punditman says...
It is time for Punditman to weigh in on the Iranian election. First, there's always a reason to recount votes in all countries wherever discrepancies exist; that way votes actually count and the correct people get elected to represent the correct regions. And there are irregularities all over the world. Just ask Jimmy Carter. However, as Esam Al-Amin points out, in the Counterpunch piece, A Hard Look at the Numbers: What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?, since 1980, Iran
On Monday, Iran's top electoral body, said in a rare acknowledgement that it found voting irregularities in 50 of 170 districts, including vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters but that the discrepancies, involving 3 million votes were not widespread enough to affect the outcome. Who knows? Punditman would not be surprised if hard evidence emerges of deliberate attempts to steal an election (echoes of the US in both 2000, and 2004). But he awaits proof.
Meanwhile, the Ahmedinejad forces claim Western interference. Writer and commentator Paul Craig Roberts agrees, which by the way does not make him a mullah-lover. Others on the anti-interventionist left and right disagree. Of interest here is the way Western corporate media covers that particular question because it involves avoiding or barely mentioning a history of unpleasant truths, thus eliminating the context in which the accusation is made. These include the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh who had the nerve to stand up for his country's interests and nationalize the Iranian oil industry much to the displeasure of the US and Britain. The coup installed the Shaw who then ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal fashion, which in turn, led to Islamic revolution in 1979 and rule by fanatically anti-Western clerics. The rest is the recent history of US-Iranian relations, beginning with the hostage crisis and leading up the fact that the US is currently investing millions of dollars trying to destabilize Iran's government. Does this include interference in Iran's electoral process? It is hard to know but easy to presume.
What we mostly hear about right now is how bad the Iranian police and security forces are when faced with peaceful demonstrators—and they are no doubt a murderous bunch. But a rhetorical question is in order: are none of the demonstrators rock throwing rioters?—which of course does not mean they deserve to be killed or tortured in custody. Nobody does. But consider the reaction here when some people set fires in the streets and throw rocks at police. Do the media sympathize with them or consider them hooligans?
Undoubtedly, many millions of courageous Iranians would like nothing better than to overthrow this corrupt and brutal regime. But clearly there is a division amongst the population. Interestingly, when some people riot in this part of the world (as part of mainly peaceful demonstrations), the police are almost always portrayed as restrained, yet forced to go after bad apple anarchists. So they shoot rubber bullets and teargas into large crowds and use tasers to squelch free speech as they infiltrate crowds as agent provocateurs. Imagine what would have happened if millions of Americans had taken to the streets in 2000 not just to challenge the legitimacy of the Florida vote but to demand regime change in Washington? Or in 2004, where the crucial Ohio vote was widely reported to have been tampered with? Punditman says you better believe there would have been blood in the streets.
Punditman listened to a CBC radio interview the other morning conducted by Anna Maria Tremonti, with Queen Farah Pahlavi, widow of the Shaw of Iran. She talked about the good old days when her husband was in power and portrayed dissent against her husband's rule as being entirely the work of the clergy and fundamentalists even though anti-Shaw unity involved a plurality of forces. The blatant lie went uncontested; nor was there any mention of her husband's horrific human rights record or his crackdown on dissent. It was like he was fine fella until the wingnuts took over. Punditman was disappointed with the interview.
Punditman doesn't presume to know exactly what happened with Iran's election and neither should anyone else. Not at this point. But that doesn't stop the propagandists and laptop regime changers who inhabit our media, governments, think tanks and blogosphere.
All power to the Iranian people.
It is time for Punditman to weigh in on the Iranian election. First, there's always a reason to recount votes in all countries wherever discrepancies exist; that way votes actually count and the correct people get elected to represent the correct regions. And there are irregularities all over the world. Just ask Jimmy Carter. However, as Esam Al-Amin points out, in the Counterpunch piece, A Hard Look at the Numbers: What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election?, since 1980, Iran
...has conducted over thirty elections nationwide. Indeed, a tradition of election orderliness has been established, much like election precincts in the U.S. or boroughs in the U.K. The elections in Iran are organized, monitored and counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees (again much like the U.S.)Ask yourself: do we hear about these facts in our corporate media? Instead, it is all but assumed that the Iranian election was a fraud because Ahmadinejad is a thug and a buffoon who says nasty things about Israel. Oh, and the Iran nuclear question, including all the misinformation, covered extensively here at punditman. But imagine if things were reversed: if Ahmedinejad had lost and his supporters were out in the streets crying foul, what would be the reaction? Western governments and media, led by the US, would be saying the election was fair and would be calling Ahmedinejad a bratty loser. You better believe it.
