Did Mousavi Win or is this Iran's

Did Mousavi Win or is this Iran's

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

17 Jun 2009, 09:56 #1

Page last updated at 17:54 GMT, Tuesday, 16 June 2009 18:54 UK

Poll hint at plausible Iran vote


Supporters of Mr Mousavi may be louder rather than greater in number

The official result in Iran's disputed presidential election could plausibly reflect the will of the people, a group of international pollsters says.

An independent poll three weeks ago had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ahead of his closest rival by a similar 2:1 ratio.

Runner-up Mir Hossein Mousavi has claimed the election result was fixed.

The research was conducted by US-based polling organisations Terror Free Tomorrow, the New America Foundation and KA Europe SPRL.

"We found that President Ahmadinejad was leading by a substantial margin," Ken Ballen from Terror Free Tomorrow told the BBC World Service.

The nationwide poll was conducted between 11 and 20 May and consisted of 1,001 random interviews covering all 30 provinces of Iran. It had a 3% margin of error.

Its results gave Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a 33.8% share of the vote, more than twice as much as Mr Mousavi with 13.6%, and with Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai trailing on less than 2% and 1% respectively.

Respondents says none of the candidates in 7.6% of interviews, while 15.1% refused to answer and 27.4% said they didn't know.

"Whether or not this would have changed, or whether Mr Ahmadinejad would hold that lead which would have translated into a victory, that's where the unknown factors arise," Mr Ballen said.

Cautious

According to official results Mr Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president, won 62.6% of votes cast. Mr Mousavi trailed with 33.8%.

"It's a plausible result, but the way the Iranian government handled it raises lots of questions," Mr Ballen told the BBC.

His polls predicted that no candidate would pass the 50% threshold for an automatic win, and a second round would take place between the two highest finishers.

In the 2005 presidential elections, the leader in the first round, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, lost to the runner-up, Mr Ahmadinejad, in the run-off.

Mr Ballen said the independent survey was a rarity in Iran, where polls are normally carried out by state agencies.

"It is not a society that allows independent polling or exit polling or election monitors or independent monitors so its very hard to ascertain whether or not the results actually reflect the will of the people," he said.

However, the large number of students now protesting against the results was also in keeping with the findings and did not necessarily reflect the will of the whole country, Mr Ballen said.

"The only groups we found in Iran that were supportive of Mousavi or [among whom]... he was competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students, university graduates and the highest-income Iranians."

Other groups, such as Azeris, to whom Mr Mousavi was considered likely to appeal because of his Azeri background, also showed stronger support for Mr Ahmadinejad ahead of Mr Mousavi.

Only 16% of Azeris said they intended to vote for Mr Mousavi, compared to 31% who said they would vote for Mr Ahmadinejad.

"We need to be cautious in drawing a conclusion," Mr Ballen said.

"We know it [the election] wasn't free and fair but to jump to the next conclusion that Mousavi would have won with a landslide, we don't have hard scientific evidence for that.

"But we do have evidence pointing in the other direction, that the result may have been valid."
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

17 Jun 2009, 11:21 #2

Another Face of "Velvet Revolution"

Analysis by American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), June 13, 2009

