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

[Barry]

Eric

As far as I understand, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany entirely legally and democratically. But that does not mean to say that he should not have later been opposed and deposed. Churchill was right - Democracy is the worst form of Government - except for all those others tried from time to time.

Was this election in Iran a fraud? Nobody knows or will ever know - however when it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. There is sufficient quacking coming out of Iran that opposition and deposition of the Iranian Regime is warranted. Those that think so should simply get on with the job - and leave the academic arguments up to people like you.

Barry

[Eric A. Brill]

Barry,

"Was this election in Iran a fraud? Nobody knows or will ever know - however when it waddles like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."

It doesn't waddle, look or quack like a duck. Just saying that doesn't make it so. Nor does saying "Nobody knows or will ever know" make that so. Preferring not to find out does not mean you cannot find out if you want to. My impression is that you don't want to.

Why not?

Read my article. It won't take that long. See what you think then.

http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/

[Eric A. Brill]

Barry,

"As far as I understand, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany entirely legally and democratically. But that does not mean to say that he should not have later been opposed and deposed."

Of course Hitler should have been opposed and deposed. Maybe I'm missing your point.

Hitler's opponents never felt the need to make baseless claims that he'd been undemocratically chosen. They had plenty of other very good reasons to oppose him.

So why do you feel the need to make baseless claims that Ahmadinejad was undemocratically chosen? Don't you have plenty of other very good reasons to oppose him? If so, why not rely on those other very good reasons?

Is it possible that the Greens weaken their case by relying on a baseless "stolen election" claim? Might its audience discount other Green arguments that are valid?

Many Iranians argue just that. They expected Mousavi's supporters would come forward with evidence to back up their "stolen election" claims. That never happened. Now many Iranians don't pay much attention to what the Greens have to say. Maybe they should, but they don't.

So maybe you'd be better off just dropping the baseless "stolen election" claim and sticking with claims that you can back up. Maybe you'll persuade more Iranians to support you.

[Barry]

Eric

Have you ever been done, taken, dudded, fiddled?? Perhaps you went to a bar sometime - and when you got back to your table after paying for a round of drinks, you suddenly suspected/realized that you had been overcharged. You think - perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps I didn't have as much money as I thought I had? Perhaps the bar person inadvertently gave me less change from my $50 note?? Or perhaps I've been downright diddled????

You can't prove it - but you work it all through your mind. And your final thought is that YES, I am certain that I have been dudded.

From the moment that Khamenei said that Ahmadinejad was "closer to him", the Iranians knew that they had been sold a mongrel dog!!!

Go back to your academic arguments - the Iranian Greenies know!!

BTW - there have been in the past Holocaust deniers who claim that the Holocaust can't be "proven". Tell that to the Jews who were there.

Barry

[M.Ali]

Like always, good, logical arguments does not seem to convince the rapid, emotional response of the Greens. The latter either resorts to sentimental argument (Neda! Neda!), random attacks (Basijis are meanies!), or wishful thinking (the army will back the greens! This unsourced document says so!).

But I think the worse part of it is the constant changing the argument. For example, if greenie can't argue well the election was a fraud, they quickly change the topic to saying, "well, who cares if it was fair or not! Even HITLER was elected fairly!"

My respetc for the GM falls everytime I see they are unable to argue logically. Such an emotional mindset is dangerous for the future of Iran. At least, the IRI is the devil I know, rather than a movement that is easily swayed by the media, unsourced blogs, sees only in black and white, and does not seem to be concerned about the democractic movement AT ALL.

[Barry]

M Ali

I assume that amongst all of the good, logical arguments you are referring to would include this one??

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/relationships/man-woman/Extramarital-sex-causes-earthquakes/articleshow/5835086.cms

Barry

[Bill]

Arshama,

"we had to save the system" actually echos what Mohsen Rezai said "The political, social and security situation has entered a sensitive and decisive phase, which is more important than the election" when he withdrew his complaints. To me this clearly says all realize it was a selection and to further debate the issue was only going to threaten the system. Sorry but in my humble opinion that clearly says this whole affair was not a true free and fair election.

