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

[Eric A. Brill]

Gunni,

"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."

Ten percent of the votes were recounted - several thousand polling stations in several provinces. Rezai sent hundreds of observers, and video cameras recorded the recounts at each polling station. Mousavi was invited to send observers, but he declined. His position was that a recount should not occur - partial or full. He wanted a new election to be held.

The government promised before the recount that it would recount all votes if the 10% recount was significantly different from the original count. I understand there were some minor differences in the recount, but nothing material.

This is all common knowledge. I am not aware that any sentence I've written above is even disputed.

[WitteKr]

@Eric A. Brill
"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."

*My* sources tell me everybody expected a second round, between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. We seem to have forgotten there was total mood swing only a few days before the election, due to the TV debates which began on June 2nd. The campaigns of all candidates suddenly became extremely lively and the final turnout at the polls was exceptionally high. Iran had in those days become very politicized. In an atmosphere like that one would expect at least *some* reaction of the Ahmadinejad supporters...

As said before, I respect your work. I applaud you for taking the time to reply to all the remarks that are being made here. But I *still* feel uncomfortable with the outcome of the election. It just doesn't add up: the mood and the numbers.

[Barry]

OK - lots of words above.

I have an admission to make . I am not an academic nor a lawyer - I am a human being! Human beings do have emotions and intuitions. These things are not enforceable in a court of law - but they are nevertheless significant parts of a human beings experience.

I have a second admission to make. I am an old man. I have witnessed many evil political Regimes over the past 50 years - that should have been killed at birth. If they had been, the entire world would have been better for it. The Iranian Regime is one of these - and I still simply want to see it die. How this happens, I don't really care. What comes after it , I don't really know. But certainly it is not better re the "Devil we know rather than the Devil we don't"

I don't really care what position Eric is arguing - I simply want my wish above to come to fruition.

BTW - Eric and Ali, IF what you argue is true, that the election result was the outcome of a genuine desire for the Iranian people to retain their current Regime and all it's trappings - then I guess the argument that harsh sanctions should not be imposed on Iran because it will hurt the Iranian people is not valid. Having reconsidered your argument, perhaps the Iranian people are indeed supporters of the Regime and hence they need to be "attacked" in the same manner that the Regime is?

Barry

[Eric A. Brill]

Barry,

"Having reconsidered your argument, perhaps the Iranian people are indeed supporters of the Regime and hence they need to be "attacked" in the same manner that the Regime is?"

The first part of your sentence appears to be true, at least as of election day 2009. I disagree with the second part, though. I do not understand why anyone in Iran "needs" to be attacked.

As you concede, though, you're "a human being," and as such you're entitled to your "emotions" and "intuitions." Who can argue with that? If those "emotions" and "intuitions" tell you to attack other human beings, then you pretty much have to go with your feelings. If people stopped to think in such situations, after all, our children would probably run out of wars to study in school by the time they were 10 years old! And if the people you're attacking have "emotions" and "intuitions" that are different from yours, so what? That's not really the question, which instead is this: Do you have good reasons for attacking them? (Hah -just kidding you there, Barry! Here's the real question: Are their bombs bigger than yours?)

"I simply want to see it die. How this happens I don't really care."

Good for you. That attitude gives you considerable latitude, many options that some others would deny themselves. Clearly you value your freedom, and it's hard not to admire a man who places such a high value on freedom.

I've been at a loss to understand how so many EA supporters cling to their belief about the "stolen election" but can't even begin to explain their reasons. Your outburst has provided at least one man's answer: no reason at all - just blind hatred.

You deserve credit for being honest.

[gunni]

Eric A. Brill

If you really have experience to report about elections surely you know that you have to talk about the used standards .

1. What’s about the selection of candidates before?
2. Who was organizing the elections?
3. Did all the participating candidates have had equal chances?
4. At what time the election start?
5. At what time they finished?
6. Was it possible to everybody who wanted to provide his vote?
7. Who was counting the votes?
8. Who checks the counting of the votes?
9. How much time the vote counters need for their job?
10. What kind of techniques they used to count the votes?
11. At what time who was announcing the results of the election?
12. Was it possible for all of the attendees’ candidates to finish their
campaign?
13. Was it possible for all campaign bureaus to work freely without difficulties?
14. Was it possible for all the election observers to do their jobs?
15. Was it possible for the participants and observers of the election to
communicate freely during the election day?
16. Have you compared the results 2009 with the results of 2005?
17. What’s about the turnout 2009 and 2005 and the different impacts?

