The Latest from Iran (22 April): This Isn't Over

1230 GMT: EA On the Move. Hopefully, we'll be relocating from the US to the UK today, so updates will be restricted until tomorrow afternoon. My thanks to all for their patience, and for keeping up going through news and comments while I'm heading home.

1215 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch (If You Know Someone in MKO, You're a Criminal). There seems to be a pattern in a number of recent sentences, including death penalties. As we reported yesterday, six people have been handed down orders for execution because they are related to or acquainted with members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, the political wing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq "terrorist" movement.

An Iranian activist now reports that Monireh Rabaei has received a five-year sentence, upheld on appeal, on the basis that she has an uncle in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to many PMOI members. The following sentences have also been passed on the basis of "connections with MKO": Zia Nabavi 15 years, Ozra Ghazi-Mirsaied three years, and Mahdiyeh Golro 28 months.

NEW Iran Document: Detained Nourizad’s Letter to Khamenei “We Have Lost Our People”
NEW Iran Document: Ayatollah Sane’i “Some Want Islam For Their Own Agendas”
Iran: The Latest Post-Election Death Sentences
NEW How Iran News is Made: Adultery, Earthquakes, and the BBC
The Latest from Iran (21 April): Waiting for News

1115 GMT: Economy Watch. Rooz Online's claims of layoffs are not quite as dramatic as those in the Human Rights Activists report (see 1100 GMT), but they are still striking:

Labor news sources report the laying off of at least 2,500 industrial and leather workers in Ilam and Mashad. Counting other laid-off workers in industrial and large cities such as Abadan, Ahwaz, Khorramshahr and Shiraz, during the last two weeks, more than 4,000 workers have lost their jobs just in the recent past.

...The crisis in Iran’s industrial sector has reached such a level that, in an interview yesterday, the head of Iran’s House of Labor predicted the closure of hundreds of large and medium industrial firms per year and the subsequent laying off of 200,000 workers every year after that.

1100 GMT: Firings and Abuses. Human Rights Activists in Iran has released a report claimed more than 38,000 cases of firings and human rights abuses in Iran in the past month.

Of the cases, more than 90% (37,519) are the layoffs of workers in Iran, as 166 production lines in the country have been shut down every month, according to a labour official. At least 11 protests and gatherings have been staged by workers in the country in the last month alone.

The group cites 537 cases of abuse of students’ rights, 255 cases of abuse against political and civil activists, 34 cases of capital punishment, 259 cases of torture and prisoner abuse, at least seven cases of citizens killed in frontier provinces, 124 arrests and abuse of national minority rights, and 68 cases of arrest and abuses against religious minorities.

Human Rights Activists says that, because of the scale of the abuses and the difficulties in documenting them in a rigid security atmosphere, the cases are only a fraction of the abuses that are occurring.

1055 GMT: Is Google A Regime Enemy? The Iranian Labor News Agency reports that a ban on Google Images has been lifted by Iranian authorities, 24 hours after it was imposed.

1045 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Women’s rights activist Dorsa Sobhani has been released after a detention of more than six weeks. Sobhani spent 25 days in solitary confinement.

The brother of Majid Tavakoli says that the student leader, detained on 7 December after a speech at a National Student Day rally, remains in solitary confinement.

Student activist Nader Ahsani has been re-arrested and taken to Evin Prison.

1040 GMT: "We Had to Save the System". A potentially explosive admission....

Aftab, from the weekly Panjareh, quotes an unnamed high-ranking intelligence official, who admits that post-election arrests, especially those of the first round of senior reformists, were planned ahead of the 12 June vote.

The detentions were a preventive measure because Iranian intelligence agencies anticipated major unrest which could get out of control. The official said, "Our law is not appropriate to fight against 'soft war', so we had to take these measures [to save the system]. The fifth statement of Mosharekat party [Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution] clearly speaks of establishing a secular system."

1030 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. On another front, Mehdi Hashemi, the son of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has warned the regime to "stop spreading lies" and to "beware of the time, when I speak out". Hashemi, who is currently in London, has been threatened by the Iranian authorities with prosecution for alleged corruption and misuse of funds during the Presidential election.