There has not been a tradition of election fraud in Iran. Say what you will about the system of the Islamic Republic, but its elected legislators have impeached ministers and “borked” nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Rubberstamps, they are not. In fact, former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by archconservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.
When it comes to elections, the real problem in Iran is not fraud but candidates’ access to the ballots (a problem not unique to the country, just ask Ralph Nader or any other third party candidate in the U.S.) It is highly unlikely that there was a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of teachers, professionals and civil servants that somehow remained totally hidden and unexposed.
On Monday, Iran's top electoral body, said in a rare acknowledgement that it found voting irregularities in 50 of 170 districts, including vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters but that the discrepancies, involving 3 million votes were not widespread enough to affect the outcome. Who knows? Punditman would not be surprised if hard evidence emerges of deliberate attempts to steal an election (echoes of the US in both 2000, and 2004). But he awaits proof.
Meanwhile, the Ahmedinejad forces claim Western interference. Writer and commentator Paul Craig Roberts agrees, which by the way does not make him a mullah-lover. Others on the anti-interventionist left and right disagree. Of interest here is the way Western corporate media covers that particular question because it involves avoiding or barely mentioning a history of unpleasant truths, thus eliminating the context in which the accusation is made. These include the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh who had the nerve to stand up for his country's interests and nationalize the Iranian oil industry much to the displeasure of the US and Britain. The coup installed the Shaw who then ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal fashion, which in turn, led to Islamic revolution in 1979 and rule by fanatically anti-Western clerics. The rest is the recent history of US-Iranian relations, beginning with the hostage crisis and leading up the fact that the US is currently investing millions of dollars trying to destabilize Iran's government. Does this include interference in Iran's electoral process? It is hard to know but easy to presume.
What we mostly hear about right now is how bad the Iranian police and security forces are when faced with peaceful demonstrators—and they are no doubt a murderous bunch. But a rhetorical question is in order: are none of the demonstrators rock throwing rioters?—which of course does not mean they deserve to be killed or tortured in custody. Nobody does. But consider the reaction here when some people set fires in the streets and throw rocks at police. Do the media sympathize with them or consider them hooligans?
Undoubtedly, many millions of courageous Iranians would like nothing better than to overthrow this corrupt and brutal regime. But clearly there is a division amongst the population. Interestingly, when some people riot in this part of the world (as part of mainly peaceful demonstrations), the police are almost always portrayed as restrained, yet forced to go after bad apple anarchists. So they shoot rubber bullets and teargas into large crowds and use tasers to squelch free speech as they infiltrate crowds as agent provocateurs. Imagine what would have happened if millions of Americans had taken to the streets in 2000 not just to challenge the legitimacy of the Florida vote but to demand regime change in Washington? Or in 2004, where the crucial Ohio vote was widely reported to have been tampered with? Punditman says you better believe there would have been blood in the streets.
Punditman listened to a CBC radio interview the other morning conducted by Anna Maria Tremonti, with Queen Farah Pahlavi, widow of the Shaw of Iran. She talked about the good old days when her husband was in power and portrayed dissent against her husband's rule as being entirely the work of the clergy and fundamentalists even though anti-Shaw unity involved a plurality of forces. The blatant lie went uncontested; nor was there any mention of her husband's horrific human rights record or his crackdown on dissent. It was like he was fine fella until the wingnuts took over. Punditman was disappointed with the interview.
Punditman doesn't presume to know exactly what happened with Iran's election and neither should anyone else. Not at this point. But that doesn't stop the propagandists and laptop regime changers who inhabit our media, governments, think tanks and blogosphere.
All power to the Iranian people.
