The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Furthermore, this poll was conducted before Ahmadnejad’s impressive showing in widely watched televised debates against his opponents. The debates, aired live nightly between June 2nd and 8th, pitted candidates one-on-one for ninety minutes. According to news reports, the Ahmadinejad-Mousavi debate was watched by more than 40 million people. Leverett notes,
American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents – especially his debate with Mousavi.
Before the debates, both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad campaign aides indicated privately that they perceived a surge of support for Mousavi; after the debates, the same aides concluded that Ahmadinejad’s provocatively impressive performance and Mousavi’s desultory one had boosted the incumbent’s standing. Ahmadinejad’s charge that Mousavi was supported by Rafsanjani’s sons – widely perceived in Iranian society as corrupt figures – seemed to play well with voters.
Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s criticism that Mousavi’s reformist supporters, including former President Khatami, had been willing to suspend Iran’s uranium enrichment program and had won nothing from the West for doing so tapped into popular support for the program – and had the added advantage of being true.
Anyone who actually watched the debates (one wonders how many Western reporters, pundits, Iran “experts,” and commentators are included in this demographic) would have known first-hand how singularly uncharismatic Mousavi was and how particularly lackluster was his debating style. Mousavi is a mumbler, a low-talker, and has about as much on-screen personality as Ben Stein on Klonopin. (How this man, absent from Iranian politics for the past twenty years, could become the leader of an energetic protest movement is anyone’s guess, but you might want to ask the CIA first.)
Conversely, Ahmadinejad – as both his supporters and detractors would readily admit – is nothing if not an engaging, animated, and impassioned speaker. His outspoken nature and refusal to be bullied by opponents is apparent to anyone who has ever heard or seen him speak, whether they agree with what he says or not. Anyone who believes Mousavi won these debates either didn’t actually watch them and/or decided to uncritically believe talking points distributed by the Mousavi campaign about their candidate’s inspired performance.
Opponents of Ahmadinejad in the Western press – or, more accurately, everyone in the Western press – consistently refer to Ahmadinejad as an entrenched, establishment politician who has the unconditional backing of Iran’s powerful theocratic hierarchy. As such, the current unrest in the nation’s capital has been described as a grassroots, largely secular movement aimed at upsetting the religious orthodoxy of the government – embodied in such reports by Ahmadinejad himself – in an effort to fight for more personal freedoms and human rights in defiance of the country’s revolutionary ideals. These reports betray the journalists’ obvious misunderstanding of Iranian politics in general, and certainly of President Ahmadinejad’s personal politics in particular.
In fact, Newsweek reported that, on Wednesday morning of last week, Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who was with her husband throughout the presidential campaign, felt the need to remind a group of students that she and her husband still believe in the ideals of the revolution and don’t regard anti-Islamic Revolution elements as their allies.
Furthermore, even though here in the US, he is variably referred to as “hardline” and a religious conservative, Ahmadinejad is far more of a populist politician, consistently favoring nationalization, the redistribution of Iran’s oil wealth, controlled prices of basic consumer goods, increased government subsidies, salaries, benefits, and insurance and continued opposition to foreign investment over his opponents’ calls for more free-market privatization of education and agriculture, as well as the promotion of neoliberal strategies. Leading up to the election, Mousavi condemned what he called Ahmadinejad’s “charity-based economic policy.” I wonder how that attack played with the middle, lower, and impoverished classes of Iran’s voting public. Oh right, Ahmadinejad got 63% of the vote, even if Juan Cole didn’t want him to.
Ahmadinejad has often drawn the ire of both Iranian clerics and legislators alike for his outspoken views. In March 2008, The Economist noted that influential conservative clerics are said to be irritated by his “folksy and superstitious brand of ostentatious piety and his favouritism to men of military rather than clerical backgrounds.” The conservative Rand Corporation even reminds us, “He is not a mullah; public frustration with rule by mullahs made this a very positive characteristic. He comes from a working-class background, which appealed to lower-income Iranians, the bulk of the electorate, yet he has a doctorate in engineering.” In the 2005 presidential election, Ahmadinejad emerged as a dark horse to challenge front-runner and assumed shoe-in, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. As the son of a blacksmith, “Ahmadinejad benefited from the contrast between his modest lifestyle and Rafsanjani’s obvious wealth, commonly known to stem from corruption.” The Rand report even reiterates that “Rafsanjani is extraordinarily corrupt.”
During both his presidential campaigns of 2005 and 2009, Ahmadinejad focused far more on “bread and butter” issues to win over his constituents, rather than on religion, saying things like this in his speeches: “People think a return to revolutionary values is only a matter of wearing the headscarf. The country’s true problem is employment and housing, not what to wear.”
In the past three months of campaigning for reelection, the incumbent made over sixty campaign trips throughout Iran, while Mousavi visited only major cities. Throughout the recent debates, Ahmadinejad took the opportunity to attack rampant corruption among high-ranking clerics within the Iranian establishment. The New York Times reported that “He accused Mr. Rafsanjani, an influential cleric, and Mr. Rafsanjani’s sons of corruption and said they were financing Mr. Mousavi’s campaign. Mr. Ahmadinejad also cited a long list of officials whom he accused of unspecified corrupt acts, including plundering billions of dollars of the country’s wealth.” The article continued,
Mr. Ahmadinejad contended that the early founders of the Iranian revolution, including Mr. Moussavi, had gradually moved away from the values of the revolution’s early days and had become “a force that considered itself as the owner of the country.”
He suggested that some leaders had indulged in an inappropriately lavish lifestyle, naming, among others, a former speaker of Parliament, Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, who has opposed some of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s policies. Mr. Nouri, a conservative, ran unsuccessfully for president in 1997. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s remarks seemed to suggest a deepening divide between the president and a number of influential leaders, including some conservatives who belong to a faction that has supported Mr. Ahmadinejad.
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.