Iranian Elections this week

[Lizard_King]

And I wouldn't consider a military intervention "humanitarian." If you're going to define it as something that necessarily involves killing people, I think that makes it ineligible for the "humanitarian" adjective. What exactly would a humanitarian military intervention look like?
Seeing as how my point is that they don't really exist, that is a curious question to be asking in that manner. I was saying, for instance, that missions that are ostensibly about bringing peace to an area are unlikely to have a humanitarian issue as a prime mover as opposed to resource control, general stability relative to neighbors, etc as an obvious key motivation. I would add to that the requirement that a first rate military be involved, since separate efforts like ECOMOG and countless UN interventions where rich countries sponsor poor countries' troops demonstrate the obvious perils of sending in undertrained, underpaid conscripts with no clear accountability.*

So, once again, I think you are asking the wrong guy this question. I'm sure it's hypothetically possible to send troops for "peacekeeping" or whatever the euphemism of the day is for the kind of mission people upthread were referencing wistfully with respect to Iran in the present day, but it has never really happened before nor do I think it an appropriate response to the situation that exists there now. Which was what I said, originally.

*Iraq and countless other occupations by well trained, funded militaries also suggest that it is improbable that they can execute a "clean" operation in the long run, either. I'm sure some tiny Scandinavian force or something could pull it off, but there don't seem to be many challenges out there that wouldn't require a lot more than they can bring to bear in order to ensure that the don't end up with the UN style of organization (Norwegian coordinators stringing together a clusterfuck of other militaries that they only have nominal control over, for instance).

[Disconnected]

Right, and I can see how someone might think of that as humanitarian, but in order to protect that infrastructure you're going to have to kill the people trying to damage it. And if you're doing that, then you're not on a humanitarian mission -- you're taking sides in a conflict that was probably none of your business.

How do you determine what's side-taking? Let's say a military force is deployed to maintain the integrity of sanitation for five million civilians. The force has no mandate to pursue anyone, or otherwise take sides in any conflict. It is simply tasked with making sure nobody and no-one blows the shit out of the sewers.

Is it still taking sides? What if it, against expectations, end up not doing anything, is it still not humanitarian then?

Whatever, I'm not advocating military intervention in Iran either.

[Saiban]

Seeing as how my point is that they don't really exist, that is a curious question to be asking in that manner. I was saying, for instance, that missions that are ostensibly about bringing peace to an area are unlikely to have a humanitarian issue as a prime mover as opposed to resource control, general stability relative to neighbors, etc as an obvious key motivation. I would add to that the requirement that a first rate military be involved, since separate efforts like ECOMOG and countless UN interventions where rich countries sponsor poor countries' troops demonstrate the obvious perils of sending in undertrained, underpaid conscripts with no clear accountability.*

Right. I guess I pretty much agree with you; I was just looking at it from a different angle.


So, once again, I think you are asking the wrong guy this question. I'm sure it's hypothetically possible to send troops for "peacekeeping" or whatever the euphemism of the day is for the kind of mission people upthread were referencing wistfully with respect to Iran in the present day, but it has never really happened before nor do I think it an appropriate response to the situation that exists there now. Which was what I said, originally.

Well, of course I agree with that, and I think that anyone who doesn't probably needs to be sent to those re-education camps Michele Bachmann keeps talking about.

[Saiban]

How do you determine what's side-taking? Let's say a military force is deployed to maintain the integrity of sanitation for five million civilians. The force has no mandate to pursue anyone, or otherwise take sides in any conflict. It is simply tasked with making sure nobody and no-one blows the shit out of the sewers.

Is it still taking sides? What if it, against expectations, end up not doing anything, is it still not humanitarian then?

Whatever, I'm not advocating military intervention in Iran either.

There's just too many complexities for any scenario to be as clean-cut as that. By itself, the presence of those soldiers is going to have an effect on the conflict. This is all purely hypothetical, because really, I can't think of a military action that has been that limited (or if they started out that way, they didn't remain so).

At the most basic level, I would say that any sort of military mission with that many limitations is going to be doomed from the start, because the people opposing that mission won't have nearly as many handicaps. I suppose you could make it a true 'humanitarian' undertaking, but it will end up being a fool's errand. I just don't think you'd ever get those circumstances, because militaries are by design intended to avoid such situations -- just as they're designed to not be humanitarian organizations.

Also, maybe something to think about -- what would the political climate be in the US vis-a-vis intervention if we didn't have the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact have those conflicts still ongoing?

