Tipping Point? Iran’s post election protests.
BBC: By Jim Muir
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101841.stm
On the face of it, the disturbances currently shaking Tehran in the wake of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s controversial re-election look very similar to the street clashes that erupted there in July 1999 and June 2003.
As happened then, thousands of angry and disillusioned people, their hopes for change frustrated, have taken to the streets, clashing with security forces and hardline vigilantes who roam the city on motorcycles.
Buses and banks have been burnt, and student dormitories raided by police or irregulars, as happened on those earlier occasions.
The 1999 and 2003 disturbances involved thousands of protesters, rather than the millions it would take to shake the Islamic regime seriously.
They petered out after about 10 days, and achieved nothing, in the face of stern repression.
Will that be the fate of the current protests, too?
‘Very different’ protests
Perhaps. But there are some fundamental differences that might lead events in other directions.
While venting the same general frustration felt by many Iranians at the suppression of change and reform, the earlier protests were limited grassroots events that failed to connect to the political strata.
They were “bottom-up”, generally incoherent, and lacked a political vehicle to sustain them.
In both instances, they were sparked by incidents at Tehran University which spilled over into violence in the streets, raising memories of revolutionary upheavals that few Iranians want to see repeated.
Because those protests were openly encouraged by the administration of the former US President George W Bush, reformist Iranian politicians had to shun them for fear of being dubbed traitors.
This time it is very different.
The protests are in reaction to specific political grievances involving senior politicians well-embedded in the Iranian system.
On Monday, they led to a peaceful mass demonstration in Tehran – despite an official ban – that by all accounts ran into hundreds of thousands, far bigger than any of the earlier protests, and too big for the authorities to disperse without causing potentially more serious repercussions.
The current protests bring together grassroots sentiment and the political level in a way that the earlier protests did not.
That carries the current dissension into the heart of the Islamic power system.
Heavyweight supporters
The man at the centre of the storm, presidential challenger and runner-up Mir Hossein Mousavi, is not some lightweight outsider.
He was Iran’s prime minister from 1981 until 1989, and was generally given high ratings for running the country through almost all of the eight years of war with neighbouring Iraq.
One of his closest associates and backers, Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, is an even weightier figure who has been a major pillar of the Islamic Republic since its foundation.
Twice president, from 1989 to 1997, Mr Rafsanjani is a pragmatic conservative who currently heads two of the regime’s most powerful bodies: the Expediency Council (which adjudicates disputes over legislation) and the Assembly of Experts (which appoints, and can theoretically replace, the Supreme Leader).
He also wields huge influence and economic clout behind the scenes.
But in this year’s presidential campaign, Mr Rafsanjani was bracketed together with Mr Mousavi and lambasted vitriolically by Mr Ahmadinejad in televised debates.
Mr Mousavi was also supported by another two-term former president, the reformist Mohammad Khatami, who withdrew his own candidacy in Mr Mousavi’s favour and is now also calling for the vote to be cancelled and re-run.
The same demand has been made by another of the election losers, Mohsen Rezaie, who for 16 years commanded the Revolutionary Guards, another of the regime’s main pillars.
In addition to alienating reformist and centrist circles, Mr Ahmadinejad (the first Iranian president not to be a cleric) is also not uniformly backed by hardline conservatives, including the religious establishment in Qom.
Where he is believed to enjoy huge support is among the Revolutionary Guards Corps and its auxiliary basij (volunteer) militia; he has built up a strong following and patronage there.
His support among the military is such that many Iran analysts have portrayed what has happened as a kind of military coup from within the regime.
But Mr Ahmadinejad has also won much support among the poor by pursuing a populist political and economic policy, disbursing funds in rural areas in a manner that his critics say has added to Iran’s woes by generating high inflation.
‘Burning dilemma’
The rift he has created appears to transcend the old division between hardliners and reformists within the system, bringing together some elements on both sides against his abrasive militarist-popularist line.
An American-originated opinion poll published in the Washington Post has suggested that Mr Ahmadinejad’s surprisingly large margin of victory might in fact reflect the genuine will of the Iranian people.
The poll, conducted three weeks before the vote, indicated that Mr Ahmadinejad would win by a ratio of 2:1, slightly higher than the actual declared outcome.
But the near universal assumption of his rivals’ supporters – and of most Iran analysts and much international political opinion – seems to be that he could only have won so massively by an unprecedented use of electoral fraud.
Whatever the case, perception is what counts. And the perception of large numbers of Iranians that their votes were “stolen” presents the authorities – and especially the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – with a burning dilemma.
Much will clearly now depend on whether the street demonstrations escalate, whether the authorities respond violently, and what decision emerges from the Council of Guardians, the highly-conservative oversight body which has 10 days to adjudicate appeals lodged by Mr Mousavi and Mr Rezai.
Ayatollah Khamenei has urged the Council to study the claims closely.
Its decision could provide him with a way out of a dangerous situation and avert an eventuality where Mr Ahmadinejad could emerge in such a powerful position that Ayatollah Khamenei’s own standing could be undermined, with traditional balancing power centres eclipsed.
Much must be going on behind the scenes, involving key figures such as Mr Rafsanjani, from whom little has been heard since the results were announced.
If the confrontation remains unresolved, he and others may have to decide whether to throw their weight behind an effort that could tear apart and bring down the system in which they have a big stake, or trim their sails and accept a reduced status.
To avert an escalation, Ayatollah Khamenei may have to find a way either to persuade the losers and their backers and followers that the results were genuine and fair, or to pacify them by other means – perhaps by curbing Mr Ahmadinejad or diluting his policies in some way.
‘Worst outcome’ for Obama
In general, the Islamic regime in times of crisis has tended to find a way of holding together in order to stay afloat.
But if the current situation deteriorates into straightforward confrontation and repression on the ground, chaos could ensue, with unpredictable results.
The regime’s control mechanisms have barely begun to be tested. They are fearsome. But whether they would remain cohesive in a situation of prolonged civil strife and political polarisation is an unanswerable question.
All of this has produced the worst possible outcome for US President Barack Obama and others hoping to find a way towards dialogue with Tehran over nuclear and other issues.
Washington had studiously avoided expressing preferences before the vote, and has remained equally equivocal over the disputed outcome.
But clearly, it would have preferred to see a reformist victory, though aware that the Iranian president may set the political tone and influence the climate, but does not decide policy on such key issues as relations with the US, or Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
For Mr Obama to have opened dialogue with Tehran under a credibly-re-elected Mr Ahmadinejad would have been difficult enough in US domestic political terms.
But American experts on US-Iran relations believe his task will be considerably complicated in Congress and elsewhere should the election be seen as rigged and the results imposed by repression.
The outcome has also played into the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu’s hardline government in Israel.
Under pressure to come up with what it regards as concessions on the Palestinian issue, Mr Netanyahu has tried to argue that priority should go to what he sees as the true threat to the region – Iran.
If the Iranian election crisis is not somehow defused, he will clearly find it easier to argue his case that “the biggest threat to Israel, the Middle East and the entire world is the crossing of a nuclear weapon with radical Islam” and that there should be “an international coalition against the nuclear arming of Iran”, as he said in his policy speech on Sunday.
Loading ...
@nota
I think admin posted this article to show even in the spin, they admitted that he has geniunely won the election. Then no one could have calleed it bias article. Btw y dun u post some other u do have access u know;)
waiting
one good thing out of all this might be Iran’s intelligence agency will have clear sight of line for all the agents working for foriegn powers, I say they have overplayeed thier hands. BBC now reporting that Mousovi will not accept recount offer as he alleges that whole elections were rigged. Talk abt sore looser. Talk about rule of law, In USA, Minnesota senate race has still not beeen decided due to recount and challenges, but noone has called for annulment of who election. Yet Western Media and the Iranain so called liberal opposition wants to annull the whole elections just cuz they dun like the results. Iranain liberal living in Tehran has no idea what Iranian people thinking and wants who live in rural areas. Conservative leaders will beat so called liberals over and overe.
@nota
Yes, it’s a well known fact that news are filtered. The main stream folks only know what they should know i.e. the imperialist view.
I have not digged deeply in Iranian matters, but I suspect there might be genuine grievances too from the Iranian youth, but it is sad they are ready to become willing fools in the hands of the western gang. No doubt that some of them also become dirty tools of the wicked people behind the scenes, but anyone with a little insight in the Western behaviour and way of “solving” problems of the third world and especially the Muslim world should wake up and be extremely cautious. They shouldn’t act like stupids. If they have genuine grievances there can be other options than violence.
@observer
U nailed it right, there are geniune concerns and complaints against the ahmedinijad govt, (I personally dun like the man) but to be used in such ways by west speaks volume abt the opposition.
Excellent article on politico.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html
They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking.
@ All, I told you so!
Ahmadeenajad throws a spanner in the works! And to top it and put a stop to any potential unrest he holds a massive rally in “Shah’s heartland”.
Time for the puppets or wannabe puppets to run and hide with tail between their legs!
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00188/iran-massacre_188021t.jpg
Surely looks like blood!!! Baboon Blood tinged with a bit of bear. Must be a pissed Baboon!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/GRwUZ-u6KFo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
@taukeer
U can embed youtube vids right here by copying embed code from youtube, they provide it and just pasting it here
Time for a little break.
