The woman behind the man behind the opposition movement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/zahra-rhanavard-iran-elections-presidential/print

Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi's wife, turns out to be a charismatic leader. It will be an ironic well-deserved by the regime if the revolution will be brought about by a woman.

So rattled was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by her popularity, he used a televised debate between the candidates to query the legitimacy of her doctorate. Rahnavard's response was to threaten to sue him, and accuse him of lying, debasing women and abusing his office. "I will not relax until I teach him a ­lesson," she said, to the astonishment of seasoned observers.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/this-wont-end-well/

The protesters can expect no help, or encouragement from the Obama administration…

But Robert Gibbs did issue this  forceful statement: “We continue to be heartened by the enthusiasm of young people in Iran.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/06/15/the_iranian_election_barack_obamas_cowardly_silence

The Obama administration's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's fraudulent election victory is cowardly, lily-livered and wrong. The White House's refusal to officially question the result or even condemn the brutal suppression of opposition protestors, is undermining America's standing as a global power, and is little more than a face-saving, cynical exercise in appeasement that will all end in tears.

Vice President Joe Biden, while expressing "some real doubt" about the election, summed up the administration's position on Sunday's Meet the Press - "we're going to withhold comment... I mean we're just waiting to see." Waiting to see what Mr. Biden? More savage beatings of opposition supporters including women? The further arrest of hundreds of opposition leaders? Even greater suppression of the press and free speech?

...

Fortunately there are some U.S. politicians speaking out against the White House's position, including former presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Senator Joe Lieberman. As Romney put it on ABC's This Week, "what has occurred is that the election is a fraud, the results are inaccurate, and you're seeing a brutal repression of the people as they protest." Lieberman didn't mince his words when he declared "through intimidation, violence, manipulation and outright fraud, the Iranian regime has once again made a mockery of democracy and confirmed its repressive and dictatorial character."

...

Obama’s deafening silence over the Iranian election is a disgrace. According to The New York Times, the president “did not even convene any high-level White House meetings or conference calls on Sunday”. That’s not the mark of a leader but a clear display of weakness. It’s a sad day when the greatest power in the world withholds criticism of a brutal, tyrannical and illegitimate regime for fear of upsetting its rulers.

This is the "change" Obama has promised. When does he intend to do something? He has apparently noticed "irregulararities" (isn't he the sharp one), but has he noticed the riots and the deaths?

Somebody give the man a computer and Internet access!

Silly Leauki, he doesn't need a computer. He has his trusted Blackberry

I see this is as a real misjudgement on the Ayatollah's part. Not only did he support the wrong candidate, but he's not leaving himself much wriggle room for when the crackdown comes.

I don't think he is technically an "ayatollah". Iran's problem in 1989 was that no real cleric wanted to become the next "supereme guide" because all of them were opposed to the theocratic system Khomeini implemented. (It goes against traditional Shia beliefs. I have explained that before in some discussion, if I remember correctly. I'll look for that comment.)

It's a bit of a mystery how that actually happened. I'll come up with a few theories soon, maybe.

Sandmonkey reports:

Der Spiegel just confirmed the rumors, that many of the guys that are cracking down on the demonstrators in the streets are lebanese hezbollah members. According to them, there are 5000 Hezbollah members in Iran that are part of the crackdown on the students. This is a big mistake. You don't bring an arab to beat down a Persian, unless you want the Persians to get really and I mean really pissed off. The hatred that Persians have for arabs are the stuff of legend, and if the regime has to use arabs to crack down on its people, then it maybe weaker than we ever though.

(Note that Sandmonkey speaks German.)

Also read this: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2009/06/16/an-e-mail-from-tehran/

And have a laugh: http://www.sandmonkey.org/2009/06/16/ahmedinjad-unmasked/

This true about arabs and Persians.  I'm sure the Iranian media will blame this (all the protest) on the U.S. You don't suppress people (especially college students) for  change will come.  The Tiananmen square protest (whiched happened on June 4 1989) if you look at some of their reasons for protesting (first to be allowed to mourn, then against the authoritarian/economic change) it did bring along changes.