[Disconnected]

There's just too many complexities for any scenario to be as clean-cut as that. By itself, the presence of those soldiers is going to have an effect on the conflict. This is all purely hypothetical, because really, I can't think of a military action that has been that limited (or if they started out that way, they didn't remain so).

All true. I tried really hard to think of an appropriate real-world example I could use, but I don't think there are any.

But I disagree about your basics thing. I think the core problem is that politics tend to get in the way.


Also, maybe something to think about -- what would the political climate be in the US vis-a-vis intervention if we didn't have the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan, and in fact have those conflicts still ongoing?I don't know. I'm also not American. As far as I'm aware, America usually only engages in military intervention to further its own hegemonic aspirations, and as far as I know, such operations tends to be borderline catastrophic for foreign civilians, economies and everyone else who, deliberately or incidentally, happens to be an obstacle to your hegemonic aspirations.

Not implying it makes you different from every other country in the world. On the contrary, we are all thugs and bandits. But it does make me think one should be extremely hesitant to condone, encourage, invite or apply military force.

[Jasper Phillips]

I was somewhat gobsmacked at the thought of cold war-era Cuban mercenaries being altruistic humanitarians, but wasn't going to say anything.

"Altruistic" == "result we liked", I suppose.
Oh? What exactly did Cuba get out of these conflicts then? Resources? Military Bases? Hegemony? Is there something in particular you're thinking of, or are you just taking the cynical angle that altruism essentially doesn't exist?

Pegging them as mercenaries doesn't sound right either, as they weren't working for the highest bidder (which would have been the other side of both conflicts). Mercenaries would have been in it primarily for cash, and it seems quite a stretch for me to paint the Cuban military in that light.

And "result I like" has nothing to do with it, actually. The people Cuba aided seem to genuinely think their aid was largely altruistic, which seems like the simplest criteria to me. To second guess them and insert my or your take strikes me as overly cynical.

[Jason McCullough]

The people Cuba aided seem to genuinely think their aid was largely altruistic, which seems like the simplest criteria to me.

US citizens regularly get this wrong about our military interventions, I don't see how that's a useful guideline.

[Jasper Phillips]

I think perhaps you mistook me. I'm not talking about Cuban citizens.

[jpinard]

Terrible news:


Iranians wounded during protests are being seized at hospitals by members of an Islamic militia, an Amnesty International official told CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/27/iran.protests/

[Rimbo]

this news...it is terrible

[Lizard_King]

Oh? What exactly did Cuba get out of these conflicts then? Resources? Military Bases? Hegemony? Is there something in particular you're thinking of, or are you just taking the cynical angle that altruism essentially doesn't exist?

Pegging them as mercenaries doesn't sound right either, as they weren't working for the highest bidder (which would have been the other side of both conflicts). Mercenaries would have been in it primarily for cash, and it seems quite a stretch for me to paint the Cuban military in that light.

And "result I like" has nothing to do with it, actually. The people Cuba aided seem to genuinely think their aid was largely altruistic, which seems like the simplest criteria to me. To second guess them and insert my or your take strikes me as overly cynical.

Overly cynical does not exist in the context of the Cold War, which was Lum's point. Cuba has always had a complicated relationship with race (http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=7b4ef8e52790034e043a3 7d170243f0f), for instance, and I would argue that their support for anti-apartheid forces was not primarily founded in much more than the usual proxy options that the Capitalist Pigs (TM) and Pinko Commies (TM) would find themselves anywhere in the world. There is certainly a case for being sympathetic to the side that tended to be more downtrodden in these situations at least 99% of the time, but to regard that aid as humanitarian in nature would be naive in the extreme. Unless, of course, you view the cold war as a conflict where Team Communist did indeed have the moral high ground.

I would say that Cuba demonstrates that if you are going to export military aid, building it around asymmetrical and guerrilla warfare will give you far more bang for your buck (as the US found out with the tremendous success of Stinger missiles in Afghanistan) than dumping a bunch of conventional warfare equipment on your favorite crony. Clearly, it also makes for better press in retrospect.

[jeffd]

Offhand, I can't think of any successful genuinely humanitarian military missions conducted on any scale by a first-rate military. I'd usually leave it at that, but a brief Atlantic piece recently connected the dots nicely (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/ideas-mercenaries). The interventions that are actually driven by that priority generally get outsourced to 3rd tier militaries who proceed to accomplish little other than provide what may be the worst mercenary bang for the buck available (hence Gibney's problematic point about maybe just upping the quality of the mercs).

Operation Provide Comfort is about the only one that springs to mind. On the other than, first rate military powers don't generally tend to try humanitarian intervention, and when they do they're usually quite half-assed about it.