0945 GMT: After an extended break, we return today to a series of powerful responses to the regime, all of which make clear that the challenge to legitimacy will not be crushed.

In a separate entry, we have posted the latest statement of Grand Ayatollah Sane'i, criticising the Government for its misuse of Islam in its lies and detentions.

We also have a second feature: from inside Evin Prison, the detained journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad has written a letter to the Supreme Leader requesting that he "declare this year the year of national reconciliation and do not fear the reproach". In itself, that is not a direct challenge to the regime --- it acknowledges Khamenei's authority, after all --- however, the letter has special potency because Nourizad's detention was prompted by a previous appeal to the Supreme Leader to recognise the illegitimacies of the election.

Mohsen Armin, member of Parliament and former Vice Speaker, has also launched a spirited criticism of the Government. A senior member of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, which is now under threat of suspension, Armin denounced lies and threats of prosecution and demanded that the regime address the basic issues of rights and equality.

MP Mohammad Reza Khabbaz has asserted that the inability of the Ahmadinejad Government to make appropriate use of $370 billion oil income is a "catastrophe".

Comments

[Catherine]

RE Mohsen Armin, member of Parliament and former Vice Speaker, has also launched a spirited criticism of the Government. A senior member of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, which is now under threat of suspension,

Here's a detailed look by Charles Recknagel the aims, consequences and context of the government's suspension of the two prominent reformist factions:

Suspensions Of Two Factions Aim To Cripple Iran Reform Drive
http://www.rferl.org/content/Irans_Suspension_of_Two_Factions_Aims_To_Cripple_Reform_Drive/2019483.html

[Bill]

Scott,

Can you provide any additional sources on the addmission of the regime ministry worker admitting to pre planned arrests. I ask because it is actually part of my rebuttal to Eric Brill on some questions he had about my document to him.

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

RE 1030 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch.

A bit more from radio Zamaneh:
The Minister of Intelligence, Heydar Molslehi confirmed the issuance of an arrest warrant for Mehdi Hashemi, son of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, head of Iran’s Expediency Council.

He maintained that Iranian authorities will take action regarding this arrest in good time.

Kalameh website reports that Mehdi Hashemi has also called on the judiciary to stop such “sensationalism” from undermining the judicial system and warned of the day that he might run out of patience and reveal “unsaid truths” about such plots.

He added that he is willing to appear in a “competent” court to defend himself and expects that his own lawsuits against those who have engaged in “character assassination” of himself and his family get due process.

Mehdi Hashemi has been accused of being involved in the post-election turmoil. He is currently residing in Britain.
http://www.zamaaneh.com/enzam/2010/04/authorities-deny-travel-r.html
(2nd 1/2 of article)

[Scott Lucas]

Bill,

At this point, the only source I have is Aftab's summary of the Panjareh interview. The German Bureau may be able to help us on this one.

S.

[Catherine]

As Scott makes his way home, President Ajmadinejad leaves for Africa, but the welcome awaiting the latter doesn't look quite as warm as what I'm sure will be awaiting the former:

Zimbabwe leaders split over visit of Iran's Ahmadinejad
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is due to arrive in Zimbabwe, despite protests by the MDC party of Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.

The MDC has called Mr Ahmadinejad a "war-monger, a trampler of human rights [and] an executioner".
More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8636804.stm

[Eric A. Brill]

Bill,

"Can you provide any additional sources on the addmission of the regime ministry worker admitting to pre planned arrests. I ask because it is actually part of my rebuttal to Eric Brill on some questions he had about my document to him.

Scott's already provided the source: an "unnamed high-ranking intelligence official."

[Bill]

Eric A. Brill

Hey your cheating your supposed to let Scott and his biggest fan work in peace!!! Just kidding!! HA HA :) I actually wasn't hoping for a name(that's to much) but other sources to validate it.

