For those who haven't been following Twitter or Fark:
Two major events happened yesterday:
- Grand Ayatollah Montazeri went directly against Ayatollah Khamenei's wishes and declared a 3-day mourning period in Iran, while Khamenei had ordered mosques to avoid making ceremonies in the memory of the fallen victims of governmental violence.
- The Guardian Council admitted that in 50 cities, there were in fact more vote recorded than there are registered voters and said they were looking into the situation. Seeing as the GC is under direct control of Khamenei, this is very likely an attempt at damage control from people who have yet to grasp how deep the schism in Iran is. This could be an attempt to ultimately blame Ahmadinejad for the irregularities and throw him under the bus in order to save their skin, which would be a sign they don't fully realize yet what is happening.
- Aside from that, as expected there were clashes all over Iran, but subsided since the 20th. The Iranian Government went on the offensive, kicking out a BBC correspondent and attacking Western countries for what they see as meddling in Iranian internal affairs. Tomorrow Mousavi has called for a general strike all over Iran. It seems that business activity that the already paralyzed country will be stopped completely.
Over the weekend (post-Khamenei speech):
If anyone doubted this is a Revolution and that this was bigger than the election, there is no such doubt anymore. While Khameini directly called for them to stop, the population took the street more numerous than ever. This is direct defiance to the Supreme Leader. Here are the major events that happened between the end of Khamenei's speech and midnight on Saturday.
- Before the protest even began, heavily armed men were waiting for the dissidents, planning to prevent them from reaching the rally point. It didn't take long for the peaceful protests to turn into full-fledged riots. Security forces had also closed off the Tehran university to prevent students from leaving to protest or entering to take shelter. Basij, some security forces and what is suspected to be members of the Revolutionary Guard assaulted the protesters. The protesters fought back while chanting "Death to Khamenei" and "Down with Khamenei". The security forces used water cannons and tear gas to try and disperse the protesters. While the tear gas was partly successful, the water cannons were mostly useless, as they were quickly over ran by the protesters.
- A lot of eyewitnesses report that the Basij now fighting appear to be barely older than teenagers, most of them between 16 and 20, taking a real pleasure in the violence. Others report that up to hundreds of both security forces and Basij were injured in the last series of clashes. The Basij forces are using pvc tubes filled with concretes, bats, even knives and are assaulting people everywhere, down to metro stations.
- A bomb exploded at the Khomeini Shrine, killing one and injuring at least two. Most believe that the government is in fact behind it. Khamenei was a major figure of the previous Revolution, and they used a similar tactics then, destroying buildings and blaming it on the Shah in order to turn the population against him. The State television is of course blaming Mousavi for it and calling for a harsher treatment of the protesters. This is also very convenient for the Regime, has Mousavi said he would take refuge there if he feared for his safety, but now all access is blocked.
- In return, the harsher the treatment of protesters by the security forces, the harsher the rhetoric and reaction of the protesters. They are calling for the death of the regime, the death of Khamenei, the death of their oppressors and that they will avenge them. Once the gun shots started, the protesters went wild, beating down security forces and basij forces they caught to a pulp, while the Basij and security forces are showing absolutely no restraint, even less than they previously had.
- There are many reports that the security forces and Basij still ever present in hospitals and clinics. Basij are kidnapping some of those injured, while the security forces is identifying those participating in the protest. In order to arrest protesters, security forces raided the Khomeini Hospital in order to arrest injured protesters. There are rumours that Basij forces have hijacked ambulances and use them as a trap to brutally assault already injured protesters seeking help, or shoot at them. Iranian journalists, Reformist intellectuals and feminists are still being arrested and rounded up to prevent from reporting the news or reaching out.
- As the protests grew, extreme measures started to used by those trying to repress the Iranians asking for freedom. Gun shots were first fired in the air, but it did not take long for them to be fired at the protesters. A liquid was dropped from helicopters, creating severe skin burns on protesters. We are unsure what the liquid was. They are also openly opening fire on the crowds, 40 to 60 people at least were killed in a single day, and scores more injured according to protesters. There are also reports that Revolutionary Guard Helicopters dropped firearms crates to 500 Basij fighters, as they are more willing than government forces to use them on civilians.
- The protesters are fighting back, taking over anti-riot trucks and burning them, attacking Basij bases and burning another one to the ground. There are report that a security forces truck was actually blown up by the protesters. In many instances, government forces have been force to fled under the constant assault of the people. Another report mentioned a security forces post was burning as well.