[Lum]

Oh? What exactly did Cuba get out of these conflicts then? Resources? Military Bases? Hegemony? Is there something in particular you're thinking of, or are you just taking the cynical angle that altruism essentially doesn't exist?

Massive economic assistance from the USSR (which caused the Cuban economy to crater when the Soviet Union and thus the cold war disappeared).

They weren't called "Cuban mercenaries" for nothing. Cuba sent ground forces so the Soviets wouldn't have to (and thus escalate the Angolan war). And it certainly wasn't as a "humanitarian gesture", Mandela's felicitations aside (and for all of Mandela's genuine good that he did for South Africa, he would also have been quite happy to be the President of a Soviet client state as well).

[Rimbo]

Operation Provide Comfort is about the only one that springs to mind. On the other than, first rate military powers don't generally tend to try humanitarian intervention, and when they do they're usually quite half-assed about it.

I wonder if the concept of using a military for "humanitarian" purposes even existed prior to WW2, and how much of a hand liberating the concentration camps had in that concept.

[Abilio Carvalho]

Operation Provide Comfort is about the only one that springs to mind. On the other than, first rate military powers don't generally tend to try humanitarian intervention, and when they do they're usually quite half-assed about it.


East Timor maybe? That's still a stretch though.

[Jason McCullough]

Isn't there some quote of Napoleon talking about how he's come to liberate the people of Egypt from their oppression?

[Dogar]

Never heard of it, but it probably exists. Maybe the brits borrowed the idea when they told the Iraqi's that they were occupying their country soley to liberate them from the tyranny of the Ottomans.

[Saiban]

Isn't there some quote of Napoleon talking about how he's come to liberate the people of Egypt from their oppression?

Do you mean this? (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_to_the_Egyptians)


People of Egypt: You will be told by our enemies, that I am come to destroy your religion. Believe them not. Tell them that I am come to restore your rights, punish your usurpers, and raise the true worship of Mahomet.
Tell them that I venerate, more than do the Mamelukes, God, His prophet, and the Koran. Tell them that all men are equal in the sight of God; that wisdom, talents, and virtue alone constitute the difference between them. And what are the virtues which distinguish the Mamelukes, that entitle them to appropriate all the enjoyments of life to themselves? If Egypt is their farm, let them show their lease, from God, by which they hold it. Is there a fine estate? It belongs to the Mamelukes. Is there a beautiful slave, a fine horse, a good house? All belong to the Mamelukes. But God is just and merciful, and He hath ordained that the Empire of the Mamelukes shall come to an end.
Thrice happy those who shall side with us; they shall prosper in their fortune and their rank. Happy they who shall be neutral; they will have time to become acquainted with us, and will range themselves upon our side. But woe, threefold woe, to those who shall arm for the Mamelukes and fight against us! For them there will be no hope; they shall perish.


Wikisource is so much more interesting than Wikipedia.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Sounds just like Obama's speech, except for the references to the Mamelukes.

[Anti-Bunny]

East Timor maybe? That's still a stretch though.

Actually, INTERFET is as good an example as you will find.

[Cubit]

The recount results are official:


After quickly finishing a partial vote recount said to confirm a previous tally of ballots, Iran's Guardian Council today validated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's June 12 reelection despite persistent allegations of massive vote fraud.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-election30-2009jun30,0,7432186.story

I can't say I'm surprised.

[Rimbo]

http://lordwhatsmymotivation.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/iago6.jpg

I am sooo not surprised from that... I think.. I think I might DIE from the lack of surprise.

[Cubit]

sad, sobering stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/01/iran-protest-arrests-afshin-friend

[Hanacker]

So is this pretty much ending with a whimper or is there a chance of things flaring up again?

[Rimbo]

I think when the video and story of Neda has had time to make the rounds, bad things are going to happen. And I think that video and story will get around, in ways that e.g. the Tiananmen massacre didn't have a chance to.

[Hugin]

So is this pretty much ending with a whimper or is there a chance of things flaring up again?

I think this has created a fundamental problem for the current form of government in the country, and at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, I don't think Iran will ever be the same again. That doesn't mean the government falls tomorrow or next week, but I would bet a token amount of money that in 10 years the office of the Supreme Leader either doesn't exist or is vestigial/ceremonial.

[Lizard_King]

Two questions have yet to be answered: who thought this neatly diagrammed organizational system was a good idea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8051750.stm#) and wtf happened to all of those Rafsanjani murmurs (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/wheres_rafsanjani.php) that were coming out before?

