Iranian election: is there any reason whatsoever…
…why this should be a surprise?
Related: see this and this. And go to memeorandum for a more comprehensive roundup of news articles and blog responses to the Iranian “election.”
So far, Obama has been relatively silent—or worse. I guess he doesn’t want to offend Ahmadinejad before the big summit. Hope. Change. You know.
And even Joe Biden is holding his tongue—sorta.
[ADDENDUM: An update from Michael Totten.]
What worries me is that Obama may be planning on his own sort of “pretend” election. I hate these wild, paranoid thoughts, but then again, how paranoid is it when we see what he’s already done to this country? You’re not paranoid if people really are out to get you, after all.
Honestly, if we don’t see a HUGE move to the right in the 2010 elections, I will be inclined to believe that it’s all over: With help from ACORN, Obama’s various Czars and Thugs will manipulate both the elections and the media.
You know what old Joe Stalin said: “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.” Coming from Chicago, Obama certainly knows how true that is.
Ah, I wish I could be more hopeful. Both for Iran, and for us.
Well, since the president of Iran makes no decisions about foreign policy the outcome of the election means little to us. However, a change in the President may have empowered the electorate somewhat – not in the fact that “Ilostmydinnerjacket” was defeated, but merely for the fact that a fair and honest election was allowed to happen.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few days. Will the protest continue? Probably not. But I am not sure the Mullahs did not make a critical error in regard to the long term continuation of their power.
Time, as always, will tell.
I get te feeling the house is on fire and republicans are afraid yelling fire might shock people too much. WTF? The house is on fire!
Ah yes…. here it is…
In a previous comment, I mentioned that it wasnt so much the content of Obama’s Cairo speech that concerned me, or the fact that some effort was being made at outreach to the Muslim world. As I mentioned in that prior comment, what bothered me was that I didn’t think Obama had what might be called “Plan B,” which is to say, a backup plan in case all the feelgood words don’t work.
Well, indeed, here we are. Were at “Plan B” time, when something more forceful or decisive is necessary. The people who are now putting their lives on the line within Iran to move that country out of the control of a few mullahs, are counting on us. So is Israel. And so, probably in secret, are many Arabs, who have as much to fear from a nuclear armed, militant Iran, as does Israel.
I sincerely hope Obama surprises me and has more planned than simply to think good thoughts and mouth hopeful slogans. Although it is only the first year of his administration, weakness can have ripple effects. My worst fear now, as before, is that Obama will turn out, in the long run, to be as feckless as Carter, who stood stunned as Khomeini’s militants held American citizens hostage, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and Central America became threatened by Castroist thugs.
Imagine being an Iranian Freedom Fighter:
As you take to the streets in a near-suicidal bit for just a little freedom; just a little more democracy; you look to the last light of liberty in the world and our president says:
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
Reagan wouldn’t have said that.
You think it sucks to be a Republican–imagine being an Iranian moderate!
Obamadinejad has done to Iran what Kennedy did to Cuba. The dirty, dirty leftists must be very proud….
Dang! What insidious darkness do the Iranian mullahs command such that the effulgence of Obama’s light has yet to penetrate, cleanse, and uplift Iran?
Sign me, Mystified.
Oddly enough, my family and I were discussing the topic of democracy in Iran just the other day (in a restaurant where the waiters wore shirts saying “Obama Eats Here”). I raised the topic of whether or not it was permissible to overthrow a lawfully elected leader. If the Iranian people have truly selected an anti-Semite who supports the genocide of millions, then how can we expect to treat the problem by simply instituting a new regime?
I haven’t been able to settle this question, but the subject of my question has been addressed: it’s clear that in Iran, Ahmadinejad is opposed by a large enough section of the populace that maybe peace is possible. I can’t bring myself to expect change in Persia, because such a hope would be unrealistic, but I do predict a strong opposition to Ahmadinejad, and that such an opposition will grow in time as more young people make the decision to choose secular democracy as opposed to a misogynistic theocracy.
– G
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
and furthermore: “a robust debate”?! Sending the cops and army into the streets to murder the people who voted for the actual winner is a “robust debate” in Obamastan!?
We are witnessing the antithesis of a “robust debate”: there is no debate! Debate is outlawed!