- The Iran Fatemiyeh Hospital in Tehran has confirmed at least 40 dead as well as 200 injured. Other sources report that hundreds of security forces and hundreds of basij fighters were injured as well.
- At night the protesters joined each others on the roofs in Tehran, shouting "Allah-u Ackbar", "Margh Bar Khamenei" and chanting "I will welcome death, I will welcome death, but no subjugation, but no subjugation". None of the rhetoric is addressed to Ahmadinejad anymore, all of it is directed to Khamenei and the regime. Many of the popular chants throughout the day were "I will kill those who killed my brother/sister", "Death to the Government", "Death to Khamenei" and "Seyed Ali Pinoshe, Iran won't be Chile".
- China has been censoring all news coming from Iran. Obama's restraint has been useless, as the Iranian government has shown a video of him with a false translation where Obama declared his support for the protesters, and that they should keep on protesting.
- Mousavi gave a speech and declared that if he is arrested, then the whole nation should strike. He also told the people that he is ready for martyrdom.
- There are unconfirmed reports that the Army is now refusing to follow orders and will not attack the protesters. The newest strategy from the government seems to be arming the Basij, dressing them in riot gear, team them up with IRG soldiers, and try to prevent massive rallies and keep them localized instead, as they are easier to stop spreading.
CAIRO – An analysis by a British think tank highlights profound differences between voting patterns in Iran's recent election and hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first victory in 2005, casting doubt on whether they could have occurred without manipulation.
The analysis by the London-based Chatham House could provide ammunition for supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate who claims he was the true winner in the June 12 election.
The dispute has sparked more than a week of unrest in Iran that has killed at least 17 people and presented the regime with its greatest challenge since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Iran's highest electoral authority acknowledged irregularities in the election for the first time Monday but insisted they did not affect the outcome.
The official results showed that Ahmadinejad received 13 million more votes than he and other conservatives got in the 2005 election, according to the Chatham House report, which was released Sunday.
The results would have required him to receive support in a third of the provinces from all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, all new voters and almost half of all former reformist voters — an unlikely scenario, said the study.
Discontent with Ahmadinejad was running high among reformists and even some conservatives unhappy with his handling of the economy and his antagonistic stance toward the international community.
The final tally was 62.6 percent of the vote for Ahmadinejad and 33.75 percent for Mousavi — a landslide victory in a race that was perceived to be much closer.
Such a huge margin went against the expectation that a high turnout — a record 85 percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters — would boost Mousavi, whose campaign energized young people to vote. About a third of the eligible voters were under 30.
Ahmadinejad has called the June 12 election "real and free."
The Chatham House report cast doubt on the idea that large numbers of conservative voters who had not voted in previous election might have come out this time to support Ahmadinejad.
While the official results indicate Ahmadinejad increased the conservative vote by 113 percent compared with the 2005 election, there is little correlation at the provincial level between the increase in turnout and the swing to the president.
"This challenges the notion that Ahmadinejad's victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority," said the study.
The research found that turnout in two provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, was more than 100 percent. The practice of using identity documents of dead people to cast additional ballots is a common and widespread problem in Iran, said the report.
The Guardian Council, which certifies election results, acknowledged Monday that more votes were cast in 50 districts than there were registered voters.
But this "has no effect on the result of the elections," council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei was quoted as saying on the state TV Web site.
International monitors are barred from observing Iranian elections, and Mousavi has charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location.
The Guardian Council, which is closely allied with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has agreed to recount a sampling of 10 percent of the ballot boxes nationwide. But Mousavi has said he does not believe the council is neutral and has demanded a new election.
Many commentators have pointed to Ahmadinejad's support in rural areas as the reason for his political success. But the study said conservative candidates, particularly Ahmadinejad, were "markedly unpopular" in rural areas in past presidential elections.
Ahmadinejad has campaigned in all of the provinces, but the think tank cast doubt on the 2009 results that showed a sudden shift to the president in rural areas.
"This increase in support for Ahmadinejad amongst rural and ethnic minority voters is out of step with previous trends, extremely large in scale, and central to the question of why (or indeed whether) he won in June 2009," said the study.
If the U.S. gets involved at this level, it will only weaken the moderate movement. We must learn the lesson from our last spoiler of an Iranian revolutionary movement.