@Admin
Doesn’t work for me??
I just tried at – 16 June 2009 at 12:27 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRwUZ-u6KFo&eurl=http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22839.htm&feature=player_embedded
U need the embed code from the video. wat u posted as link is .swf, click on to watch on the youtube button when youtube opens u gonna see where it provides uploader info below two links: one is url and one embed u can copy and pasted embed one. As u can see afzaalkhan has done it.
@Afzaalkhan
Thanks. If you see I tried to embed the video but it did not quite work. I must have missed something. or part of the code.
Rafsanjani’s Gambit Backfires
By M K Bhadrakumar
June 16, 2009 “Asia Times” — Iranian politics is never easy to decode. The maelstrom around Friday’s presidential election intrigued most avid cryptographers scanning Iranian codes. So many false trails appeared that it became difficult to decipher who the real contenders were and what the political stakes were.
In the event, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei won a resounding victory. The grey cardinal of Iranian politics Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been dealt a crushing defeat. Is the curtain finally ringing down on the tumultuous career of the “Shark”, a nickname Rafsanjani acquired in the vicious well of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) where he used to swim dangerously as a political predator in the early years of the Iranian Revolution as the speaker? sperm whale of immense, premeditated ferocity and stamina in Herman Melville’s epic novel Moby Dick, Rafsanjani is going down, deeply wounded by the harpoon, into the cold oblivion of the sea of Iranian politics. But you can never quite tell.
The administration of President Barack Obama in the United States could see through the allegorical mode of the Iranian election and probably anticipate the flood of destruction that would follow once vengeance is unleashed. It did just the right thing by staying aloof, studiously detached. Now comes the difficult part – engaging the house that Khamenei presides over as the monarch of all he surveys.
First, the ABC of the election. Who is Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmedinejad’s main opponent in the election? He is an enigma wrapped in mystery. He impressed the Iranian youth and the urban middle class as a reformer and a modernist. Yet, as Iran’s prime minister during 1981-89, Mousavi was an unvarnished hardliner. Evidently, what we have seen during his high-tech campaign is a vastly different Mousavi, as if he meticulously deconstructed and then reassembled himself.
This was what Mousavi had to say in a 1981 interview about the 444-day hostage crisis when young Iranian revolutionaries kept American diplomats in custody: “It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years.”
Most likely, he had a hand in the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ali Akbar Mohtashami, Hezbollah’s patron saint, served as his interior minister. He was involved in the Iran-Contra deal in 1985, which was a trade-off with the Ronald Reagan administration whereby the US would supply arms to Iran and as quid pro quo Tehran would facilitate the release of the Hezbollah-held American hostages in Beirut. The irony is, Mousavi was the very anti-thesis of Rafsanjani and one of the first things the latter did in 1989 after taking over as president was to show Mousavi the door. Rafsanjani had no time for Mousavi’s anti-”Westernism” or his visceral dislike of the market.
Mousavi’s electoral platform has been a curious mix of contradictory political lines and vested interests but united in one maniacal mission, namely, to seize the presidential levers of power in Iran. It brought together so-called reformists who support former president Mohammad Khatami and ultra-conservatives of the regime. Rafsanjani is the only politician in Iran who could have brought together such dissimilar factions. He assiduously worked hand-in-glove with Khatami towards this end.
If we are to leave out the largely inconsequential “Gucci crowd” of north Tehran, who no doubt imparted a lot of color, verve and mirth to Mousavi’s campaign, the hardcore of his political platform comprised powerful vested interests who were making a last-ditch attempt to grab power from the Khamenei-led regime. On the one hand, these interest groups were severely opposed to the economic policies under Ahmadinejad, which threatened their control of key sectors such as foreign trade, private education and agriculture.
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.
Rafsanjani’s axis with Khatami was the basis of Mousavi’s political platform of reformists and conservatives. The four-cornered contest was expected to give a split verdict that would force the election into a run-off on June 19. The candidature of the former Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Mohsen Rezai (who served under Rafsanjani when he was president) was expected to slice off a chunk of IRGC cadres and prominent conservatives.
Again, the fourth candidate, Mehdi Karrubi’s “reformist” program was expected to siphon off support from Ahmedinejad, by virtue of his offer of economic policies based on social justice such as the immensely popular idea of distributing income from oil among the people rather than it accruing to the government’s budget.
Rafsanjani’s plot was to somehow extend the election to the run-off stage, where Mousavi was expected to garner the “anti-Ahmedinejad” votes. The estimation was that at the most Ahmedinejad would poll in the first round 10 to 12 million votes out of the 28 to 30 million who might actually vote (out of a total electorate of 46.2 million) and, therefore, if only the election extended to the run-off, Mousavi would be the net beneficiary as the votes polled by Rezai and Karrubi were essentially “anti-Ahmadinejad” votes.
The regime was already well into the election campaign when it realized that behind the clamor for a change of leadership in the presidency, Rafsanjani’s challenge was in actuality aimed at Khamenei’s leadership and that the election was a proxy war. The roots of the Rafsanjani-Khamenei rift go back to the late 1980s when Khamenei assumed the leadership in 1989.
Rafsanjani was among Imam Khomeini’s trusted appointees to the first Revolutionary Council, whereas Khamenei joined only at a later stage when the council expanded its membership. Thus, Rafsanjani always harbored a grouse that Khamenei pipped him to the post of Supreme Leader. The clerical establishment close to Rafsanjani spread the word that Khamenei lacked the requisite religious credentials, that he was indecisive as the executive president, and that the election process was questionable, which cast doubt on the legality of his appointment.
Powerful clerics, egged on by Rafsanjani, argued that the Supreme Leader was supposed to be not only a religious authority (mujtahid), but was also expected to be a source of emulation (marja or a mujtahid with religious followers) and that Khamenei didn’t fulfill this requirement – unlike Rafsanjani himself. The debunking of Khamenei rested on the specious argument that his religious education was in question. The sniping by the clerics associated with Rafsanjani continued into the early 1990s. Thus, Khamenei began on a somewhat diffident note and during much of the period when Rafsanjani held power as president (1989-1997), he acted low key, aware of his circumstances.
The result was that Rafsanjani exercised more power as president than anyone holding that office anytime in Tehran. But Khamenei bided his time as he incrementally began expanding his authority. If he lacked standing among Iran’s clerical establishment, he more than made up by attracting to his side the security establishment, especially the Ministry of Intelligence, the IRGC and the Basij militias.
While Rafsanjani hobnobbed with the clergy and the bazaar, Khamenei turned to a group of bright young politicians with intelligence or security backgrounds who were returning home from the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war – such as Ali Larijani, the present speaker of the Majlis, Said Jalili, currently the secretary of the National Security Council, Ezzatollah Zarghami, head of the state radio and television and, indeed, Ahmadinejad himself.
Power inevitably accrued to Khamenei once he won over the loyalty of the IRGC and the Basij. By the time Rafsanjani’s presidency ended, Khamenei had already become head of all three branches of the government and the state media, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and even lucrative institutions such as Imam Reza Shrine or the Oppressed Foundation, which have almost unlimited capacity for extending political patronage.
All in all, therefore, the power structure today takes the form of a vast patriarchal apparatus of political leadership. Thus, perceptive analysts were spot on while concluding that Ahmadinejad would never on his own volition have gone public and directly taken on Rafsanjani during the controversial TV debate on June 4 in Tehran with Mousavi.
Ahmadinejad said, “Today it is not Mr Mousavi alone who is confronting me, since there are the three successive governments of Mr Mousavi, Mr Khatami and Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani] arrayed against me.” He took a pointed swipe at Rafsanjani for masterminding a plot to overthrow him. He said Rafsanjani promised the fall of his government to Saudi Arabia. Rafsanjani hit back within days by addressing a communication to Khamenei demanding that Ahmadinejad should retract “so that there would be no need of legal action”.
“I am expecting you to resolve the situation in order to extinguish the fire, whose smoke can be seen in the atmosphere, and to take action to foil dangerous plots. Even if I were to tolerate this situation, there is no doubt that some people, parties and factions will not tolerate this situation,” Rafsanjani angrily warned Khamenei.
Simultaneously, Rafsanjani also rallied his base in the clerical establishment. A clique of 14 senior clerics in Qom joined issue on his side. It was all an act of desperation by vested interests who have become desperate about the awesome rise of the IRGC in recent years. But, if Rafsanjani’s calculation was that the “mutiny” within the clerical establishment would unnerve Khamenei, he misread the calculus of power in Tehran. Khamenei did the worst thing possible to Rafsanjani. He simply ignored the “Shark”.
The IRGC and the Basij volunteers running into tens of millions swiftly mobilized. They coalesced with the millions of rural poor who adore Ahmadinejad as their leader. It has been a repeat of the 2005 election. The voter turnout has been an unprecedented 85%. Within hours of the announcement of Ahmadinejad’s thumping victory, Khamenei gave the seal of approval by applauding that the high voter turnout called for “real celebration”.