Thx
Bill

[Megan]

Eric A. Brill,

I will answer all of your questions and points made in your two posts addressed to me. I, however, need to first know what makes you an authority on Iranian affairs and Islamic Republic. Who are you? Have you been to Iran? Have you lived in Iran?

Just so you know I, like many, am not a Mousavi Green. Green for many like me means dissolution of Islamic Republic. I see Amadinejad and Mousavi as two peas in a pod. I consider both reformists and principlists as two mafia families fighting for dominance. I consider Khomeini, Khamenei and all of his men as a bunch of village idiots who have occupied and looted Iran and slaughtered its citizens. I consider Islamic Republic Constitution a waste of ink and paper. I consider all supporters and promoters of Islamic Republic, foreign or domestic, as IR partners in crime.

It is one thing to have Islamic Republic constitution on your PC and it is another thing to live it.

[Bill]

Everyone,

Eric has a valid point and one no one has been able to answer--"was the election fair by Iranian standards despite it was a selection?" I don't think Eric is debating if the regime is corrupt or wrong, which he has acknowledge, but is simply asking a objective question. However having said that I do think the burden of proof has been unfairly foisted on the Green Movement. I say that simply because they have not been allowed but in fact have been obstructed from trying to prove it out. The actions of the regime post election clearly demonstrate the lie they are propogating. If 62% were really in favor of the regime why in the world would the regime have to turn Iran into a police state to "protect the system." While the arguement is anything but scientific it clearly demonstrates they know the people realize something isn't right. Simply put their actions post election are for any forensic analyst clear proof they are guilty because they are acting guilty. The difference here is they can not be called out on it because they hold the power thus it makes it impossible to prove any case. The crux of the issue is only one party truly gets to set the stage to present their case while the other largely cannot.

Thx
Bill

[M.Ali]

Barry, this is what I'm talking about. You guys change the subject by throwing it unrelated things.

The things the cleric said has nothing to do with the validity, outcome, or the process of the election. There have been many things said by many other religious persons around the world which you might find silly, but it is only with Iran that the media jumps on it with glee.

Religious Cleric Makes Unscientific Claim, stop the presses, first time ever.

But what has this got to do with the elections?

[Bill]

Eric,

I happen to agree with you on the source but in all sincerity do you honestly expect anyone to attach their face to it. How is the world can you expect anyone to come forward knowing it could mean their death or the death of their families? Sometimes I think us Westerners don't get it because we tend to not realize the gravity of the issue due the fact we simply have never had to deal with it. I even ran into this issue myself trying to get information. My best friend here stateside actually has a contact in the government. Early on we did get information that I posted on CNN I-Report. CNN actually contacted me to do a feature article but my friend backed down when her very family was paid a visit and detained. This friend backed down stating it was "life or death" situation. This has not completely stopped this person and at my behest after reading your article an attempt was made again. A call was made and 30 seconds into it was dropped. Nothing was given away but was informed another attempt would not be made again because it showed the regime was listening in. My whole point is that, while I understand your arguement, it is proving almost impossible to answer it simply because we cannot get at the facts. Until then all we have is the "facts" released by the regime and the analysis of those clearly says the regime won fair! By the way I still working on my responses but I hope you understand it is proving quite a difficult endeavor.

Thx
Bill

[Megan]

Bill,

You just proved Eric does not have a valid point.

If Eric accepts the system is corrupt, why on earth does he believe the same corrupt system will not commit fraud in its election? Is that oxymoron?

[M.Ali]

Bill, a majority is not needed to disrubt the stability of a government system if malicious agents are involved. In a lot of countries, a select elite can use a certain percentage of the population, through various means of influence, to help disrupt the governmental system. It has happened in Asia a lot during the last few years, governments constantly changing because of the political plays of a select few that influence the mob to alter the directions of the government.