I think I remember hearing somewhere that the last revolution in Iran was: Change denied, revolution, hope of change and then the people who took power ended up being those in power now. Can anyone correct me on this?
The last revolution was a complicated situation. The Shah was an unpopular dictator propped up by US interests, but the resulting democratic power transition allowed ultraconservative Muslims to essentially replace him with an equally oppressive theocracy which in turn brutally silenced any moderate opposition.
Now, the technology-savvy youth and the still-nationalistic Persian (not Arab) moderates have finally had the last straw.
Trogdor's article comes close to summarizing my opinions on the election. We can't forget that Mousavi isn't some middle eastern Obama. He was in power at a time, and although more progressive than Ahmadinejad, he still represents a theocracy that has a strained relationship with the US and Western Europe. Quite frankly, I think the protesters are going to be stopped, Ahmadinejad will stay in power, and the rest of the world will lose interest.
However, I'm more excited for the technological impact this could have. When Obama was elected, people saw the tech-savvy at their best. He became a front runner using the internet and remains progressive with his Youtube addresses. Iran shows what happens when tech heads are discontent: they flash mob, they tell the world, and they demonstrate a power that is stronger than any political machine. Sometime in the next five years, we'll see these techniques used effectively, and social networking will change the world. It will be in a more urbanized country, and I wouldn't rule out America as a possibility. For generations, (paperless) textbooks will chronicle this development, and the Iranian revolution will be seen as a milestone, the Decembrists who preceded the Bolsheviks.
I've been following this closely from the outset as well (don't know why I didn't come to the FRC forums first thing), and one thing I haven't heard mentioned is Neda. Long story short: Woman is shot in the heart, bleeds to death on sidewalk, recorded on cellphone camera and uploaded and viewed around the world. Her name becomes a rallying cry, to the point that the Iranian government has told her family they cannot hold a funeral, cannot put up photos of her, and mere mention of her name is punishable. Yesterday (?) the Iranian government claims that her death was the result of terror groups trying to sow strife within the country. Talk about disgusting conduct.
There was an interesting op-ed I read that basically laid it out like this: Supreme Leader is the voice of God in Iran. He declares that the election was fair, and that people causing unrest will be punished. People come out in the hundreds of thousands to protest. What does this mean? It means that a large subset of the country has openly rejected his divinity. Pretty exciting, because once he's a normal guy and not the right hand of God, people will be more open about expressing their distaste for him.
As far as the U.S. intervening, there was a conversation between Dennis Kucinich and some Fox News folks that provided a pretty good dialogue as to why the U.S. can't simply step in and do something about it. It's political hot potato, and while taking a side seems like a good idea in the context of our society, in the context of Iranian society that could be used against Mousavi (because let's not kid ourselves, the U.S. is not going to support Ahaminejad).
The other really interesting thing about this revolution (although that remains to be seen), as compared to the one in 1979, is the unbelievable role that women are playing. Women are out in FORCE. Some women are walking around in revealing dresses ... if men are sitting on the side of the road ignoring the protests, women call them cowards and cajole them into joining. They openly challenge officers of the law. In a society like that, we can say that that was a pot on simmer waiting to boil over (and it was for sure), but man - it is pretty incredible.
I don't know how it's going to end! I really have no idea.
I guess this is the start of a possible revolution, the one thing the Iranian government fear the most. Ironic that its 30 years since their last revolution, so I could understand people who've grown up being hated by 90% of the planet, wanting change, even if it means unseating the current regime. They have to act, because we can't do it for them.
The funniest thing is the Iranians blaming the U.K for munipulation etc. Serves them bitches right for trying to silence the people, and I really hope this burns on in Iran for a good while. If it turns into anything like Tiannamen, then Iran will be condemned for many years. My heart goes out to those that seek freedom, and are willing to risk their lives to get it. More power too you. Its great to see females fighting for their rights too.
How should Iran fix this? Its quite easy. Take a leaf out of Zimbabwe's book and look into a power sharing deal. This could work because Ahmedinnejad has done little to sort out the policies that he was elected for. With two voices, Mousavi as second, there's more chance of things getting better, and for reform to be ushered in gradually. Also, instead of looking into nuclear weapons so much, they should consider the waste and stuff such tech will create and what they will do with it. Invest in green energy and create jobs etc.
Whether the Iranian government could be trusted to deliver is another thing. I know I wouldn't trust them, until heads role and some in power are replaced. And if anything happens to Mousavi, the people will hit the streets again.