Thx
Bill

[Arshama]

Bill, Scott,

@ 1040 GMT: “We Had to Save the System”

No further news or comments on the interview with the alleged high-ranking intelligence officer were published today, but the Aftab summary appears genuine both in language and argumentation. Hopefully an English translation can be made available soon, as this document is central to the Green movement's demands. In any case people from German Bureau will continue to watch this matter.

At least one good news today. Azeri journalist and HR activist Davoud Khodakarami was released on Monday: http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2010/apr/22/1731

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Bill,

"No further news or comments on the interview with the alleged high-ranking intelligence officer were published today, but the Aftab summary appears genuine both in language and argumentation. Hopefully an English translation can be made available soon, as this document is central to the Green movement’s demands."

Bill,

This seems good enough to me: an entirely unsourced document that "appears genuine both in language and argumentation." As with all entirely unsourced stories, its authenticity would be immune from challenge. Sometimes people get way too finicky about sources.

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

The intelligence officer interview was published in print (Panjareh weekly) and online (Aftab website) in Iran -- not really an "entirely unsourced document".
And contrary to blatherers from other sites EA readers are committed to find out the truth behind the news. "Appears genuine both in language and argumentation" thus means that I am mostly convinced of this interview's authencity.
Perhaps you need a pair of new glasses?

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

"The intelligence officer interview was published in print (Panjareh weekly) and online (Aftab website) in Iran — not really an 'entirely unsourced document'."

When one asks for the "source" of a press article, it is not a sufficient answer to cite the article itself as the source of the article.

This brings to mind the following passage in my article:

"The few published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. Some reports are otherwise so detailed that one can scarcely imagine they could have been fabricated, but the vivid details invariably fail to include any information that would permit the story to be verified."

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

“'Appears genuine both in language and argumentation' thus means that I am mostly convinced of this interview’s authencity."

It would take me 15 minutes, at most, to write a story - whether on this election or on any one of hundreds of different subjects you might pick - that would appear to you to be "genuine both in language and argumentation." And I can write that story for you from dozens of different points of views - your choice: "high-ranking intelligence official," "member of the Basij militia," "Ayatollah Khamenei's personal bodyguard" - whatever you like.

There may be a valid source for this story, or there may not be. I have no clue whether it's true or fabricated, but you don't either. You claim that "EA readers are committed to find out the truth behind the news," but look at what you're actually doing here. You've declared that "this document is central to the Green movement’s demands" with no basis whatsoever for believing it's true - other than the mere fact that someone saw fit to write it and someone else saw fit to publish it.

[Catherine]

Arshama,
"Perhaps you need a pair of new glasses?"

:-) :-) :-)

[Megan]

Eric A. Brill

"The few published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. Some reports are…………………….”

You need named sources? Islamic Republic constitution is the best named source. I suggest you get hold of it, read, and learn. Article 5 and Article 110, section 9 lays the foundation for legal electoral fraud.

I also have another suggestion; perhaps you would be interested in contacting Britain’s Channel 4 to arrange an interview with the Basiji in this interview; http://enduringamerica.com/2009/12/17/23721latest-iran-video-interview-of-basij-member-election-abuses-16-december/. The Basiji in this interview describes how he followed and executed the order for June 2009 election fraud. The identity of the mentioned Basjii was protected for the safety of the family he left behind in Iran. But I am sure you can make arrangement with Channel 4 to satisfy your needs for the truth.

We, the Iranians, do not need to identify sources and be on first name basis with them to believe that Islamic Republic is crooked and has committed electoral fraud starting with its first election. We know that Vali-e- Faghih clause in Islamic Republic constitution replaces election with selection. We know Islamic Republic pathetic crooks and their mode of operation. We can smell and see fraud in every strand of their DNA. We need no additional forensic.

You go ahead, analyze and rationalize phony statistics and numbers published by Islamic Republic as you wish. But please remember this is the same Islamic Republic that last week claimed it was the most advanced in science and technology in the world- based on its own statistics. We have a blast laughing at any statistics/ claims by Islamic Republic and its naive defenders/supporters who chase their tails for getting to the truth.