If Khomeini doesn't do something soon he'll face the consequences.  Could you imagine if Ahmadinejad got snubbed out.  If that happened the U.S. will get blamed for sure.

Holy crap.

Leauki, I usually don't see the biases you see in the media (maybe Canadian papers are better about it, or maybe I'm just blind), and I'd seen lots of coverage of the Iranian election. I knew it was getting ugly over there, and that Ahmedinejad looked like he had stolen the election (I could have bought it if he had won the first round, but a >50% landslide? Bullshit!). I didn't have any idea just HOW ugly it was getting. I'd heard all this stuff was happening to some extent or another, but the details are... shocking, to say the least.

On one hand, I really can't blame the Media for not publishing anecdotal, unverifiable reports coming out of the country... but on the other hand, it's the only stuff coming OUT. The Iranian government is blocking everything else.

Arg. Anecdotal evidence and historical patterns of behaviour are like a great big neon sign saying "THIS ELECTION WAS A FRAUD", but I still feel uncomfortable roundly condemning it simply because I don't have sufficient confidence in my information... a position that I imagine a lot of governments are finding themselves in. I suspect that's the primary purpose of the media blackout.

Lets just hope we don't get another Tianamen Square on our hands. And maybe, if we're lucky, that thuggish, anti-semetic loudmouth that they jokingly refer to as the "elected president of Iran" will be out of a job shortly.

@Leauki - You have anything corraborating the rumor that the Iranian Military is in Tehran now? I got a direct tweet from a friend who lives there. I trust him, but still wanted to check up on it.

Btw, here's some good stuff about it: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/

~Alderic/Hope4Iran

The official election results were an anecdotal, unverifiable report, yet many news sites reported them as facts. As I said, they changed the headlines only after blogs published the first pictures of the riots.

No, but it could be true. However, note that the regime cannot rely on the military. They are conscripts.

They have a professional second military, which is weaker in numbers (only 100,000 people or so) but better equipped. Plus they have a militia of volunteers, who are not very disciplined.

The military itself might well change sides. Calling them in might well be a sign of desperation (running out of volunteers?).

Mhm, that was what I was thinking. I know they've got the various, branches, so to speak. I would, assuming it is true, tend to believe that they're losing control a bit. Not necessarily all of their control, but a significant amount. There's been reports of protests numbering up to 3 million; so, who knows.

The One has 'deep concerns' but feels it wouldn't be good for the US to be seen as 'meddling' in Iran.  Apparently it's OK to 'meddle' in Israel, however.  Presumably because that looks 'good.'

Setting him aside; there is a grain of truth to the point when it comes to Iran. We're already on ice when it comes to Iran, and any sort of support and subsequent reaction could only screw us further. Think about it, if the US sided with Ahmadinijead - and there was a revolution or the investigation showed corruption...or vice versa.

Personally, I support the protestors, but I'm not the president.

~Alderic/hope4iran

@Leauki:

The reports I saw said stuff along the lines of "Ahmedinejad has been declared the winner by the state, with more than 50% of the vote (meaning no runoff election)". These are facts about the regimes actions and statements, not anecdotal or unverifiable.

...and yeah, nobody started questioning the results until people started raising allegations of misconduct. I don't recall the stories containing that on the day of, but reports on Iran in subsequent days seemed to make ample mention of the allegations of election fraud.

I dunno. Perhaps the newspapers I read aren't as bad as the ones you are familiar with?

@ Daiwa:

That's not a fair comparison. The "meddling" with Israel is in the context of regional diplomacy, but meddling in this instance would be interfering with Iranian elections. Messing about with other countries elections is a major diplomatic no-no. A few years back, the US Ambassador to Canada made some comments favouring one candidate or the other, and all four main parties, the media, and the citizenry all told him to shut up and butt out. The same thing happened when PM Steven Harper made a comment during the Democrat primaries between Clinton and Obama that reflected poorly on Obama. It's an unwritten rule that other nations shouldn't be meddling with the domestic elections of another country.

Add in the history the US has with Iran: having propped up and financed the incredibly unpopular former government that the revolution eventually toppled. It looks bad for the US to stick its nose in there, and could actually harm the pro-reform camp more than it helps by making them look like they're in the pocket of the Americans.

