Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 5°C

Iranian elections

Robert Fisk: Iran erupts as voters back 'the Democrator'

A smash in the face, a kick in the balls – that's how police deal with protesters after Iran's poll kept the hardliners in power

A injured supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during riots in Tehran

afp

A injured supporter of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi during riots in Tehran

First the cop screamed abuse at Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporter, a white-shirted youth with a straggling beard and unkempt hair. Then he smashed his baton into the young man's face. Then he kicked him viciously in the testicles. It was the same all the way down to Vali Asr Square. Riot police in black rubber body armour and black helmets and black riot sticks, most on foot but followed by a flying column of security men, all on brand new, bright red Honda motorcycles, tearing into the shrieking youths – hundreds of them, running for their lives. They did not accept the results of Iran's presidential elections. They did not believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 per cent of the votes. And they paid the price.

"Death to the dictator," they were crying on Dr Fatimi Street, now thousands of them shouting abuse at the police. Were they to endure another four years of the smiling, avuncular, ever-so-humble President who swears by democracy while steadily thinning out human freedoms in the Islamic Republic? They were wrong, of course. Ahmadinejad really does love democracy. But he also loves dictatorial order. He is not a dictator. He is a Democrator.

Yesterday wasn't the time for the finer points of Iranian politics. That Mir Hossein Mousavi had been awarded a mere 33 per cent of the votes – by midday, the figure was humiliatingly brought down to 32.26 per cent – brought forth the inevitable claims of massive electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Or, as the crowd round Fatimi Square chorused as they danced in a circle in the street: "Zionist Ahmadinejad – cheating at exams." That's when I noticed that the police always treated the protesters in the same way. Head and testicles. It was an easy message to understand. A smash in the face, a kick in the balls and Long Live the Democrator.

Many of the protesters – some of them now wearing scarves over their faces, all coloured green, the colour of Mousavi's campaign – were trying to reach the Interior Ministry where the government's electoral council were busy counting (or miscounting, depending on your point of view) Friday's huge popular national vote. I descended into the basement of this fiercely ugly edifice – fittingly, it was once the headquarters of the Shah's party, complete with helipad on the roof – where cold chocolate lattes and strawberry fruitcake were on offer to journalists, and where were displayed the very latest poll results, put up at 10.56am Iranian time.

Eighty per cent of the votes had been counted and the results came up as Ahmadinejad 64.78 per cent; Mousavi 32.26 per cent; Mohsen Rezai (a former Revolutionary Guard commander) 2.08 per cent; and Mehdi Karoubi (a former parliament speaker) a miserable 0.89 per cent. How could this be, a man asked me on a scorching, dangerous street an hour later. Karoubi's party has at least 400,000 members. Were they all sleeping on Friday?

There were a few, sparse demonstrators out for the Democrator, all men, of course, and many of them draped in the Iranian flag because the Democrator – devout Muslim as he always displays himself – wrapped his election campaign in the national flag. Each of these burly individuals handed out free copies of the execrable four-page news-sheet Iran.

"Ahmadinejad," the headline read, "24 million votes. People vote for Success, Honesty and the Battle against Corruption." Not the obvious headline that comes to mind. But Mousavi's Green Word newspaper allegedly had its own headline dictated to it by the authorities – before they shut it down yesterday: "Happy Victory to the People." And you can't get more neutral than that.

Back on the streets, there were now worse scenes. The cops had dismounted from their bikes and were breaking up paving stones to hurl at the protesters, many of them now riding their own motorbikes between the rows of police. I saw one immensely tall man – dressed Batman-style in black rubber arm protectors and shin pads, smashing up paving stones with his baton, breaking them with his boots and chucking them pell mell at the Mousavi men. A middle-aged woman walked up to him – the women were braver in confronting the police than the men yesterday – and shouted an obvious question: "Why are you breaking up the pavements of our city?" The policeman raised his baton to strike the woman but an officer ran across the road and stood between them. "You must never hit a woman," he said. Praise where praise is due, even in a riot.

But the policemen went on breaking up stones, a crazy reverse version of France in May 1968. Then it was the young men who wanted revolution who threw stones. In Tehran – fearful of a green Mousavi revolution – it was the police who threw stones.

An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."