[cesare]

Two questions have yet to be answered: who thought this neatly diagrammed organizational system was a good idea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8051750.stm#) and wtf happened to all of those Rafsanjani murmurs (http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/wheres_rafsanjani.php) that were coming out before?

Rafsanjani gave a commemoration speech (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/28/rafsanjani-iran-election-fallout-a-tangled-mess/) the other day where he said that the recent troubles were likely caused by "suspicious sources", the phrase being used by Khamenei and Ahmadenijad to imply foreign direction in the Tehran street protests.

He also echoed Khamenei that outside forces are trying to paint this as "seperation and differences between the system and people." (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/29/18604531.php) His publicized comments are full of some pretty empty platitudes, so it's hard to gauge his actual feelings on the whole thing. He does half-heartedly praise Khamenei's decision to extend the time to recount some of the ballots.

[Mr_PeaCH]

Not over yet?

Clerical Leaders Defy Ayatollah on Iran Election (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?bl&ex=1247025600&en=04d7bd84eadcadc1&ei=5087%0A)

[Lizard_King]

Not over yet?

Clerical Leaders Defy Ayatollah on Iran Election (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?bl&ex=1247025600&en=04d7bd84eadcadc1&ei=5087%0A)

There he is, making sure his name's still in the papers as part of the quasi-opposition. Good old 'Jani.

I can easily imagine all of the actual religious leaders (as opposed to Khamenei who was only granted the title for pragmatic reasons) capitalizing on this opportunity. Everyone seems to like playing with fire these days.

[Rimbo]

My understanding is that a major part of Ahmadinejad's platform is opposition to clerical abuses of their authority. If true, that puts the Ayatollah's support of his government, and the current clerical opposition to it, in a very interesting light.

[Anaxagoras]

Documentary on the recent protests. (http://poetv.com/video.php?vid=62710)

Warning: Video is liable to create feelings of rage & heartbreak.

Edit - There are a couple disturbing images, but not many, and not terribly graphic.

[Dogar]

Just finished watching the video.

Agree with the warning. Imo you should also add "profound admiration."

[Hechicera]

Imo you should also add "profound admiration."

Especially since the crackdowns intensified in the time after that video was filmed. So even after it got much worse, some went back out on the streets this week.

[Anti-Bunny]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726981104525893.html#mod=todays_us_page_one

For Mr. Moradani, the biggest shock during the election turmoil came in his personal life. He had recently gotten engaged to a young woman from a devout, conservative family. A week into the protests, he says, his fiancée called him with an ultimatum. If he didn't leave the Basij and stop supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad, he recalls her saying, she wouldn't marry him.

He told her that was impossible. "I suffered a real emotional blow," he says. "She said to me, 'Go beat other people's children then,' and 'I don't want to have anything to do with you,' and hung up on me."
Oh snap

[Anaxagoras]

Montazeri issues fatwa against the regime. (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD243909)

I don't understand the "Query/Reply" structure shown. I assume the "Reply" sections are the fatwa?

[Tankero]

Good God. There goes the tar-barrel.

[Jag]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124726981104525893.html#mod=todays_us_page_one

Oh snap


A Basij chapter operates out of every officially sanctioned institution, private or government owned. Ministries, universities, factories, schools, mosques and hospitals all house Basij units. Joining the Basij can be as easy as signing up. But members are carefully vetted. Indoctrination includes theology and ideology seminars, then military training.

Insidious and ingenious.

[Houngan]

Montazeri issues fatwa against the regime. (http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD243909)

I don't understand the "Query/Reply" structure shown. I assume the "Reply" sections are the fatwa?

The Queries are the cleric asking the head jibjabs if the cases he is presenting constitute a breach of Sharia, the replies are the head jibjabs saying "Well yes, if that's the case, then it is certainly outside Islam/Iran's Constitution/Sharia.

It seems really, really important, but then it's MEMRI, so you have to be cautious with the translations.

H.

