Iran's Election: Reactions Around the World

After the purported re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the President of Iran, a selection of reactions both from inside Iran and from the rest of the world:

Mir Hossein Mousavi, Reformist Candidate:

“I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result... will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny.”

Mehdi Karroubi, Reformist Candidate:

“Evidently the results and the institution coming out of such a vote count is illegitimate and unacceptable.”

Mohsen Rezai, Conservative Candidate:

“It is obvious that the person who has been declared president following the legal procedures is the president of all Iranian people. I will support him in a bid to prevent any delays in the provision of services to the people.”

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader:

“The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday's competitors, must unanimously support and help him.”

Hamid Karzai, Afghan President:

“The selection of Dr Ahmadinejad with a definitive majority of the Iranian people's vote is a suitable selection for the continuous progress and welfare of the Iranian nation.”

Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli Foreign Minister:

“Given the continued Iranian policies, and particularly following the victory and continued rule of Ahmadinejad, the international community must continue to act in an uncompromising manner to stop Iran from going nuclear, stop its support for terror organisations and its undermining of Middle East stability.”

Amr Moussa, Arab League Secretary-General:

“We hope that the next term will witness progress on the relations between Iran and the Arab world and co-operation in establishing peace in the Middle East.”

Bashar Al-Assad, Syrian President:

Expressed "his faith that relations and co-operation will be reinforced between Syria and Iran."

Ali Al-Dabbagh, Iraqi Government Spokesman:

“Iraq will deal with any choice that is decided by the Iranian people. Iraq hopes to maintain friendly relations with Iran.”

Fawzi Salloukh, Lebanese Foreign Minister:

“We hope that the success of President Ahmadinejad in Iran will be in the service of peace and calmness in the Middle East.”

Fawzi Barhum, Hamas Spokesman:

“The results of the Iranian election are a victory for Iranian democracy, the Iranian people, the leaders and all parties and factions that participated.”

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State:

“We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran. But we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.”

EU Presidency:

“The presidency is concerned about alleged irregularities during the election process and post-election violence that broke out immediately after the release of the official election results on 13 June 2009. The presidency hopes that the outcome of the presidential elections will bring the opportunity to resume dialogue on the nuclear issue and clear up the Iranian position in this regard.”

French Foreign Ministry:

“We have noted the results of the presidential elections in Iran as announced by the Iranian authorities, which returned Mr Ahmadinejad for a second term as head of the Iranian government, and that they are contested by two of the candidates. We are continuing to follow the situation closely.”

Lawrance Cannon, Canadian Foreign Minister:

“Canada is deeply, deeply concerned by reports about voting irregularities in the Iranian election. We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces.”

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, German Foreign Minister:

“The violent actions of the security forces against demonstrators is not acceptable, nor is preventing peaceful protest. We will continue to monitor the situation on the ground very carefully.”

Afghanistan Magic: How to Turn Mass Killing Into Public-Relations Victory

Thomas Barnett, a Pentagon consultant who contributed to post-2001 fiascos with his creation of an "arc of instability", blogs with an apparently straight face about the Washington Post story, which we covered last Friday, that the US military had finally admitted "operational mistakes" in the killing of up to 150 civilians in western Afghanistan:

It is both amazing and a credit to our military that we can so swiftly (just a month) and so readily admit serious operational mistakes in the field.

Some people--most actually--read this story and see only the screw-up. But the correction is impressive, despite the mistake.

Afghan Airstrike Deaths: US Military Admits Errors

Earlier this week The New York Times carried a significant piece on last month's airstrikes in western Afghanistan, which seems to have slipped under the radar. Despite previous denials:

A military investigation has concluded that American personnel made significant errors in carrying out some of the airstrikes in western Afghanistan on May 4 that killed dozens of Afghan civilians, according to a senior American military official.

The official said the civilian death toll would probably have been reduced if American air crews and forces on the ground had followed strict rules devised to prevent civilian casualties. Had the rules been followed, at least some of the strikes by American warplanes against half a dozen targets over seven hours would have been aborted.

Later last month another NYT report on the strikes had "officials and human rights workers" calling them "the worst episode of civilian casualties in eight years of war in Afghanistan." The new report appears to contradict earlier claims by the US military, quoted in the May 14 Times article, that these estimates of civilian casualties were "far too high."

Two things stand out in all of this. Firstly, the US military has admitted to errors- in fact to rules not being followed- but only well after the event. As can be seen by the relatively light coverage of the new investigation, this amounts to a successful burying of the story on the military's part. Which brings me to the second significant point. The civilian deaths on May 4 did not result from just one tragically mistargeted missile. The airstrikes went on for seven hours, during which time rules were not followed. This week's Times report discusses, "the difficult, split-second decisions facing young officers in the heat of combat as they balance using lethal force to protect their troops under fire with detailed rules restricting the use of firepower to prevent civilian deaths," but offers no analysis of why these detailed rules were not followed, or why this calamity was allowed to go on for a whole night.