The opposition to the presidency of Ahmadinejad is doing its utmost to create unrest and prepare the ground for a velvet takeover and repeat what the West (US, UK, France and Germany) did in Georgia about three years ago. But this act is not realizable in Iran, because the workers and farmers, the millions who gave the lives of their children for the cause of independence and sovereignty, defend the Revolution and their real President who has frustrated the schemes and plots of the warmongers. The toiling classes in Iran are proud that Iran under the revolutionary leadership of President Ahmadinejad has defied and resisted the war threats and sanctions by the same powers that have ruined the lives of the millions of people in Vietnam, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to mention just a few. Unfortunately, the current opposition in and outside of Iran is financed in tens of millions of US Dollars, directed and supported, through a vast propaganda machine, of U.S. imperialism. Those who re-sound the Voice of America, Fox News Agency, AF, APF, Associated Press, UPI, Huffington, Financial Times of London and NY Times are in fact giving support to what Rand Corporation calls soft revolution. It is important for us to know that Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, now working as the spokesperson outside the country for Mir Hossein Mousavi, alleged Saturday that the Iranian election result had been fixed by the country's interior ministry. This accusation is highly suspect, and more accurately should be called a rumor, because, without any substantiation, it was rapidly spread in internet blogs and then amplified via the Iranian anti-Islamic group based in Europe, calling itself the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a group composed primarily of ex-Shah forces and disgruntled Iranian sects who have spread their lies and misrepresentations to an all too willing pro-western and pro-Zionist media. This comes as no surprise, given that these groups have been nurtured by the neo-cons of the Bush Administration and championed by the pro-Israeli groups financed to the tune of more than $100 million that the U.S. Congress appropriated to help bring about "regime change" in Iran. Moreover, the series of events repeated in such infamous media as Voice of America are filled with inconsistencies and class prejudices favoring the big merchants, the club-hungry upper middle class youth used to Gucci bags and large sun-glasses popular in the boutiques of Paris. No wonder the Saudi-run media outlets, symbol of backwardness and part of international capital, have been favoring Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate, and have given Mousavi the edge in Tehran but neglected other provinces where it is a totally different story. In many instances, anchors on Saudi-controlled Arab media outlets could hardly restrain their glee whenever Ahmadinejad was criticized by his challengers. Like a parrot, Mr. Trita Parsi, who was interviewed at length by CNN on Saturday morning, purported that the Iranian government under President Ahmadinejad had "no legitimacy" and promoted the idea that the United States will have 'difficulties' to have 'peaceful dialogue' with Iran, while the country is experiencing unrest and chaos. By implication, this suggests that either the U.S. should not deal with the Iranian government as long as Ahmadinejad is in power, or Obama should use the weight of the dialogue to put pressure on the structure of the Iranian government to oust Ahmadinejad as a condition for beginning a dialogue or the third option of tying Ahmadinejad's hands to extract as much concessions from the Iranian government as possible. This scheme, in any case, is designed to draw Iran into the arms of the world imperialist system. Mr. Parsi is not an impartial player in the events inside and outside Iran, because in that same interview he announced that there would be demonstrations opposing the election results in Washington, London and elsewhere, clearly places Trita Parsi as an agent of carrying out the U.S. policies in the Middle East. No wonder he gets invited to such high places as meetings at the State Department and the White House, as president of the National Iranian American Council. As if the interview of Trita Parsi by CNN on Saturday was not enough to convince the viewers of the station of the truth of the result of the Presidential elections in Iran, CNBC, another mouthpiece of the system, invited this self-appointed voice of some rich Iranians to explain how he and his group had reached the conclusion that Mr. Hossein Mousavi, the challenger of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had won the election. His answer was that the staff in Mir Hossein's election headquarters had told him so. What a substantiation! It is like saying 'I won because my own staff told me I won.' Do CNN and CNBC's managers assume that the viewers are so unsophisticated that they could not figure out the machinations in the claims and falsifications of Trita Parsi? Today it has become clear that the story of Mousavi's "victory" was a fabrication by his money-backers inside Iran and the U.S.-U.K. corporate media. Whether these fireworks about the 'alleged fixed election' can succeed doesn't seem so credible, given that Ahmadinejad is supported by the greatest number of people than any previous election, while in Washington, DC, the number of Iranians who showed up for this 'protest' against the Islamic Republic of Iran, numbered no more than 12 individuals, along with more reporters and photographers than the number of demonstrators who gathered in front of the Iranian Interests Section on Saturday, June 13. Probably the Western media controllers were very disappointed at the dismal turn-out. The United States always talks about being the champion of democracy but the higher ratio of the population participating in the electoral process is taking place outside of the U.S. and Europe. For example, in the recent European Parliament elections, less than one-third of the eligible voters had bothered to vote, while in Iran, according to many media sources, participation had reached 85%. Compare this ratio with only 52% in the U.S. 2008 Presidential election. No doubt, twenty-four million Iranian citizens, 62.5% who cast their ballots for Ahmadinejad, will not pardon those with organic ties to institutions whose objectives are to weaken and over-throw their elected government, through armed struggle or chaotic street clashes.
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

19 Jun 2009, 09:57 #3

Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter #IranElection
Monday, June 15, 2009 19:52

Right-wing Israeli interests are engaged in an all out Twitter attack with hopes of delegitimizing the Iranian election and causing political instability within Iran.