But of course, the streets of Tehran were only a hundred metres away. And the police were now far more abusive to their adversaries. My own Persian translator was beaten three times on the back. The cops had brought their own photographers on to the pavements to take pictures of the protesters – hence the green scarves – and overfed plain-clothes men were now mixing with the Batmen. The Democrator was obviously displeased. One of the agents demanded to see my pass but when I showed my Iranian press card to him, he merely patted me on the shoulder and waved me through.

Thus did I arrive opposite the Interior Ministry as the police brought their prisoners back from the front line down the road. The first was a green-pullovered youth of perhaps 15 or 16 who was frog-marched by two uniformed paramilitary police to a van with a cage over the back. He was thrown on the steel floor, then one of the cops climbed in and set about him with his baton. Behind me, more than 20 policemen, sweating after a hard morning's work bruising the bones of their enemies, were sitting on the steps of a shop, munching through pre-packed luncheon boxes. One smiled and offered me a share. Politely declined, I need hardly add.

They watched – and I watched – as the next unfortunate was brought to the cage-van. In a shirt falling over his filthy trousers, he was beaten outside the vehicle, kicked in the balls, and then beaten on to a seat at the back of the vehicle. Another cop climbed in and began batoning him in the face. The man was howling with pain. Another cop came – and this, remember, was in front of dozens of other security men, in front of myself, an obvious Westerner, and many women in chadors who were walking on the opposite pavement, all staring in horror at the scene.

Now another policeman, in an army uniform, climbed into the vehicle, tied the man's hands behind his back with plastic handcuffs, took out his baton and whacked him across the face. The prisoner was in tears but the blows kept coming; until more young men arrived for their torment. Then more police vans arrived and ever more prisoners to be beaten. All were taken in these caged trucks to the basement of the Interior Ministry. I saw them drive in.

A break now from these outrages, because this was about the moment that Mousavi's printed statement arrived at his campaign headquarters. I say "arrived", although the police had already closed his downtown office – Palestine Street, it was called, only fitting since the Iranian police were behaving in exactly the same way as the Israeli army when they turn into a rabble to confront Palestinian protesters – and Mousavi's men could only toss the sheets of paper over the wall.

It was strong stuff. "The results of these elections are shocking," he proclaimed. "People who stood in the voting lines, they know the situation, they know who they voted for. They are looking now with astonishment at this magic game of the authorities on the television and radio. What has happened has shaken the whole foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and now it is governing by lies and dictatorship. I recommend to the authorities to stop this at once and return to law and order, to care for the people's votes. The first message of our revolution is that people are intelligent and will not obey those who gain power by cheating. This whole land of Iran belongs to them and not to the cheaters."

Mousavi's head office in Qeitariyeh Street in north Tehran had already been besieged by the Democrator's loyal "Basiji" volunteers a few hours earlier. They had chucked tear gas at the windows. They were still smouldering when I arrived. "Please go or they will come back," one of his supporters pleaded to me. It was the same all over the city. The opposition either asked you to leave or invited you to watch them as they tormented the police. The Democrator's men, waving their Iranian flags, faced off Mousavi's men. Then, through their ranks, came the armed cops again, running towards the opposition. So whose side were the police really on? Rule number one: never ask stupid questions in Iran.

Last night, all SMS calls were blocked. The Iranian news agency announced that, since there would be no second round of elections, there would be no extension of visas for foreign journalists – one can well see why – and so many of the people who were praised by the government for their patriotism in voting on Friday were assaulted by their own government on Saturday.

Last night, the Democrator was still silent, but his ever-grinning face turned up on the posters of his supporters. There were more baton charges, ever greater crowds running from them. Thus was the courage of Friday's Iranian elections turned into fratricidal battles on the streets of Tehran. "Any rallies," announced the Tehran police chief, General Ahmad Reza Radan, "will be dealt with according to the law." Well, we all know what that means. So does the Democrator.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the blacksmith's son and former Revolutionary Guard, who, since his surprise victory four years ago, has seemingly gone out of his way to play bogeyman to the US. In his first term in office, Mr Ahmadinejad became known for his fierce rhetoric against America and Israel, his proud promotion of Iran's nuclear programme and persistent questioning of the Holocaust.

