Douter de tout ou tout croire, ce sont deux solutions également commodes, qui l’une et l’autre nous dispensent de réfléchir.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the need for thought.
– Jules Henri Poincaré, La Science et l’Hypothèse (1901)
By now, we all know the story:
Still high from Barack Obama’s Cairo speech and Lebanon’s recent elections that saw the pro-Western March 14 faction barely maintain its majority in the Chamber of Deputies, the mainstream media fully expected a clean sweep for “reformist” candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran’s June 12th presidential election. They reported surging poll numbers, an ever-growing Green Wave of support for the challenger, while taking every opportunity to get in their tired and juvenile epithets, their final chance to demonize and defame the incumbent Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom they were convinced had absolutely no chance of winning reelection.
The turnout was a massive 85% by most estimates, resulting in almost forty million ballots cast by the eligible Iranian voting public.
Before the polls even closed, Mousavi had already claimed victory. “In line with the information we have received, I am the winner of this election by a substantial margin,” he said. “We expect to celebrate with people soon.” However, according to the chairman of the Interior Ministry’s Electoral Commission, Kamran Daneshjoo, with the majority of votes counted, the incumbent president had taken a seemingly unassailable lead.
And so it was. Ahmadinejad won. By a lot. Some said by too much.
It didn’t take long before accusations started flying, knee-jerk reactions were reported as expert analysis, and rumor became fact. As Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei congratulated Ahmadinejad on his landslide victory, calling it a “divine assessment,” the opposition candidates all cried foul. Mousavi called the results “treason to the votes of the people” and the election a “dangerous charade.” Karroubi described Ahmadinejad’s reelection as “illegitimate and unacceptable.”
The Western media immediately jumped on board, calling the election a “fraud,” “theft,” and “a crime scene” in both news reports and editorial commentary. Even so-called progressive analysts, from Juan Cole to Stephen Zunes to Dave Zirin to Amy Goodman to Trita Parsi to the New Yorker‘s Laura Secor, opined on the illegitimacy of the results. They cited purported violations, dissident testimony from inside sources, leaked “real” results, and seeming inconsistencies, incongruities, and irregularities with Iran’s electoral history all with the intention of proving that the election was clumsily stolen from Mousavi by Ahmadinejad. These commentators all call the continuing groundswell of protest to the poll results an “unprecedented” show of courage, resistance, and people power, not seen in Iran since the 1979 revolution.
To me, the only thing unprecedented about what we’re seeing in Iran seems to be the constant media hysteria, righteous indignation, and hypocritical pseudo-solidarity of the West; a bogus, biased, and altogether presumptuous and uncritical reaction to hearsay and conjecture, almost totally decontextualized in order to promote sensational headlines and build international consensus for foreign intervention in Iran.
The foregone (and totally unsubstantiated) conclusions drawn by a rabid, clucking media have led to an ever-growing outrage over the elections results. Weak theories are tossed around like beads on Bourbon Street and assumed to be “expert analysis” and beyond reproach. By now, the accusations are well-known. However, with a little perspective and rational thought, the “evidence” that purportedly demonstrates proof of a fixed election winds up sounding pretty forced. With closer inspection and added context, the arguments crumble and are revealed not to be very compelling, let alone convincing.
We read that the reelection of Ahmadinejad was impossible, unbelievable. It was a sham, a hoax, and a coup d’etat. But, in fact, there is no alleged, let alone substantive, proof to suggest that the results were fixed beyond mere speculation, biased and baseless assumptions, and suspect hearsay. It appears quite clear that the pre-election predictions of a soaring Mousavi victory by the Western press were nothing more than the consequence of presumptuous wishful thinking. Analyst James Petras tells us,
“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 imminent 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.”
Most of these claims rest on the brash and offensive assumption that these “experts” know how Iranians would vote better than Iranians do. Clearly, they argue, Mousavi would win his hometown of Tabriz in the heart of East Azerbaijan, since he’s an ethnic Azeri with an “Azeri accent” and Iranians always vote along geographical and ethnic lines. And yet, Ahmadinejad won that province by almost 300,000 votes. Curious, no?
Well, no.
As Flynt Leverett points out,
Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry – in the original – in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And, we should not forget that the Supreme Leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality.