Just some questions - not no one of this question you have answered – what kind of specialist are you?

[Eric A. Brill]

Gunni,

"Just some questions – not no one of this question you have answered – what kind of specialist are you?"

Gunni, for the umpteenth time: Please read my article. It will answer a lot of your questions, and the sources I cite should answer the rest.

[Barry]

Eric

"just blind hatred"

No - no hatred at all. Just similar reasoning that led to the decision to destroy the German Nazi regime and the militaristic Japanese Regime in the 40's.

Barry

[Arshama]

Gunni,

Re your post #4

Thank you so much for your excellent questions!
But don't expect any answer. Such questions do not fit into Mr. Brill's restricted world picture. He will just continue with his mantra "Did you read my article?" ;-)

Best,
Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

"Such questions do not fit into Mr. Brill’s restricted world picture. He will just continue with his mantra 'Did you read my article?'"

Exactly. If you want answers to Gunni's questions, read my article and the many sources it cites. If you merely want to ask those questions but aren't interested in the answers, no need to read much of anything.

[Eric A. Brill]

Barry,

"No – no hatred at all. Just similar reasoning that led to the decision to destroy the German Nazi regime and the militaristic Japanese Regime in the 40’s."

Very convenient - all one must do is liken one's enemy to the Nazis and no further justification need be offered for bombing them! You may be the very first person, Barry, to conceive of this useful rhetorical tool. Why has no one thought of this until now?

[M.Ali]

Barry, so, basically, you want the country to be attacked, because of your gut feeling and the fact you feel like it may be like the Nazis?

So why even bring up the elections at all?

Arshama, Eric has handled most of those questions extremely well in his article. He's just point you guys to the right direction. I'm sure if he even sat and quoted from his article to answer each question, you guys would just ignore his answer and just say, "NEDA!!" or "HITLER!!!" and change the topic.

[Eric A. Brill]

“I simply want to see [the Iranian regime] die. How this happens I don’t really care.”

Who wrote this? John Bolton? Daniel Pipes? Max Boot? Alan Kuperman? Paul Wolfowitz? Dick Cheney?

Nope. EA's own Barry.

And why not? Practically speaking, most Greens strongly support American neo-cons on Iran, whether they intend to or not: Get rid of the Iranian "regime," violently if necessary, whether most people in Iran want that or not. Both groups share that goal, and both are passionate about it.

Most Greens would disclaim any affiliation with war-mongering US neo-cons, of course, and I've always presumed that most Greens honestly believe there is none. The neo-cons, for their part, are only too happy to confirm the utter absence of any connection. The support they receive from the Greens carries extra weight, after all, precisely because it comes from a group that most observers imagine is much different from the neo-conservatives.

Since many Greens are oblivious to their temporary alliance with neo-conservatives, and those who recognize the alliance imagine that the Greens control the relationship, few of them have devoted much thought to the inevitable parting of the ways once their common but narrow goal has been achieved. At least a few Greens undoubtedly have, though. They may well anticipate that their neo-con friends will simply climb back in the saddle, tip their cowboy hats in respect to their Green comrades, and ride quietly off into the sunset, satisfied that they've played their selfless part in liberating yet another Muslim land from Muslim oppression. After all, that's how it worked out in Afghanistan and Iraq – the new leaders in those countries can barely remember their American friends were ever there.

And that's how it worked out after the 1979 revolution in Iran as well. The Green equivalents, pre-revolution liberals, linked up temporarily with the Islamists (and others) just long enough to overthrow the Shah. When it came time to lay out the new ground rules, the liberals simply shoved aside their allies-of-convenience, the Khomeini crowd, and that is why the Iranian Constitution is entirely devoid of any reference to Islam.

That is how it worked out in all these places and times, isn't it?

Little reason, then, to expect it will be any different this time.

What's always been appealing to me about the Greens is the almost blank-slate freshness of their thinking on this. Few of them appear to understand that their US neo-con supporters couldn't care less about their noble goals. Green hearts are in the right place. That's how it's always seemed to me. But when I read something like what Barry has written, I wonder whether I'm the one who's been naïve about all this. Maybe there are in fact a lot of Barrys out there, men and women who have no qualms at all about being associated with the John Boltons, Daniel Pipes, Max Boot and Alan Kupermans of the world, who devote no thought to the inevitable parting of company because they see no need for that ever to occur: they have common goals with the neo-cons now, and the expect that will remain true indefinitely.