He said, “I congratulate … the people on this massive success and urge everyone to be grateful for this divine blessing.” He cautioned the youth and the “supporters of the elected candidate and the supporters of other candidates” to be “fully alert and avoid any provocative and suspicions actions and speech”.
Khamenei’s message to Rafsanjani is blunt: accept defeat gracefully and stay away from further mischief. Friday’s election ensures that the house of Supreme Leader Khamenei will remain by far the focal point of power. It is the headquarters of the country’s presidency, Iran’s armed forces, especially the IRGC. It is the fountainhead of the three branches of government and the nodal point of foreign, security and economic policies.
Obama may contemplate a way to directly engage Khamenei. It is a difficult challenge.
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd.
2:01 AM ET — Aslan: Rafsanjani calls “emergency” meeting of Assembly of Experts. If true, this is a bombshell. Appearing on CNN last night, Iran expert Reza Aslan reported this::
@afzaalkhan
Indeed its a bomb shell if true
As a Head of Assembly of Experts Rafsanjani can call an Emergency Meeting…still I will wait to see its confirm from sources other than you quote.
Purpose of Emergency Meeting could be none other than to remove Khaminei and elect new Leader.
But theres a small but very big problem…Khaminei was not elected by Assembly of Experts…He was directly appointed by Imam Khomeini and in very dramatic style as Imam was mindful of resistance.
Imam gathered everyone including Rafsanjani at Asar prayers but not Khamenei after the prayers he told them to wait for some very important matter….soon people saw Khamenie entered the Masjid.
When everybody was present Imam read the notification and signed with his seal in presence of everybody.
I am not sure that decision of Imam was put to Assembly of Experts for formal approval.
Regardless of approval or no approval from Assembly of Experts…This is the only Supreme Leader directly appointed by founder of revolution…its not easy to remove him…its like removing Imam Khomeini.
and thats wat all this mess is, a coup simple as that when they failed to win elections they have no turned thier guns to take the centre of the power.
Report: State Department Urges Twitter to Delay Shutdown
By The New York Times
Reuters is reporting that the State Department asked Twitter to delay a scheduled maintenance shutdown because it could affect Iranians using the service during the election protests.
House Republicans: Iranian Protesters Just Like Us
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/house-gop-were-just-like_n_216849.html
House Republicans want Iranian protesters to know that they feel their pain. After all, they’ve been there. According to Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and John Culberson (R-Tex.), the post-election uprising that has left at least 32 dead is just like when the GOP doesn’t get its way on Capitol Hill.
Said Culberson, referencing last night’s appropriations bill debate:
its an orchestrated campaign. LA Times has this Iranian Journalist last name buzrug something, today this was his report, I am parpharsing
“Ahmedinijad won or not its not the question, the imp thing is section of society are not happy with him, thus he must go”.
So dun matter wat the election results as long as some parts dun agree we should have re-election? This is new strategy by west and elites of respective countries, dun like the election results start pressure groups and get rid of duly elected govt in name of democracy. Ukrain and recently Thailand. Thailand was a blatant disregard of votes, country elites and general over threw the elected govt then held election where thiksan supporter won again, wat the opposition did, mass protests and evicted the govt with backing of military, courts and elites. I was really amuse to listen to one of Thai politicians suggesting the reason Thiksan won is due to poor ppl voting for him and thus they should be stripped of voting rights as they know not wat they doing.
Same thing they doing in Iran, since rural and poor ppl like ahmedinijad he must go, as these population dun know wat they voting they are not informed, Iran should be run by elites of Tehran who deliberately or unwittingly are working for Iranian enemies USA n Israel.
The Twitter revolution is run by Israel as mentioned in western press. Where they questioned the twitter legitimacy. The standard of western press i such that they openly admitting that all news they showing as breaking news and headlines they just copy pasting from twitters mssgs with no regard to wat truth really is.
Long live freedom of speech lol
This is democracy and Public safety in UK.
Same thing IN Iran is dictatorship and thuggery
Iran’s supreme leader rejects vote fraud claims
Read the story!
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) — Iran’s supreme leader on Friday rejected opposition claims that last week’s presidential elections were rigged, describing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s win as “definitive” and calling for an end to days of protest.
The “Islamic establishment would never manipulate votes and commit treason. The legal structure in this country does not allow vote-rigging,” Khamenei said, in his first address since the elections.
He told a large crowd at Tehran University that the “historic” turnout of more than 40 million voters meant the election was too large to have been manipulated.
“There is a difference of 11 million votes. How can vote-rigging happen?” he added.
Colorful ..indeed.
…
errr didn’t he in past had blasted PNA movement and accused them of facilitating Martial Law, I mean wat good for goose shouldn’t be good for gander
@nota
I think one need to look at the matters in a perspective. I think some of the grievances could be genuine from the opponents, but the way they are being USED against the current rulers is somewhat dangerous – not only for Iranian economy,, society, progress and the opposition, BUT also for Iran’s independence. It is strange that they let themselves to be used like in 1953, when a democratically elected government was ousted with the help of CIA.
What would happen if Ahmadinejad ordered his followers on the streets? A bloodbath and even more uncertainty? I believe Ahmadinejad´s restraint is good for Iran though I believe he will show his force at a later stage when the opponents calm down and go home.
For decades they have been able to stand tall against the global dictator=USA. Obviously USA was not able to make dents in Iran, and has secretly been adopting a new strategy, which works from inside (Trojan Horse). All these demonstrations bear witness that the Global dictator has achieved some success. If the present rulers act wisely they will not be too harsh against the opponents. They should adopt a carrot and stick policy and ensure that demonstrators go home. Then they should address the genuine concerns and try to meet the opponents to diffuse all the tensions.
Personally I don’t favor leaders like Ahmadinejad. I think he needs to be more smart and not indulge himself in too much rhetoric’s. There is no need to prove his counterparts right in EU/US by giving childish statements about wiping out Israel etc. Such statements make wonders for EU/US, because it proves them right in the eyes of their own populations. That makes the dirty job of EU/US easier in regard to military intervention. There is no doubt that foremost he (Ahmadinejad) needs to address his own nation, but he must also address the West on certain matters. He must not let them (western popolation) see him as an unreliable extremist. It IS possible to convey a clear message without being too colorful.
From @nota’s link:
“This entire episode demonstrates the contradiction inherent in allowing limited democracy without handing over real political power. It also shows how clerics use democratic institutions to hang on to power without submitting themselves to the test of popular will.”
Ehhhh…A question for Irfan “Baboon” Hussain: “Is AZ a cleric?”
@nota
plz contact me ASAP, i need to discuss somethings with u thanks.
@nota
Thanks for the update
If a lie is repeated often enough it becomes a “truth” in the eyes of many. A really school example of Western propaganda.
So sad for CIA…despite pumping in so much money they couldn’t do what they planned to do in Iran. I salute Iranian nation and government for their courage to refuse to bow to America.
America is ‘observing’ and according to Obama ‘the world is watching’… they refuse to mind their own business and act like a rabid dog when someone refuses to take their authority. Tch tch…what an insult for America but they wouldn’t stop poking their nose in others’ business. Aadat sey majhboor hain.
In a while I am staging a demonstration outside Lord’s for T20 tickets and most probably go on a hunger strike until someone donates tickets to me. Friends please pray for my success.
A single defector from Assembly of experts is Grand Ayatullah Montezari…You can understand why he is defector.
One he was supposed to be successor of Imam Khomeini but Imam chose Khamenei.
Two why Imam did not chose Montezari….Imam said a must condition for Valyat-e-Faqih is he must be Shujaa and many were disqualified for lacking of Shujaa.
After confession of Grand Ayatullh Shariat Madar Imam was not comfortable with many Ulema for their possible linkage with USA.
Assembly of Experts expresses strong support for Leader’s guidelines
Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN — In a statement issued on Saturday the Assembly of Experts expressed its “strong support” for the Supreme Leader’s statements on the presidential elections on Friday.
The 86-member assembly stated in the statement that it is hoped that the nation would realize the current condition and by sticking to the Leader’s guidelines preserve their patience and manifest their unity.
The Qom Seminary Teachers Society also issued a statement on Saturday declaring strong support for the guidelines of the Supreme Leader.
“The Qom Seminary Teachers Society… announces its strong support for his valuable guidelines and invites all (groupings) to maintain unity, abide by the law, and refrain from any action which leads to tension,” the statement said.
Addressing hundreds of thousands of people at the most recent Friday prayers in Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei urged all groupings to end their street protests and to pursue their complaints through legal channels.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the time for rivalry is over and everyone should unite and line up behind the president-elect.
———–Cleric praises Leader’s remarks
In a letter sent to the Supreme Leader on Saturday, Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani said the Leader’s remarks showed the significant role of the velayat-e faqih (rule by the supreme jurisprudent) in the Islamic system.
Ayatollah Hamedani expressed hope that all groupings make the guidelines their priority.
——— Leader’s guidelines guarantee a better future
MP Sharif Hosseini stated on Saturday that the Supreme Leader’s guidelines announced at Friday prayers guarantee a better future for the nation.
“The remarks showed the Iranian people the path toward a better future under the law without any rift or schism,” he told the Mehr News Agency.
The MP added, “All political groupings and the people should prioritize unity and heed the words of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.”