In Iran, he benefited from a surge in petrodollar revenues and has distributed loans, money and other help on his frequent provincial tours. But critics say his free spending fuelled inflation and wasted windfall oil revenues without reducing unemployment. Prices of basics have risen sharply, hitting more than 15 million Iranian families who live on less than $600 a month. He blamed the inflation, which officially stands at 15 per cent, on a global surge in food and fuel prices that peaked last year, and pursued unorthodox policies such as trying to curb prices while setting interest rates well below inflation.

During the campaign, in a series of bitter TV debates with his three rivals, he was repeatedly accused of lying about the extent of price rises. Mir Hossein Mousavi also accused Mr Ahmadinejad, 53, of undermining Iran's foreign relations with his fiery anti-Western speeches and said Iranians had been "humiliated around the globe" since he was first elected.

During Mr Ahmadinejad's first term, the UN Security Council imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, which the West suspects has military aims.

Mr Ahmadinejad, the first non-clerical president in more than 25 years, basks in the support of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on Iranians to vote for an anti-Western candidate. The Ayatollah ultimately calls the shots in Iran, where the president can only influence policy, not decide it.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Life for President Barack Obama would be a great deal easier if Mir Hossein Mousavi had won Iran's election. The man who was prime minister during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s says he would seek detente with the West, ask Mr Obama to debate at the UN with him, and floated the idea of an international consortium overseeing uranium enrichment in Iran.

On the domestic front, the 67-year-old architect and painter urged a return to the "fundamental values" of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He advocated economic liberalisation, and pledged to control inflation through monetary policies and make life easier for private business. He has also promised to change the "extremist" image that Iran has earned abroad under Mr Ahmadinejad and has hit out at his profligate spending of petrodollars and cash hand-outs to the poor, which, he says, have stoked rising consumer prices. He also advocated removing the ban on private firms owning TV stations.

Mr Mousavi has been politically silent for the past 20 years, but he broke new ground in Iranian campaigning by having his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a former university chancellor, not only join him on the stump but work for him. The couple even held hands at rallies, rare behaviour for politicians in the socially conservative state. His support was largely urban, and mostly young. He enjoyed also the backing of reformist former president Mohammad Khatami and apparent backing from Mr Khatami's pragmatic predecessor, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

He was widely expected to make a close-run thing of the election. But even as he was claiming a premature victory on Friday night, Mr Mousavi was alleging widespread malpractice in the conduct of the election. Where he goes from here – apart from into history – is far from clear.

More from Robert Fisk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
Zionist Ahmadinejad - ???
[info]mackname wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 11:35 pm (UTC)


It is funny to mention that opposition believes that Ahmadi nejad is an Israeli agent.

Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ???
[info]findempire wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:20 am (UTC)
Interesting they should think that since "Moussavi" means Jew. During the Iran-Iraq war Ahmadinejad fought in the trenches while Moussavi cut deals with Israel:
The most unlikely country to support Iran was Israel, given that the revolutionary government had replaced the country's longstanding alliance with an obsessive and hostile Anti-Zionism. Still, the Israelis did provide some arms to their Iranian enemies. Why?

Two main reasons:
  • One is that Israel often subscribes to the Middle East dictum, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and Iraq was viewed as a more immediate danger.

  • A large number of Jews remained in Iran, and the Israelis hoped to essentially buy their safety while covert and not-so-covert efforts were undertaken throughout the war to get Iranian Jews out of the country.

Source: Jewish Virtual Library

Even more interesting is the fact that a large number of Iranian Jews supported Khomeini's Islamic Revolution although the Shah was Israel's long-standing against the Arabs. Wonder if Khomeini's name had anything to do with it? He was also called Moussavi Khomeini. Moussavi means "follower of Moses," i.e. Jew. Issavi means "follower of Jesus," i.e. Christian.

Anyway in this election, Iranian Jews voted for Ahmadinejad, not for Mr. Hossein Jew. One view is that the ballots weren't really secret so Iranian Jews were afraid of getting on the ayatollahs' wrong side.
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]young_prof - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:01 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]findempire - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:14 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]paulolevi - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 03:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]exec_ceo - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 01:48 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]vinodmoon - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 03:00 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]penny_reese - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]achilles0200 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:46 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]vinodmoon - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:43 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]penny_reese - Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 07:32 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]findempire - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:03 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]fakhry - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:04 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Zionist Ahmadinejad - ??? - [info]fakhry - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:10 am (UTC) Expand
Does Robert Fisk ever actually speak badly about Ahmadinejad?
[info]exec_ceo wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 11:40 pm (UTC)
In a previous Robert Fisk article on Ahmadinejad, Fisk described him as 'weird' and an 'oddball.'