Furthermore, in a pre-election poll Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi. Furthermore, Petras notes, “The simplistic assumption [of the Western media] 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.”
when the Iranian leaders make a public speech, they claim that majority of the Iranian people in Iran are loyal to the principles of revolution and spiritual leader Mr. Ali Khamanie. in addtition, they claim that the people of Iran have no problem with the Islamic system, and majority of the people do not want and will to be governed by such system. however, in recent political turmoil in Iran, Mr. Khamanie and his aggressive instrument Ahmadinezhad contradicted themselves by stating that the western countries are interfering into the Irans internal affairs. these statements reveals if it is true, that westerns are more popular than Mr Khamanie and his follower nezhad.
i am really surprised when i saw such a large rally in Tehran and other cities streets. if Iranian system still popular and people still want it, how come, such a large number of people incited by west. 13m voted Mossavi and around 3Millions voted Karubi, It means west is suported by 18 Million Iranians and west is more popular than Ahmadinezhad and his leader.
i am sure if they could purchase back their statement, they will do it, because they attempted to assure that the system has no problem with the people, and the unrest is not a result of fruad.
around 25 million of iranians are Muslim Sunni. I assure you none of them voted for Ahmadinezhad, because of his past 4 years aggressive and discriminatory policies toward them. Mr Ahmadinezhad Policies are based on Safavis ideological principles, which to wipe all religious minorities in Iran, and establishing 100% Shaeizm state in Iran.
Kurds are 13 Million none of them voted for Ahmadinezhad, as he is the hated person among the Kurds because of his discriminatory policies, and the voilence his governemt used against them during last 4 years. since 2005 around 2000 Kurds have been killed just because they are kurds, some of the killings were occured through a car crush(senario played by ahmads governmet.
50% of iranian population are women, to what extent it can be realistic to say that the iranian women voted for their stonning conviction. since his presidency the stonning punishment was doubled comparing to the previous governments.
Few weeks before the election, IRGG, and Supreme leader office played a nasty senario in sistan and baluchestan. they organised a sucid attack in mousq which resulted in 25 death and 100s of causalties. this was to incite the Shia fundamentalists to vote for ahmadinezhad. because Mr Mousavis Manefesto was including the religion minorities right, supreme leader tried through this act of crime to incite shia to vote for his DIdolo, and was conspiracy, to say look, if mossavi win, he will give a right to sunni muslim, and then there will bloodshed, and they will explod all shia mousqe.
Nima Shiarazi, today or tomorrow they have to leave that country, because of the democratic uprising, and social movements are like huricans and Tornaidos, no power can stop or disrupt them. in addition, if the political turmoil is CIAs plam, it would have been such unorganized and leaderless.
“13m voted Mossavi and around 3Millions voted Karubi, It means west is suported by 18 Million Iranians and west is more popular than Ahmadinezhad and his leader.”
Huh? Math aside, where’d you come by this logic?
Meet the new kind of ” Insta-Pundits” of Iran. All heavy on irrelevant details with a seeming agnostic philosophocal gaze: ” we’ll never be certain as to what exactly happened…,” and zero on the social-political conditions of Iranian society for the past thirty years!
For Shirazi, Petras, Afrasiabi et al…. the fact that we’re talking about:
– a most brutal THEOCRACY, which practices GENDER-APARTHEID on half of country’s population, Iranian women. A regime which has introduced stoning to death…
– a country with 70% of the work force employed on TEMPORARY WORK CONTRACTS, lasting only for 89 days before they’re fired and hired again for another 89 days.
– a regime plagued by consistent protests by popular radical social movements on weekly, monthly and annual basis; students ( including Socialist students, who actaully have a class analysis of Islamic Republic )on 16th of Azar, women networks On March 8th. Workers on May 1st….
and thousand of other examples that could be cited, are all just “impressions” of mainstream western media, not class and political realities of Iranian society.
As Soran also mentioned above social movements are like tornados, and what this electoral coup has effectively done is to pour hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of hitherto apathetic or content observors into the ranks of protestors/activists, many thanks to “Mahmud Shah.”
The last time such a societal shift occured [1977-79] we witnessed the most massive revolution at the end of the 20th century. Will we be witnessing the most massive revoultion at the beginning of the 21st century? It’s going to be a bumpy ride, cheers
-Hoshang
Deary Jeremy thanks for your critique as i did not understand any think from it, and last sentence doesnt make any sense, but, however, i am pleased which you informed me of a typing mistake.
i can not live, if the people around me do not criticise me on daily bases, because i see it as the foundation of improvement.
thanks
Last sentence of your comments, reveals your perspective and displays that you beleive in absolute. in my point of view, no thing is absolute. 1+1= might = 3 0r 4 or it might equal 2. majority of western commentators were beleiving that the system and elite around it in Iran are undividable because the ideologic philosophy they were pursuing.
I could say that because the means of material production is controled by fundamental islamic clerics in Iran, the means of mental production also under their absolute control internally and externally.