[Hechicera]

Have seen three other translations. Here is original (http://www.amontazeri.com/farsi/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=209&FORUM_ID=2&CAT_ID=2&Forum_Title=%26%231582%3B%26%231576%3B%26%231585%3 B%26%231606%3B%26%231575%3B%26%231605%3B%26%231607 %3B&Topic_Title=%26%231662%3B%26%231575%3B%26%231587%3 B%26%231582%3B+%26%231576%3B%26%231607%3B+%26%2316 62%3B%26%231585%3B%26%231587%3B%26%231588%3B+%26%2 31607%3B%26%231575%3B%26%231740%3B+%26%231581%3B%2 6%231580%3B%26%231577%3B%26%231575%3B%26%231604%3B %26%231575%3B%26%231587%3B%26%231604%3B%26%231575% 3B%26%231605%3B+%26%231583%3B%26%231705%3B%26%2315 78%3B%26%231585%3B+%26%231705%3B%26%231583%3B%26%2 31740%3B%26%231608%3B%26%231585%3B), if you want to have your own done. Yes, it really is that pointy. In no uncertain terms he is calling the Supreme Leader unfit to lead under Islam, the current civil government illegitimate due to the vote issues, and telling people they have not only the right but the duty to over thrown them all, even if that comes at great cost to them.

The iffy part is the source. Yes, Montezeri is a really ancient cleric who can issue fatwa's. Yes, he is high enough in clerical rank to be considered a "source of emulation" in Shia Islam. He was even supposed to succeed Khomeini as the Supreme Leader. Then is where it breaks down.

Khomeini religiously and legally "disowned" him (http://www.baabeilm.org/khomeini/montezari.pdf) as successor for being to liberal as well as for siding with other clerics that thought mixing head of state and infallible head of church was maybe a bad idea. Montezeri thinks he was disowned so some clerics and other leaders could grab political power and control of wealth (via his bio in English (http://www.amontazeri.com/english/Zendegi_e.htm) on his website). He thought clerics should not hold a political office if there was a qualified non-cleric for the job, and also seems to think living on "the minumum necessary" worldly goods is a religious value. Sounds pretty liberal to me for a stalwart of the 79 revolution.

Khomeini (with help from Rafsanjani) then picked the current guy Khamenei to be Supreme Leader after him. I suspect only his clerical stature, and being well-known from the revolution of '79 is what saved him from being killed. They killed some of his followers. He did get put under house arrest, and threatened.

So to say Montezeri and the current Supreme Leader don't see eye to eye is a gross understatement. This statement is just "ok, you are really, really, really wrong now!". Also, I'm not sure it is technically a fatwa, but certainly is his political opinion. He's been effectively sidelined for a decade, so I have no idea what if any support he has in Iran.

[Rimbo]

also seems to think living on "the minumum necessary" worldly goods is a religious value

you'd think that based on this alone, he'd almost be an ahmadinejad supporter :D

[Hechicera]

@Rimbo

From what I read he's like Sanford on infidelity. It's always bad if someone else does it, and totally unforgivable. In the meantime, he's off to quietly do some of his own. So, corrupt clerics = bad, but massive no bid contracts for his buddies = no problem!

Or, to my cynical self. He's just another politician.

They just nationalized some power companies, wonder who he is going to give those to.

[Rimbo]

This is the kind of information that leads me to believe that Ahmadinejad really did win the election. Maybe he didn't win it by anywhere close to that margin, but he probably would've won anyway.

[Hechicera]

The elections work on a "must get 50%" rule there. So if, in the first round, no one gets 50%, the top two candidates enter a run-off election. That is what happened to Ahmadinejad last election. He is not as popular now, since his own corruption is quite visible, and the economy is much worse.

*If* Ahmadinejad had won this time, in the second round again, by a close margin, everyone would have grumbled but it would have been believable. But him getting >60% of the vote in the first round was not believable to most, including some who voted for him. It would have been like Bush winning a third term (wave magic wand and legally permit that) but by 75% of the vote with a high turn out. Even if you support him, you know he didn't have 75% support when he left office.

Most of those not voting in the previous election were boycotting since all the candidates stank. A situation I can certainly empathize with! But, this election the higher turn-out was put down to an "anyone but Ahmadinejad" vote movement, also something most American's can grasp as a sentiment.

So, that begs the question, since, you are right, Ahmadinejad still has a core base of support (voter and otherwise): Why did the government do such an obvious ham-handed rigging maneuver?

Maybe history will provide that answer one day.

[AaronSofaer]

Statistically, the likelihood of Ahmadejinad winning the Kurds' vote by the margin claimed was on the order of McCain winning the black vote, or so I am told.

[Dave47]

This is the kind of information that leads me to believe that Ahmadinejad really did win the election. Maybe he didn't win it by anywhere close to that margin, but he probably would've won anyway.
I'm not sure what "kind of information" you're referring to, but you're dismissing strong and compelling evidence of election fraud in favor of a gut theory that Ahmadinejad has the support of the Iranian people.