He sure uses very light-hearted, fluffy, harmless adjectives to describe crazed, bigoted, homophobic, murderous, freedom-crushing, holocaust-denying jerks.
Re: Does Robert Fisk ever actually speak badly about Ahmadinejad?
[info]tonyf12 wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 11:51 pm (UTC)
Why does everything about the Middle East always end up with fingers pointing at Israel? Even if Ahmadinejad were weird or an oddball, how does that compare with Israeli illegal occupation and brutal atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank?

Go to bed Mr. exec_ceo. Leave Iran to run its own business. When your favourite model country Israel ceases its lawless murderous behaviour we'll be more interested in reading your comments.
HOW NAIVE THE WEST IS REGARDING IRAN
[info]joeny wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 11:49 pm (UTC)
Did Obama and other western leaders really think that the non-elected "Supreme Leader" would allow the people to replace his favoured candidate?
The real power in Iran rests wth a non-elected, non-removable theocracy.
Hopefully western leaders will wake up to this fact.

Believing this was a free and fair election is almost as naive as believing Iran's insistence that is bleeding itself white just to build nuclear power stations ...........
Does ANYONE now believe that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons?
Re: HOW NAIVE THE WEST IS REGARDING IRAN
[info]vinodmoon wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
Don't you wonder why Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons? Or North Korea for that matter?

The answer is simple - Iraq was blown off the map precisely because it didn't have Weapons of Mass Destruction. While Saddam was protesting that he had no WMD, the West was insisting he had; at the same time, North Korea was shouting at the top of its lungs that it had the bomb, but the West was denying it.

The rest of the world learned a big lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis. Krushchev pointed a ballistic missile at Kennedy's head because he wanted the USA weapons out of his backyard, Turkey. Kennedy had no choice but to get rid of them if he wanted the Russian missiles out of Cuba.

The lesson was clear - the West respects nuclear missiles and nothing else. So if you want their greedy hands off your natural resources, you need the bomb.

Luckily for Third World nations, Bush was a fool enough to invade Iraq and get himself into a quagmire, which gave the rest of the world a breathing space. The sacrifices of the resistance habve not been in vain
Re: HOW NAIVE THE WEST IS REGARDING IRAN - [info]chanch5 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:15 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: HOW NAIVE THE WEST IS REGARDING IRAN - [info]goatbucket - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC) Expand
Poor innocent "protesters"
[info]findempire wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 11:58 pm (UTC)
Fisk, you're starting to make a habit of lying about everything. I suppose it was the cops who burned the bus and put the stick in that guy's hand so they could kick him in the balls?


Photo:AFP

Photo:AFP

Northern Tehran is full of kooks who believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories. One of them was telling France 24 that Ahmadinejad was really defeated because "only 7.9 % of voters went to vote." She was saying that even as Moussawi supporters were screaming foul play because voters had to wait in long lines because of the record turnout.

When the results finally came in these well-organized young thugs hit the street to force the cops to react & give propagandists like Fisk something to beat Ahmadinejad on the head with and tarnish his victory.

I don't like the little Hitler either. What's more the whole election was just window-dressing. Whoever Iranians elected, the buck still stopped at the ayatollah's desk. The mullahs set up a Punch & Judy show between A. nejad and Moussavi to entertain the crowds and make them forget the skyrocketing inflation and unemployment due to their incredible corruption and mismanagement of record oil revenues. They even played the two against each other, setting up Moussavi to cut A. nejad down to size and show him who's boss.

Be that as it may, the little creep won fair and square. Moussavi never went out to campaign with the unwashed masses but A.N. toured the whole country (and distributed a fair amount of bribes). The West's support for Moussavi meant to the average Iranian that the West only cared about the rich folk in the posh quarters. All our hyperventilating over Moussavi just alienated Iran a little bit more.