Elections in Iran mean shit. The Mullahs control and their mailed fist is the Revolutionary Guards and the military. No one wins an election in Iran, except the clerics in Qom. Why is it that more people fail to grasp this? Is it because they are grasping at an illusion that will enable them to escape from reality?
republicans are afraid yelling fire might shock people too much
Oh? But aren’t the Democrats in control? Isn’t it more the place of Obama and his Congress to respond to such an event(that may also be an opportunity)?
Elections in Iran mean shit.
I’ve argued the same thing in the past. And it’s probably true that even if this interior conflict(it’s not a revolution yet) were to lead to Mousavi prevailing that the nuking up, terror sponsorship and hostile intentions toward the West would continue, albeit in a sugarcoated manner … and yet … and yet …
What would it hurt for Obama to make a strong pro-Mousavi statement? The Mullah faction is never going to negotiate in good faith — we all know that — you can’t jeopardize that which is never going to come to pass. Obama has nothing to lose here, except perhaps losing some far-Left supporters — which he’ll probably lose anyway.
Giles writes:
“If the Iranian people have truly selected an anti-Semite who supports the genocide of millions”
Ahmadinejad never suggested the genocide of millions. I presume that you’re referring the phrase that was mistranslated as “wipe off the map.”
Here’s the detailed explanation from University of Michigan professor of middle eastern history, Juan Cole:
Okay, the first part of Prof. Juan Cole’s comment I quoted above, did not come through. Here it is, again:
As Prof. Cole writes (based on his knowledge of Persian, and hence his ability to understand exactly what Ahmadinejad said when he made the comment in Persian):
‘I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having “threatened to wipe Israel off the map.” I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel’s Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
‘But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that “the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time.” It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks. […]
‘[Ahmadinejad] made an analogy to Khomeini’s determination and success in getting rid of the Shah’s government, which Khomeini had said “must go” (az bain bayad berad). Then Ahmadinejad defined Zionism not as an Arabi-Israeli national struggle but as a Western plot to divide the world of Islam with Israel as the pivot of this plan.
‘The phrase he then used as I read it is “The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).”
‘Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope– that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah’s government.
‘Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that “Israel must be wiped off the map” with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.
‘Again, Ariel Sharon erased the occupation regime over Gaza from the page of time.’
I’ve followed the situation in Iran very closely for years … since the era of Khatami the ruling hard-right in Iran have clearly decided that even the limited democratic system they have established in their constitution is too much liberty for the people — but this attempt to steal the election was just incredibly brazen and clumsy, and is going to reverberate for a long time:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/140632/juan_cole:_iran_election_numbers_don%27t_add_up/
Andrew Sullivan has been doing an excellent job covering this:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
Some of the scenes from the protests have been haunting:
http://twitpic.com/7c85l
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00072/iran_vote_gallery_72889gm-f.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbqoH4bk6I4
J. L. Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
At this point, that’s my best case scenario. My worst case scenario is very dark indeed…
Orange, your response to Giles above is tendentious and unpersuasive, given Ahmadinejad’s record of wild talk:
# “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”
# “Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”
# “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”
Mistranslation or not, erasing a sovereign nation from the page of time versus wiping a sovereign nation from the map is a distinction without a difference. Does anyone doubt the Iranian president’s hostility toward Israel and her people? Is there any question about Iran’s sponsorship of terror and proxy war through Syria and Hezbollah?
Jeez, Orange – if we’d only known the proper translation of Ahmadinejad’s tirade was about erasing Israel from the page of time – rather than from the map – we would have felt so much better about it. Thanks for the clarification, that makes everything okay now!!
I hope that Obama will change and actually step to support those who are protesting in Iran.
It’s stunning to listen to the silence of those who cried & wailed about a so-called tyranny in this country for the last eight years.
Yes Orange, so benign is Ahmadinejad. In the interest of free speech- after all people in Iran are free to speak and to choose their political candidates, he held Holocaust Denial Conference in Tehran several years ago. One of the speakers at the Holocaust Denial Conference was David Duke. Here you can listen to David Duke.
