Whereas these remarks may have struck a chord with the Iranian public, they provoked a stern rebuke from Supreme Leader Khamenei at last Friday’s post-election prayer service. Khamenei, breaking a long-standing tradition of not mentioning specific people during his address, defended Rafsanjani’s reputation by describing him as “one of the most significant and principal people of the movement in the pre-revolution era…[who] went to the verges of martyrdom several times after the revolution,” also pointing out his bona fides as “a companion of Imam Khomeini, and after the demise of Imam Khomeini was perpetually a comrade of the leader.”
Rafsanjani is currently the speaker of the Assembly of Experts, an 86 member elected council of clerics responsible for appointing and, if need be, dismissing and replacing the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic. In September 2007, Rafsanjani was elected speaker after decisively defeating a candidate supported by Ahmadinejad. He is also currently the leader of the Expediency Council which is “responsible for breaking stalemates between the Majlis and the Guardian Council, advising the Supreme Leader, and proposing policy guidelines for the Islamic Republic.” As such, the Expediency Council limits the power wielded by the conservative Guardian Council, a body consisting of twelve jurists who evaluate the compatibility of the Majlis [Parliament]’s legislative decisions with Islamic law and the Iranian constitution. Moreover, in 2005, Khamenei strengthened the role of the Expediency Council by granting it supervisory powers over all branches of government, effectively affording the Expediency Council and its leader, Rafsanjani, oversight over the presidency.
As a result, Rafsanjani retains a tremendous amount of power within Iranian politics. His strong support, both outspoken and financial, for Mousavi should show clearly that Mousavi – who was the Iranian Prime Minister during the Iran-Iraq War – is not some scrappy reformist challenger to the upper tiers of the Islamic Republic. He is as establishment as anyone else, if not more so.
But that’s not all. Asia Times correspondant M.K. Bhadrakumar explains,
For those who do not know Iran better, suffice to say that the Rafsanjani family clan owns vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran. Known as Azad there are 300 branches spread over the country, they are not only money-spinners but could also press into Mousavi’s election campaign an active cadre of student activists numbering some 3 million.
The Azad campuses and auditoria provided the rallying point for Mousavi’s campaign in the provinces. The attempt was to see that the campaign reached the rural poor in their multitudes who formed the bulk of voters and constituted Ahmadinejad’s political base. Rafsanjani’s political style is to build up extensive networking in virtually all the top echelons of the power structure, especially bodies such as the Guardian Council, Expediency Council, the Qom clergy, Majlis, judiciary, bureaucracy, Tehran bazaar and even elements within the circles close to Khamenei. He called into play these pockets of influence.
The Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri has already come out against the election results, once again showing that the dynamic of the Iranian government is not that of a monolithic dictatorship, but a complex network of power plays. Basically, what we’re seeing is all politics, and not a revolutionary uprising.
As allegations of fraud spread, Mousavi supporters in the United States seemed not to be able to get their stories straight. In co-ordinated mass emails, sent widely to promote protests across the country (and with all the “grassroots” pizzazz of those corporate-sponsored Republican Teabagging Parties in April), a number of unsubstantiated claims are noted as “Basic Statistics.”
Some claim that there were not enough ballots available to the voting public, while others suggest that there were too many ballots in an attempt to stuff ballot boxes with pro-Ahmadinejad votes. It is claimed that “Voting irregularities occurred throughout Iran and abroad. Polls closed early, votes were not counted and ballots were confusing.” Without providing any evidence of any of these accusations, the message reveals its own inaccuracy by deliberately spreading misinformation. Because turnout on election day was so high in Iran, polls actually remained open for up to four extra hours to allow as many people to cast ballots as possible. If Iranian authorities were prepared for a totalitarian takeover of the country after a faked election, why bother to keep polls open?
Also, the ballots weren’t confusing. They had no list of names or added legislative initiatives. They had one single, solitary question on them: Who is your pick for president? There is one empty box to note a number corresponding to the candidate of your choice and another box in which you are to write the candidate’s name. No hanging chads, no levers to pull, no political parties to consider. Just write the name of the guy you want to win. How is this confusing?
The suggestion that the ballots were counted too quickly to reflect a genuine result is in itself bizarre and unfounded. Al-Amin tells us, “There were a total of 45,713 ballot boxes that were set up in cities, towns and villages across Iran. With 39.2 million ballots cast, there were less than 860 ballots per box…Why would it take more than an hour or two to count 860 ballots per poll? After the count, the results were then reported electronically to the Ministry of the Interior in Tehran.”
The elections in Iran are organized and monitored. The ballots are counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees, much like here in the US. An eyewitness from Shiraz provides this account:
As an employee in City Hall, I was assigned to be a poll worker/watcher at the University of Shiraz on election day and here it was impossible for cheating to have taken place! There were close to 20 observers, from the Guardian Council, the Ministry of the Interior, and more than four-five representatives/observers from each candidate. Everybody was watching every single move, stamp, piece of paper, etc. from the checking of the Shenas-Nameh (personal indentification documentation) to the filling of the ballot boxes, to the counting of each ballot under everyone’s eyes, and then registering the results into the computer and sending them to the Interior Ministry…Also, we had extra ballots in Shiraz. It’s possible that in some of the smaller villages they ran out of ballots, but the voting hours were extended.
The opposition messages state that “The two main state news agencies in Iran declared the winner before polls closed and votes were counted.” Actually, as mentioned above, it was Mousavi who declared his own victory several hours before the polls closed. Paul Craig Roberts, who is himself a former US government official, suggests that Mousavi’s premature victory declaration is “classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.”
Circulating emails even contain this tidbit: “Two primary opponents of Ahmadinejad reject the notion that he won the election.” Talk about proof!
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.