Anyone using Twitter over the past few days knows that the topic of the Iranian election has been the most popular. Thousands of tweets and retweets alleging that the election was a fraud, calling for protests in Iran, and even urging followers hack various Iranian news websites (which they did successfully). The Twitter popularity caught the eye of various blogs such as Mashable and TechCrunch and even made its way to mainstream news media sites.

Were these legitimate Iranian people or the works of a propaganda machine? I became curious and decided to investigate the origins of the information. In doing so, I narrowed it down to a handful of people who have accounted for 30,000 Iran related  tweets in the past few days. Each of them had some striking similarities -

1.  They each created their twitter accounts on Saturday June 13th.
2.  Each had extremely high number of Tweets since creating their profiles.
3. “IranElection” was each of their most popular keyword
4.  With some very small exceptions, each were posting in ENGLISH.
5.  Half of them had the exact same profile photo
6.  Each had thousands of followers, with only a few friends. Most of their friends were EACH OTHER.

Why were these tweets in English? Why were all of these profiles OBSESSED with Iran? It became obvious that this was the work of a team of people with an interest in destabilizing Iran. The profiles are phonies and were created with the sole intention of destabilizing Iran and effecting public opinion as to the legitimacy of Iran’s election.

I narrowed the spammers down to three of the most persistent - @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran

I decided to do a google search for 2 of the 3 - @StopAhmadi and @IranRiggedElect. The first page to come up was JPost (Jerusalem Post) which is a right wing newspaper pro-Israeli newspaper.

JPost actually ran a story about 3 people “who joined the social network mere hours ago have already amassed thousands of followers.” Why would a news organization post a story about 3 people who JUST JOINED TWITTER hours earlier? Is that newsworthy? JPost was the first (and only to my knowledge) major news source that mentioned these 3 spammers.

JPost, a major news organization,  promoted these three Twitterers who went on the be the source of the IranElection Twitter bombardment. Why is JPost so concerned about Iranian students all of a sudden (which these spammers claim to be)? I must admit that I had my suspicions. After all, Que Bono?  (who benefits).

more here
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

19 Jun 2009, 11:07 #4

Is America/Israel Engineering a Coup in Iran?

Friday, 19 June 2009


Teheran: Who's Orchestrating Street Demonstrations?

Hidden Manipulation. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government.

Stephen Kinzer’s book, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953.

The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the cold war claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government’s justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.

Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government.

More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.”

Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah.

No Iranian, and no informed westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.

The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people.

This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.

On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran.

Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.

Some observers, such as George Friedman believe that the American destabilization plan will fail.

However, many ayatollahs feel animosity toward Ahmadinejad, who assaults the ayatollahs for corruption. Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad’s attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside but not with the ayatollahs.

Amadinejad’s campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.

So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.

Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad’s election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.

Khamenei, solving his personal problem, would play into the hands of the American-Israeli assault on his country.

On the surface, the departure of Ahmadeinjad would cost Israel and the US the loss of their useful “anti-semitic” boggy-man. But in fact it would play into the American-Israeli propaganda.

The story would be that the remote, isolated, Iranian ruling Ayatollah was forced by the Iranian people to admit the falsity of the rigged election, calling into question rule by Ayatollahs who do not stand for election.

Mousavi and Ayatollah Montazeri are putting their besieged country at risk. Possibly they believe that ridding Iran of Ahmadeinjad’s extreme image would gain Iran breathing room.

If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands.

If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.

For the American neoconservatives, democratic countries are those countries that submit to America’s will, regardless of their form of government. “Democracy” is achieved by America ruling through puppet officials.

The American public might never know whether the Iranian election was legitimate or stolen. The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth.

Election fraud is certainly a possibility--it happens even in America--and signs of fraud have appeared. Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.

The US media’s response to the election was equally rapid. Having invested heavily in demonizing Ahmadinejad, the media is unwilling to accept election results that vindicate Ahmadinejad and declared fraud in advance of evidence, despite the pre-election poll results published in the June 15 Washington Post, which found Ahmadinejad to be the projected winner.

There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner’s rhetoric is allied with their goals.

For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.

Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi.

Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the “peace candidate” who might acquiescent to Israel’s demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.

Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition.