There was an interesting op-ed I read that basically laid it out like this: Supreme Leader is the voice of God in Iran. He declares that the election was fair, and that people causing unrest will be punished. People come out in the hundreds of thousands to protest. What does this mean? It means that a large subset of the country has openly rejected his divinity. Pretty exciting, because once he's a normal guy and not the right hand of God, people will be more open about expressing their distaste for him.
Could you possibly post a link or mention where this story ran? It's been a while since I learned Iran's history, but I thought the Ayatolla was considered the voice of God and the Supreme Leader was a more secular leader, and the two had a sort of Pope-King relationship.
I'm not trying to play history-nazi here, ananthymous, but if the people are rejecting a divine leader, that is definitely some big news.
It's been a while since I learned Iran's history, but I thought the Ayatolla was considered the voice of God and the Supreme Leader was a more secular leader, and the two had a sort of Pope-King relationship.
The Supreme Leader is an Ayatollah (technically a Grand Ayatollah). You are thinking of the President/Supreme Leader relationship.
The other really interesting thing about this revolution (although that remains to be seen), as compared to the one in 1979, is the unbelievable role that women are playing. Women are out in FORCE. Some women are walking around in revealing dresses ... if men are sitting on the side of the road ignoring the protests, women call them cowards and cajole them into joining. They openly challenge officers of the law. In a society like that, we can say that that was a pot on simmer waiting to boil over (and it was for sure), but man - it is pretty incredible.
The picture that got to me, the one that was all over the net, was the picture of the woman from the back, waving a green scarf, as she faces off against the riot police. It's a very powerful image.
The other really interesting thing about this revolution (although that remains to be seen), as compared to the one in 1979, is the unbelievable role that women are playing. Women are out in FORCE. Some women are walking around in revealing dresses ... if men are sitting on the side of the road ignoring the protests, women call them cowards and cajole them into joining. They openly challenge officers of the law. In a society like that, we can say that that was a pot on simmer waiting to boil over (and it was for sure), but man - it is pretty incredible.
The picture that got to me, the one that was all over the net, was the picture of the woman from the back, waving a green scarf, as she faces off against the riot police. It's a very powerful image.
The protester shielding the riot cop did me in. It is, however, very satisfying to see all the pictures of women joining in on the protests and fighting back. The situation is beyond deplorable, but the demonstration of resolve is inspiring.
Does anyone one have any particular insight into the probable outcome of the protests? Are they popular enough to make any lasting difference? I ask because differing sources are throwing out opposing and extreme predictions and I am curious as to the Forum's thoughts and what they base their predictions on. Personally, I have no idea what will come to pass, but I am hopeful that the protests will in some way influence to government to allow for greater transparency and more liberal stances on women's rights.
Guys, if you're on Twitter, help out and set your timezome to GMT +3.30 (Tehran), and your location to Tehran. Apparently, Iranian government forces are trying to use location+timezone searches to ferret out bloggers, and if more Tweeters "become Iranian," it creates one hell of a problem for that method. I'm doing it, Cory Doctorow's doing it, and even if it doesn't help all that much, it's still a sign of help and support.
As for the outcome, I think it could go one of two ways: considering the past, either it will turn into a Tienanmen Square situation, in which the protests are popular and widespread, but ultimately unsuccessful in the face of a powerful government, or it will be a revolution, and the government will be overthrown. After that, who knows? Any sort of replacement government would face serious opposition, and a failed revolution could have extremely bad ramifications for Iran and the rest of the Middle East.
As for the US' position in all of this, really, we can't act. As much as most everybody wants to, as soon as we declare a side or are believed to be aiding one side or the other, whichever side that is will immediately lose. If either side gains the support of the West, they lose the support of the Middle East. It's an extremely tough position to be in: we are sympathetic and there are atrocities being committed, but we are powerless to act. Ultimately, it will be up to the people of Iran to resolve this.
I'm reading articles on other sites about middle-eastern pro-democracy groups who are looking at Iran and wondering how it is that they have been unable to do what Iranians have done in one week in the years that they have been active. Could what is happening in Iran be the tip of an even bigger iceberg?
You have to wonder if not for US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (weakening of border nations) would these Iranian protests even have occurred?
I am hopefully optimistic that this leads to a larger movement in that part of the world that expands to throwing off the yoke of Muslim rule in other countries.
Comments
That made me smile. This, however, is very interesting.