Future will show who will have egg on his/her face and that will not be us, the Iranians. Because we know the truth and you can take that to the bank.

[Catherine]

Following up on my post 5, more warm words for the Iranian president:

Ahmadinejad arrived in Zimbabwe Thursday for trade talks with Mugabe, a visit denounced as a "colossal political scandal" by the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Mugabe's partner in a fractious unity government.

"Inviting the Iranian strongman to an investment forum is like inviting a mosquito to cure malaria," the party said in a statement.

"Ahmadinejad?s visit is not only an insult to the people of Zimbabwe, but an affront to democracy and to the oppressed people of Iran."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100422/wl_africa_afp/zimbabweirandiplomacyenergytrade_20100422151603

[Eric A. Brill]

Megan,

"You need named sources?"

I suggest this test for you: If this "unnamed high-ranking intelligence official" had said things harshly critical of the Green movement, would you have accepted the anonymous interviewee's words as truth without bothering to ask for confirmation? Simply because some article critical of the Greens, anonymously-sourced and entirely uncorroborated, is published in some newspaper, you would accept it as true and insist that others do as well?

"I also have another suggestion; perhaps you would be interested in contacting Britain’s Channel 4 to arrange an interview with the Basiji in this interview [link]."

I've read and watched that interview several times. See the reference to Hilsum in the Sources section of my article. In fact, that one story, above any other, was the source of this passage in my article, which I also quoted in a comment yesterday on this board:

"The few published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. Some reports are otherwise so detailed that one can scarcely imagine they could have been fabricated, but the vivid details invariably fail to include any information that would permit the story to be verified."

For anyone who hasn't watched that interview, I recommend it. Listen carefully to what the no-face, no-name interviewee (who's now living in London) describes, and ask yourself, in a quiet moment, whether you would accept his uncorroborated story if it were critical of the Greens. Ask yourself these questions, for example: Where did these horrible things happen? (He doesn't say.) Who did them? (He doesn't say.) Exactly when did this happen? (He doesn't say.) How could all of these horrible things (including gang rapes of many women) have happened in full view of dozens of people and yet no one but you has reported them? (He doesn't say – and please note: it is not sufficient to reply: "Other people have also claimed that gang rapes occurred." If this were good enough, then every claim of rape would be deemed corroborated merely because someone else had also made a claim of rape - even if no names, places, dates or other verifiable information of any kind were offered to support either claim.) Since you're anonymous and living in London, why can't you say, at least off the record, where these things happened and who did them? You say you worry about reprisals if you reveal details, but how would the bad guys know you were the discloser when it could just as easily have been one of the dozens or hundreds of other people who you say witnessed all this? (This obvious question was never asked.) How might someone go about corroborating any of claims? (This obvious question was never asked, and Channel 4 showed no apparent interest in trying to determine whether any of these horrible events actually happened – there was no follow-up at all.)

Would you really accept this if this interviewee had instead been criticizing the Greens? It's possible that every word this interviewee says is the gospel truth, but it is just as easy to conclude precisely the opposite. I don't believe or disbelieve stories such as his; I simply ignore them. If he or someone else comes forward with details, I would promptly reconsider.

"Islamic Republic constitution is the best named source. I suggest you get hold of it, read, and learn. Article 5 and Article 110, section 9 lays the foundation for legal electoral fraud."

I have the Iranian Constitution on my computer, with key words personally color-coded in 10 different colors. It's been there for years. I've read it several times. Every word.

I have no idea what you mean by Article 5 and, frankly, that Article is so general that, with all due respect and notwithstanding my general receptiveness to arguments, I'd rather not hear what your thinking is on Article 5.

As for Article 110, Section 9, I don't know whether you're talking about the Supreme Leader's duty to certify the results of a presidential election (please don't tell me that's your point: I've already argued that point with others, and remain unimpressed, to the point of boredom, with that argument) or, instead, the statement of the Guardian Council's authority to pre-approve presidential candidates. I'm guessing your point is the latter. In which case, I don't disagree. But how do you distinguish Mousavi from Ahmadinejad under that argument? If Mousavi had won, wouldn't your point be exactly the same? Would you have argued that Mousavi was not the legitimate leader of Iran? Why did Mousavi supporters begin raising this point only after the election was over and their candidate had lost?

