UPDATED JUNE 25, 2009: I am refreshed by Obama's handling of this "crisis." He is using diplomatic language i.e. regrets, deploring and all that blather. Bush 43 would be rattling sabers, I think, about the "failure of democracy" in this nest of Persian mopes. United States intervention in this area is a disaster gift that just keeps on giving. Among many high lights in Iran we witness the Truman-Eisenhower coup in 1953 that established the shah; the moronic antics of James E. (Jimmie the Joke) Carter to overthrow the shah; the windbags of the Clinton and Bush eras threatening this and that and oh, so many more.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: What is the big surprise here? In that part of the world tribalism rules and if you have Shiite Mohameddans as well, "democracy" as known in Anglo-American climes is non-existent. I agree with Barack Hussein to blather as little as possible and let the entertainment continue. When someone whom you don't like is shooting himself in the foot, don't try to knock the gun out of his hand.

Update: The United States and Israel have been heading down a dangerous path with Iran. Talks conducted by European nations have done nothing (and will do nothing). Obama thinks he can solve the problem with the current regime (HA!!) A conflict with Iran is inevitable if we stay on the current path.

The idea of supporting more western friendly leadership in Iran (thats what I'm told by folks in the know) is a debate worth having, it could change the whole dynamic in the Middle East, and possibly "prevent" a conflict from happening. I honestly don't see how one position is less dangerous to us than the other.





Newsflash: Obama caves to pressure, calls on Iran to stop all violent actions against demonstrators: "The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights".

Isn't it amazing what a quick poll will do?

Regards,

RIA's anchorman.




First Post: Mir Hossein Mousavi hails from East Azarbaijan, where Ahmadinejad won over 60% of the vote. If John McCain took 60% of the vote in South Chicago, some might wonder about that.

That just struck me as kind of funny.

Response to the last review: The United States Constitution makes it clear...the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College, not the popular vote. These Electors go with the popular vote more often than not; but, constitutionally they do not have to. Such was the case in 1960, such was the case in 2000. Comparing that to Iran's process is further proof that some- those who bemoan a "constitutional crisis"- have not even read the very document to which they refer.
That aside, in Iran the Mullahs run things folks. It has been that way since 1979.
God bless those Iranian protestors for their courage; but this is nothing new.

Update: Having listened to talk radio this morning, I am trying to follow the thinking of my conservative (and supposedly conservative) brethren.
I am hearing that Obama is weak. I am hearing that Obama is somehow a “traitor” if he does not issue a “stern warning” to Iran, backed up by boots on the ground if necessary.
Probably more than any other reviewer here on RIA, I bring up the US Constitution and complain when the feds overstep those boundaries.
Can someone please tell me where, Constitutionally, we have the right (let alone the duty) to invade a foreign nation because we question or do not agree with the outcome of that country’s election?

I recall back in the year 2000 here in the United States we had what I refer to as a "Constitutional Crisis." Never in the history of the United States has the Supreme Court decided, in ultimatum, the outcome of a presidential election. The political party and the players make no difference--it's about the process. I think at that time this nation (The United States) forgot the preamble "We The People..." and replaced it with "We of the Supreme Court." The entire point of democracy is to elect representation of the people BY the people.

Now Iran is going through a similar situation--an electoral protest. Again, the political parties and players are not the issue--it's about evolution. It's about evolution of freedom. It's about evolution of rights. It's about evolution of countries other than our own. Most importantly, it's proof positive that everyone on the Earth itself is evolving and moving forward. This is a clear demonstration that no matter who you are or where you live, democracy is powerful--it can move mountains. Although the outcome of this election may or may not end up being what everyone wants, it has demonstrated one thing...

Even on its worst day, democracy is better than the alternative on its best day.


Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Mathew.

While election fraud is hardly new there, revolution isn't either, and isn't that what nervous people everywhere are really kinda waiting to see about? I think the people of Iran are done living under the thumb of assholes that give them no say in how they will live and respond in ways ranging from beatings to killing you outright when you don't dance to their tune. Is it coming now? Who's to say, but keep watching. Like in '79, at some point the people will want what they want and they won't take no for an answer from their government.

I heard an Iranian government official deny there was any fraud or vote-rigging.

Basically, he said (and I paraphrase), "Why bother manipulating the election when we can simply declare ourselves the winners and pull numbers out of a hat for the press to publish?"

I think this will be very important and it is now. It depends on what happens with the aftermath of the election and the dispute.

Iran votes? Thats news to me. I'll be sure to let others know when I feel that Iranian politics is affecting my life.

I don't know how much of a problem the Iranian election debacle is? I mean isn't this something you aren't surprised by? Kind of like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

The situation caused by this election has the potential to turn Iran in a direction that seeks more engagement with the international community. It also has the potential for a brutal crackdown by the theocracy.