Two major events happened yesterday:
- Grand Ayatollah Montazeri went directly against Ayatollah Khamenei's wishes and declared a 3-day mourning period in Iran, while Khamenei had ordered mosques to avoid making ceremonies in the memory of the fallen victims of governmental violence.
- The Guardian Council admitted that in 50 cities, there were in fact more vote recorded than there are registered voters and said they were looking into the situation. Seeing as the GC is under direct control of Khamenei, this is very likely an attempt at damage control from people who have yet to grasp how deep the schism in Iran is. This could be an attempt to ultimately blame Ahmadinejad for the irregularities and throw him under the bus in order to save their skin, which would be a sign they don't fully realize yet what is happening.
- Aside from that, as expected there were clashes all over Iran, but subsided since the 20th. The Iranian Government went on the offensive, kicking out a BBC correspondent and attacking Western countries for what they see as meddling in Iranian internal affairs. Tomorrow Mousavi has called for a general strike all over Iran. It seems that business activity that the already paralyzed country will be stopped completely.
Over the weekend (post-Khamenei speech):
If anyone doubted this is a Revolution and that this was bigger than the election, there is no such doubt anymore. While Khameini directly called for them to stop, the population took the street more numerous than ever. This is direct defiance to the Supreme Leader. Here are the major events that happened between the end of Khamenei's speech and midnight on Saturday.
- Before the protest even began, heavily armed men were waiting for the dissidents, planning to prevent them from reaching the rally point. It didn't take long for the peaceful protests to turn into full-fledged riots. Security forces had also closed off the Tehran university to prevent students from leaving to protest or entering to take shelter. Basij, some security forces and what is suspected to be members of the Revolutionary Guard assaulted the protesters. The protesters fought back while chanting "Death to Khamenei" and "Down with Khamenei". The security forces used water cannons and tear gas to try and disperse the protesters. While the tear gas was partly successful, the water cannons were mostly useless, as they were quickly over ran by the protesters.
- A lot of eyewitnesses report that the Basij now fighting appear to be barely older than teenagers, most of them between 16 and 20, taking a real pleasure in the violence. Others report that up to hundreds of both security forces and Basij were injured in the last series of clashes. The Basij forces are using pvc tubes filled with concretes, bats, even knives and are assaulting people everywhere, down to metro stations.
- A bomb exploded at the Khomeini Shrine, killing one and injuring at least two. Most believe that the government is in fact behind it. Khamenei was a major figure of the previous Revolution, and they used a similar tactics then, destroying buildings and blaming it on the Shah in order to turn the population against him. The State television is of course blaming Mousavi for it and calling for a harsher treatment of the protesters. This is also very convenient for the Regime, has Mousavi said he would take refuge there if he feared for his safety, but now all access is blocked.
- In return, the harsher the treatment of protesters by the security forces, the harsher the rhetoric and reaction of the protesters. They are calling for the death of the regime, the death of Khamenei, the death of their oppressors and that they will avenge them. Once the gun shots started, the protesters went wild, beating down security forces and basij forces they caught to a pulp, while the Basij and security forces are showing absolutely no restraint, even less than they previously had.
- There are many reports that the security forces and Basij still ever present in hospitals and clinics. Basij are kidnapping some of those injured, while the security forces is identifying those participating in the protest. In order to arrest protesters, security forces raided the Khomeini Hospital in order to arrest injured protesters. There are rumours that Basij forces have hijacked ambulances and use them as a trap to brutally assault already injured protesters seeking help, or shoot at them. Iranian journalists, Reformist intellectuals and feminists are still being arrested and rounded up to prevent from reporting the news or reaching out.
- As the protests grew, extreme measures started to used by those trying to repress the Iranians asking for freedom. Gun shots were first fired in the air, but it did not take long for them to be fired at the protesters. A liquid was dropped from helicopters, creating severe skin burns on protesters. We are unsure what the liquid was. They are also openly opening fire on the crowds, 40 to 60 people at least were killed in a single day, and scores more injured according to protesters. There are also reports that Revolutionary Guard Helicopters dropped firearms crates to 500 Basij fighters, as they are more willing than government forces to use them on civilians.
- The protesters are fighting back, taking over anti-riot trucks and burning them, attacking Basij bases and burning another one to the ground. There are report that a security forces truck was actually blown up by the protesters. In many instances, government forces have been force to fled under the constant assault of the people. Another report mentioned a security forces post was burning as well.