Mitsu with love for the legacy press writes, “I’ve followed the situation in Iran very closely for years … since the era of Khatami the ruling hard-right in Iran have clearly decided that even the limited democratic system they have established in their constitution is too much liberty for the people”
My contention is that because I have learned and evolved – and I see how idiotic the legacy press is – I see that their use of the words “HARD-RIGHT” is assinine.
Dictatorship and big government control is LEFT.
You Mitsu are on the left.
You are more closely aligned with Iran’s dictator than you brain lets you believe.
Anarchy is HARD-RIGHT.
Conservatism is centrist and/or slightly center-right. Libertarians who want a cut in government to the tune of 80% are hard-right. Nowhere near Iran’s dictator.
Obama, Mitsu, Iran’s dictator are all big government control people.
Read the “Road to Serfdom”. Come back to us after that Mitsu. Really. You need some education. Big time.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98R7JVG2&show_article=1
One dead as militia fires on Iranian protestors.
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.” –Obama.
This will define his presidency.
Baklava,
“Read the “Road to Serfdom”. Come back to us after that Mitsu. Really. You need some education. Big time.”
Well, first, you addressed your response to a Harvard grad. You should know a few things about those people. They believe that once they leave Harvard that they are the best of the best. They don’t conceive of themselves as needing to learn more. After all, they already have it all!
Second, do you think in any of the bookstores in Cambridge you would find any work of Hayek? You might, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. It’s been awhile since I’ve been down to Harvard Square and all the great bookstores they have. Maybe I’ll go down there and browse around some weekend.
Harvard…
Where they teach the Mitsu’s of the world that dictatorship is hard-right.
/spitting on the concrete
Demonstrators apparently were saying, “Obama, please help us.”
Those must be the most frightening juxtaposition of words in the English language.
I understand completely, because I often say that liberals and liberalism should vanish from the page of time. Cool, huh?
Liberalism is a mental disease.
We need to make mental diseases vanish from the page of time..
Maybe a little more research with stem cells. 🙂
Why doesn’t someone build a video of protestors being shot with Obama’s dulcet voice saying:
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
?
Seems like that would be pretty powerful….
Looks like I wrote off “robust” prematurely as a reflexive liberal intensifying adjective.
So was WWII a “robust debate” too?
“Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”= present.
A “robust debate” occurs when you get a head injury after you vote instead of a purple finger or a hanging chad….
A robust debate is when the the Mullahs have the secret police shoot you for voting, arrest your candidate, and install the other guy anyhow
But don’t worry, Obama assures you that won’t stop him from bowing to, and kissing the ass of, the guys who had you shot.
How soon until Obama congratulates Ahmedinejad on his electoral win and recognizes ‘the duly elected’ government of Iran?
Oh, give me a break, Baklava. Given the turmoil in Iran, the vast popular uprising that is going on there, you want to make the argument that the Iranian mullahs attempting to establish a dictatorship are liberals? You may think that’s a reasonable use of the word, but hardly anyone in the world agrees with you.
The mullahs are considered “conservative” in Iranian politics, and Mousavi and his supporters are called “liberals”. Conservatives in Iran are associated with religious fundamentalism, just as they are here in the US. The liberals in Iran want more progressive social policy, just as they do here.
Every society has a tendency to have its liberal and its conservative political movement. In this country, yes, there’s an association of “conservative” and libertarian ideas, but in practice, that’s really just one small part of the actual conservative set of views. The “small government” rhetoric is primarily a smokescreen; it’s just code for “fewer social programs”. There’s no calls for smaller or weaker government when it comes to the police, or military spending, or favoring of Christianity over other religions, or “moral” laws that reduce our personal liberties, and as we saw with Bush and the Republican Congress it doesn’t even mean smaller government in terms of spending. It’s a great-sounding phrase which many people might agree with in principle, but conservative views in this country are quite similar to conservative views in many other nations.
It’s obvious that nearly everyone calls the ruling mullahs in Iran conservative, and the reformists are called liberals. Only in a strange alternate universe would they be thought to be the other way around.