What's most amazing about this is that the government has forbidden people to gather in protest, and has also forbidden news journalists from publishing photos of people gathering.

So all those photos that you see of mass protests, the protests are illegal, and so is the coverage of the protests. But there it is.

My favorite quote from the coverage of this has been:

"They didn't rig the vote," said an official with Iran's interior ministry, which conducted the election. "They didn't even look at the vote. They just wrote the name and put the number in front of it."

Here is some good reporting on this situation:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103& ;sid=a5HrKnRR9B_Y
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/ 14memo.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/15/iran.elec tion/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/us/politics/14dip lo.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/world/middleeast/ 16iran.html?_r=1&hp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_ east/article6457680.ece#

Should be higher- but let's be honest. . .Iranian election problems aren't (at the present) gospel-important stories for most Americans.

Plus- there isn't really enough information to form a conclusion. Like any theocratic-esque state, journalists have been stifled and information has now been slowed to a crawl. . .certainly behavior from a group filled with insecurity or much to hide.

However, it's hard to throw all-out support for a protest group until I hear something that illustrates voter fraud. (Although counting hundreds of thousands of paper ballots in a few hours is. . .err. . .quite improbable.) Was this a contentious election that was won fairly or a de-facto coronation that people simply won't allow? I for one would like more information. Three stars today but this one could go higher at any time.

I don't share the view of some here and back Obama's statement that there is nothing we can do about an obvious fixed election right now. But we do want the Iranian people to know that we support and feel for you and hope that the corrupt government that stands will make a mends and do RIGHT by the people! What do people honestly think big brother should do? I certainly believe that many levelheaded people believe that democracy can only work in a country if the government wants it too! The current administration in Iran does not want it to work at the moment, as they made sure their dictator is still in power!! America, England, France, Asia or any nation has NO right to interfere with another’s elections or ways unless there is a joint decision by many countries to help re-stage another election (with a coalition team heading it up)!!!!!! Only then can we intervene with talks and try and persuade this country that this is the best way forward! Those who think that force is the only way need their head re-examined for stupid ness!!! How would most of this country have responded to another country interfering with the Bush 2000 election!!!! We all know that there was definitely something amiss there!!! We need this too watch and hope that the right decision for the people is made in Iran. But I do think this is very significant!

This story will be forgotten by the 4th of July. Nobody wants this story to reach (or stay in) the light of day. Journalists around the world are shut out from information of this election and will quickly stop asking as our president (the 8-year-old-in-chief) assures us that we know nothing for sure about protestors who might be dead and we shouldn't jump to any conclusions. The Iranian dissidents will soon understand how the Hungarian dissidents felt in 1956 as their hopes for worldwide attention are snuffed out by Americans and western Europeans who somehow refuse to care about their plight.

It might be difficult to recruit new dissident leaders in Iran after this.

The recent elections in Iran pitted the more pragmatic, moderate forces against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who represents the more reactionary elements. Despite some exit polling suggesting that the opposition had carried the day, it turns out that the incumbent won with 62% of the vote. This has lead to allegations that there was rampant vote rigging. We are seeing massive street protests in the capital of Tehran and other urban areas over the election results. Many in the opposition are complaining about the state of the country's economy and restrictions on political freedoms.

The opposition in this election banded around the flag of the "Green Revolution". These types of "color revolutions" are becoming more common throughout the world. We saw in Ukraine the "orange revolution" back in 2004, in Lebanon a few years ago we saw the "cedar revolution", in Georgia we also saw a similar movement a few years ago. They all have a few common traits: they rely on loose networks of young people and college students, they use technology, including text messages, social networks like Facebook and Twitter, and blogs to get their message out, and they organize in large public groups to engender a sense of solidarity. If these "revolutions" are in opposition to a ruling government, they may be subject to censorship, as in the case of Iran, where Facebook and Twitter have been banned in recent days as a means to clamp down on the opposition.

These color revolutions many times are funded by Western interests and foundations seeking to replace governments which oppose their interests. In some cases, U.S. based political consultants are dispatched to help with organizing and structuring their message, as was the case in Georgia and Ukraine's revolutions. In Ukraine, supporters of the "orange revolution" supported closer ties with Europe and the West as opposed to Russia. In Lebanon, the cedar revolution was used as a means to keep the Iranian supported Hezbollah out of political power. In Iran, they're using the "green revolution" to bring a more moderate government to Tehran that will be more willing to deal with the US and the West on issues ranging from petroleum trade to nuclear development. From the looks of it, the plan didn't work.

My guess is that Ahmadinejad and the more extreme clerics will exercise more power over the next few months as a means to consolidate their control. Where that will go no one really knows.

It's hard to know exactly what's going on over there, but this has the potential to be a big story. It sounds like there is a lot of defiance going on over there, which is unusual for Iran. Could change be in the works?