The Latest from Iran (22 June): Rumbling On

2130 GMT: The University Argument. Having started with this in the morning, I guess we should conclude this evening with the Parliament v. President fight over control of Islamic Azad University.

Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has criticised the pressure on Parliament, from demonstrations outside the Majlis to remarks in "hard-line" newspapers: "If the norms are observed in the criticism of (government) branches, it will be good and will promote the progress of that branch, but (this should) not (be done) with bad language,” Larijani told lawmakers.

NEW Iran’s Revolutionary Guard & the US: Oil Spills Are Thicker than Hostility?
NEW Iran: To Lead or to Follow? 4 Cartoons on Mousavi and the Greens
UPDATED Iran Special: EA Unfiltered by Authorities
Iran, One Year On: The Names of 107 Killed in Post-Election Violence
The Latest from Iran (21 June): Beyond Quiet Remembrance

Indirectly responding to stories, including an assertion by Iran's Attorney General, that the Parliament's bill on Islamic Azad could be set aside, Larijani said that what the lawmakers chose to ratify, if endorsed by the Guardian Council, would come into force and should be respected.

1915 GMT: The Energy Squeeze. Pakistan has backed  away from a deal with Iran to construct a gas pipeline because of impending US sanctions.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani told a press conference, “If the U.S. imposes sanctions, they will have international implications and Pakistan as a member of the international community will follow them.”

Tehran had announced the deal earlier this month, but President Obama's special envoy for Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke urged Pakistan to be wary of proceeding.

1900 GMT: Khatami's Back. Returning from a break (and the General McChrystal fiasco in Afghanistan), I find that former President Mohammad Khatami has made another pointed intervention, starting with the recent attacks on clerics and moving to a renewed call for civil rights:

Unfortunately today insults, lies and false accusations even against those who were allies of Imam Khomeini even before he came to the scene and after the Islamic Revolution were major figures of the revolution has become common and they are being accused of various kinds of accusation without being able to defend themselves.

When in the national-TV constantly false and biased issues are being mentioned (even if they were right, insults and cursing are wrong) is a catastrophe.”

Let the legitimate freedoms mentioned in the constitution exist and people will be the judge and this will solve many of the problems.

Many of the good individuals who have been arrested or are wanted should be able to come to the scene, the groups and parties should be able to restart their legal activities, we never want to confront the system although are being accuse unjustly to all sorts of accusations and those who are accusing us are causing the most damage to the system.

1310 GMT: Meanwhile in Parliament. Amidst the university dispute, this news --- significant, I think --- has received little notice: the Majlis has approved a bill postponing municipal elections for two years.

1300 GMT: The University Conflict Escalates. Fars News is claiming that, following this morning's Basij/student protest in front of the Parliament, the Majlis' bill asserting control over Islamic Azad University will be nullified.

Radio Farda, via Peyke Iran, reports that Iran's Attorney General, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, has written to the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani. The message? The Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution has the final say on the issue, effectively overruling any Parliament decision.

1020 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amnesty International has issued a call for "urgent action" over the detentions of Narges Mohammadi, the Deputy Head of the Center for Human Rights Defenders, and CHRD member and journalist Abdolreza Tajik.

Mohammadi, an associate of Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, was arrested late on 10 June at her home in Tehran. Up to 18 June, she had been permitted to make only one phone call to relatives.

Tajik was arrested on 12 June, after being summoned to the office of the Ministry of Intelligence in Tehran. He has been held incommunicado in his third detention since June 2009. (see UA 171/09 and updates).

1005 GMT: The University Argument. Well, well, Press TV has decided to cover an event inside Iran (see 0720 GMT). The website notes:

Hundreds of Iranian students have staged a demonstration in front of the Parliament in protest at a bill passed by lawmakers regarding the Islamic Azad University.

The bill allows the University to donate its property worth $200 billion dollars for public purposes. The government says the bill violates the articles of association of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution.

The body, chaired by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supervises the country's universities. The ongoing controversy between the government and the Azad University started after the government decided to take control of the university.

However, according to Khabar Online news service, Majlis members voted for the public endowment of the university's properties under the condition that the premises belong to the university's board of trustees.

0933 GMT: Remembering the Dead. Rah-e-Sabz profiles Moharram Chegini, "a worker killed for freedom and his vote" last June.

Meanwhile, the website worries that, as the trial of 1 civilian and 11 security forces over the Kahrizak Prison abuses concludes, the former Tehran Prosecutor General (and current Ahmadinejad advisor) Saeed Mortazavi will get away without punishment. It features the plea from the father of Mohammad Kamrani, one of those killed in the prison, that a film of the court proceedings be made public.

