was or not), people should accept that the majority chose for him. That reminds me of the elections in Belgium last week. The extreme right party has (finally) lost some seats in the parliament this election, but are still almost the 2nd greatest party in Flanders. Such a shame.

I think it is a good thing that the media are giving the situation in Iran so much attention. In some way, the protestors are being pictured as the good guys, which is extremely relative and only applicable to that particular situation. But I believe if Iran wants to evolve, there has to be a first step.

Whether Mousavi is the way to go for a nation in general is out of the question. We're talking about a country that is drained with aggressive conservatism. And in my opinion any change is good really.

P.S. I think it is repulsive how the majority of journalists is being prohibited from the country, and the ones that are still there are wrongfully held in jail.

[Joe]

How the Hell did I Miss this thread!? As a few of you know, I've been following this since early one, when the violence first started. so, anyway, there were questions:

How do you think the West should react? Should we declare our support for Tehran's rioters, but in doing so risk making it seem as if the riots are supported, or inspired, by the West?

No No No No NO. These people are fighitng for their rights, and I think Obama has handled things Beautifully. Any direct support, or even official expression of support makes it That much harder for the people to succeed in their efforts. Although the US House of Reps passed 405-1 (yes, RON PAUL was the lone No vote) an official resolution declaring support for the people in Iran. >_< Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.

Do you think the election was rigged?
An election with a incredibly Huge voter turnout, and results came out in record time (a few short hours, if that, I believe) and the results were Nothing at all like many experts expected them to be.....Yeah, I'd say they were rigged.


Is this going to be another revolution?

That all depends on what you mean by revolution. By some standards what's going on Right now is a revolution. If you mean in the sense of the American Revolution.....i think the potential is definitely there. Especially now that the Grand Ayatollah Khameni has pretty much given the Basij militia a free hand. Inferred from this link. The quote in question from the article being "And he made clear there would not be another election, warning that the consequences of any further violence or public disturbances would be borne by those responsible."

Basically it seems to me that peaceful silent protests are only going to last them so much longer before things start getting out of hand. I'm eager to see how it unfolds.


Would you rather Mousavi were in charge? Bear in mind that he still wants to pursue nuclear enrichment, though perhaps it'd be easier to believe him when he says it's for civilian purposes, but therefore also harder to justify an attack if governments don't believe him but we do.

Yes. But also because the protesters want to appoint Ayatollah Montezeri as Grand Ayatollah. All the real power resides with him, as there is no position higher than GA, although the appointment would be temporary. Montezeri and Mousavi both have much better records concerning human rights than do the current regime. Yes, they both want nuclear exploration, but you have to take the good with the bad. between the US and Russia we have more nukes than any other country by far. One launch and there's Russia next door, and us overseas.

And even if I didn't want Mousavi in power, the fact that these people are standing up for their rights, and facing down oppresion with solidarity is a truly beautiful thing, and I fully support them.

What impact do you think this will have on world politics if there is some kind of revolution? What consequences for the Middle East, for Israel, and for us?

That all depends on how radical the changes in the regime and, if the protestors get their way, the Iranian constitution are. A more pro-western stance (which to my knowledge Montazeri and Mousavi share) would almost definitely improve relations with the US and other countries around the globe. I for one would love to visit Iran if it were ever peaceful, as it's a truly beautiful country, as well as a giant historical site now. Things might not be so good for Israel, but I'm not overly well versed in Israeli and Iranian relations, so I'll withhold comment on that.


Anyone who wants to read more about it (yeah right, you'd likely have to be nuts like me or heather) can find a current timeline, list of power players, and the situation here

[Shan'do Spike]

Right, so. For those of you who are new to this, the reformist candidate in the Iranian elections, Mr Mousavi, lost in the election. This has sent Iran into a kind of spree which really does resemble the fervour of their last revolution. I can't really say I blame them.

Since it's been aluded to in this thread but never actually stated: the alledged reason for the protests isn't simply because they lost the election. Rather, there have been very serious allegations of election fraud. Pre-vote polls suggested that Mousavi had a lead of about 20% in the polls (meaning that the polling numbers suggested a 60-40 victory for Mousavi). However, the results of the election were almost a polar opposite of the original polls. In addition, Mousavi didn't even win most of his strongholds of power: it was assumed that he would carry a large advantage in Tehran, which he lost. He didn't even win his own home town. Furthermore, this was an election where a vast majority of the ballots were paper ballots, yet the results were announced merely an hour after the polls closed. It seems very unlikely that an accurate count could have taken place in that time, even if they were doing some counting as the ballots came in. The protests are less because they lost the election and much more because they feel that the results of the election were tampered with. The Supreme Council is ostensibly recounting the votes, but they back Ahmadinejad, so I would be shocked if most of the protesters accepted anything they say.


And for people who are trying to compare this potential election fraud to the alleged fraud in 2000 in America, you've got nothing to stand on. The margin of victory in Florida was so close that any reasonable confidence interval to identify the "true" percentage of the vote is going to include percentages that would have given a win to either Bush or Gore. And anyone who thinks that both Republicans and Democrats in Florida weren't doing anything they could to influence that election are naive. I'm sure they both were doing anything they could.

(And for reference, since I'm sure people will be trying to ascertain where I stand politically from this post, I'm a libertarian. Take what you will from there.)

[Walter Sobchak]

In my initial post, I included Rafsanjani on my list of people that should be executed. Now, it seems that Rafsanjani may be poised to join Mousavi and the protesters, both because of his rivalry with Khamenei as well as his desire to become more powerful.

The Iranian regime is done. They may stop the protests, but the animosity cannot be reversed. Factor in possible covert aid by either the United States or the European Union and the cards are stacked against the Ayatollah.

[Zargabaath]

I think there should be a strong response condeming the actions taken by the government of Iran by trying to creat a blackout in a supposed Republic.

To me this is nothing important, if Mousavi becomes the president it doesn't change Iran. All Mousavi would be is a figure head the real power lies in the clergy, ultimately in the Ayatollah. If the Ayatollah is not changed then these demonstrations don't change much. It would be like placing a new Queen or King in England or Emperor in Japan, they have no power.

Iran should be kicked out of the U.N. A country that is suppresing its people from protesting and a media shutdown is not what the U.N "stands" for. Of course what am I thinking, the U.N is the perfect place for Iran; the U.N allowed the Soviet Union, China, Iraq, North Korea, and African countries committing genocide, child slavery, and female mutilation/circumcision. The U.N is a safe haven for countries like Iran against those who would oppose them.

Take a look at the U.N's handling of North Korea... There is a ship that has long been suspected of breaking U.N sanctions of transporting banned materials, so what does the newly passed U.N resolution say about bording ships that may have contraband... The "inspectors" have to ASK if they can come onboard, do you see the teeth in that resolution, the HARD stance they have on rogue countries that don't follow them. And U.N forces in Africa that are trying to stop the civil war or genocide going on... what are they doing? Sitting around. There are probably more reports of U.N soldiers raping civilians in African then the amount of kills the soldiers got *SARCASM*. But they don't fight, the U.N is the League of Nation, a organization that has no real power, does nothing to enforce their resolutions, a safe haven for countries that violate what it "stands" for and is only relevant due to the support from the liberal wolrd.

The U.N

[RagnaToad]

Put'em all against a wall. That's what the Ayatollah wants to do.

And I don't think "nothing" would change. The iranian people have more knowledge of who they're voting for and apparently they do believe that there will be change.

Cause I heard something about a few people protesting in the streets for the change they voted for...

Might have been a rumour though...