[Rimbo]

I'm not sure what "kind of information" you're referring to, but you're dismissing strong and compelling evidence of election fraud in favor of a gut theory that Ahmadinejad has the support of the Iranian people.

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[Anti-Bunny]

Nico Pitney has a pretty good blog on the current uprising:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/iran-uprising-blogging_n_230402.html

[quatoria]

Nico Pitney's been a goddamn champion since this whole thing started. Single best central source of information I've seen on it - hope the guy wins some kind of award. For endurance, if nothing else - how long was he awake in that first week? Roughly ten million hours, give or take, right?

[Cubit]

Nico Pitney's been a goddamn champion since this whole thing started. Single best central source of information I've seen on it - hope the guy wins some kind of award. For endurance, if nothing else - how long was he awake in that first week? Roughly ten million hours, give or take, right?

Totally. It seems like he is the only one still pumping out updates day after day. I really am appreciating the coverage, as the mainstream news forgets so quickly.

[Lizard_King]

Looks like 'jani's back (re 7/17/09 Pitney update), then. Given his survival skills, that's a good sign for the uprisings in the long run.

[Rimbo]

"Death to Russia" (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090720_russia_ahmadinejad_and_iran_reconsidered? utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090720&utm_content=GIRimage)

The caveat on George Friedman's take on anything, I've learned, is that he'll always assume that a given geopolitical actor will act in an enlightened self-interest.

[Dave47]

"Death to Russia" (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090720_russia_ahmadinejad_and_iran_reconsidered? utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=090720&utm_content=GIRimage)

The caveat on George Friedman's take on anything, I've learned, is that he'll always assume that a given geopolitical actor will act in an enlightened self-interest.
"The" caveat? Friedman's initial response to the Iranian election results was to claim that they were legitimate. Friedman even went to so far as to suggest that Ahmadinejad's absurdly implausible official margin of victory should be seen as proof of legitimacy.

It is difficult to see how [Ahmadinejad] could have stolen the election by such a large margin.
Which kind of misses the whole point of the allegations. It's like defending Benie Madoff by saying "How could anyone who committed fraud amass so much money?"

Another Friedman gem, from an admittedly different context:

In the wake of 9/11, anyone who wasn’t terrified was not in touch with reality.
Stratfor has produced some solid work, but Friedman has a strong political bias, and a strong tendency to take contrarian positions in order to impress us with his outsider brilliance.

[Rimbo]

Oh, yes, that column (when he guessed that the election was legitimate) was good for a chuckle or two, and probably the most apt example of my "caveat" yet. It's amazing how far off he was. It's clear from the outset of this one that he still hasn't the foggiest idea of what's going on in Iran; people were shouting "Death to Russia!" en masse and his answer to "why" is complete speculation. I mean, I could probably head to the Persian grocery store down the street and get a better answer than what Friedman wrote. I mean, he complains that we don't speak Farsi; well, George, why not pull up someone who does, and ask him?

All that said, his speculation is terribly fascinating stuff. I find it gripping in the same way I find a good thriller yarn gripping; taken as fiction rather than reality, it'd make a great plot for the next Bond movie.

The nice thing about Friedman, however, is that it's easy to filter his interpretation because his bias is so clear (and he makes no pretense about not having one), and despite obvious holes in his knowledge (like in this case) he usually knows enough to feed the casual foreign policy wonk's appetite from time to time.

[Cubit]

This could be interesting...


The Supreme Leader has ordered Ahmadinejad's first deputy to resign from Ahmadinejad's cabinet just days after his appointment, according to the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament. Deputy Speaker Aboutorabi said, "eliminating Mashaei from key positions and the first deputy position is a strategic decision by the regime. The Supreme Leader's opinion about the removal of the Mr. Rahim Mashaei from the position of president's first deputy has been submitted to the President in writing."


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defiantly defended on Wednesday his appointment of controversial aide Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie as first vice president, saying he liked him for "1,000 reasons."

Iranian hardliners and clerics are pressuring Ahmadinejad to reverse the appointment of Rahim Mashaie, whose daughter is married to the president's son, after he enraged them last year for making pro-Israel comments.

Ahmadinejad however has not shown any sign of backing down and on Wednesday came in bold support of Rahim Mashaie, saying he was proud of him.

[Lizard_King]

after he enraged them last year for making pro-Israel comments

after he enraged them last year for making pro-Israel comments

after he enraged them last year for making pro-Israel comments
I give up on keeping track of this.