0930 GMT: The Warning Within. Mohsen Rezaei, former Presidential candidate and current Secretary of the Expediency Council, has warned that defaming revolutionary figures [a challenge to the opposition or a challenge to those who verbally attacked Seyed Hassan Khomeni?] brings grave consequences for the next 10 years.

0920 GMT: The Wider Parliament-President Conflict. What does this latest row mean? Here are a couple of clues. Ali Larijani, countering attacks on Parliament from outlets like Keyhan, has said that Government supporters are ruthless and "insurgent" (ghougha-salar).

From the reformist side, MP Mostafa Kavakebian asks, "Don't we have a Guardian Council in this country to cope with these people, accusing the Majlis?"

0915 GMT: But the Next Move on Universities Begins. Peyke Iran is reporting that Basij students, protesting the rejection of the President's proposal to take control of Islamic Azad University, have gathered in front of Parliament.

Rooz Online follows up on Ahmadinejad's immediate protest, cancelling a meeting with Ali Larijani, the head of Parliament, and Sadegh Larijani, the head of judiciary.

0850 GMT: Blocking Ahmadinejad's University Move. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has more on the battle between the President and the Parliament over control of Iran's Islamic Azad University.

Ahmadinejad was seeking to remove the current head of the university, which is closely linked to Hashemi Rafsanjani, and to change the members of the governing board. Mir Hussein Mousavi but was removed from the board this spring.

In a vote on Sunday, the legislators rejected the President's proposal.

0720 GMT: The Issues Within. Let's see: has Press TV, international flagship outlet of the Iranian state, noticed the political, economic, social, and religious discussions in the country? The current top 7 "Iran" stories from the Press website:

1. Iran Warns against Cargo Inspections
2. Bahrain Calls for Expanded Iran Ties
3. Larijani: Deep Mistrust in US-Iran Ties
4. "West Must Compensate for Rigi Crimes"
5. Iran "Keeps Watchful Eye on PG [Persian Gulf] Skies"
6. Iran Wants UNSC [United Nations Security Council] Held Accountable
7. IRGC Offers to Contain BP Oil Spill (see separate entry)

Answer: No.

0635 GMT: We've published two features to start the day.

There is a look at the cartoons reflecting and reflecting upon the relationship between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the Green Movement. And we've got a surprise --- it looks like oil has brought Revolutionary Guard friendship for the US.

0515 GMT: No dramatic developments on Monday but a far from quiet day, with manoeuvres and criticisms, especially within the "establishment". There was scrapping over the economy, corruption, control of the universities, the enforcement of hijab, budget discrepancies....

So what does today bring?

Comments

[eabrill]

Scott wrote:

"Next question: do voters in Iran flip a lever, punch out a "chad", or use a touch-screen or do they write the name of their preferred candidate?"

They write in a name.

[eabrill]

Scott,

"Yes, that is the suspicion [that the Interior Ministry just picked numbers out of the air]. Publish the Form 22s and it can be dispelled. Don't publish and suffer the doubts of legitimacy."

I understand. You suspect that the Form 22's will show different numbers than the Interior Ministry has reported for a polling station. But if they show the same numbers, you say this will "dispel" the doubt you now have.

Either the numbers will match up or they won't. Let's assume first that they match. Will that really satisfy you? Rarely have you shown such faith in the Interior Ministry's honesty. If I worked for the Interior Ministry and had indeed reported different numbers than appeared on the Form 22's, the thought would occur to me that it might be useful to make sure those numbers matched up before I scanned the Form 22's. But I'll take you at your word: matching numbers would satisfy you – though only if you read those matching numbers in PDFs that were scanned and published by the Interior Ministry. You would prefer not to examine any original Form 22's. OK. But I can tell you that very few people in your position would make this choice. Most would prefer to check the originals themselves.

Now let's assume the opposite: that the numbers don't match up and that the Interior Ministry decides to be honest about that this time – last year, it was dishonest and "picked numbers out of the air," but this year it's decided to be honest and confess its sins by publicizing its own fraud, thereby casting doubt on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's election and predictably making him very angry at the Interior Ministry and its employees.

However unlikely this prospect may seem to me, let's assume it occurs. What, exactly, would Mousavi have that he hasn't already had for the past year?

If the Interior Ministry's numbers don't match up with the Form 22's, isn't it highly likely that the Interior Ministry's numbers also don't match up with the numbers recorded by Mousavi's own observers more than a year ago? If that's the case, why wouldn't Mousavi have just said so a long time ago? Why would he wait a year, saying nothing despite having all of this political dynamite in his possession, letting people conclude he must have no evidence, and then rest his case on government forms that he has never before expressed the slightest interest in seeing, forms that the government has never given any indication it would refuse to show him promptly on request, forms he still expresses no interest in seeing in their original form?