Thankfully this stupid charade is finally over and we can get back to reality, namely Iran's nuclear poker to force us to concede its "regional power" status in the Gulf. This medieval country is not going to give up on its ayatollahs and those idiots are never going to be able to fix the economy, so Iran is going to have to steal someone's oil to make ends meet. It's already stealing Iraq's but needs a whole lot more. So are we going to let Iran take over the Gulf or are we going to bomb it? Those are the options, anything else is just pissing in the wind.
Re: Poor innocent "protesters"
[info]smoothop8388 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:12 am (UTC)
"It's already stealing Iraq's but needs a whole lot more. So are we going to let Iran take over the Gulf or are we going to bomb it? "

Now, I really thought you were reasonable, how can it steal the oil that is guarded by half the American Army, and the remains of the British army? And how can it take over the gulf, where there's american military presence in each and every country?

Just be real!! Cheering for a war in this region will open the gates of hell..

so far, there's no evidence that Iran is carrying out its plan for nuclear weaponary, and even if it is, why is Israel having more than 200 nuclear warheads cool and fine? And everybody knows, that even if Iran aquireds that kind of weaponary, it cannot attack another muslim country, that would kill its cause and purpose, and it cannot even attack Israel using nuclear weapons, due to the holiness of that land! And it would only use it as a deterrence to not be attacked by nuclear weapons or unconventional weapons like the ones saddam used to kill thousends of iranian civilians backed by western countries!
Re: Poor innocent "protesters" - [info]smoothop8388 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Poor innocent "protesters" - [info]findempire - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Poor innocent "protesters" - [info]smoothop8388 - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 12:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Poor innocent "protesters" - [info]earleakin - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 04:55 pm (UTC) Expand
revolution
[info]bahman36 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:12 am (UTC)
forget about complicating issues with other topics such as Israel. The people of Iran want democracy and freedom as we all enjoy in the west. Are we more deserving of this then they are. Imagine yourself in their situation getting beaten up. How would you feel if your sister, mother, father was getting beaten to the point of death??? We need to stand by Iranians and promote freedom of speech, freedom of press, human rights and so on...all that we enjoy in the west and take granted for! Iranians need a regime change and we are seeing the start of this process...a historic event unfold. Lets help them get rid of tyranny.

Re: revolution
[info]vinodmoon wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 02:47 am (UTC)
It is quite clear that the people of Iran want Ahmadinejad and voted overwhelmingly for him.

The supporters of Moussavi are mainly the urban elite, westernised yuppies, etc, whereas Ahmadinejad's are the ordinary people.

The western press, not only in Iran, but around the world tend to get their information from English-speaking elite people, who live in a cocooned world.

What amazes me is the vitriol with which Fisk attacks Ahmadinejad who, after all, has been trying to create a level playing field for the poor. There is some secret agenda here.
Re: revolution - [info]chanch5 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:19 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: revolution - [info]acidaries - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:27 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]freenet_x wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:20 am (UTC)
Please let it known that this is a coup in IRAN by Ahmadinejad and the so called "the leader".
In a blatant way the extreme rightists reversed the vote ratio from 20% to 73% for him.
This is an illegal government at this point and in no way represent the will of big majority of people in Iran.
The process of repressing protesters and civil activists has already started.
Iranian people need the support of all truly democratic institutions at this point.
Strong majority of people in IRAN showed that they are not for extremism and war and desire an open democratic society. The religious-military economically corrupt mafia could not take that!
Correction
[info]afrombahrain wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 12:52 am (UTC)
Iranians do not believe that Ahmedinejad is a Zionist or an Israeli pawn. The word Zionist is sometimes used as an insult, emphasizing the conflict of interest between the person being insulted and the interest of Muslims.
You follow the trap of urban elitism
[info]tj26111973 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 04:16 am (UTC)

Dear Robert,

The view of Tehran's residents on the rural Iran is prejudiced by an illegitimate form of elitism. If the results were correct, why the rush to make decision? why the widespread arrests? why not inviting monitors and reporters to confirm the count? why be so fearful? why not letting doubts disappear by allowing observers making decisions?

Who cares about your friends' honest brave but (classically middle-eastern style, I should confess) cynical elitist view of your friend (beyond a citizen's point of view)? Why equate one single comment with all logical indicators that suggests foul play? Also, why not talk about the theory that this is the first steps to cleanse the regime off of the more reform-minded elements from Khatami to Rafsanjani? You better than anyone has seen cleansing competitors and the attempt to create historical amnesia about it. Haven't you?

I am a big fan of your work, but here you are falling short of your own standards!