First of all, Iran's post election actions, is not directly correlated to the validity of the elections.

If anything, I'd say the validity of the outcome, specially in Iran's situation, encourages the government to be more strict. Imagine for a second that the elections were without any major fraud (which I believe to me), suddenly the losing side harshly attacks the system, with the support of some of the richest Mulla clerics backing the opposition combined with most of the western media & governments. How would this make the winning side feel? Already Iran has the Shia-victim mentality, this only increases it.

[M.Ali]

Also Barry, regarding Natural Disastors:

Christian View - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies#Remarks_about_2010_Haiti_Earthquake

Jewish View -
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/rabbis-warn-gays-in-military-may-cause-natural-disasters

[Bill]

Megan,

And you have wisely caught my point!!! :) However I don't think I have seen Eric use the word corrupt(my word) I think he does realize it is not truly "fair." While I understand Eric's question and have made attempts to answer it I am at a loss to explain it form any other angle that what is offered by the regime. I even wrote a psuedo rebuttal to Eric's document(going back and forth via email) that basically tried to make the same point you caught that it was sort of a lost cause tyring to prove it out. Its a lose cause because it's a staged crime scene in which only one conclusion is possible thus the crux of the issue proving it out otherwise. Alas for the effort Eric put into his doc and answering mine I will keep trying. Maybe one day well get to the bottom of this but hopefully before the regime gets a chance to beat, kill, rape, and torture anymore brave Iranians.

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

Arshama,
First Eric said: "I am simply asserting that the election appears to have been fair".

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

His answer: "Of course I see the difference".

Arshama, Eric is a lawyer, which means although he naturally has an interest in establishing truth, when that proves impossible, then next best thing is to establish reasonable doubt. He doesn't have access himself to evidentiary proof (in Iran) to conclude "The election was fair", let alone "The election was fair beyond a shadow of a doubt", so he invests his considerable talents in the next best thing: “The election appears to have been fair”.

[WitteKr]

Respect, Eric A. Brill! You have captured all articles, links I assembled over the months and put them into one logical, long, article that leads up to the conclusion "The election appears to have been fair". http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/
Thank you for all your work. Reading took a long time, but writing much longer I suspect :-)

I think we all agree here, that Iran has changed (shortly) before, during and after the election. To me, I'm getting a bit older, it felt like Spring in Czechoslovakia (1968). I saw a country slowly wake up from a 31 year (and maybe even older) nightmare. I felt happy for all those people who spontaneously came up to talk to me when I visited the country - my Northern European looks and blond hair sticking out under my scarf gave me away - and offered me their grievances on the way their country was run, unsolicited, two years ago.

I, as many others, have a keen interest in what happens next. Some because they have to live the life in Iran as IRI seems fit. Some because they feel Iran's political moves jeopardize their safety, nuclear threat et al. And some because of everything in between.

Some can look at it from a distance, with an academic or scientific view. Some can only see with their emotions, with their heart. We all meet here...

The election process had me puzzled too. I'm a journalist - and a democrat. I would like to know the truth. But I have come to the point where I gave up, for now. Under the present circumstances we will not know the truth about what really happened. But we will, some day.

To me the most puzzling outcome of the election will remain this: the absence of a spontaneous celebration in the streets by Ahmadinejad supporters after it was reported that he had won by a landslide...
As if they didn't believe it either.

[Arshama]

Catherine,

First of all, Eric did not answer my question, but put a question instead (very typical). Secondly, you say he is a lawyer, while he focusses on statistics, hmm...
In any case my critique was a reply to him mocking himself about my cautious remarks. Contrary to people like Eric A. Brill I do not pretend to know the whole truth or to know it better than everyone else.

I have a PDF list of detailed election data (27 p. in Persian), citing voting districts with more than 100% of votes, and a final report from the Mousavi camp (27 p. as well) reporting on massive government funding of voters, both of which are constantly ignored in this discussion. Why should I discuss this matter with him?