- The Iran Fatemiyeh Hospital in Tehran has confirmed at least 40 dead as well as 200 injured. Other sources report that hundreds of security forces and hundreds of basij fighters were injured as well.
- At night the protesters joined each others on the roofs in Tehran, shouting "Allah-u Ackbar", "Margh Bar Khamenei" and chanting "I will welcome death, I will welcome death, but no subjugation, but no subjugation". None of the rhetoric is addressed to Ahmadinejad anymore, all of it is directed to Khamenei and the regime. Many of the popular chants throughout the day were "I will kill those who killed my brother/sister", "Death to the Government", "Death to Khamenei" and "Seyed Ali Pinoshe, Iran won't be Chile".
- China has been censoring all news coming from Iran. Obama's restraint has been useless, as the Iranian government has shown a video of him with a false translation where Obama declared his support for the protesters, and that they should keep on protesting.
- Mousavi gave a speech and declared that if he is arrested, then the whole nation should strike. He also told the people that he is ready for martyrdom.
- There are unconfirmed reports that the Army is now refusing to follow orders and will not attack the protesters. The newest strategy from the government seems to be arming the Basij, dressing them in riot gear, team them up with IRG soldiers, and try to prevent massive rallies and keep them localized instead, as they are easier to stop spreading.
This is what happens when you get a large enough crowd going. The police start running.
How long until the United States is forced to intervene on behalf of the freedom loving people of Iran?
Analysis casts doubts on Ahmadinejad's victory
CAIRO – An analysis by a British think tank highlights profound differences between voting patterns in Iran's recent election and hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's first victory in 2005, casting doubt on whether they could have occurred without manipulation.
The analysis by the London-based Chatham House could provide ammunition for supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate who claims he was the true winner in the June 12 election.
The dispute has sparked more than a week of unrest in Iran that has killed at least 17 people and presented the regime with its greatest challenge since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Iran's highest electoral authority acknowledged irregularities in the election for the first time Monday but insisted they did not affect the outcome.
The official results showed that Ahmadinejad received 13 million more votes than he and other conservatives got in the 2005 election, according to the Chatham House report, which was released Sunday.
The results would have required him to receive support in a third of the provinces from all former conservative voters, all former centrist voters, all new voters and almost half of all former reformist voters — an unlikely scenario, said the study.
Discontent with Ahmadinejad was running high among reformists and even some conservatives unhappy with his handling of the economy and his antagonistic stance toward the international community.
The final tally was 62.6 percent of the vote for Ahmadinejad and 33.75 percent for Mousavi — a landslide victory in a race that was perceived to be much closer.
Such a huge margin went against the expectation that a high turnout — a record 85 percent of Iran's 46.2 million eligible voters — would boost Mousavi, whose campaign energized young people to vote. About a third of the eligible voters were under 30.
Ahmadinejad has called the June 12 election "real and free."
The Chatham House report cast doubt on the idea that large numbers of conservative voters who had not voted in previous election might have come out this time to support Ahmadinejad.
While the official results indicate Ahmadinejad increased the conservative vote by 113 percent compared with the 2005 election, there is little correlation at the provincial level between the increase in turnout and the swing to the president.
"This challenges the notion that Ahmadinejad's victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority," said the study.
The research found that turnout in two provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, was more than 100 percent. The practice of using identity documents of dead people to cast additional ballots is a common and widespread problem in Iran, said the report.
The Guardian Council, which certifies election results, acknowledged Monday that more votes were cast in 50 districts than there were registered voters.
But this "has no effect on the result of the elections," council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei was quoted as saying on the state TV Web site.
International monitors are barred from observing Iranian elections, and Mousavi has charged that representatives of his campaign were expelled from polling centers even though each candidate was allowed one observer at each location.
The Guardian Council, which is closely allied with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has agreed to recount a sampling of 10 percent of the ballot boxes nationwide. But Mousavi has said he does not believe the council is neutral and has demanded a new election.
Many commentators have pointed to Ahmadinejad's support in rural areas as the reason for his political success. But the study said conservative candidates, particularly Ahmadinejad, were "markedly unpopular" in rural areas in past presidential elections.
Ahmadinejad has campaigned in all of the provinces, but the think tank cast doubt on the 2009 results that showed a sudden shift to the president in rural areas.
"This increase in support for Ahmadinejad amongst rural and ethnic minority voters is out of step with previous trends, extremely large in scale, and central to the question of why (or indeed whether) he won in June 2009," said the study.