-Tara
[info]tj26111973 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 04:25 am (UTC)


please see the video feeds from smaller cities like Tabriz, Isfahan, etc.
re:idiots are out again
[info]geeboy wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:15 am (UTC)
The fact that you have taken the time to count the number of times Israel and zionisim has been mentioned makes you more of an idiot that all the other nutters here. I guess you have been waiting with you calculator at the ready - It may be called Iran but it is the same country that your beloved Israel has been threatening unilateral military action against for attempting to develop the same bloody nuclear weapons that Israel has a bucket load of and illegally kidnapping vanunu for and incarcerating him for 18 years.
The idiots are out again
[info]ganef wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 04:51 am (UTC)
Not yet 6.00am in the UK and another article from Fisk, again about Iran. But, already, Israel has appeared 14 times and 12 times Zionist. We get Jew nine times. Are these opinions to continue to be a platform for racists and antisemites? Its probable that the moderator will shut down this blog by lunchtime unless bloggers stick to the subject. Its called Iran, remember?
Read before you act like a victim!!
[info]smoothop8388 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:58 am (UTC)
why dont you tell that to your Zionist buddy execeo, whose main job is to bring Israel n' hamas up in any discussion? he has the biggest share of those words you mentioned!!

N' hey not every mention of Israel, or zionism, or any objection to that is antisemetic!

What ganef said - [info]sarahab - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:45 am (UTC) Expand
Re: What ganef said - [info]smoothop8388 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:54 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The idiots are out again - [info]goatbucket - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The idiots are out again - [info]ganef - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 03:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: The idiots are out again - [info]goatbucket - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC) Expand
[info]losangelesman wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 04:57 am (UTC)
Mr Fisk,
I cannot believe you say "Ahmadinejad really does love democracy". Is it a democracy where innocent women and teenagers are beaten up viciously? Do you also call the Afghan guys who beat the hell out of you democrats too?
[info]goatbucket wrote:
Monday, 15 June 2009 at 03:00 pm (UTC)
Democracy and violence aren't mutually exclusive, of course. Hitler was arguably the world's most successful politicians in terms of democracy.

The U.S is nominally a democracy and yet it exports war all around the world, has the biggest military budget (by far) and supplies a large number of unpleasantly violent regimes with weapons.
pictures suggest it was protestors who started violence
[info]desimaj wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:07 am (UTC)
Wishful thinking
[info]walterwall wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:08 am (UTC)
Abbas Barzegar had an article in the Guardian yesterday that I think sums up the reaction to the result very well - that the predicted Moussavi victory was wishful thinking on the part of Western journalists and Moussavi's supporters who are all in the northern, well-off areas of Tehran, and who had underestimated the support that poorer people all over Iran have for Ahmedinejad. By the way, I heard one of Moussavi's people on the radio yesterday criticising Ahmedinejad for spending the country's oil revenue on the poor and the downtrodden, just as Mr Fisk appears to be doing in his article - it makes you think!
Now that the result is available, the losers cry "foul" and take to the streets. This seems to be an increasing trend, especially when it is an incumbent government that is not a friend of America that is the winner. The Western media are falling over one another in their rush to portray the protests as a mass movement that threatens to topple the evil Iranian regime. While I do not condone the treatment of demonstrators described in Robert Fisk's article, it is no worse than the brutality of the British police
At this stage it is too early to say whether this is just a display of petulance on the part of Moussavi's supporters, the privileged classes who are used to getting their own way and upset that for once they have been thwarted, and on the part of the media, embarrassed at being proved so spectacularly wrong, or whether it is something more sinister, namely an attempt to undermine the result of a democratic election that did not produce the result that America desired.
The overthrow of the democratically elected Dr Mossadegh led to great oppression for Iranians at the hands of the shah and his American masters and poisoned relations between the two countries up to the present day. I hope that Iranians will not be so naive as to be seduced by the so-called modernisers, who are anything but, and that America will for once respect a democratic election. And I hope that people like Robert Fisk, who I used to respect, will not debase themselves by complicity with the people who wish to deny Iranians - all Iranians, not a privileged Western-looking well educated elite - the right to determine their own affairs.
Leave Iran to the Iranians
[info]smoothop8388 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:11 am (UTC)
Excactly; you're completely right..