The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

19 Jun 2009, 12:01 #5

The medacious BBC (via WRH):


check the strapline

which was then changed to:


Tehran has seen mass demonstrations by all sides since the disputed election (see correction below)

The actual photo before it was cropped:



BBC
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 01:46

20 Jun 2009, 13:48 #6

Iran nabs terrorists who planned to set off bombs on election day

Tehran Times Political Desk


TEHRAN – The Iranian Intelligence Ministry announced on Thursday that it has nabbed a terrorist team who had intended to plant bombs in overcrowded places and polling stations across Tehran on election day on June 12.

The Intelligence Ministry said the terrorists intended to target Hosseinieh Ershad and Masjid al-Nabi in Tehran which are usually filled with lots of voters whenever there is a national election.

The terror network’s operatives have admitted they had extensive connection with Mossad agents and “the enemies of Iran”, the ministry declared.

In addition, the ministry said other terrorist teams who were acting under the direction of foreigners have been arrested in recent days. It said they were from two terror networks that planned to set off bombs and spark violence in the country
�To those who are afraid of the truth, I wish to offer a few scary truths; and to those who are not afraid of the truth, I wish to offer proof that the terrorism of truth is the only one that can be of benefit to the proletariat.� -- On Terrorism and the State, Gianfranco Sanguinetti
Reply
Like

Joined: 25 Nov 2005, 11:41

20 Jun 2009, 23:23 #7

Not sure that the Americans can claim any moral high ground here. Meanwhile, here's James Petras on the election fraud hoax:
Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax
by Prof. James Petras
Global Research, June 18, 2009
  • “Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation... Politics in Iran is a lot more about class war than religion.”&nbsp; -- Financial Times Editorial, June 15 2009</li>
Introduction

There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an ‘electoral success’ in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote.

The recently concluded, June 12, 2009 elections in Iran are a classic case: The incumbent nationalist-populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) received 63.3% of the vote (or 24.5 million votes), while the leading Western-backed liberal opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi (HM) received 34.2% or (13.2 million votes).

Iran’s presidential election drew a record turnout of more than 80% of the electorate, including an unprecedented overseas vote of 234,812, in which HM won 111,792 to MA’s 78,300. The opposition led by HM did not accept their defeat and organized a series of mass demonstrations that turned violent, resulting in the burning and destruction of automobiles, banks, public building and armed confrontations with the police and other authorities. Almost the entire spectrum of Western opinion makers, including all the major electronic and print media, the major liberal, radical, libertarian and conservative web-sites, echoed the opposition’s claim of rampant election fraud. Neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives and Trotskyites joined the Zionists in hailing the opposition protestors as the advance guard of a democratic revolution. Democrats and Republicans condemned the incumbent regime, refused to recognize the result of the vote and praised the demonstrators’ efforts to overturn the electoral outcome. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, the Israeli Foreign Office and the entire leadership of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations called for harsher sanctions against Iran and announced Obama’s proposed dialogue with Iran as ‘dead in the water’.

The Electoral Fraud Hoax

Western leaders rejected the results because they ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose…For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field ‘detailing’ the failures of Ahmadinejad’s administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House’s version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.

What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.

The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.

Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital – few venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition’s supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street activities, while Ahmadinejad’s support drew on the majority of working youth and household women workers who would express their views at the ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.

A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather than other social or class interests.

A closer look at the voting pattern in the East-Azerbaijan region of Iran reveals that Mousavi won only in the city of Shabestar among the upper and the middle classes (and only by a small margin), whereas he was soundly defeated in the larger rural areas, where the re-distributive policies of the Ahmadinejad government had helped the ethnic Azeris write off debt, obtain cheap credits and easy loans for the farmers. Mousavi did win in the West-Azerbaijan region, using his ethnic ties to win over the urban voters. In the highly populated Tehran province, Mousavi beat Ahmadinejad in the urban centers of Tehran and Shemiranat by gaining the vote of the middle and upper class districts, whereas he lost badly in the adjoining working class suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

The careless and distorted emphasis on ‘ethnic voting’ cited by writers from the Financial Times and New York Times to justify calling Ahmadinejad ‘s victory a ‘stolen vote’ is matched by the media’s willful and deliberate refusal to acknowledge a rigorous nationwide public opinion poll conducted by two US experts just three weeks before the vote, which showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – even larger than his electoral victory on June 12. This poll revealed that among ethnic Azeris, Ahmadinejad was favored by a 2 to 1 margin over Mousavi, demonstrating how class interests represented by one candidate can overcome the ethnic identity of the other candidate (Washington Post June 15, 2009). The poll also demonstrated how class issues, within age groups, were more influential in shaping political preferences than ‘generational life style’. According to this poll, over two-thirds of Iranian youth were too poor to have access to a computer and the 18-24 year olds “comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all groups” (Washington Porst June 15, 2009).