Finally — as I keep saying, liberals are NOT communists. You might recall during the waning days of the USSR it was the Communists who were called “conservative”. Yes, the USSR was supposedly a “leftist” country but the far left and the far right have more in common than you might realize. The whole “left/right” political spectrum is rather misleading in general… it’s better to just list out what people are for and against. And all liberals are against dictatorship. And I’m sure you’re against dictatorship as well. So we can at least agree that most conservatives and most liberals in America are against dictatorship. But I’m still going to call the ruling mullahs in Iran “conservative” along with everyone else in the world.
the turmoil in Iran, the vast popular uprising that is going on there, you want to make the argument that the Iranian mullahs attempting to establish a dictatorship are liberals?
Not anymore. The Leftist Islamic Revolution has split their skulls and broken the uprising.
My question to you, Mitsu, as a liberal:
“How long until Obama recognizes Ahmedinejad as the duly elected leader of Iran?”
Let us assume that Mitsu is correct in his opinion that the Mullah regime is conservative in much the same way that I or any run-of-the-mill McCain or Dubya supporter is conservative. It would therefore stand to reason that American liberals have opposed the Mullahs more than American conservatives, no? It would also stand to reason that from the beginning of the Mullah’s rule in Iran that American liberals have opposed the Mullahs more than American conservatives have, no?
Here is what Carter Administration figures had to say about Khomeini.
A kidnapper is a holy man. Oh yeah. Go ahead, Mitsu, find some American conservatives who had such good things to say about the CONSERVATIVE KHOMEINI as did the above liberal Carter Administration figures. From what I remember, from the beginning American conservatives abhorred the Mullahs, unlike Jimmah and his minions.
The problem that Mitsu has is common to many liberals. They assume that domestic politics in the US can be projected to different countries and to different times. Mitsu says that the Mullahs, oh yes conservative just like in the US, which ignores the American consensus of separation of church and state. But to apply the same comparison to liberals- not fair, says Mitsu: liberals are not Communists. Mitsu’s elevated education on the River Charles is lacking if he is unable to see the absurdity of those two positions.
Mitsu, stop with the word games. Left/right and liberal/conservative are meaningless now. (Was a hard-line Marxist who opposed Yeltsin a conservative?)
Those terms originally referred to those advocately the primacy of the individual over the state, versus those advocating the primacy of the state (monarchy/ aristocracy/ church) over that of the individual. (“Left/right” came, as socialism, bureaucracy, and so many other invidious things have, from France.) A “liberal” of the 19th century is closer to a libertarian today, and a “liberal” today is closer to a conservative back then (in favoring the state over the individual).
A more meaningful distinction therefore is between “collectivists” and “individualists,” between those who believe the interests of the state should come first, and those who believe the converse. Iran’s mullahs clearly shake out in the former category, along with Castro, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, and previously Bismarck, Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini. Collectivists run to authoritarianism to coerce individuals into behavior that the state deems desirable. From this perspective, the American “liberals” can be seen to be anything but — they constantly want the government to force others to do something (recycle, eat more healthy food, exercise, lend money to people who aren’t going to repay it) that they don’t want to do. American “liberals” aren’t “communists,” but that’s only because most of them don’t think clearly enough to realize that they are supporting a collectivist agenda; they’re basically too stupid and/or too susceptible to social pressure to grasp that fact.
It’s obvious that nearly everyone calls the ruling mullahs in Iran conservative, and the reformists are called liberals.
Mitsu — Actually I haven’t encountered that terminology applied to Iran. What I have seen is what John Bolton reports:
Aside from taunting some of us here with calling the mullahs “conservative”, what is your point?
Reading through the responses to this topic has given me the urge to reply yet again.
Orange,
I haven’t made any specific references to any of Ahmadinejad’s many televised rants concerning Israel and her people. With a language like Farsi, Arabic and others, hate speech can be easily waved aside as a “mistranslation.” Ahmadinejad – and those of his party, and his allies – have repeatedly made clear their intentions to drive Israel, the nation and all its people, into the sea. I feel no need to elucidate concerning this matter.
Oblio, Gringo and E,
I thank you for your tenacious defense. Your arguments need none of my added support.
Baklava,
While I agree with your arguments concerning the nature of leftism and rightism, I would advise that you assume that your opponent is learned. Ignorance and ill-schooling have a habit of revealing themselves and thereby devaluing an opponent’s arguments, with very little nudging.
– G
The following needed a rewrite.
”
Change it to