Is Barry unusual, or is he more "normal" among Greens than I'd imagined? Are there a lot of Greens out there who would write something like what Barry this:

“I simply want to see [the Iranian regime] die. How this happens I don’t really care.”

[Scott Lucas]

Eric,

I value highly the discussion that is taking place on the election --- I have my own thoughts but, because of need to update site, will hold back at this point.

I do feel, however, that your last post moves away from your normal precise expression and falls into the sweeping polemical denunciations that you normally do not like to see in critiques:

"Practically speaking, most Greens strongly support American neo-cons on Iran, whether they intend to or not: Get rid of the Iranian “regime,” violently if necessary, whether most people in Iran want that or not. Both groups share that goal, and both are passionate about it."

Read the statements of the opposition inside Iran, the declarations of Iranian supporters outside the country, or EA's own analyses, and I think you will find that is a far from accurate statement.

Best,

S.

[Arshama]

M. Ali,

"He’s just point you guys to the right direction."

I understand: ehdena serat al mostaqim ... to hell!
No, thank you, I prefer to climb the arduous path to truth instead of living on your pre-fabricated "realities"...

If you had a grain of conscience, you would never lend yourself to betraying your compatriots.

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

"Read the statements of the opposition inside Iran, the declarations of Iranian supporters outside the country, or EA’s own analyses, and I think you will find that is a far from accurate statement."

Scott,

Are the goals of the "opposition inside Iran" not to get rid of the Iranian "regime"? Do "the declarations of Iranian supporters outside the country" not call for the same thing? Does EA not call for the same thing? Is your objection only to my phrase "by violence if necessary"?

I expected you and others would find my observations objectionable, but are they incorrect?

[Scott Lucas]

Eric,

1. Mehdi Karroubi's latest statement: "The campaign is not against the [Islamic] republic. On the contrary, it is aimed at observing the constitution in which freedom of conscience and democracy has been clarified.”

2. Personally, I have never called for regime change. It is up to the Iranian people to determine their Government and system.

3. My own opinion about neo-conservative approaches to Iran was stated in an open letter to Charles Krauthammer at http://enduringamerica.com/2009/12/27/iran-the-false-us-friends-of-the-iranian-people-an-open-letter-to-charles-krauthammer/.

S.

[Barry]

Eric

You sound really familiar to me. There have been a number of Regime supporters here over the past 12 months. One thing they have in common in their use of the English language is their patently obvious contempt for the word, "greenies". You are a very accomplished wordsmith (as some of these others have also been), but you and they have not been good enough to disguise their anathema and contempt.

You are also clearly (at least to me) very Americano-centric, probably from the left side of politics, and your spleen can also be seen in your references to "Neo-cons".

I am neither a "greenie" nor a "neo-con". Where I live a "greenie " is either a kind of bird or a treehugger (of which I am neither) and the word"neo-con" is not very familiar to me at all. I have seen it used often - usually spitefully by those who are probably from the left side of American politics - but I am not sure of it's meaning (or the purpose of it's creation - being a relatively new expression.) I have noted however the manner of it's use.

Hence - although I am told you are a lawyer, you are in fact human and display human foibles - one of these being an inability to disguise your inner feelings. :)

You have told us what it is that is distasteful to you about the Iranian "greenies" - but what is it that you like about the Iranian Regime, that causes you to offer it such succour?

Barry

[M.Ali]

Barry, I use "greenie" only because I like the way it sounds. :) Its not meant as a negative word, it rolls better for me better than "Greens" or "People who advocate change through the Green Movement". In Farsi, I use the word "Sabzi"

Arshama, you said "you would never lend yourself to betraying your compatriots." I would argue that my concern is that my the unheard members of my compatriots are not pushed aside for the cause of the elites in Tehran. Iran is a huge country, unfortunately, only the voice of the very few in Tehran are heard. The reason the validity of the elections are important for me and has change my perception of the Green Movement, because I feared that my own selfish objectives were overshadowing the unheard millions in the villages and smaller cities. I have tried not to argue who is better, Mousavi or Ahmedinijad (obviously I initially assumed the former, because it was Mousavi who got my vote), because my preference for the candidate, in a post-election sceneria, should not affect my feelings towards the reality of the situation. I voted, but he lost, and if I decide to ignore the validity of the elections, whether it is similiar to level-minded people like you or rapid anti-everything IRA like Barry or Megan, it would mean it is THEN that I am betraying my compatriats. Because it is THEN that I am telling them, your voice does not matter because you don't have the media, you don't have the money, you don't have the blogs and networks and access to western news outlets and presence. At least, your "Where is My Vote?" signs have an impact due to those reasons, but if it was the other way around, his "Where Is My Vote?" in a small city outside Iran will recieve no attention. His sign will be read by no one and he'll retreat to his home, knowing once again, he's been betrayed by the Tehrani big wigs, like most of Iran's post and pre-revolution history.