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

PART 1 OF 3:

None of the responders, other than Bill and WitteKr (thanks to those two), appears to have read my article. That does surprise me a bit, and disappoint me. It strikes me that the people writing on this board are bright and educated enough that they should not simply refuse to consider what the other side has to say. I'll nevertheless respond to a few major points.

Megan and Bill,

Megan writes:

"Bill,
 You just proved Eric does not have a valid point. 
If Eric accepts the system is corrupt, why on earth does he believe the same corrupt system will not commit fraud in its election? Is that [an] oxymoron?"

I assume your comment is based on this statement from Bill: "I don’t think Eric is debating if the regime is corrupt or wrong, which he has acknowledged."

If that's the basis for what you wrote, Megan, the explanation is simple. I never said I believe the Iranian government is "corrupt" or "wrong." I'm not sure that you interpreted Bill's statement correctly, but I'll leave it to Bill to explain what he meant. I will charitably say that I think Bill meant only that I've acknowledged I'm not "debating [whether] the regime is corrupt or wrong," which is correct; I'm not debating that. I don't think he meant to say I was acknowledging that the government is "corrupt" or "wrong." Again, though, I must leave it to Bill to clarify what he meant.

I expressed no opinion on whether the government was or is honest or corrupt, right or wrong, credible or not credible. I examined the election without making any favorable assumption about the government. What I found persuasive was this: Whether or not the government was telling the truth about the vote count, it was at least saying the same thing that 40,000 Mousavi observers were saying. (See my April 23, 22:13 post, at the paragraph beginning with "I can predict…"). That's what you all need to address, but appear to be avoiding like the plague.

Bill,

Elsewhere, you wrote: "I think Eric does realize it is not truly 'fair.'"

This statement about what I believe is a little less ambiguous, Bill, than what I discussed above. I never said anything like this. You might consider simply correcting yourself on this one.

Megan,

"I, however, need to first know what makes you an authority on Iranian affairs and Islamic Republic. Who are you?"

I'm an American lawyer. I never have claimed or would claim to be an expert on Iran. I just collected certain facts, analyzed them, drew conclusions when the facts supported them, and pointed to (a large number of) conclusions drawn by others for which I found no support in the facts. Analysis stands or falls on its own merits, unless the analyst insists that his audience accept his opinions merely because they come from him. I've never done that.

There's no point in attacking the messenger. Sometimes the temptation to do so can be nearly irresistible if one can think of no good responses to the facts or the arguments, but you should try to resist. Nobody worth convincing will place much weight on an ad hominem response.

Barry,

You suggest that I, or M. Ali, or perhaps others, have relied or might rely on quite a number of arguments or statements that none of us has made. I'll try to clear up a few.

1. I've never mentioned Neda, nor said anything to insult her memory, or the memory of anyone else, and would never do so. I am baffled and annoyed at your suggestion to the contrary.

2. You point out that Hitler was democratically chosen, and then note that I find no reason to conclude that Ahmadinejad was not democratically chosen. Did you mean that anyone who finds no evidence of fraud in the 2009 Iran election must think Hitler was a nice guy?

3. I've never mentioned the Holocaust at all, much less suggested that I don't believe it happened. Did you mean to say that someone who examines the 2009 Iran election and finds no evidence of fraud must be a Holocaust denier?

4. I don't believe that your link to an article on the alleged connection between pre-marital sex and earthquakes has much to do with a debate about an election in Iran (besides, I'm married). I gather you believe that my arguments about the election make about the same amount of sense as that one. If so, it should be easy for you to challenge my arguments. Why not do that? Let's talk about the 2009 Iran election and leave it to the geologists (or clerics) to explain why earthquakes occur.

5. Let me close this part with a question to each of you who has raised any of the above points: Are you a bit ashamed for having done so? If not, you should. It's beneath your dignity.