Seems like western countries, even Israel, have decided to abandon the protesters:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093410.html

Really? I still see articles that speak of Ahmadinejad as "re-elected".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104466.stm

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected last week with almost two-thirds of votes.

Compare this to how they phrase reports about the other opinion:

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi are planning a new demonstration in Tehran in protest at what they see as a fraudulent presidential poll in Iran.

Now, this sentence is an actual report of the situation:

Iran has imposed tough new restrictions on foreign media, requiring journalists to obtain explicit permission before covering any story. Journalists have also been banned from attending or reporting on any unauthorised demonstration.

But THIS sentence is reporting a claim made by the Iranian government as fact:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected last week with almost two-thirds of votes.

Note that the BBC do not treat claims coming from the Iranian regime and claims coming from the opposition as equally valid. What the regime says is fact, and what the opposition say is something "they see as".

(Want to bet whether Reuters will show retouched pictures of Tehran that make the Iranian regime's reaction to the riots look worse? They did this in Lebanon to make Israel look bad. Who thinks Reuters, in all their objectivity, would also use that method against the Iranian regime?)

I don't know? Are you reading articles originating from the BBC, AP, or Reuters?

That's unnecessary political correctness. What should be big no-no is to remain silent when other people fight for their freedom.

That's a nice excuse to do nothing. However, the Shah was and is not as unpopular as the current regime and the US actually did stick its nose into Lebanon and the reform camp won. Twice in a row.

I think the idea that speaking up could hurt the pro-reform camp is one of those axiomatic principles. We have not actually see it in reality, but it sounds like it could be true.

In the mean time, Iranian protesters are carrying posters asking the western media to stop legitimising the Iranian "elections".

What Obama could do is make a speech that tells the Iranian regime that their facade of democracy has failed, that the whole world now knows that the Iran people do not stand behind its policies and that the Iranian government does not, in fact, represent the Iranian people.

At the moment, the regime knows that everything will be back to normal when the revolt is over.

At the very least Obama could make that speech when all the rioters are dead or in prison, if he is unwilling to help them now.

(As for the diplomatic rudeness of this, I don't think Iran cared much for political correctness when they interfered in Lebanese or PA elections.)

There are now claims that Hamas are also operating inside Iran on the regime's side. (Note that it has long been claimed, including by Hamas themselves, that Iran is training Hamas terrorists. They have been in the country already.)

Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday.

...

"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184851049&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I don't know if this is true, but it's not unlikely. What's important here is that Iranians _think_ that Arab terrorists are fighting them. Also note that Iranians know that "Palestinian" terrorists were on Saddam's side.

Western media are still trying to save the Iranian regime, not just by downplaying the protests but also by claiming now that the protesters do not actually want a regime change. This contradicts the seven demands of the opposition:

The Seven Point Manifesto calls for:

1.Stripping Ayatollah Khamanei  of his Supreme Leadership position because of his unfairness. Fairness is a requirement of a  Supreme Leader.

2. Stripping Ahmadinejad  of the presidency, due to his unlawful act of maintaining the position illegally.

3.Transferring temporary Supreme Leadership position to Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazery until the formation of a committee to reevaluate and adjust Iran’s constitution.

4. Recognizing Mir Hossein Mousavi as the rightfully elected president of the people.

5. Formation of a new government by President Mousavi and preparation for the implementation of new constitutional amendments.

6. Unconditional release of all political prisoners regardless of ideaology or party platform.

7. Dissolution of all organizations - both secret and public - designed for the oppression of the Iranian people, such as the Gasht Ershad (Iranian morality police).

I don't know what the media's game is here, but it seems to me that they are currently competing for their place in Iran, should the regime win. Again, they are putting profits before honest reporting. And that isn't a problem. They are in the business for the money, not the truth. But they should be honest about it.

(Also, at some point, some things are more important than money.)

Leauki, I'm sorry I have to disagree with you on this.  Just look at what caused the melt down of the markets in the U.S.  It was greed.  It just might be me because I don't put too much faith or trust in people any more.

Eventually what's going to happen is that they (Mahmoud/Khamanei) will just ride this out until its forgotten.