[M.Ali]

The problem with the Green Movement is that its was a movement borne out of claiming the elections were invalid. Once we had strong proof that it was valid, it has been difficult for the GM to redefine itself.

A movement similiar to GM is needed in Iran, to challenge it and push it forward, but not the way it has been done. Calling for a valid election to be redone places a very bad precedant for Iran's future, turning it into countries like Pakistan & Thailand, where power keeps changing by force and assasinations.

While Mousavi's latest statement is good, I fear that it may be too late. It seems that he's now speaking from a position of weakness. If something like that had been structured from the beginning, a clear guideline and plan BEFORE the elections, then when they lost, they should have just pushed the movement forward, never clashing directly with the people in the government, but working alongside them, winning over people, making connections between the elites and people from around the world, so that not only would the GM have a positive impact on the country, but also allow them to have a better presence in future elections.

[Scott Lucas]

M. Ali,

With respect, the portrayal of the Green Movement as "borne out of claiming the elections were invalid" is far too narrow. It has been propelled by issues of rights and justice which preceded the election and were exacerbated by the post-election reactions of the Iranian Government and system. It encompasses and intersects with political, economic, legal, and social issues that are not confined to the events of 12 June 2009.

So even if there was "strong proof that [the election] was valid" --- which I do not accept, despite the articulate case put by Eric Brill --- reducing the Green Movement and indeed Iran's issues to that election does not confront the wider issues that have persisted far beyond the specific event.

S.

[M.Ali]

I acknowledge that I did not articulate my view well in this regard, and admit that you are right it did precede the elections. However, to try to phrase myself more clearly, I think what I'm trying to say is that it invested too much in trying to dispute the validity of the elections, which I think was a mistake because it changed from a social movement to just merely an opposition movement. The last few months have been an interesting few months, however the GM is now extremely weak.

[Bill]

Eric and All,

My use of the words "corrupt" and "unfairly" were my words and not Eric's. It stemmed from what I believed was Eric's acceptance of the selection processn for elections and an acknowledgement of the brutal crack down during our discourse at race for Iran(I have not gone back to read through all 540 posts again and doubt I will so I could have been wrong.) My mistake was using the words attributing them to Eric and then using them in context of the actual election process which was not my intention. My use of the words was a generalization for the entire state of affairs in Iran nothing more. Sorry Eric if I put words into your mouth I was simply stating I think you realize Iran is not the epitome of free democractic society.

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

M.Ali Post 37,

I happen to agree with you in general terms of how a minority can control or influence society. However I think your falling into the trap of the regime propogated storyline. The biggest indicator you are doing so is the mentioning of the alliance of "richest Mullahs" and "most of the western media & governments." I think this partly stems from prior outside influence(operation Ajax for example), but I believe you missed the following facts:

1) Prior events while a good indicator of future occurences does not gurantee it
2) The Western world along with Iran was caught by surprise over the unrest following the elections. If you remember the US really did not say much about it until months went by their focus has and sadly always will be the Nukes. Obama was actually silent for well over a month
3) The majority of the entire Iranian clergy along with every Grand Ayatollah came out in support of the greens. Yes I am sure some are rich but I would have to imagine many of the hardliners are well. After all these hardliners are wired into the IRGC and Bonyads which represent a huge portion of the Iranian economy. You might also want to ask why the regime over the years seems to promote younger clerics with a hardliner stance than the older higher statured ones? It would seem to me the regime realizes this is an issue and thus they are trying to purge the clergy to a degree as well
4) Yes Western media has focused on the unrest in Iran. So what? Do you not think it's news worthy to report on the unrest? Because Western media does not "black out" inconvenient events like the rapes, beatings, arrests of thousands, show trials, and diplomats defecting is no way an indication of an alliance with the Green Movement. I find it quite ironic that a regime that says it is so grand literally blacks out all the aforementioned topis as if it never happened. News flash in any free society the deaths, rapes, beatings, and arrests would be top news until solved yet in Iran they buried it saying it was some outside influence at fault