To several, on the argument that the pre-election exclusion of candidates made Ahmadinejad's election invalid:

Can any of you explain why this argument would not be equally applicable if Mousavi had won? Would you have claimed he was illegitimately elected? Did Mousavi complain about this before the election? If not, why do you suppose he didn't? Does it seem hypocritical to raise this only after the election is over and you've learned your preferred candidate did not win?

[Eric A. Brill]

PART 2 OF 3:

Barry,

"Have you ever been done, taken, dudded, fiddled? Perhaps you went to a bar sometime …You can’t prove it – but you work it all through your mind. And your final thought is that YES, I am certain that I have been dudded."

I understood even before you wrote this that you feel you've been "dudded," that you "can't prove it," but that "you're certain that [you] have been dudded." But why do you think your mere opinion counts as more than just a mere opinion? Maybe you're merely making the tired old "We'll never know the truth about this election" argument, which often finishes (as yours appears to here) with this unstated conclusion: "…and, therefore, one opinion is as good as any other except that my opinion is better than yours because I'm sure I'm right and you're wrong."

If that's all you're really saying with your "I feel dudded" point, let me ask this: You've come home from the bar you went to, correct? You're sober now – firmly resolved not to get "dudded" any more? If so, time to have a strong cup of coffee and put on your thinking cap. I've pointed to some facts that I find it hard to get around, and I think you will too: 40,000+ Mousavi observers coming up with the very same vote count number later reported by the Iranian government. That was very convincing to me. I could reach only one of two conclusions:

1. Possibility One: It's simply not true. Mousavi's observers did not agree. In fact, the government reported the wrong vote numbers for their polling stations. They signed the count-approval forms on election day for the same reason they're now afraid to come forward and point out the misreported count: they believe they or their families will be arrested, tortured and possibly even killed if they raise the point. They don't know why the dozen or so other observers at each of those 40,000+ polling stations also signed the count-approval forms on election day – you'll have to ask them. Probably they either feared for their lives too, or else they were all working for Ahmadinejad.

2. Possibility Two: Mousavi's 40,000+ observers have not complained about the vote counts reported at their 40,000+ polling stations because those counts were accurately reported.

After doing a vast amount of reading, thinking long and hard about it, and even applying a little common sense, Possibility Two ended up seeming much more likely to me. I asked myself, for example: How is it possible that thousands of demonstrators, faces uncovered, are courageous enough to march through the streets of Tehran chanting "Death to the Leader" and setting police cars on fire, assuming all the risks that inevitably brings with it, yet every single one of Mousavi's 40,000+ observers is so timid that not one of them will stand up and say even this: "Excuse me, pardon me for drawing attention to what I'm sure is just an inadvertent arithmetic error, but I couldn't help but notice that the reported vote count for Polling Station 123 in Shiraz was not quite the same number as I remember. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind looking into this. I've probably just overlooked something, or maybe I just wrote it down wrong, but I nonetheless thought I ought to bring it to your attention. If it's not too much trouble."

Somehow, I concluded that that probably wouldn't cause that observer to be arrested and hung by his thumbs. I may be wrong – perhaps the government does get more upset about that than it does about threats to the Leader's life, setting police cars on fire and throwing rocks through window of government buildings – but "I calls 'em as I sees 'em."

I suggest you read my article (and whatever else you want to read), do some thinking, apply some common sense, and see whether you reach the same conclusion. I'm confident you will – if you do all three things I recommend in the preceding sentence.

Bill writes: "… I do think the burden of proof has been unfairly foisted on the Green Movement."

Nobody's foisting any burden of proof on anyone, unless someone claims fraud. That's how it works with fraud claims: you don't get to just make them and then insist that the other side prove no fraud occurred. I think this age-old approach to fraud claims probably would make more sense to you if Mousavi had won and Ahmadinejad were now claiming fraud.