Yes, the protesters are mainly priviliged classes who don't like the socialist reforms Najad had instilled; and they were the ones who began the violence; I've seen footage of officers running away from the rioters! Why didn't fisk mention any of rioting? I don't know.. I had so much respect for Fisk as well, but somehow he seems to be loosing direction.. I'm not saying Iran is the most perfect regime, but its better than many that go unnoticed on the pages of the independent n' other newspapers! and the overthrow of Mossadeq simply coz he demanded more than the 17% of oil reveneue given to Iran by the Brits, and used by the Shah to extravigate his life further, is indeed a stain on Britian and America; as well as their support to Saddam's deadly 8-year war, and their 30 year of sanctions.. What's happening in Iran, from anti-western sentiments, to class struggle n' religious tendancies, is a direct result of those imperialistic policies, and its time they left Iran to the Iranians!
"Divine Assessment"
[info]rodkaufman wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:10 am (UTC)
There's no mystery about it. Ali Khamemeni, the supreme leader of Iran, has called the election of Ahmadinejad, "divine assessment"!
There you have it.
You heard it from the horse's mouth, without equivocation. When Ali Khakamaniac speaks, it's a sealed deal.
And if it's "divine assessment", how can anyone question the results, let alone blame them on the tiny percentage of Jews that live in Iran (roughly 25000 people) or the Israelis or anybody or anything else?
"Divine assessment": don't like it? Go argue with Ali Khakamaniac...












Police attacking the People...?
[info]rayleddy wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:14 am (UTC)
Sounds like the London Met are being copied here, except that the Iranian police do not hit women and do not kill the citizens on the streets, as opposed to the London Met who do. Sounds strange to think of it like that and even stranger to see that it is true!
The Times They Are A Changing
[info]49niner wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:40 am (UTC)
It's difficult to know what really went on in this election. Presumably international monitors were present, as in some elections, so we don't know for certain whether it was fair or fixed.

What is certain is that change is obviously bubbling beneath the surface. The regime obviously holds all the cards for now. But we've seen this sort of thing time and again. Until twenty years ago, we never thought communism would collapse but it did.

Regimes that rule other than by consent through elections, rule by patronage and fear. Once the yget to a situation where they can't do either or both, then they are in trouble. If oil revenues dip, or inflation really starts to bite, the regime will be in trouble.

One thing seems certain. The genie is out of the bottle in Iran. Ahmadinejad may have won this election, fairly or otherwise. But it was obviously bought at a price. Internationally, Iran has few friends, and troubles on its borders in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention Iraq. A confrontation with the West will do it no good at all. And with many of its citizens disaffected, the regime will be on the defensive.

The times they are a changing. Maybe not this time, but soon. Repression usually works for a while but in the end, such regimes come to grief. Older readers will no doubt have seen it all before.
Re: The Times They Are A Changing
[info]w1551ns wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
Communism just moved into the EUSSR, it never collapsed. Witness the creeping 'Common Purpose' agenda in this country. They may not have fixed bayonets, but, the are just as insidious.
Re: The Times They Are A Changing - [info]49niner - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 04:15 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Times They Are A Changing - [info]makomk - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 01:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Religious Power
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 05:48 am (UTC)
What we are seeing in Iran is the obvious result of allowing religious nutters to have political power. And who allowed it? The millions of people howling in the streets for the return of "the Ayatollah" all those years ago. Religious power comes from the unthinking support of the people - we usually get the governments we deserve. And please stop using the words "Iran" and "Democracy" in the same sentence. How can it be a democracy if some nutter at the top, supported by his pious goons, picks the runners?
Financial Power
[info]smoothop8388 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:18 am (UTC)
"How can it be a democracy if some nutter at the top, supported by his pious goons, picks the runners?"

Technically, how is this any different than a 2-party system, where the candidates are endorsed and funded by bankers and corporations, and hand-picked by groups like Bilderberg n' others? You think Obama made it, only using his articulation?
Re: Financial Power - [info]gollymolly44 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Financial Power - [info]smoothop8388 - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 12:30 pm (UTC) Expand
Ahmadinejad rhymes with?
[info]oszkowice wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:05 am (UTC)
The loopy Holcaust denier Ahmadinejad lobby are out in strength at the moment.So if he is just a little soft and cuddly President why do the police need to act like complete barbarians? One revolution to get rid of the Shah and the next the mad mullahs.
The Met police
[info]yfdbfjf123 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:07 am (UTC)
"A smash in the face, a kick in the balls"