I have some important basic questions for Green supporters:

Does your support of the Green movement depend on the 2009 election having been unfair? If it was fair, would the Green movement somehow fall apart? Or is the Green movement so fundamentally strong – its tenets so sound – that it doesn't matter whether the 2009 election was fair? I hope, for your sake, that it's the latter.

You might think I have my own answers to these questions, but I really don't. Hard as this may be to believe, I support many of the goals of the Green movement. But I'd never throw my support behind ANY movement that insisted on the truth of some important "fact" for which I could find no basis, especially if I were to find a great deal of evidence that seemed to point the other way. It would make me wonder whether other "facts" put forth by that movement were equally shaky, even if those other facts were in fact facts.

One should be very, very careful about challenging the results of an election. Iran's democracy is far from perfect; the US' democracy is far from perfect. But, as Winston Churchill famously said, even a messy democracy is better than the alternatives. If you insist that an election be thrown out, without actually showing any evidence of fraud, cannot ANY candidate, in ANY future election, fairly demand the very same thing? That future candidate might not be such a nice person as Mousavi – very often, those who dismiss the results of an election are not nice guys. If Ahmadinejad were the one now demanding this, for example, would your view be the same? Would you agree to a "do-over" election without requiring any actual evidence of fraud? Or would you first insist that Ahmadinejad show some evidence of fraud?

I can predict the argument of many: How can we prove fraud when all of the information is "created" by Ahmadinejad's supporters in the government? Those people should answer this question: Since the officially reported national vote count happened to match the sum of the locally-reported results from 45,692 polling stations, and since Mousavi observers were present all day at over 40,000 of those polling stations and each of them signed a form, after witnessing the vote count, to confirm that the vote count at that polling station was correctly reported, what basis do you have for insisting that fraud occurred? Why has none of those 40,000 Mousavi observers stepped forward to claim that the government reported an incorrect vote count for his polling station, or that he was deceived, or that he had lacked an adequate basis for approving the local vote count and now wishes to withdraw that approval? Why has none of those events occurred? Does the silence of Mousavi's election-day observers not strike you as significant?

Bottom line: if your support of the Green movement depends on your belief that the 2009 election was fair, then you have a very shaky basis indeed for your support of the Green movement because there is no credible evidence that the 2009 election was unfair. On the other hand, if your support of the Green movement does not depend on your belief that the 2009 election was fair, why keep insisting that it was? Doing so, frankly, makes you look to many (including me) like the sort of person who puts his hands over his ears and hums loudly so that he cannot hear what others are saying to him. Those few, such as I, who have actually looked at the election very closely have been unable to find any evidence - at all - that it was unfair.

Please read my article and then think about what I've said.

http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

> It would take me 15 minutes, at most, to write a story – whether on this election or on any one of hundreds of different subjects you might pick – that would appear to you to be “genuine both in language and argumentation.” <

Thank you for your kind proposal, but I suggest you to spend these precious 15 minutes to read at least one of those dozen articles about the rigged elections, published since June 13 instead, e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html

Obviously you are free to fabricate your appropriate "story" in 5, 10 or 15 minutes. Perhaps it will convince uninformed people, but certainly not informed EA readers, who discuss all these issues for more than 9 months.

You are also free to insult the memory of Neda Agha Soltan, Sohrab Aarabi, Ashkan Sohrabi, Kianush Asa and all other victims of your beloved IR: http://iranbodycount.blogspot.com/
I will neither forget nor forgive before their murderers are not sentenced.

I will also not forget hundreds of peaceful protesters, who are still languishing in Evin, Gohardasht, Urumiye, Tabriz, Sanandaj, Mashhad, Bushehr and other regime dungeons, but I am not the only one.

ma bishomarim

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

"You are also free to insult the memory of Neda Agha Soltan, Sohrab Aarabi, Ashkan Sohrabi, Kianush Asa and all other victims of your beloved IR: http://iranbodycount.blogspot.com/
I will neither forget nor forgive before their murderers are not sentenced."