The government is essentially saying:

"We let 40,000+ Mousavi representatives watch what went on at 40,000+ polling stations on election day – before the polls opened, while they were open, and after they closed and we counted the votes. The observers Mousavi picked appeared to be smart, well-trained, careful people who knew what they were looking for. They watched the voting, they watched the vote count, and they signed the count-approval form. The numbers we later reported matched the sums of all those local vote counts. What more, exactly, do you want us to do here? We've made our case. It's your turn now. If you think fraud occurred, tell us why. Start by asking your 40,000+ election-day observers if they still feel the vote count was correct at their polling stations. If they agree with you, they've been surprisingly quiet about that."

[Eric A. Brill]

PART 3 OF 3:

Bill writes:

"The actions of the regime post election clearly demonstrate the lie they are propogating. If 62% were really in favor of the regime why in the world would the regime have to turn Iran into a police state to “protect the system.” While the argument is anything but scientific it clearly demonstrates they know the people realize something isn’t right. Simply put their actions post election are for any forensic analyst clear proof they are guilty because they are acting guilty."

One of two things is true: (1) the government used excessive force in dealing with some or all of the post-election protests; or (2) it didn't. Either way, what does that prove about the voting on election day? If Khatami's opponents in 2001 (when he won 78% of the vote) had taken to the streets, chanting "Death to Khatami" and "Death to the Leader," lighting buildings and police cars on fire and throwing rocks through the windows of government buildings, would you have argued that " for any forensic analyst [this is] clear proof they are guilty because they are acting guilty?" With all due respect, I am just short of amazed that you and others put so much weight on such an argument. There is nothing at all wrong in complaining about government brutality, whenever and wherever it might occur. That's a very important issue, but it's a separate issue from the election.

Finally, to WitteKr:

Thanks for taking the time to read my article. I certainly don't mean to suggest I know what's going on since the election. I don't. If I were over there, I might feel exactly the same way. I don't know. My one and only objective was to determine whether the election was fair, and I've found no reason to doubt that it was. That doesn't detract from whatever merit there may be in any other complaints that anyone may make. Whatever that merit may be, however, nothing gets added to that merit by insisting on a "stolen election" claim that can't be supported. One could argue that such insistence only weakens other, unrelated, arguments that are strong enough to stand on their own two feet

[Catherine]

@ M. Ali, post 38
OMG - Who knew?
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=talmud+homosexuality+earthquakes&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=3f73b7d243bf661
:-)

[Eric A. Brill]

Bill,

"By the way I still working on my responses [to your article] but I hope you understand it is proving quite a difficult endeavor."

I have no doubt it is. Good luck.

[gunni]

to WitteKr #41

“But I have come to the point where I gave up, for now. Under the present circumstances we will not know the truth about what really happened. But we will, some day.“

WitteKr – sometimes things are much easier. What would you do if somebody blames you that you have rigged an election? If you are responsible minded, righteous and veracious you would say: Okay – lets count it again – and you will get a result attested by trustfully witnesses.
But for obvious reasons this is not wished by the Regime –they are throwing everybody into dungeons who have good and proved arguments to call the Iranian elections rigged.
Knowing this it is consequently everybody’s duty to tell and to write down the truth – or not?

[Eric A. Brill]

WitteKr,

"To me the most puzzling outcome of the election will remain this: the absence of a spontaneous celebration in the streets by Ahmadinejad supporters after it was reported that he had won by a landslide…As if they didn’t believe it either."

Re-elected presidents rarely get the same spontaneous celebrations as newly elected presidents. That's especially true when their re-election was widely expected. According to my Iranian sources, most people in Iran had predicted Ahmadinejad would win. At most, his margin was a bit higher than expected.

Western analysts were surprised, largely because they got their information largely from people living in a few small areas in Iran, mostly in Tehran, and from Iranian expats in Western Europe and the US (where Mousavi outpolled Ahmadinejad 82% to 12%). If analysts had ventured out into the countryside a bit more, they might have reached different predictions. Or so my Iranian sources tell me.