Monday, June 15, 2009

What If Ahmadinejad Really Won?

By Robert Parry
June 15, 2009

It’s fast congealing into conventional wisdom that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole re-election through fraud and that the so-called “green revolution” of Mir-Hossein Mousavi – which was based in the country’s intelligentsia and middle class – got robbed.

Read on.


Evan Siegel said...

This is silly. You're basing your argument on one poll. The polls were all over the place, and showed Musavi closing fast and passing Ahmadinejad as election day approached.
But ask yourself one simple question: If there was such a landslide for Ahmadinejad, WHERE ARE HIS SUPPORTERS? The armored goon squads breaking students' heads? We've not seen hide nor hair of them.
As for the neocon angle, sorry Charlie, but the neocons seem to have been plumping for an Ahmadinejad victory because dealing with people pledged to discuss with the West was a threat to their warmongering plans.
Thanks for a real amateur attempt at a complicate subject.

me said...

I'm convinced that the election was stolen, for the simple reason that all independent observers were kept away from the vote count.

No matter how you slice it, that is not and can never be a sign of an honest election.

B/R said...

George Dubbah might have stolen the first election, but the electorate clearly chose him the second time around. Perhaps the Iranians have made a similar error in judgement. While it seems plasuible that Ahmadinejad forces would do everything in their power to rig the vote, the anti-intellectual bent of many less vocal backers was probably lurking there all along. One can also imagine Amadinejad's supporters staying at home satsified with the "results" rather than rallying in the streets. I hate to think he's been re-elected. But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And yes, it stinks.

Anonymous said...

We "haven't see hair or hide of A's supporters" because the general news media here, is controlled by the military/insdustrial group - and is CENSORED. It only shows what the control group WANT THE PUBLIC TO SEE.

The control group aka New Roman Empire wants ANOTHAER War Front Opened. And doesn't show the public, that the U.S. arealy lost control in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At any rate, where were these defenders of honest voting,when the US elections were being rigged in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 etc. etc. etc. etc. etc???

Bill Jones said...

Smells a lot like the US attempts against Chavez. I recall the anti-Chavistas were considerably taller, younger, blonder and more photogenic than the Chavistas: small, dark and distinctly Indian. How many Iranian working class people have heard of Twitter, what percentage of Iranians Tweet 1%?, 5%? - it's not 5% in the US so certainly a tiny proportion of the electorate.

Why are so many signs in English?
Where did they come from?

maybe these guys.

Michael said...

Re your story: The polling that showed a 2-1 lead is a 'damn lies and statistics' kind of mis-reporting (I prefer to think it was sloppiness that explains your not noting it, instead of a tendentious blind spot)
As Juan Cole (who has supported accuracy that made Achmad appear less distastful in the past) puts it:
"The poll did not find that Ahmadinejad had majority support. It found that the level of support for the incumbent was 34%, with Mousavi at 14%. 27% said that they were undecided." By stating only the 2-1 of 27 to 14 you and leave more than 1/2 the electorate out of the equation…The 'none of the above' vote and undecided votes, which are both huge.. (And there were some other oddities in the survey which may or mayn't rise to the level or irregularity, but leave that)