Sadly the items you listed are the regime bylines "It was everyone elses fault but our own." I am not discounting outside influence but the evidence clearly says the unrest in Iran was completely homegrown and frankly the major issue with the regime is that they refuse to see it. Thus the regime cannot grasp that the election was only the match for a bonfire waiting to be ignited after 30 years of oppression. Maybe one day you'll realize why the general populace of the West fixates on this issue as it does--it's because we care and it reminds us of our ancestors who fought to attain freedom we often take for granted today. We simply want to see you have the same freedom and rights we enjoy everyday.

Thx
Bill

[Bill]

Eric A. Brill,

I happen to agree with Scott and if you remember I voiced a similar concern with this type of position you had in the opening of your document. I have spent quite a bit of time on this site and like everyone else realized the Greens are not a monolithic movement. Nor are they specifically reaching out for the neocons. They are simply reaching out to anyone who will listen and frankly I don't think many even know the difference between the left and right in the US. One point that clearly debunks this issue is the fact most of the neocons myopically focus only on the Nukes. Yes they have made some overtures but the next day it’s back to the nukes baby!! I can't tell you how many readers on EA have chimed in on this strange event perplexed how the neocons could be so blind. You wrote a good argument but after reading the last post I am worried it is somewhat jaded due to your stance on perceived US influence. I would only encourage you to go back and catalog what the US actually did following the election. I think what you will find was an amazing quiet and blind indifference.

Couple of points:

1) Iranian constituion devoid pf any reference to Islam: "The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran advances the cultural, social, political, and economic institutions of Iranian society based on Islamic principles and norms, which represent an honest aspiration of the Islamic Ummah." In fact the word "Islamic" is used quite a bit and probably so because the basis of the document is Sharia

2) The liberal shoved aside the Khomeini crowd: Actually it was the other way around. The liberals were actually liquidated and figures run anywhere from 3,000 to as high as 20,000 killed. Ironically this is an example of Iranian neocons liquidating the left and maybe this was your round about point

Thx
Bill

[M.Ali]

2) I never said the protests were pre-planned. Everyone was caught off-gaurd, however, certain players used it as an opportunity to furthur their agenda. Although, I would not be surprised, if THERE were some forecasting of the same by the reformists. For example, a question to be asked, is why did Mousavi declare himself to be the winner before the official declaration?

3)This is very important point you make. First of all, I'd like to say, that you get mainly one view from EA, I'm sorry to say, either reports of "bad" clerics saying harsh things (these are pro-IRI) or "good" clerics defending the people and the gov being against them, so you get a picture slowly of good, religious people being against the system.
However, the second point I'd like to make is more interesting. It's noteworthy to see that,due to a clever change in perspective and the view the Greens report through websites, the same people who would call the akhonds corrupt have suddenly seem to find in them an ally, a sort of pre-revolution pact. Such short memories.

But what certain Green supporters do not seem to be aware of is that THIS is the exact reason why Ahmedinijad has such strong backup among major members of the population. He is the first one that does not seem to be, at least in their eyes, to be part of the mafia of older clerics, whether this is true or not of him, at least his humble demeanor clashed against big wigs like Rafsanjani, makes Ahmedinijad more attractive

4) The media reports it in a way that distorts the reality. The western media has always being extremely anti-Iran and claims of it being a free press does not change the reality of the huge bias. I remember a few years back, there was a media uproar on how the Iranian parliament was going to make jews wear badges. A few days later (after it was in every news with western politicians even going as far as verbally attacking Iran) it was found that the news was fully false and the news came from an opposition figure in US. But the damage was already done, as no newspaper or media run huge stories backtracking it or had major politicians apologizing.

Or take Ahmedinijad's "wipe Israel off the map". Mis-reported and changed completely from the meaning he meant, until know, it has been so widely reported that it has been accepted for people that Ahminijad clearly threatend to destroy Israel.

I can understand Iran's reluctance in being careful with the media, because Iran is faced with a huge barrage of anti-Iranian reports.

And a few months after the June election, there was a an incident in Guinea -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Guinea_protest

But where was the large media over that? Where were the Guinea icons and blog posts by westerns and speculations and sites supporting them and all that? I barely even heard of the incident and only came across it months after it happened.