Iranians outside the Iran, are inciting people to support the legitimacy of fruad and rigged election, and they are freely allowed to express their political, social and economic veiw, in addition they criticise who they want in bias way. but never they asked them selves, is it possible in Iran. Mr Nima lives in USA, freely criticies us administration, but if he do it in Iran, i mean if he critiises the leader and president in same way in Iran, he will be stonned or will be sentenced to death by the leaders courts.
Mr Jeremmy, have you asked your self, why the Lebenes anti riot police are involved, which they are not anti riot police, diversely, they are death team. currently there are 5000 foreign militia oppressing the protestors. where is the moral and humanity, to that extent, we should humiliate our ethics and morality with no reasonable foundation for our support to the Iranian theocratics.
assume majority of the people were voted for the islamic system in Iran, 30 years, it does not mean it should be accepted by current generation or the future generations. i am not legally and morally bound to what my parents voted for and agreed on. we want freedom.
however, some commentators do support current system, not because they consider it legitimate, no, because they does not want iranian peoples to have real natural freedom. they know if the regime collapse there will be a democratic state, equality, freedom of expression, human right. but some people does not want Iranians to enjoy their natural rights, as it will lead them to make progress socially , economically and politically, because they know Iranian have some kind of potential power.
Robert Fisk looked into the claim that Hebollah militants were being used as security forces. He pointed out that those he approached didn’t even understand Arabic. These are the kinds of rumors that are being spread by the opposition as psychological warfare.
Interesting article. Readers might be interested in a prescient 2006 report that traces the history of Iranian women’s struggles for their rights. Iranian women have long allocated funds for women’s empowerment, by working with civil society groups, and by organizing workshops and educational programs. They are also leading in the use of electronic and mass media as part of their push for rights. Its key finding? “The struggle for women’s rights is fully intertwined with the larger struggle for democracy.” The report can be found at: http://www.huntalternatives.org/iran.cfm
Islamic Republic is training Hezbollah members in Iran, under the auspices of Gurdians Corps [ Sepah Pasdaran]. Would it be far fethched to have some of the trainees, display some of the lessons they’ve learned in the streets of Tehran?
When Iranians of Arab decent in Khuzistan had their mini-rebellion couple of years ago, Islamic Republic brought in none other than Moghanieh himself to interrogate and god know what else the Arab speaking population.
Furthermore the position Nassorallah has taken by severly criticizing Iranian football palyers who put on Green wrist-bands during their game, is a very clear indication where Hezbollah’s loyalties are. For more on this read Prof. Hamid Dabashi’s article in Al’ahram weekly.
If you recall after Khatemi’s first election victory, when Hezbollah’s delegation came to Tehran they first met Khatemi and then Khamenee. They also made a short statement that “people’s choice, thier elected president” were the real expression of Islamic Republic, which was very maverick considering all the money and logistics they have been recieving from Khamenee. Unfortuantely they’ve seem to have regressed!
Dear. Jeremy
We as Iranians making such claims you do not beleive us, but you refer to Robert Fisk Statements, who knows he is right, and is there any reasonable and constructive foundation for his claim. again, all the journalists are banned in Tehrans Streets, how come, he is not banned. how can he approach anti police iot.
it seems suspicious to me, because your statement reveals, that Mr Robert, is one of those traditional and classic Communist, which justify all kind of acts against capitalists. I mean they support and justify athouritarian and dictator regime who are against the west.
the only media and journalist allowed to attend the rallies are the one of pro-regime, so it means the reference you refered to is not reliable, as it is based on his personal perspective toward the west. again, why does some people want to reenge and retaliate by justifying inhuman and dictator regimes.
Dear. Readers. Some od Traditional and classic communists, who failled, specially after the collapse of USSR, are pro-authoritarian regimes, such Iran, Fanzeula, China, North Korea, and others around the glob. therefore, in their writing the human right and ethic, moral is lacking, when they judge an event. they think if the Iranian regime exist, capitalism and imperialism will be weakend and eliminated from the region. they does not know, if it is not because of imperialisms slave “Iranian regime” West would not have been allowed, or would not have been able to be present at the region. beause of the Iranian regimes conduct and threat that imposes o the region, the west justified its presence in the region. but who is going to pay it back, we as iranians, sanctions on current regime cause next generation alot of difficulties, and we have to pay the debt back.
you know imperialist does not make great profit on arm salling at the time of the war and coonflicts, instead, they make profit on the debt, “money they lend it to the conflicts party”.
Soran, I don’t disbelieve the claim because you’re Iranian. I don’t believe it because I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s true, just rumors. Mr. Fisk explained that he had not yet learned that foreign reporters had been banned, and he continued to do his job.