——- Leader’s guidelines are a road map
In a letter to the Supreme Leader on Saturday, Ayatollah Abbas Ka’bi of the Guardian Council said the Leader’s speech has outlined a road map for the nation.
Ayatollah Ka’bi added that the GC will spare no effort to safeguard the nation’s votes.
“The council will seriously and meticulously examine the protests and the complaints of the candidates through the legal process and will safeguard each one of the nation’s 40 million votes,” he said.
———- Following the Leader is a religious duty
MP Hashem Hashemzadeh said that following the Leader’s guidelines is a religious duty.
“The remarks of the Leader of the revolution were definitive… and obeying the orders of the velayat-e faqih (supreme jurisprudent) is a religious duty for everyone,” he told MNA.
——— University chancellors vow to follow Leader
In a statement issued on Saturday, university chancellors have emphasized that they will follow the decisive orders of the Supreme Leader.
“We regard the maximum presence of the people at the ballot boxes as the most valuable political and social asset for the Islamic system… and urge all the elites of Islamic Iran to do their best to safeguard this asset,” part of the statement said.
———- Armed forces urge people to follow the Leader
The Iranian Armed Forces Headquarters has issued a statement urging all people to follow the definitive guidelines of the Supreme Leader.
The statement added that the nation should be wary about the enemies’ plots.
“The victory of the great Iranian nation in the tenth presidential election… is a glory which should safeguard the country’s security magnificently. Thus, we should not be unaware of the enemies’ plots to destroy this unique capability,” it added
‘Ten killed’ in Iran clashes – state TV
@afzaalkhan
Rioters also chanting “Allho Akbar”
Its a well planned plot to sow the seed of doubts who is true carrier of Islamic revolution.
Those girls though wearing scarfs but speaks volumes with neck below of their outfit and as trained comrade mechanically shouting “Allaho Akbar” as Allah has to do anything with them or their mischievous cause.
the best line on the net
Twitter by someone in Iran
“carry Quran tom, when u go to protest so when police comes in u can be sheilded by Quran” – As reported by Hufpo and CNN>
Jang-e-jamal, when Hadrath Ali forces were abt to run the opposition over, Hadrath Umro-bin-al-aas (leading the opposition against Hadrath Ali), picked up Quran and started saying “aaey musalmanoon, hum aur tum is kitaab par mutaffiq hain aoo iski rooshni main tasfiya kar lain”. Saahaaba with hadrath Ali advised Hadrath Ali not to stop fighting but to defeat them, But Hadrath Ali said no, they have picked Quran we have to respect that. They decived Hadrath Ali with Quran and we had Maawiya and yazid as a concequence. Any shia should know this basic history.
The lesson is too evident and intentions becomes too clear.
Many things Ali(AS) did not easy to conceive on their face value.
Humanly it was not possible to deceive Ali…His wisdom was inherited from Prophet(saw) and told by Prophet(saw) and the best utilization of that wisdom was done by Umar(ra)…In his era Ali had the privilege of Marjaa i.e. final word on every issue.
Uthman(ra) was also in the habit of consulting Ali but never act upon them unlike Umar(ra)..Once Ali complain I will give you advice but unfortunately you will not follow … you will follow what Marwan will say.
Ali had a greater responsibility towards Quran…its not Jazoo or Afzalkhan…we will attack the enemy if we know for sure that enemy is deceiving us by Quran BUT not Ali…so I will not call it…He was deceived.
Afzaal History had been altered and events created as it suited different people/sects. Ali(AS) could not be deceived, it was his peace loving nature that allowed him to give his enemies another chance.
Lets talk only Pakistan and any other political factors that are affecting Pakistan. Religious beliefs must be one’s personal and private choice.
pl read my previous post with necessary comma
Many things Ali(AS) did, not easy to comprehend on their face value.
Humanly it was not possible to deceive Ali…His wisdom was inherited from Prophet(saw) and told by Prophet(saw) and the best utilization of that wisdom was done by Umar(ra)…In his era Ali had the privilege of Marjaa i.e. final word on every issue.
Uthman(ra) was also in the habit of consulting Ali but never act upon them unlike Umar(ra)..Once Ali complain I will give you advice but unfortunately you will not follow … you will follow what Marwan will say.
Ali had a greater responsibility towards Quran…its not Jazoo or Afzalkhan…we will attack the enemy if we know for sure that enemy is deceiving us by Quran BUT not Ali…so I will not call it…He was deceived.
Hadrath Ali was human as such he can be deceived or commit a mistake.
Main nay apney rab ko apney iradoon ki shikast se pehchana – Hadrath Ali.
Aib se pak sirf ek zaat hai – ALLAH SWT.
All that is on earth will perish;But will abide (forever) the Face of thy Lord― full of Majesty, Bounty and Honour. – Ar-Rehman (ayah 26:27)
Its a different issue that Allah created perfect embodiment of His creation or not about whom Allah says “Theres best example in Prophet’s sunnah”
Allah is free from a faulty command to refer a faulty and imperfect example to follow.
The point was Ali could not be deceived where his companions who derive wisdom from Ali were not deceived.
There could be many angles to Ali’s decision including one pointed out by pak.nuke.
@nota and @afzaalkhan
Someone ask Great Grand Ayatullah Tabatabai..How you define Masoom(Infallible).
His response
A Masoom has a capacity to do sin but consciously he is very sharp and aware….when we reach a cliff on a mountain we stop because we know we will fall if take one more step.
Similarly Masoom when about to commit a sin had the same feelings of falling from cliff…This awareness, sharpness and self check is called Tazkia-e-Nafs.
@nota, pak.nukes, AfzaalKhan and Jazoo
afzaalkhan said:
“Hadrath Ali was human…”
nota said:
That he was. And let’s keep it that way…We have no “holy trinity”
I say:
Indeed. This is exactly how it should be.
All:
Maybe the time is ripe to end this debate
I wonder Rafsanjani clearly wants to replace Imam Khamanee. So he can all the power, Mousuvi will benefit from that too. But will Rafsanjani be able to change the total system and replace it with so called Islamic republic that is islamic only in name? Would that not push Iran into a civilian war and would not engulf Iran in the same way as it has happened in Afghanistan and now threteaning Pak. Even if Rafsanjani does succeed, what he is gonna do fire ahmedinijad? At wat cost? Like it or not Ahmedinijad if not an outright winner lets for argument sake say has atleast 40% of population votes. Would they and the hardliners take it lying down?
Im really starting to hate Rafsanjani, the game he is playing is very dangerous to Iran as a nation. Lets not fool anyone its all been done in name of democracy.
@afzaalkhan
This Iran conflict in a true sense is the war of Rich Elite and Masses.
Masses represent poor Iranian majority…Islam is a religion of poor masses thats why elite class always at odd with Islam.
All the Ibrahmic Messengers were peasants and shepherds and all the elite class was Pharaoh,Namrood, Shaddad and Yazid.
So todays elite are Rafsanjani and many more like him and true representative of poor Ibrahimic class is Ahamdinejad.
Many of you may have a dislike for Ahmadenejad but he is upright and of sound character and he is least interested in power politics.
As a matter of fact he refused to run for second term…He was forced to change his mind by his supporters.
On the other hand Rafsanjani and his family has amassed a fortune by corruption.
Ahmedenejad is also not a lying type.
Khamenei in his speech made no effort to specifically contradict the grave charge leveled by Ahmadinejad during the election campaign that Rafsanjani conspired with the Saudi regime to overthrow his government – an allegation that the president couldn’t have made without input from Iranian intelligence, which comes under the supervision of the supreme leader.
Iran election annulment ruled out
@AfzaalKhan
““no major fraud or breach in the election”.”
What does that mean? That there was no MAJOR fraud but anyways some irregularities?
@all
Does someone know further about the claim of election fraud in 50 cities, where the results show more than 100 percent participation?
By George Friedman
Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.
Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces – who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators – and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.
A Question of Support
This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators – who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents – failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.
Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops – definitely not drawn from what we might call the “Twittering classes,” would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons. The troops had about as much sympathy for the demonstrators as a small-town boy from Alabama might have for a Harvard postdoc. Failing to understand the social tensions in Iran, the reporters deluded themselves into thinking they were witnessing a general uprising. But this was not St. Petersburg in 1917 or Bucharest in 1989 – it was Tiananmen Square.
In the global discussion last week outside Iran, there was a great deal of confusion about basic facts. For example, it is said that the urban-rural distinction in Iran is not critical any longer because according to the United Nations, 68 percent of Iranians are urbanized. This is an important point because it implies Iran is homogeneous and the demonstrators representative of the country. The problem is the Iranian definition of urban – and this is quite common around the world – includes very small communities (some with only a few thousand people) as “urban.” But the social difference between someone living in a town with 10,000 people and someone living in Tehran is the difference between someone living in Bastrop, Texas and someone living in New York. We can assure you that that difference is not only vast, but that most of the good people of Bastrop and the fine people of New York would probably not see the world the same way. The failure to understand the dramatic diversity of Iranian society led observers to assume that students at Iran’s elite university somehow spoke for the rest of the country.
