Republican Interns Boarding Flights to Tehran
By Thoreau
Ahmadinejad is reported to have 2/3 of the vote in the election that saw the opposition at its most energized in a long time. It seems fishy to me, obviously, but I can’t rule out the possibility that Iranians saw all sorts of powerful good old boys lining up behind Mousavi and smelled a rat.
If Mousavi pushes for a recount or investigation of irregularities, Ahmadinejad can no doubt rely on Republican supporters to send staffers and interns to demonstrate on his behalf.
Personally, I’m hoping that Iran has a long, drawn-out recount, simply because Comedy Central has a reporter there and the comedic opportunities in poorly-translated interviews of election officials would make Florida 2000 seem like small potatoes by comparison.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 13, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
The election monitors chosen by all four candidates’ campaigns are calling the results fraudulent.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 13, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
From what I can tell, American media wrote this story before it already happened, and now that it’s turned out differently they’re crying foul. Now, an election that lopsided looks funny to me, but that’s mostly because I’m an American with no experience of the Iranian electoral process or its history, and because as an American I’m used to presidential elections being split more or less fifty-fifty. As far as I can tell, no actual evidence of election-rigging has been produced. Westerners just seem pissed that they don’t get to chalk up another pro-western color-coded “revolution” in a foreign state.
Comment by VM —
June 13, 2009 @ 4:38 pm
bzzzt.
“From what I can tell, American media wrote this story before it already happened”
GMAFB.
obviously not good enough with languages or curious enough to get other papers’ take. sure it’s “america media” writing this.
sheesh.
Comment by abb1 —
June 13, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Ahmadinejad is strong on national security – how could he lose?
Comment by Thoreau —
June 13, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
Not to mention that he prays, abb1. And I’ll bet he owns a ranch.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 13, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Juan Cole thinks it was stolen–the best evidence he gives is that split among the votes is reported to be the same in every province, which is absurd.
In a sane universe, the fact that Iran’s government is corrupt and illegitimate would not be sufficient reason to start bombing, but this is America, so I expect we’ll start hearing that argument any second now.
Comment by Mona —
June 13, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Exactly. But at least Daniel Pipes is happy.
Comment by TGGP —
June 13, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
Juan Cole agrees. According to his (or a supporter’s) Twitter, Mousavi has been put under house arrest.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 13, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
You have got to be kidding me.
Comment by bbartlog —
June 13, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
The statistical evidence Cole describes seems pretty compelling. In a way this speaks to the ham-handedness of the regime. If you want to rig a vote, make it close enough that everyone involved feels like they got a fair shake, and if only they try harder next time (within the confines of the democratic system) maybe they can win it. Rigging it 63/37 just makes you look bad, and encourages feelings of disenfranchisement rather than a willingness to try and play the game again next time.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 13, 2009 @ 11:31 pm
Looking through Juan Cole’s comment section, there was a link to a blogger who apparently refutes the statistical argument for fraud. The guy doesn’t deny that the election might have been stolen–he just doesn’t think the statistics argument is as strong as it initially appears.
Link
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 13, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
You have got to be kidding me.
No, I’m not. “This looks fishy” is not evidence.
I dee that Brad Delong is saying that it’s “Time to Help the People of Iran Overthrow Their Corrupt Regime.” God, what an idiot.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
June 14, 2009 @ 12:01 am
On the statistical argument, I’m not clear on whether the ratio is the same for all parts of the country (which is absurd), or if the ratio is roughly the same at various stages of counting (which might not be absurd, as the link I provided seems to demonstrate).
But rather than try to figure it out, I’ll sit back and wait for people who know what they’re talking about do it for me.
What exactly does Brad DeLong think we should be doing? And I wonder what he thinks of the US attempt at fomenting a civil war between Palestinians because Hamas won a fairly conducted election. America’s interest in stolen elections seems to vary on a case by case basis.
Comment by Actually Studies Iran —
June 14, 2009 @ 7:05 am
No, I’m not. “This looks fishy†is not evidence.
You’re not going to find a better smoking gun than this. The whole point of rigging an election is to keep people from finding out you’ve done that.
This distribution of votes (e.g., Ahmedinejad winning Isfahan; Ahmedinejad winning Tabriz 60-40) really is pretty impossible. It would be like learning that John McCain had carried Chicago in a landslide.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 14, 2009 @ 8:19 am
This distribution of votes … really is pretty impossible.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Comment by Actually Studies Iran —
June 14, 2009 @ 8:46 am
Okay, before I thought you might actually be interested in the substance of the matter at hand. Thanks for making it clear that you’re actually just being a dick.
Comment by strasmangelo jones —
June 14, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Look, I realize that you “Actually Study Iran” and all – after all, it’s your internet name! – but getting a result in an Iranian election that Western observers were not expecting or emotionally prepared for is not the same as “impossible.”
Comment by joe from Lowell —
June 14, 2009 @ 10:46 am
Try to follow me here:
“I don’t like what someone might propose to prevent global warming, so there can’t be any global warming” is an intellectually bankrupt position.
“I don’t like what someone might propose to do about the Iranian government stealing the election, so the Iranian government must not have stolen the election,” likewise.
Comment by Actually Studies Iran —
June 14, 2009 @ 11:37 am
Look, I realize that you “Actually Study Iran†and all – after all, it’s your internet name! – but getting a result in an Iranian election that Western observers were not expecting or emotionally prepared for is not the same as “impossible.â€
I didn’t say an Ahmedinejad win was impossible. It is virtually impossible, however, for Ahmedinejad to be winning in this way
Comment by Actually Studies Iran —
June 14, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Incidentally, I think Dr Cole’s barking up the wrong tree by blaming this on the Supreme Leader. The personal enmity between Khamenei and Mousavi is real, but its political significance is overstated. Khamenei seems to genuinely believe in the Islamic Revolution’s legitimacy, and he cares a great deal about maintaining that legitimacy in the eyes of the public. And it’s not like Mousavi is really such a threat to the Islamic Republic’s domestic system–he’s been prime minister before, after all. He’s significantly more conservative than Khatami, and Khamenei let Khatami win.
I think it’s far more likely that we’ve just seen the Islamic Revolution enter its praetorian phase. This looks an awful lot like a coup by the Army of the Guardians, which has genuine reason to fear any normalization of the Revolution and any prospect of rapprochement with hostile Arab states (let alone the U.S.). Perpetual confrontation is the way in which Iran’s own military-industrial complex justifies its power. It’s no accident that the neocons were hoping Ahmedinejad would win: American neocons and Iranian neocons need each other.
In this light, I’d suggest the election was rigged so sloppily and transparently because the generals don’t have a lot of experience with elections, and because (unlike the Supreme Leader and the religious establishment) they don’t really care about elections anyway.
If I had to guess, I’d suggest the generals simply handed Khamenei a fait accompli, and he went along with it. Under a preatorian regime, he can probably retain significant authority as a moral symbol and as a leader of the civilian population. Even if he could stop this takeover (how many divisions does the Grand Ayatollah have?), doing so would require him to mobilize such a massive public uprising that the Islamic Republic and his own position might well be finished.
Comment by BDB —
June 14, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
I hope this ends like 1989 did in Europe.
And that’s all I have to say about that!
Comment by J sub D —
June 15, 2009 @ 10:40 am
The CeauÅŸescus’ “trial” and execution led to much revelry and intoxicant consumption in these quarters.
In Iran I’d like to see the heads of the rulimg class, especially clerics, displayed on spikes for the public.
Comment by VM —
June 15, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
but clearly, what’s going on right now is an American Media invention.
clearly.