I've heard from friends that live their that Mousavi might be in either protective custody or in custody.  They also tell me its very hard to tell what's true and what's not true with all that's going on.  Especially considering there is very little reaction from the international community.

Starstriker, I know within the last 2 to 3 years the International Community has stated that: Zimbabwe, Kenya, and a Northern African country (I can't remember which) elections WERE NOT DEMOCRATIC and rigged.

If you think that greed caused the melt down, why do you disagree that some things are more important than money? You see me confused.

All,

The opposition in Iran is openly pro-western. They want western values. They want better relations with the west and especially with the US. The mullahs (technically "the mullah" since it's only one who is really totally opposed to reforms) know this and are already accusing the opposition of being western infiltrators. But that only helps the opposition who want to be seen as pro-western.

Obama himself said that one cannot be silent in the face of what's going on in Iran. And then he remained silent.

What happened in Iran...

Here's what I could figure out so far about the fake election (and there is no doubt that it was fake, not even Germany can count paper votes so quickly):

1. For the past five years Ahmadinejad and Khameini (the "supreme leader") have replaced leading officials with people loyal to Ahmadinejad and Khameini.

2. If Ahmadinejad loses, this would be reversed.

3. This is not secular forces vs religious fundamentalists, it is everybody, secular and religious against ONE mullah and his secular allies around Ahmadinejad. The other mullahs can replace Khameini unless his has the militias and military on his side.

4. This explains why it was decided to commit election fraud despite the dangers it would bring. Ahmadinejad had to remain in power. Otherwise Khameini could not rely on thug support.

5. Since then several people in the regime, including the president of the parliament have spoken up against Ahmadinejad and Khameini.

6. What went wrong is simply that Khameini and Ahmadinejed didn't foresee that Mousavi would openly oppose the regime. And that opened a window for everyone to speak up.

7. Again, Ahmadinejads anti-western and anti-Israel rethoric didn't help him. Iranians do NOT hate the west or even Israel. His hatred for Israel and the west is his own and helps him only in the Arab world but not within Iran. Specifically his anti-western attitude cost him dearly in Iran.

I'm not disagreeing with that somethings are more important than money.  What I was disagreeing is that I feel most people see money as the most important thing and was using the melt down as evidence.

This does reflect on the Iranian situation.  Most Iranians as you pointed out do not want a fight against the West and a fair amount of Iranians do not want to come even close to being a lined with Talbian/Al Qaeda's ant-west attitude and want to distance themselves as far from that attitude.

I guess you can put this in the category of sanctions actually kind of working.

I'm not sure about that.

Iranians already hated Ahmadinejad before the sanctions. Much of what he did to destroy the Iranian economy had nothing to do with the sanctions (which never were very effectiv anyway).

Recall that Ahmadinejad won an election in 2005 when the opposition called for a boycott of the elections. (That's why it was so unbeliavable that he would score an even bigger victory this year when the opposition called for massive participation in the elections.)

Since that time he has wasted Iranian tax payers' money on supporting terrorists in foreign countries, especially on supporting _Arab_  terrorists (and most Iranians don't like Arabs much due to a history of enmity between the two peoples), and he has spent money on a nuclear program while Iran's refinery capacities are still so low that petrol for cars has to be imported. And this has nothing to do with sanctions.

Most Iranians couldn't care less about the Arab-Israeli conflict, but they don't want to pay for it. And it doesn't help that he is giving money to Iran's traditional archenemy since the 7th century.

Read this article on Arab-Iranian relations: http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-arabism/

(Professor Farrokh is now circulating this blog post and my other blog post about Iran on his mailing list!)

Compare this with reports of the Iranian regime using Arab terrorists as backup for their native thugs and you can see some of the seriousness of this situation and why Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism is now part of his down-fall.

And while the regime and even Ahmadinejad might remain in power when this is over, he has been shown to be the liar we knew he was. And we now know that the "death to the dictator" attitutude is more common among Iranians than the "death to Israel" attitude. And that was something he didn't want us to know for sure.

How to Spot a Rigged Election

http://thefifthcolumn.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-to-spot-rigged-election.html