[Lum]

The worst part was that what he said that was so scandalous was that Iranians and Israelis could theoretically be friends, were it not for the Israeli government.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1423687.php/Iranian_lawmakers_demand_vice_president_resign_ove r_Israel_comments


The vice president, who is in charge of cultural heritage and tourism, said Iran should be friends with both the Israeli and American people despite having political problems with the two countries. He emphasized this position again Monday.

Rahim-Mashaei was summoned Wednesday by parliament for a special session to reply to 'questions, ambiguities and criticism' from the deputies over his comments.

At the same time, Islamist students gathered in front of the cultural heritage organization and shouted slogans against the vice president, such as 'Shame on you,' 'Death to concession makers' and 'Resignation, resignation.'

Reacting to Rahim-Mashaei's comments, parliament speaker Ali Larijani said Iran was no friend of the Israelis.

Iran does not acknowledge Israel as a sovereign state, and, therefore, the deputies said, the Israeli people should not be acknowledged either but rather considered as living in the territories originally belonging to Palestinians.

Iran has called for a referendum in what it calls the 'occupied territories' to clarify the future political situation there. Tehran said Jews should live besides Moslems but in a Palestinian, not Israeli land.

Clearly, he didn't hate Jews enough to suit the base.

[Cubit]

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=101426&sectionid=351020101


Amid a continued political controversy in Iran over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first vice presidential pick, cabinet members engage in a verbal quarrel with the president over his insistence on the choice.

The quarrel broke out at Wednesday's cabinet meeting between President Ahmadinejad and the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi.

Despite a reported call by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution advising the president to reverse his decision in appointing Rahim-Mashaei as his top deputy, Ahmadinejad insisted that Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei would serve as the vice president.

Following President Ahmadinejad's refusal to reverse the decision, Saffar-Harandi left the meeting of cabinet members, Ayandehnews reported on Wednesday.

During the meeting, President Ahmadinejad also criticized what he called "interference by certain officials" in the shape-up of his future cabinet.

The president's criticism prompted reactions from some other cabinet members with ministers of intelligence and labor walking out of the meeting in protest at the remarks.

[jpinard]

Ahmadinejad owes the election to the "Supreme Ruler" and they expected him to cow on anything and everything, but he isn't. This is very interesting.

[Lum]

Ahmadinejad could well be using this to improve the power of his office (backed by the newly resurgent Revolutionary Guard) over that of Khameini's, even though Khameini's support is why he is still in power.

Never underestimate the Byzantine nature of Iranian politics.

[MikeJ]

Ahmadinejad could well be using this to improve the power of his office (backed by the newly resurgent Revolutionary Guard) over that of Khameini's, even though Khameini's support is why he is still in power.

And why shouldn't he? According to Khameini, Ahmadinejad has overwhelming popular support and moreover, God wanted him to win.

[Eric P]

Never underestimate the Byzantine nature of Iranian politics.

giggle

[Cubit]

Looks like the VP has resigned.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/24/iran.vice.president.ahmadinejad/

[Cubit]

More intrigue:


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad fired his intelligence minister and his culture minister resigned under pressure Sunday as further rifts emerged in his camp with just days to go until his controversial inauguration for a second term.

Although Ahmadinejad has frequently replaced his cabinet members over the past four years, Sunday's firing and resignation were significant because both Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei and Culture Minister Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi are especially close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, analysts say.

"All ministers are close to him," said Amir Mohebbian, a political analyst who shares Ahmadinejad's ideology but has been critical of his actions. "But these two are closer to the leader."

Taken together, the moves suggest deep unhappiness within Ahmadinejad's inner circle at a time when the government is still reeling from the impact of a weeks-long campaign by the opposition to overturn the results of June's disputed election, in which Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in a landslide.

[Mike O'Malley]

And in Iraq, the army gets into a tussle with the PMOI:

Amnesty International is seriously concerned at today’s attacks by Iraqi forces on unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf which left several people injured and led to the arrest of at least eight others.

Hundreds of armed Iraqi security forces are said to have stormed the camp, north of Baghdad, at around 3pm local time. They used tear gas, water canons and batons against unarmed Iranian residents who tried to stop them from entering the camp.

Video footage seen by Amnesty International clearly shows Iraqi forces beating people repeatedly on different parts of the body, including the head. Dozens of people are said to have been injured.
Two of them, Reza Chelcheraqi and Mohammad-Reza Shahsavandi, are believed to be in serious condition. At least eight people, including Hasan Besharati, Humayoun Deyhim, Gholam Reza Behrouzi, Hosein Fili, Mehdi Zareh and Naser Nour Ebadian, were arrested and their current whereabouts are unknown.