Tehran proper has about 8 million inhabitants; its suburbs bring it to about 13 million people out of Iran’s total population of 70.5 million. Tehran accounts for about 20 percent of Iran, but as we know, the cab driver and the construction worker are not socially linked to students at elite universities. There are six cities with populations between 1 million and 2.4 million people and 11 with populations of about 500,000. Including Tehran proper, 15.5 million people live in cities with more than 1 million and 19.7 million in cities greater than 500,000. Iran has 80 cities with more than 100,000. But given that Waco, Texas, has more than 100,000 people, inferences of social similarities between cities with 100,000 and 5 million are tenuous. And with metro Oklahoma City having more than a million people, it becomes plain that urbanization has many faces.
Winning the Election With or Without Fraud
We continue to believe two things: that vote fraud occurred, and that Ahmadinejad likely would have won without it. Very little direct evidence has emerged to establish vote fraud, but several things seem suspect.
For example, the speed of the vote count has been taken as a sign of fraud, as it should have been impossible to count votes that fast. The polls originally were to have closed at 7 p.m. local time, but voting hours were extended until 10 p.m. because of the number of voters in line. By 11:45 p.m. about 20 percent of the vote had been counted. By 5:20 a.m. the next day, with almost all votes counted, the election commission declared Ahmadinejad the winner. The vote count thus took about seven hours. (Remember there were no senators, congressmen, city council members or school board members being counted – just the presidential race.) Intriguingly, this is about the same time in took in 2005, though reformists that claimed fraud back then did not stress the counting time in their allegations.
The counting mechanism is simple: Iran has 47,000 voting stations, plus 14,000 roaming stations that travel from tiny village to tiny village, staying there for a short time before moving on. That creates 61,000 ballot boxes designed to receive roughly the same number of votes. That would mean that each station would have been counting about 500 ballots, or about 70 votes per hour. With counting beginning at 10 p.m., concluding seven hours later does not necessarily indicate fraud or anything else. The Iranian presidential election system is designed for simplicity: one race to count in one time zone, and all counting beginning at the same time in all regions, we would expect the numbers to come in a somewhat linear fashion as rural and urban voting patterns would balance each other out – explaining why voting percentages didn’t change much during the night.
It has been pointed out that some of the candidates didn’t even carry their own provinces or districts. We remember that Al Gore didn’t carry Tennessee in 2000. We also remember Ralph Nader, who also didn’t carry his home precinct in part because people didn’t want to spend their vote on someone unlikely to win – an effect probably felt by the two smaller candidates in the Iranian election.
That Mousavi didn’t carry his own province is more interesting. Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett writing in Politico make some interesting points on this. As an ethnic Azeri, it was assumed that Mousavi would carry his Azeri-named and -dominated home province. But they also point out that Ahmadinejad also speaks Azeri, and made multiple campaign appearances in the district. They also point out that Khamenei is Azeri. In sum, winning that district was by no means certain for Mousavi, so losing it does not automatically signal fraud. It raised suspicions, but by no means was a smoking gun.
We do not doubt that fraud occurred during Iranian election. For example, 99.4 percent of potential voters voted in Mazandaran province, a mostly secular area home to the shah’s family. Ahmadinejad carried the province by a 2.2 to 1 ratio. That is one heck of a turnout and level of support for a province that lost everything when the mullahs took over 30 years ago. But even if you take all of the suspect cases and added them together, it would not have changed the outcome. The fact is that Ahmadinejad’s vote in 2009 was extremely close to his victory percentage in 2005. And while the Western media portrayed Ahmadinejad’s performance in the presidential debates ahead of the election as dismal, embarrassing and indicative of an imminent electoral defeat, many Iranians who viewed those debates – including some of the most hardcore Mousavi supporters – acknowledge that Ahmadinejad outperformed his opponents by a landslide.
Mousavi persuasively detailed his fraud claims Sunday, and they have yet to be rebutted. But if his claims of the extent of fraud were true, the protests should have spread rapidly by social segment and geography to the millions of people who even the central government asserts voted for him. Certainly, Mousavi supporters believed they would win the election based in part on highly flawed polls, and when they didn’t, they assumed they were robbed and took to the streets.
But critically, the protesters were not joined by any of the millions whose votes the protesters alleged were stolen. In a complete hijacking of the election by some 13 million votes by an extremely unpopular candidate, we would have expected to see the core of Mousavi’s supporters joined by others who had been disenfranchised. On last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, when the demonstrations were at their height, the millions of Mousavi voters should have made their appearance. They didn’t. We might assume that the security apparatus intimidated some, but surely more than just the Tehran professional and student classes posses civic courage. While appearing large, the demonstrations actually comprised a small fraction of society.
Tensions Among the Political Elite
All of this not to say there are not tremendous tensions within the Iranian political elite. That no revolution broke out does not mean there isn’t a crisis in the political elite, particularly among the clerics. But that crisis does not cut the way Western common sense would have it. Many of Iran’s religious leaders see Ahmadinejad as hostile to their interests, as threatening their financial prerogatives, and as taking international risks they don’t want to take. Ahmadinejad’s political popularity in fact rests on his populist hostility to what he sees as the corruption of the clerics and their families and his strong stand on Iranian national security issues.
The clerics are divided among themselves, but many wanted to see Ahmadinejad lose to protect their own interests. Khamenei, the supreme leader, faced a difficult choice last Friday. He could demand a major recount or even new elections, or he could validate what happened. Khamenei speaks for a sizable chunk of the ruling elite, but also has had to rule by consensus among both clerical and non-clerical forces. Many powerful clerics like Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani wanted Khamenei to reverse the election, and we suspect Khamenei wished he could have found a way to do it. But as the defender of the regime, he was afraid to. Mousavi supporters’ demonstrations would have been nothing compared to the firestorm among Ahmadinejad supporters – both voters and the security forces – had their candidate been denied. Khamenei wasn’t going to flirt with disaster, so he endorsed the outcome.
The Western media misunderstood this because they didn’t understand that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the clerics but against them, that many of the clerics were working for his defeat, and that Ahmadinejad has enormous pull in the country’s security apparatus. The reason Western media missed this is because they bought into the concept of the stolen election, therefore failing to see Ahmadinejad’s support and the widespread dissatisfaction with the old clerical elite. The Western media simply didn’t understand that the most traditional and pious segments of Iranian society support Ahmadinejad because he opposes the old ruling elite. Instead, they assumed this was like Prague or Budapest in 1989, with a broad-based uprising in favor of liberalism against an unpopular regime.
Tehran in 2009, however, was a struggle between two main factions, both of which supported the Islamic republic as it was. There were the clerics, who have dominated the regime since 1979 and had grown wealthy in the process. And there was Ahmadinejad, who felt the ruling clerical elite had betrayed the revolution with their personal excesses. And there also was the small faction the BBC and CNN kept focusing on – the demonstrators in the streets who want to dramatically liberalize the Islamic republic. This faction never stood a chance of taking power, whether by election or revolution. The two main factions used the third smaller faction in various ways, however. Ahmadinejad used it to make his case that the clerics who supported them, like Rafsanjani, would risk the revolution and play into the hands of the Americans and British to protect their own wealth. Meanwhile, Rafsanjani argued behind the scenes that the unrest was the tip of the iceberg, and that Ahmadinejad had to be replaced. Khamenei, an astute politician, examined the data and supported Ahmadinejad.
Now, as we saw after Tiananmen Square, we will see a reshuffling among the elite. Those who backed Mousavi will be on the defensive. By contrast, those who supported Ahmadinejad are in a powerful position. There is a massive crisis in the elite, but this crisis has nothing to do with liberalization: It has to do with power and prerogatives among the elite. Having been forced by the election and Khamenei to live with Ahmadinejad, some will make deals while some will fight – but Ahmadinejad is well-positioned to win this battle.
good analysis
@Observer
In every election everywhere in the world, there are always irregularities, i.e ranging from minor violation e.g counting ballot that could technically be counted as void, miscounting etc etc to ballot box filling by whoever holds the control of said ballot box. Nothing new there, Just read the election violations that happened in USA last elections thats despite the fact that all USA elections are pre-rigged i.e congress and senate. Only a handful seats in both houses are up for contest and thus decide who will be the majority party. This is done in name of redistricting where u have safe seats for both parties and bar a change in population these seats remain safe and thus only handful ever comes to contention. In senate its abt 10 give and take and in congress abt 30 give and take.
Article posted by Jazoo give a clear example of irregularities/fraud that happened in Iranian elections. But its once incident that was mentioned voter turn out was 99.5% and Ahmedinijad carried it 2.2:1 ratio.
In UK the idea of safe seats should explain how elections are pre-rigged in west.
Are these people chanting “Allah-o-Akbar” on the rooftops at night? Who do they want to deceive?
Probably pleasing Ghost and mbokhari
Naam bhi mut lo else they will come here too
u had to mention Shaitan
@afzaalkhan
This 90 degree G rotation is not my sign
What about putting my photo with ID
U can upload anything u want below the comment u will see link
“This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.”
click on that free registration and upload watever pic u want. Once uploaded choose ur pic for this site. If u need further assistance lemme know. Its pretty easy though took me 2 mins.
For me easy is to mail you my photo if you can upload.