Why do you suggest that I insult the memory of these people? I am simply asserting that the election appears to have been fair.

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

"Thank you for your kind proposal, but I suggest you to spend these precious 15 minutes to read at least one of those dozen articles about the rigged elections, published since June 13 instead, e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/20/AR2009062000004.html"

Actually, I've spent more hours than I care to admit analyzing the claims in the article you cite, and have had a spirited email exchange with the authors of that article. It's all covered in the section of my article entitled: "Complaint: Statistical Analysis Of Vote Counts Shows Fraud Occurred." I suggest you read that and then consider whether you find the article you cite quite as persuasive.

http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

"I am simply asserting that the election appears to have been fair."

1. You are free to assert whatever you want, but this is your private opinion. However you are not free to assert it on behalf of millions of Iranians, who took to the streets, protesting against the rigged election results. In your twisted logic millions of Iranians are obviously dumb or idiots, because Eric A. Brill says "the election appears to have been fair."

2. "the election appears to have been fair" is not equal to "the election has been fair". Do you see the difference?

3. As to your article, I am convinced that you have spent many hours to prove "the election appears to have been fair". Which brings us back to #1 and #2 ad infinitum...

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

Have you read my article?

[Eric A. Brill]

Megan,

PART 1 OF 2 PARTS.

Megan,

"You need named sources?"

I suggest this test for you: If this "unnamed high-ranking intelligence official" had said things harshly critical of the Green movement, would you have accepted the anonymous interviewee's words as truth without bothering to ask for confirmation? Simply because some article critical of the Greens, anonymously-sourced and entirely uncorroborated, is published in some newspaper, you would accept it as true and insist that others do as well?

"I also have another suggestion; perhaps you would be interested in contacting Britain’s Channel 4 to arrange an interview with the Basiji in this interview [link]."

I've read and watched that interview several times. See the reference to Hilsum in the Sources section of my article. In fact, that one story, above any other, was the source of this passage in my article, which I also quoted in a comment yesterday on this board:

"The few published reports of election-rigging activities have come from unnamed individuals, whose faces one never sees, recounting serious misconduct by unnamed individuals at unidentified places at unspecified times. Some reports are otherwise so detailed that one can scarcely imagine they could have been fabricated, but the vivid details invariably fail to include any information that would permit the story to be verified."

For anyone who hasn't watched that interview, I recommend it. Listen carefully to what the no-face, no-name interviewee (who's now living in London) describes, and ask yourself, in a quiet moment, whether you would accept his uncorroborated story if it were critical of the Greens. Ask yourself these questions, for example: Where did these horrible things happen? (He doesn't say.) Who did them? (He doesn't say.) Exactly when did this happen? (He doesn't say.) How could all of these horrible things (including gang rapes of many women) have happened in full view of dozens of people and yet no one but you has reported them? (He doesn't say – and please note: it is not sufficient to reply: "Other people have also claimed that gang rapes occurred." If this were good enough, then every claim of rape would be deemed corroborated merely because someone else had also made a claim of rape - even if no names, places, dates or other verifiable information of any kind were offered to support either claim.) Since you're anonymous and living in London, why can't you say, at least off the record, where these things happened and who did them? You say you worry about reprisals if you reveal details, but how would the bad guys know you were the discloser when it could just as easily have been one of the dozens or hundreds of other people who you say witnessed all this? (This obvious question was never asked.) How might someone go about corroborating any of claims? (This obvious question was never asked, and Channel 4 showed no apparent interest in trying to determine whether any of these horrible events actually happened – there was no follow-up at all.)

Would you really accept this if this interviewee had instead been criticizing the Greens? It's possible that every word this interviewee says is the gospel truth, but it is just as easy to conclude precisely the opposite. I don't believe or disbelieve stories such as his; I simply ignore them. If he or someone else comes forward with details, I would promptly reconsider.

[Eric A. Brill]

Megan,

PART 2 OF 2 PARTS.