In the last few months the Iraqi government has publicly stated that it wants to take over full control of Camp Ashraf, in Diyala governorate, north of Baghdad. On 27 July government spokesperson ‘Ali al-Dabbagh told an Iraqi satellite television channel that the government “will take over the responsibility of internal security affairs of Camp Ashraf”. The authorities are reportedly planning to establish a police outpost inside the camp.

Amnesty International calls on the Iraqi government to investigate the apparent excessive use of force by Iraqi security forces. The government should reveal the whereabouts of the eight people detained and ensure that they are protected from torture or other ill-treatment, as well as from forcible return to Iran.

Background
Around 3,400 residents of Camp Ashraf are members or supporters of the People’s Mojahedeen Organization of Iran (PMOI), an Iranian opposition organization whose members have been resident in Iraq for many years. Until recently the PMOI was listed as a “terrorist” organization by the European Union and other governments, but in most cases this designation has now been lifted on the grounds that the PMOI no longer advocates or engages in armed opposition to the government of Iran.

The US forces provided protection for the camp and its residents, who were designated as “protected persons” following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but this situation was discontinued following the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi governments, although the SOFA makes no reference to Camp Ashraf or its residents.

[Not One Of Us]

Ah, so they've improved to the level of our police. That's good.

[Anaxagoras]

A discussion (argument?) between Fareed Zakaria and Mohammed Marandi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIFxPHDn10&)
Fareed Zakaria = Western journalist & political commentator
Mohammed Marandi = Iranian academic

It's nice to see some real journalism for a change, even if it is coverage of another country.

[Saiban]

A discussion (argument?) between Fareed Zakaria and Mohammed Marandi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIFxPHDn10&)
Fareed Zakaria = Western journalist & political commentator
Mohammed Marandi = Iranian academic

It's nice to see some real journalism for a change, even if it is coverage of another country.

Fareed Zakaria seemed to make a mistake there by getting baited by the Iranian on the question of Saddam's chemical weapons -- he insisted that the US never helped Saddam procure chemical weapons, which is a bit disingenuous at best. Though I liked the rest of it, I thought that comment really got in the way of him destroying the Iranian's credibility.

[Cubit]

TEHRAN, Iran — After months of denials, Iran acknowledged Saturday that at least three people detained in the country's postelection turmoil were beaten to death by their jailers.

The surprise announcement by the hard-line judiciary confirmed one of the opposition's most devastating and embarrassing claims against authorities and the elite Revolutionary Guard forces that led the crackdown after June's disputed presidential vote.

There was no immediate public reaction from the opposition, but some activists asserted that authorities under pressure over abuse claims were merely seeking to punish low ranking staff while shielding senior level officials who the opposition says are most to blame.

Still, the statement offered some rare vindication for the government's critics, who had rejected earlier explanations from the police and the judiciary that the detainees' deaths were caused by illnesses like meningitis, not physical mistreatment.

"The coroner's office has rejected that meningitis was the cause of the deaths and has confirmed the existence of signs of repeated beatings on the bodies and has declared that the wounds inflicted were the cause of the deaths," the judiciary statement said, according to the Web site of Iran's state TV.

The judiciary also said it has charged 12 officials at Kahrizak prison — three of them with murder, but it did not identify them. The prison, on the southern outskirts of the capital, Tehran, was at the center of the opposition's claims that prisoners were tortured and raped in custody.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gAX_VHubPenjWqChDBS0RiiabMLwD9CMI8180

[Anti-Bunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ygi3p4WQpkw

On Tuesday, December 22, the scene of a public hanging of two prisoners, Esmail Fathi-Zadeh and Mohammad Esfandiarpoor, in Sirjan turned into a confrontation between protesting people and the suppressive forces. Local residents and families of the two prisoners confronted the suppressive forces by hurling stones and chanting slogans.

During the clashes yesterday morning, people took advantage of the chaos and removed the prisoners from the scene set up for their hangings. According to earlier reports on Tuesday, one of the prisoners was thought to have been killed.

Having lost the control of the situation, the suppressive forces mobilized more of their agents across the city and re-captured the two prisoners and brought them back to the hanging ropes.

Local residents were angered by the regime’s henchmen and became more fierce in their protest against the hangings. In fear of the escalation of unrest, the suppressive forces opened fire on defenseless people killing at least five and dozens more were wounded. A number of the wounded were taken to hospitals in Kerman, the provincial capital. Some of the wounded are in critical state. A group of local residents and families of the two have been arrested. During the clashes, a number of vehicles belonging to the suppressive forces were set on fire.