I cant it will be shown under ur account. So it has to be u who registers, try it its very easy.
Obama toughens his talk on Iran>
@afzaalkhan
I have uploaded my photo
Now how I import it here.
Its imported mate i can see it
btw u can change it anytime just upload anything u want then once uploaded choose something else then this. Right now me using Faiz hard to beat faiz pic may be I will post zia sahib pic as my avatar:p
Im sure nota and pak.nukes will love that lol
Afzaal the day you put zia’s picture here I will fly to canada to kill you.
Thanks
BTW its 12 years younger
I thought it will show hairs too
Anyhow now I am 70% bald.
Thanks again
@Nota Man you beat me to the Kissenger video and regarding Neda story anyone with two neurons will be able to put two and two together. But then the problem is that most BABOONS dont have two neurons
I am sure you will remember this
The Making Of A War Criminal
Video: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6623.htm
“A fascinating, bombshell documentary that should shame Americans, regardless of whether or not ultimate blame finally lies with Kissinger. Should be required viewing for civics classes and would-be public servants alike.” — Brent Simon, Entertainment Today.
@nota Need I say more!!!!
LOL, BLOND IRANIAN TO THE CORE; May be this is a BLOND REVOLUTION
Here is another “TWEETER” Contributor. Looks like a true Iranian!!! Fighting the war against oppressive regime and demanding “where is my vote”! Surely needs BABOON Help!
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi, @IranRiggedElect, and @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that On June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a “moderate”? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?
John Bolton laid out the US strategy. First we try to destabilize the regime. Failing that, we strike them militarily. As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via-twitter/
The aunties: “Save” Pakistan
The nieces: “Save” Iran
Something about Nida death is fishy
First we don’t know how and where bullet hit her and when.
All the video catch that she fell down and immediately surrounded by people.
I don’t know much about first aid techniques…Rubbing the chest looks fine but few were pressuring her neck that probably cause the blood spilling from her nose.
Is it alright to apply pressure at neck?
A realist’s view of the protests in Iran
There is much talk about the presidential election having been rigged in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s favour, but where is the evidence?
First, clearly, the ruling theocratic establishment is deeply divided, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamene’i and President Ahmadinejad on one side, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mir Hussein Mousavi on the other. But there are also others occupying various positions in between, posturing, manoeuvring, politicking and hoping to ease themselves into power, one way or another
Second, there is a lot of pent-up frustration in Iranian society. About half the country’s population of 71 million people are under 25, and nearly two-thirds are under 30. Many of these youths yearn for what they don’t have or don’t have in abundance: a Western life style, the freedom to wear what they like, to drink alcohol freely,to go to discotheques, etc. Also, as with many other peoples in the Third World, they believe in what they see in Western, especially Hollywood movies, and they want to be part of it – the big houses, the flash cars, the huge incomes, the cloud cuckoo land.
Third, and related to this, is the fact that, although Iran has one of the strongest-performing economies of the major oil-producing countries in the Middle East, the general economic indicators are not good: unemployment stands at 9.6 per cent, rising to 20.3 per cent among people under 24, and annual inflation is 25.3 per cent.
Fourth, there is the Iranians who have never come to terms with the demise of the shah and have never accepted the Islamic Republic. They see the large crowds in the streets, the fiery speeches of the erstwhile stalwarts of the Islamic Republic talking about reform – or is it revolution disguised as reform? – Their expectations are raised and, in turn, they do their bit to raise the expectations of other dissatisfied citizens.
Put these together and you’ll get the convulsions Iran has been experiencing for the past week.
@ nota Definitely Gucci Blond revolution!!! I wonder what the next revolution will have to be called.
@afzaalkhan I must say if aljazeera.com could not come up with an original name I can’t expect them to come up with half decent analysis. It is a rehash of what the “Main stream” western media paddles. Yes there is need for economic reform in Iran but guess what, there economy is in a much better state then most western or arab economies.
The main stream media in the west publishes a wish list disguised as “Analysis”.
@taukeer,
sorry mate, watever happens in Iran a Pandora box has been opened. Would be interesting what Iranian establishment does to move forward. There was an article in newyork times will see if i can get it, where it compared to China’s response post-Tienanmen square. Chine became stronger and economically prosperous while quelling dissent and bring the masses in fold again. Iran’s establishment has to modify otherwise they will loose. The majority of population is young they have not experienced the revolution, neither the Iran-Iraq war and no amount of history lessons can replace that. Look at Pakistan, we have a sizable population who believes in myth of India and west being our freinds. Our exalted President just again reiterated he dun consider India a threat to Pakistan.
@afzaalkhan, I have come across the article you are talking about. The main thrust of the article was that if the support of demonstrators does not cross the class divide such uprisings petter out.
The Gucci Blonds could not recruit the support of the “Man on the street”. In the end they had to spill their own blood.
I will write about Pakistan’s Moron-in-Chief’s utterances latter.
@afzaalkhan,
What you are talking about youth is western propaganda.
Once Imam Khomeini said youth are closer to God and nature…Once we grow we become more attached to Duniya(World).
What Imam Khomeini said he said because youth were the real torch bearer of Islamic revolution.
@jazoo,
yeah not this youth, which wasn’t part of revolution nor the part of Iran – Iraq war, its same youth that is all over the Muslim world.
Utha ke bahar phaink do gali main
ke nai tehzeeb ke anday hain ganday
Iqbal
@afzaalkhan The agitating youth is the Gucci youth as we discussed elsewhere. That is not to say that there is no need for adjusting the course of the Revolution.
Above all the problem in Iran is a class issue. Of course there is foreign interference that complicates matters. The haves want to exclude the have-nots from the power structure. Ahmadenajad an outsider with no Clerical / religious background rose to power unexpectedly. Remember in the last election Rafsanjani was supposed to win!!! As someone rightly pointed out Musavi was just a Rafsanjani replacement, the connection was not supposed to be so obvious. Unsurprisingly the result was exactly the same as it was in the last election. I am sure political scientists among us would recognize that there is a consistency in political behavior of people.
Now that Gucci Blond Revolution is dieing it’s natural death as expected the Iranian Government needs to address the following issues.
1. Job creation.
2. Equitable distribution of oil wealth.
3. Engage with the Muslim world and address some very genuine insecurities of the Arab tyrannys in the neighbourhood. It should engage Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Establishment although the latter lack credibility but despite that the Iranians need to address the establishment to placate the Pakistani Sunni population. They also need to address the Shia Sunni issue in Iraq and extricate themselve from any sectarian divide because it looses them “Strategic Depth” in the Muslim Heartland.
The Iranians have been very adapt operators and I am sure they will be addressing some of these issues in the next couple of years.
@nota I think afzaalkhan went to sleep with an “open goal” on this one!!! If it was BABOON “elsewhere” I leave it to your imagination wat a thrashing they would have suffered!
I see Gucci Blond Grannie lived for this day complete with Shah’s flag and Washington’s declaration “Regime Change”!
@nota,
and if they want to do all that then how to stop them? By force an’t gonna work buddy.
@nota,
thats the misconception that they are small in numbers, majority kahoo majority, yahan jisko moqa nahi milta voh nahi karta, buhat kam hotey hain jo khauf-e-khuda se nahi kartey. How many times u have read the story of ppl dying or getting sick by drinking desi sharaab. So lets be honest abt it. Hudood ordinance ka kia hashar hoa pak main? Baat kartey hain shariyaat ki, u ask oh majority of pak wants shariah, how many prays 5 times a day? lol
My qts is how to tackle that, surely force ant gonne make ppl do. Zia sahib nay dandey se annoucners ke sir par dupatta aur sherwani raij ki, onki aankhain band hoin dekh lo anjaam, lol
May be am too old but I can’t even watch pakistani dramas with my family any more, pehley indian movies ka masla tha aab to main pak dramey bhi nahi dekh sakta :p
main kitthey javaan, manjhi kitthey dhawan lol
I think this reply method is not good
It makes hard to follow the thread in chronological order
@nota
“(My last trip to a restaurant here in Lahore was with a maulvi and he was the one drinking wine….)”
I think this maulvi was with Mushi during his 8 years regime.
lol
@nota
“Sorry to say that most people I know fall in the group AND they DO pray five times a day and those are the ones most guilty (My last trip to a restaurant here in Lahore was with a maulvi and he was the one drinking wine….)”
They not only pray five times a day, but also tries to find the premier row to be noticed by others i.e. trust me. I am “pious” man.
In short it is the hypocrites who are the worst – be it religious people, the liberal baboons etc. Better to show the true colors whatever the color. We need not Trojan Horses!
@nota
Beer hogee tum jahiloon ko kia pata, beer main sirf 5% alcohol, 95% pani, aqalmand ko ishara kafi lol
This is the best of the lot lol. From BBC. Wat really tickled me was the line A White House spokesman said Iranians had not replied anyway. Dun matter they reply or not, no matter that they routinely dun attend its a snub, but when Iran dun attend its not snub its just them being rude lol/
@nota,
last one should be ” Faux News” or “fox noise”, take ur pick lol
@nota
Awesome…
This thing is getting worst. BBC reporting 8 basij militia killed and mousuvi is now openly challenging the system. Ofcoz behind him is rafsanjani and co.