Just like
Re: The Met police
[info]gollymolly44 wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:34 am (UTC)
The difference being, of course, that eventually British policemen who behave like this are caught and punished. Let me know when these pious Iranian thugs are brought to justice.......
Re: The Met police - [info]walterwall - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:12 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Met police - [info]gollymolly44 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:52 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Met police - [info]walterwall - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 11:17 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Met police - [info]w1551ns - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC) Expand
Western Leaders
[info]chiennoir wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:27 am (UTC)
"Hopefully western leaders will wake up to this fact." Are these the same leaders that are stuffing their own countrymen?
American interference in Iran ?
[info]peteloud wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:09 am (UTC)
How much of the present discontent in Iran has been directly due to discreet interference by USA? Has USA been funding opposition groups to de-stabilise Ahmadinejad? Has been USA been manipulating the media to undermine Ahmadinejad.

I suspect that everything that I read about the problems in Iran has been directly or indirectly set up by USA.
Re: American interference in Iran ?
[info]walterwall wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:13 am (UTC)
What a cynical chap you are!
Re: American interference in Iran ? - [info]gollymolly44 - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:42 am (UTC) Expand
Blatant Fraud
[info]chesscheckers wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 07:55 am (UTC)
On Friday, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad killed democracy in Iran.

The relatives of election judges in Iran have told us that the elections judges were forced to declare Ahmadinejad the winner by wide margin. They were forced to falsify the results regardless of the votes. This is absolutely true because there is no way that Ahmadinejad would have gotten more than 5% in Sunni areas of Iran. It may be noted that Ahmadinejad's administration did not allow the Sunnis to be the head of government institutions such as mayor or president of a bank in 100% Sunni areas of Iran. Also, how could the Election Commissioner annouce the results within an hour or so of the poll closing when the votes were cast and counted by hand? The world should condemn this blatant fraud.
Re: Blatant Fraud
[info]irishinrussia wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:32 am (UTC)
hey do you think we are morons? I mean what a blatantly destructible peace of propaganda that is, there is no way he would have got more than 5% of the Sunni vote - a quick google search shows us Sunnis count for only 9% of the population - an alliance of say the Persians and grateful to be educated in theri own language could easily have provided the level of support Ahmedinjad claims. Even if you think we're stupid, please don't post propaganda any monkey with a search engine can disprove
Re: Blatant Fraud - [info]chesscheckers - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Blatant Fraud - [info]chesscheckers - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 06:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Blatant Fraud - [info]irishinrussia - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 01:12 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Blatant Fraud - [info]chesscheckers - Monday, 15 June 2009 at 03:20 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]berewic wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:00 am (UTC)
999
The Outcome?
[info]rhinocircus wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 08:31 am (UTC)
Whatever the outcome of these elections in Iran, some groups were going to shout "foul!".
The West had a very strong interest in the Mousavi win for obvious reasons and duly hyped it, for his aspired win.
Did Mousavi call for calm from the rioters?--No.
Did the police act in any way different from the Metropolitan Police?--No.
Can anyone describe what is meant by "democracy" and where it is practised?
Robert Fisk is usually very fair in his reporting--but here he is deliberately coy--and betrays his partiality.
The results were expected to follow the same line as in Lebanon--a pro-western government, or at the very least, a win for the ruling elite.
We have a ruling elite in Britain, where elections are real charades and little changes--other than suppresive changes, have altered the status quo over centuries.
Good luck to Iran for having the guts to continue its progress and keeping US Capitalism, Corporatism and "democracy" at arms length.
Re: The Outcome?
[info]luceew wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 10:41 am (UTC)
Mousavi did call for calm so get your facts right. Don't recall Met Police bashing faces into a pulp with their sticks nor throwing pieces of pavement at citizens. As for the rest of your comment, couldn't be bothered reading any more stupidity.
Re: The Outcome? - [info]walterwall - Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 11:24 am (UTC) Expand
Re: The Outcome? - [info]luceew - Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 05:28 am (UTC) Expand
each one has his own democracy..!
[info]fakhry wrote:
Sunday, 14 June 2009 at 09:15 am (UTC)
No more democracy since we heard about USA/west In East probably before that.
PA killed their own people to please Israel,Israel did same to Palestinians to please the electors is Israel,Pakistan did worst to please USA,Afghanistan to please USA.
NO ONE IS DEMOCRATIC Including UK with what we heard about M15.
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular in Opinion