Revolution.
Is this "Obama's big test" that Biden was talking about?
Thoughts?
Now, the technology-savvy youth and the still-nationalistic Persian (not Arab) moderates have finally had the last straw.
However, I'm more excited for the technological impact this could have. When Obama was elected, people saw the tech-savvy at their best. He became a front runner using the internet and remains progressive with his Youtube addresses. Iran shows what happens when tech heads are discontent: they flash mob, they tell the world, and they demonstrate a power that is stronger than any political machine. Sometime in the next five years, we'll see these techniques used effectively, and social networking will change the world. It will be in a more urbanized country, and I wouldn't rule out America as a possibility. For generations, (paperless) textbooks will chronicle this development, and the Iranian revolution will be seen as a milestone, the Decembrists who preceded the Bolsheviks.
There was an interesting op-ed I read that basically laid it out like this: Supreme Leader is the voice of God in Iran. He declares that the election was fair, and that people causing unrest will be punished. People come out in the hundreds of thousands to protest. What does this mean? It means that a large subset of the country has openly rejected his divinity. Pretty exciting, because once he's a normal guy and not the right hand of God, people will be more open about expressing their distaste for him.
As far as the U.S. intervening, there was a conversation between Dennis Kucinich and some Fox News folks that provided a pretty good dialogue as to why the U.S. can't simply step in and do something about it. It's political hot potato, and while taking a side seems like a good idea in the context of our society, in the context of Iranian society that could be used against Mousavi (because let's not kid ourselves, the U.S. is not going to support Ahaminejad).
The other really interesting thing about this revolution (although that remains to be seen), as compared to the one in 1979, is the unbelievable role that women are playing. Women are out in FORCE. Some women are walking around in revealing dresses ... if men are sitting on the side of the road ignoring the protests, women call them cowards and cajole them into joining. They openly challenge officers of the law. In a society like that, we can say that that was a pot on simmer waiting to boil over (and it was for sure), but man - it is pretty incredible.
I don't know how it's going to end! I really have no idea.
The funniest thing is the Iranians blaming the U.K for munipulation etc. Serves them bitches right for trying to silence the people, and I really hope this burns on in Iran for a good while. If it turns into anything like Tiannamen, then Iran will be condemned for many years. My heart goes out to those that seek freedom, and are willing to risk their lives to get it. More power too you. Its great to see females fighting for their rights too.
How should Iran fix this? Its quite easy. Take a leaf out of Zimbabwe's book and look into a power sharing deal. This could work because Ahmedinnejad has done little to sort out the policies that he was elected for. With two voices, Mousavi as second, there's more chance of things getting better, and for reform to be ushered in gradually. Also, instead of looking into nuclear weapons so much, they should consider the waste and stuff such tech will create and what they will do with it. Invest in green energy and create jobs etc.
Whether the Iranian government could be trusted to deliver is another thing. I know I wouldn't trust them, until heads role and some in power are replaced. And if anything happens to Mousavi, the people will hit the streets again.
I'm not trying to play history-nazi here, ananthymous, but if the people are rejecting a divine leader, that is definitely some big news.
I ask because differing sources are throwing out opposing and extreme predictions and I am curious as to the Forum's thoughts and what they base their predictions on.
Personally, I have no idea what will come to pass, but I am hopeful that the protests will in some way influence to government to allow for greater transparency and more liberal stances on women's rights.
It was an op-ed, so in the end, take it for what it's worth. I thought it presented an interesting argument, although an inherently optimistic one.
As for the US' position in all of this, really, we can't act. As much as most everybody wants to, as soon as we declare a side or are believed to be aiding one side or the other, whichever side that is will immediately lose. If either side gains the support of the West, they lose the support of the Middle East. It's an extremely tough position to be in: we are sympathetic and there are atrocities being committed, but we are powerless to act. Ultimately, it will be up to the people of Iran to resolve this.
Mullahs Cannot Stop the Persian Reawakening
I'm reading articles on other sites about middle-eastern pro-democracy groups who are looking at Iran and wondering how it is that they have been unable to do what Iranians have done in one week in the years that they have been active. Could what is happening in Iran be the tip of an even bigger iceberg?
You have to wonder if not for US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (weakening of border nations) would these Iranian protests even have occurred?
I am hopefully optimistic that this leads to a larger movement in that part of the world that expands to throwing off the yoke of Muslim rule in other countries.