"Islamic Republic constitution is the best named source. I suggest you get hold of it, read, and learn. Article 5 and Article 110, section 9 lays the foundation for legal electoral fraud."

I have the Iranian Constitution on my computer, with key words personally color-coded in 10 different colors. It's been there for years. I've read it several times. Every word.

I have no idea what you mean by Article 5 and, frankly, that Article is so general that, with all due respect and notwithstanding my general receptiveness to arguments, I'd rather not hear what your thinking is on Article 5.

As for Article 110, Section 9, I don't know whether you're talking about the Supreme Leader's duty to certify the results of a presidential election (please don't tell me that's your point: I've already argued that point with others, and remain unimpressed, to the point of boredom, with that argument) or, instead, the statement of the Guardian Council's authority to pre-approve presidential candidates. I'm guessing your point is the latter. In which case, I don't disagree. But how do you distinguish Mousavi from Ahmadinejad under that argument? If Mousavi had won, wouldn't your point be exactly the same? Would you have argued that Mousavi was not the legitimate leader of Iran? Why did Mousavi supporters begin raising this point only after the election was over and their candidate had lost?

I have some important basic questions for Green supporters:

Does your support of the Green movement depend on the 2009 election having been unfair? If it was fair, would the Green movement somehow fall apart? Or is the Green movement so fundamentally strong – its tenets so sound – that it doesn't matter whether the 2009 election was fair? I hope, for your sake, that it's the latter.

You might think I have my own answers to these questions, but I really don't. Hard as this may be to believe, I support many of the goals of the Green movement. But I'd never throw my support behind ANY movement that insisted on the truth of some important "fact" for which I could find no basis, especially if I were to find a great deal of evidence that seemed to point the other way. It would make me wonder whether other "facts" put forth by that movement were equally shaky, even if those other facts were in fact facts.

One should be very, very careful about challenging the results of an election. Iran's democracy is far from perfect; the US' democracy is far from perfect. But, as Winston Churchill famously said, even a messy democracy is better than the alternatives. If you insist that an election be thrown out, without actually showing any evidence of fraud, cannot ANY candidate, in ANY future election, fairly demand the very same thing? That future candidate might not be such a nice person as Mousavi – very often, those who dismiss the results of an election are not nice guys. If Ahmadinejad were the one now demanding this, for example, would your view be the same? Would you agree to a "do-over" election without requiring any actual evidence of fraud? Or would you first insist that Ahmadinejad show some evidence of fraud?

I can predict the argument of many: How can we prove fraud when all of the information is "created" by Ahmadinejad's supporters in the government? Those people should answer this question: Since the officially reported national vote count happened to match the sum of the locally-reported results from 45,692 polling stations, and since Mousavi observers were present all day at over 40,000 of those polling stations and each of them signed a form, after witnessing the vote count, to confirm that the vote count at that polling station was correctly reported, what basis do you have for insisting that fraud occurred? Why has none of those 40,000 Mousavi observers stepped forward to claim that the government reported an incorrect vote count for his polling station, or that he was deceived, or that he had lacked an adequate basis for approving the local vote count and now wishes to withdraw that approval? Why has none of those events occurred? Does the silence of Mousavi's election-day observers not strike you as significant?

Bottom line: if your support of the Green movement depends on your belief that the 2009 election was unfair, then you have a very shaky basis indeed for your support of the Green movement because there is no credible evidence that the 2009 election was unfair. On the other hand, if your support of the Green movement does not depend on your belief that the 2009 election was unfair, why keep insisting that it was? Doing so, frankly, makes you look to many (including me) like the sort of person who puts his hands over his ears and hums loudly so that he cannot hear what others are saying to him. Those few, such as I, who have actually looked at the election very closely have been unable to find any evidence - at all - that it was unfair.

Please read my article and then think about what I've said.

http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

Did you answer my question?

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

The only question I believe you've posed was this one:

"“The election appears to have been fair” is not equal to “the election has been fair”. Do you see the difference?"

Answer: Of course I see the difference.