The only group, which consistently favored Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and the upper middle class. The ‘youth vote’, which the Western media praised as ‘pro-reformist’, was a clear minority of less than 30% but came from a highly privileged, vocal and largely English speaking group with a monopoly on the Western media. Their overwhelming presence in the Western news reports created what has been referred to as the ‘North Tehran Syndrome’, for the comfortable upper class enclave from which many of these students come. While they may be articulate, well dressed and fluent in English, they were soundly out-voted in the secrecy of the ballot box.

In general, Ahmadinejad did very well in the oil and chemical producing provinces. This may have be a reflection of the oil workers’ opposition to the ‘reformist’ program, which included proposals to ‘privatize’ public enterprises. Likewise, the incumbent did very well along the border provinces because of his emphasis on strengthening national security from US and Israeli threats in light of an escalation of US-sponsored cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan and Israeli-backed incursions from Iraqi Kurdistan, which have killed scores of Iranian citizens. Sponsorship and massive funding of the groups behind these attacks is an official policy of the US from the Bush Administration, which has not been repudiated by President Obama; in fact it has escalated in the lead-up to the elections.

What Western commentators and their Iranian protégés have ignored is the powerful impact which the devastating US wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had on Iranian public opinion: Ahmadinejad’s strong position on defense matters contrasted with the pro-Western and weak defense posture of many of the campaign propagandists of the opposition.

The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life styles over community values and solidarity.

The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a ‘moral economy’ in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the ‘market’, which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition’s attack on the regime’s ‘intransigent’ foreign policy and positions ‘alienating’ the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime’s military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack.

The scale of the opposition’s electoral deficit should tell us is how out of touch it is with its own people’s vital concerns. It should remind them that by moving closer to Western opinion, they removed themselves from the everyday interests of security, housing, jobs and subsidized food prices that make life tolerable for those living below the middle class and outside the privileged gates of Tehran University.

Amhadinejad’s electoral success, seen in historical comparative perspective should not be a surprise. In similar electoral contests between nationalist-populists against pro-Western liberals, the populists have won. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and even Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have demonstrated an ability to secure close to or even greater than 60% of the vote in free elections. The voting majorities in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.

The consequences of the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad are open to debate. The US may conclude that continuing to back a vocal, but badly defeated, minority has few prospects for securing concessions on nuclear enrichment and an abandonment of Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas. A realistic approach would be to open a wide-ranging discussion with Iran, and acknowledging, as Senator Kerry recently pointed out, that enriching uranium is not an existential threat to anyone. This approach would sharply differ from the approach of American Zionists, embedded in the Obama regime, who follow Israel’s lead of pushing for a preemptive war with Iran and use the specious argument that no negotiations are possible with an ‘illegitimate’ government in Tehran which ‘stole an election’.

Recent events suggest that political leaders in Europe, and even some in Washington, do not accept the Zionist-mass media line of ‘stolen elections’. The White House has not suspended its offer of negotiations with the newly re-elected government but has focused rather on the repression of the opposition protesters (and not the vote count). Likewise, the 27 nation European Union expressed ‘serious concern about violence’ and called for the “aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved through peaceful means and that freedom of expression be respected” (Financial Times June 16, 2009 p.4). Except for Sarkozy of France, no EU leader has questioned the outcome of the voting.

The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is the Israeli response: Netanyahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of ‘electoral fraud’ to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime.

Paradoxically, US commentators (left, right and center) who bought into the electoral fraud hoax are inadvertently providing Netanyahu and his American followers with the arguments and fabrications: Where they see religious wars, we see class wars; where they see electoral fraud, we see imperial destabilization.
"The problem with always being a conformist is that when you try to change the system from within, it's not you who changes the system; it's the system that will eventually change you." -- Immortal Technique

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." -- Malcolm X

"The eternal fight is not many battles fought on one level, but one great battle fought on many different levels." -- The Antagonist

"Truth does not fear investigation." -- Unknown
Reply
Like