Iran’s Mousavi defies crackdown
From Mossadegh to Ahmadinejad
The CIA and the Iranian experiment
by Thierry Meyssan*
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160670.html
In countries under their occupation —Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan—, the Anglo-Saxons intercept all telephone communication, whether mobile or wired. The goal is not to obtain full transcripts of any given conversation, but to identify « social networks ». In other words, telephones are surveillance bugs which make it possible to know who anyone is in touch with. Firstly, the hope is to identify resistance networks.Secondly, telephones make it possible to locate identified targets and «neutralize» them. This is why in February 2008, the Afghan rebels ordered various operators to stop their activity daily, from 5PM to 3AM, in order to prevent the Anglo-Saxons to follow their whereabouts. The relay antennas of those that refused to comply where destroyed [7].
LA Times
Iran ambassador suggests CIA could have killed Neda Agha-Soltan
Sometimes it seems Wolf Blitzer has interviewed pretty much every single person on the planet by now on CNN’s “The Situation Room.” Fact is, Wolfie is literally a stand-up interviewer and a real pro, even with people you don’t know, because Wolf, it seems, knows everybody.
Newswise, everything is gonna be Michael Jackson-Farah Fawcett here for a while, which is a godsend for Gov. Mark Sanford while his meds take effect and VP Joe Biden can finally have his time-consuming private meetings, well, in private.
But it also means folks might overlook Wolf’s incredible or incredulous chat today with Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri.
Now who, most people might ask, is MHG? Another nobody CNN scooped off the streets of Washington by CNN bookers to comment on something we didn’t know we needed to know about? Well, no. He’s the ambassador of Iran to Mexico.
Clearly, MHG was authorized by the Big Bearded Boys back home to say what he said here about the now globally iconic Neda Agha-Soltan, who in her vivid videotaped death has become a part of even American politics.
And MHG chose to speak in Persian so he would not make any career-ending — or worse — mistranslations. (NB: Eyewitnesses have said Neda was shot in the chest.)
So here it is, as The Ticket often does, in his own words:
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we’re anxious to hear your government’s response to all of these developments which have been very dramatic over the past two weeks.
A key question many people around the world are asking is, why did your security forces kill that 26-year-old beautiful student named Nada?
MOHAMMAD HASSAN GHADIRI, IRANIAN AMBASSADOR TO MEXICO: I prefer to answer this in Persian.
BLITZER: Go ahead.
GHADIRI (through interpreter): This death of Ms. Nada is very suspicious. She was shot from behind. The location was where there was not much demonstration, there was no police presence and the gun that shot and killed her was a smuggled gun. It was not a government-issued gun.
BLITZER: There have been others, though, that have been killed, as well.
GHADIRI (through interpreter): In our view, this would be the work of those who wanted to put more fuel to the flame against the government.
I’ll tell you what Mr. [Giulio] Andreotti, who was an Italian politician who was the prime minister of Italy. Mr. Andreotti was talking about a terrorist group, the Gladiators, and CIA had found that. And therefore, the United States was for the Communists to come to power during the election. That’s why they would terror-assassinate anti-Communist people and politicians and they would blame the Communists for that.
It’s natural that the public opinion may believe that assassinated person like that was . . .
. . . an anti-terrorist, anti-Communist. The public opinion could be formed that the Communists had assassinated the terrorism. This is the thing that has been continued.
My question is that how is that this Nada was shot from behind and several cameras take that. And this is done in an area where there was no important demonstration. If the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the elements of the government, and then choosing a girl would be something good for them because it would have much higher impact.
Therefore, we believe and we are looking into this to find who the elements were who did this.
BLITZER: Are you seriously accusing the CIA of killing Neda?
GHADIRI (through interpreter): We say that the bullet that was found in her head was not a bullet that you could find in Iran.
These are the bullets that the CIA and terrorist groups use. Of course they warned that there would be a bloodshed in these demonstrations and then they could attribute that to the Islamic Republic. This is part of a common act of CIA in various countries.
BLITZER: Do you really believe that, Mr. Ambassador?
You’re a distinguished diplomat representing Iran. This is a very serious accusation that you’re making, that the CIA was responsible for killing this beautiful, young woman.
GHADIRI (through interpreter): I’m not saying that the CIA had done this. There are different groups. Could be intelligence services, could be CIA, could be the terrorists.
However, these are the people who do these things. You could ask Mr. Andreotti, who was an Italian diplomat, whether Gladiators were a secret group related to CIA or not. Now they of course they use better methods. Of course, you’re not going to say that CIA is a sacred organization that hasn’t done anything to other worlds.
BLITZER: Mr. Ambassador, why won’t your government allow people to go mourn at a memorial service for Nada, as her family has requested?
GHADIRI (through interpreter): We have no problem with mournings. Naturally we don’t want to provide an opportunity for the rioters to come in and make the situation worse.
– Andrew Malcolm
The Ticket goes inside politics several times a day. Or click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us @latimestot
@Jazoo “Wolfie is literally a stand-up interviewer and a real pro”!!! LOL
Wlofy is a zionist fascist whose sole qualification and basis of claim to CNN’s “Situation Room” is his Zionist credentials.
You want proof?! Here is one:
@taukeer,
Dr.Norman made Wolfie looks like a stand up comedian.
Here is another
@taukeer,
awesome
@Taukeer
Good pieces. I liked the first one most. It was like a BLITZkrieg
Thanks guys.
Finkelstein is a great thinker. A pity he is not a muslim
Listen to Finkelstein lay into Dershowitz, Listen to him at 19 min onwards. God can you give this man Iman. He is a genius.
And listen to him at 41 min as well.
This is a mail I received from a friend.
Last night I attended an event in downtown New York where the Columbia University professor Hamid Dabashi spoke on the recent turmoil in Iran and the politics of Iran as it has been unfolding in the recent days. Being a native Iranian himself whose childhood in Iran dates back to the aftermath of the 1953 Musaddaq debacle and then growing up during the Islamic Revolution fo 1979, he has a deep and perceptive view of things. On the other being a patriotic Iranian he was able to analyse and comment on the various forces working in the Iranian society without prejudice.
Here is an article that I reproduce from his website. Please pay special attention to the following passage.
Disappointed by this democratic flourishing are not just Israeli and American Zionists that spent time and money portraying Iran as a diabolic dictatorship deserving to be bombed. Equally scandalised by this election are the colourful band of lipstick jihadi Hirsi Ali wanna-bes who are writing one erotic fantasy after another about Iranian “women”, over-sexualising Iranian politics as they opt for “love and danger” during their “honeymoon in Tehran”. The representation of Iranian women in the flea market of the US publishing industry began under President Bush with Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran and has now come to a new depth of depravity in Pardis Mahdavi’s Passionate Uprisings: Iran’s Sexual Revolution. Between a harem full of Lolitas and a bathhouse of nymphomaniacs is where Nafisi and Mahdavi have Iranian women, marching in despair awaiting liberation by US marines and Israeli bombers. What a contrast to the real work of women, as testified to in this election, and now on the street in defence of the collective will of the nation.
This is a brilliant formulation of ideas with powerful words.
@nota,
I agree
Those are words of my friend…not mine
Complete article
Iran’s Democratic Upsurge
June 25, 2009 By Hamid Dabashi
Source: Al-Ahram Weekly
Hamid Dabashi’s ZSpace Page
Join ZSpace
“A messianic apocalyptic cult…”
– Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Iran and Iranians
By design or serendipity, the Israeli claim to be “the only democracy in the Middle East” has suddenly been globally exposed for the ludicrous joke that it is.
The June 2009 parliamentary elections in Lebanon will go down in history as a major advance for the cause of democracy in that small but vital country. The victory of the March 14 coalition of Saad Al-Hariri, by which they now hold 71 seats in the 128- member parliament, has left the remaining 58 seats to the Hizbullah-led coalition. Israel and its American allies have been quick to paint this result as a victory for “pro-Western” elements and thus a defeat for Hizbullah. This is not the case. Victory of the March 14 coalition is the victory of democracy in Lebanon — a victory Hizbullah shared.
Because Israel is a racist apartheid state, it cannot see the world except through its own tribal lens. The victory of the March 14 coalition in Lebanon is the victory of the electoral process, which now solidly includes Hizbullah and its parliamentary allies. Hizbullah is now not only part of Lebanon’s civil society, but also its political apparatus and institutionalised democratic process, and Hizbullah achieved this without abandoning its status as a national liberation army that will defend its homeland against any and every Israeli barbarity that may come its way.
As the Arab and Muslim worlds celebrate this democratic victory, it is imperative to see it as having nothing to do with Obama’s presidency, or his speech in Cairo, lecturing Muslims in the region on democracy while his army is illegally occupying Iraq and slaughtering Afghans.
On the heels of the Lebanese elections, the cause and the march of democracy took an even bolder leap in Iran, and that leap is not because of US promotion of democracy, but in fact is despite and against it. At time of writing, millions of Iranians inside and out of their homeland are angry and heartbroken with the official results. Some go so far as considering what happened a coup d’état. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to question the validity of the official results that have declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the clear winner. The only point of which Iranians can be sure and proud is the extraordinary manifestation of their collective will to participate in their politics. This unprecedented participation neither lends legitimacy to the illegitimate apparatus of the Islamic Republic and its manifestly undemocratic organs nor should be abused by bankrupt oppositional forces outside Iran to denounce and denigrate a glorious page in modern Iranian history.
Every four years, during presidential elections followed by parliamentary elections, the paradox of the democratic theocracy of the Islamic Republic of Iran fascinates and baffles the world. During this presidential campaign, Iranians boisterously joined rallies and then stood in long queues to vote under the extended shadow of Israeli warlords threatening a military strike. The propaganda machinery at the disposal of Israel will have the world believe that a populist demagogue like Ahmadinejad is “the dictator” of Iran, as one of their spokesmen in New York, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, once put it. And thus on the model of an Oriental despot he represents a backward people whose fate deserves to be determined by others (the US/ Israel, of course). As the prominent Israeli scholar of Iran, Haggai Ram, one of a handful of courageous Israeli dissidents, has aptly demonstrated in his Iranophobia, Israel’s fixation with Iran has now reached pathological proportions and is a case study of self-delusional hysteria feeding on itself.
The reality of the Iranian polity, as the world has once again been witness to, is vastly different to the picture US/Israel propaganda is feeding the world. A vibrant and restless society is defying all mandated limitations on its will and demanding and exacting its democratic rights. The undemocratic institutions of the Islamic Republic — beginning with the idea of velayat-e faqih, or rule of the cleric, down to the unelected body of the Guardian Council — are not obstacles to democracy in Iran but invitations to democratic assault. What the Iranian electorate, young and old, men and women, seem to be doing is far more important than a mere head on collision with ageing and arcane institutions. They are pushing the limits of their democratic exercises in unfathomable and unstoppable directions. The Internet has connected Iran’s youth to the global context, and they have in turn become the catalyst of discursive and institutional changes beyond the control of the clerical clique in Qom and Tehran.
This is more than anything a battle between generations. Iranian society is changing and fast. The ageing custodians of the Islamic Republic wish to limit what can be said or expected. But the globally geared and wired youth, more than 60 per cent of the electorate, is now radically altering the contours of those limits. They are not merely defying them, but are sublimating them. The red line in Iran is thinning by the hour, for facing it are skilful players exercising their political muscles. It was quite evident in the course of the US presidential election of 2008 that an Internet-savvy Obama outmanoeuvred McCain’s arcane operation. The same is true of Mir-Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karrubi’s campaigns, the two reformist candidates, on the one side, and Ahmadinejad’s on the other, with Mohsen Rezai in-between. The social basis of Mousavi’s platform is the urban middle class, the youth, and women. The economic basis of Ahmadinejad’s demagoguery is the rural and urban poor. They are both skilful campaigners in reaching out to their respective constituencies.
The rising demographic tide is against the old revolutionaries. Iranian children born after the revolution in the late 1970s have no active memory of its hopes and furies and could not care less about those who do. Every four years since the end of Iran-Iraq war in 1988, and the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989, the Iranian electorate has been upping the ante. They voted for Rafsanjani in 1989 and for eight years he rebuilt the economic infrastructure of the country after the war, creating a class of nouveau riche. Then in 1997 they voted for Mohamed Khatami who gave them a modicum of civil society and opened the vista of wide-ranging social reform, and yet did nothing — or very little — to alleviate the poor masses Rafsanjani had left behind. In 2005, those disenfranchised by Rafsanjani’s economic project and indifferent to Khatami’s social and cultural agenda pushed power into the hands of Ahmadinejad. And now, in 2009, a major segment of disaffected voters, in their millions, are investing trust in Mousavi, a former prime minister with impeccable revolutionary credentials, a war hero, and a socialist in his economic projects.
Again, the scene is overwhelmed by the massive participation of the youth, students, and above all women, on both sides of the political divide. This new generation is Internet-aware, versatile with Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It is globally wired. The presence of Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s distinguished wife, is an added aspect of this campaign. A prominent public intellectual and a former university chancellor, a poet, painter and sculptor, and a staunch advocate of women’s rights, Rahnavard is dubbed by some foreign journalists as the Michelle Obama of Iran. “No,” retorted one of her Iranian admirers in response, “Michelle Obama could have aspired to become the Zahra Rahnavard of the United States.”
This election has also been extraordinary because of live televised debates that exposed skeletons collected for 30 years in the closets of the ageing elders of the republic. Ahmadinejad, bastard son of the Islamic Revolution, is fast devouring, in his populist demagoguery, the idealism and aspirations of that revolution. Opposing Ahmadinejad are the architects of Iran’s creative imagination. More than ever Iranian artists and filmmakers have been active in this election. They have published open letters, produced video clips, and joined others in rallies. From Paris, Mohsen Makhmalbaf wrote an open letter supporting Mousavi and encouraging everyone to vote for him while dispatching his youngest daughter, Hana, to go to Iran to make a documentary about the elections. When Mousavi challenged the official results, Makhmalbaf became a conduit of his campaign with international news outlets, using his connections with foreign journalists.
Majid Majidi, another prominent Iranian filmmaker, directed Mousavi’s campaign commercials. Other Iranian directors, actors, producers have similarly exerted their efforts. Student organisations, labour unions, professional associations and women’s rights organisations — all have been engaged, on the streets, on the Internet sites, writing fiery essays, shooting movies, and producing video clips. Rahnavard, a painter with a talent for colour symbolism, chose green for her husband’s campaign (neither red for violence nor white for martyrdom, the other two colours in the Iranian flag). And when Khatami went to Isfahan to campaign for Mousavi, upwards of 100,000 people came together in the historic Meydan-e Naqsh-e Jahan to cheer him and support the reformist candidate. This is democracy from bellow; democracy not by virtue of institutions, but by collective and defiant insistence. Israeli warlords should think twice before aggressing the Iranians.
Disappointed by this democratic flourishing are not just Israeli and American Zionists that spent time and money portraying Iran as a diabolic dictatorship deserving to be bombed. Equally scandalised by this election are the colourful band of lipstick jihadi Hirsi Ali wanna-bes who are writing one erotic fantasy after another about Iranian “women”, over-sexualising Iranian politics as they opt for “love and danger” during their “honeymoon in Tehran”. The representation of Iranian women in the flea market of the US publishing industry began under President Bush with Azar Nafisi’s Reading Lolita in Tehran and has now come to a new depth of depravity in Pardis Mahdavi’s Passionate Uprisings: Iran’s Sexual Revolution. Between a harem full of Lolitas and a bathhouse of nymphomaniacs is where Nafisi and Mahdavi have Iranian women, marching in despair awaiting liberation by US marines and Israeli bombers. What a contrast to the real work of women, as testified to in this election, and now on the street in defence of the collective will of the nation.
On two sides of Iran lie in waste Iraq and Afghanistan, liberated for democracy by George W Bush and now Barack Obama. In the middle, millions of Iranians who would have been maimed or murdered by a similar “liberation” peacefully poured into streets and jubilantly marched to polling stations to vote, in a grassroots, however limited and flawed, but still promising and beautiful, march towards democracy. And now that they think their votes have been stolen from them they are more than capable of demanding them back.
Whoever the final winner of Iran’s election may be, fanatical Zionists in Israel and the US, power-mongering Mullahs in Tehran and Qom, comprador intellectuals and career opportunists from Washington DC to California, are its sorest losers. The winners are the indomitable Iranian people. We are witness, regardless of controversy, to a triumph of democratic pluralism, from Lebanon to Iran — a nightmare for the Jewish state that wants the whole region remade in its delusional, racist, apartheid image where sects and factions fight each other to the dogged end. “A messianic apocalyptic cult,” indeed, can only describe the country of the man who pronounced it.
Mr Prime Minister, thou dost protest too much.
The writer is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York.
Disclaimer:
I do not agree with everything said in the above article.
Nazir Naji speaking the zionist language
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2009-daily/27-06-2009/col3.htm
“a nightmare for the Jewish state that wants the whole region remade in its delusional, racist, apartheid image where sects and factions fight each other to the dogged end. “A messianic apocalyptic cult,” indeed, can only describe the country of the man who pronounced it.” That I can agree upon
Naji is ****** up looser.
Funny that USA holding Iranian embassy staff for last few years in Iraq on same accusations. Oh wait they are terrorists while UK staff members doing same are protecting democracy. LOL
UK fury as staff arrested in Iran
Hypocrisy thy name is……? LOL, just check USA media on that this is hilarious, Huffington post the poster boy leading Iran coverage and the commentators now applauding the coup, cuz they got rid of person who was close to Chaves.
Honduran leader forced into exile
another gem – ROFL
11:20 AM ET — Solidarity. An Israeli woman takes part in a demonstration in Tel Aviv in support of Iranian opposition protestors on June 27, 2009. (Getty)
The photo underneath, is that of shock and awe soon to be visited upon Iranians for the sake of their “liberation”. Complete with Gucci Bag!! And enough Mascara to paint the town black!!
Anyway kinda gives the game away! Poor Mossad guys must be kicking themselves on having such moronic public to contend with!
Rafsanjani fans flames of dissent