Scott, this is getting a little tedious. It's really simple: if Mousavi has different numbers from what the Interior Ministry has reported, he should just say so. He doesn't need Form 22's to make his case, and a doctored Form 22 might weaken his case. Just point out a discrepancy and demand that the government explain it. For just one ballot box – any ballot box you choose. Better yet: examine the original Form 22 for that ballot box before Ahmadinejad's Interior Ministry henchmen decide to alter it because you have demanded that it be scanned and published.

It's that simple.

Mousavi looks very weak when he says nothing more than this: "We can't point to a single discrepancy between the government's numbers and what our 25,000 observers witnessed with their own eyeballs, but the government hasn't proved to our satisfaction that no such discrepancy exists."

And you look silly beating this dead horse. Very silly.

[Gunniy]

With this background the raid of Mousavis main campaign bureau make sense.

[Catherine]

Scott,
RE 1915 GMT: The Energy Squeeze. Pakistan has backed away from a deal with Iran to construct a gas pipeline because of impending US sanctions.

Shortly after that article was posted on Radio Zamaneh yesterday mid-afternoon, this appeared:
Pakistani PM ignores US warning on Iran gas deal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan" rel="nofollow">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_re_as...

[Catherine]

RE University Argument.

Here's the FT story and analysis (don't know if events have already overtaken what the FT reports):

Blow for Ahmadi-Nejad as key plan blocked

By Najmeh Bozorgmehr in Tehran

Published: June 23 2010 03:00 | Last updated: June 23 2010 03:00

Supporters of Iran's president demonstrated outside the country's parliament yesterday after MPs dealt Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad a severe blow by rejecting one of his key proposals.

The move to prevent Mr Ahmadi-Nejad from expanding his control over Azad University in Tehran was the latest sign of in-fighting within the fundamentalist camp that dominates the regime. "Shame on you, traitor MPs," the protesters chanted after the vote.

Azad University is one of the largest centres of education in Iran, with 1.5m students and assets worth tens of billions of dollars.

The institution is considered a stronghold of support for Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the former president and a key rival of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad. The government claims the reformist opposition had access to the university's resources during the presidential election campaign last year.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad had sought to install government appointees on the board of trustees of the university and prevent Mr Rafsanjani from transferring its assets to a religious foundation. But this plan was rejected by parliament by 134 votes to 72.

Ali Larijani, the speaker of parliament and another rival of the president, helped engineer Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, who has the final say on all significant policy decisions, chose not to intervene. Mr Larijani said the ayatollah had not expressed any specific view on the status of Azad University and the matter would now go before the powerful Guardian Council, which must approve parliament's decision.

Some analysts suspect parliament has received a green light from Ayatollah Khamenei to curb Mr Ahmadi-Nejad.

The supreme leader, who openly supported the president during last year's election and stood by him during the months of unrest that followed, has refrained from backing Mr Ahmadi-Nejad in his public speeches during the past few months.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's message has recently differed from that of his religious supporters. Last week, he warned police not to harass young Iranians whose dress may be held to break with Islamic teaching. His comments followed state-organised rallies in support of stricter enforcement of dress codes.

Some MPs have begun collecting signatures for a petition to summon Mr Ahmadi-Nejad over his comments on this issue. Analysts believe that if the regime ever decides to remove the president, it would probably be done through parliament.

"Parliament has been ready to impeach Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, but will do so only if the supreme leader gives a go-ahead," said a former senior official. In the past, however, Ayatollah Khamenei has made clear that he believes the president should stay in office.

[Catherine]

RE Eric's first post way, way up above: " I could not locate the thread at which Scott posted the comment referred to below, and so I thought it best to post it here for those who might be interested"

1. Eric - join Disqus and sign up for e-mail notifications
2. But, as we can see, there was only 1 person interested - maybe EA should create a special thread just for this subject: "(Byzantine disquisitions on whether the) Results of the 2009 Iranian Presidential Elections (were Rigged)" where Eric and "those who might be interested" can continue this discussion.

[SmileIran.Com]

Scott, has Mousavi asked for the Form 22s? In any of his statements, did he ever ask about them? Did he mention that he wanted to see them but he couldn't?

Instead of scanning 40,000+ forms, which by the way in no way would appease the Greens anyway, why not do this simple task:

Let Mousavi look at the box by box results (done for the first time in Iranian elections ever). He has his people compare the numbers on the box to the forms he has. Once he finds a discrepency, he can go, ah-ha! Then he scans the form he has, uploads them on his facebook or kalemah or whatever, and have the Raheh Sabz and EA and BBC and CNN have a field day with, finally, one concrete evidence!

[eabrill]

Scott,

http://SmileIran.com" rel="nofollow">SmileIran.com has it exactly right. It would be much easier that way.You continually ask for more and more disclosures in the hope that resistance to pointless effort will be interpreted as stonewalling. It's not: it's merely resistance to pointless effort, plain and simple.

Either there's something rotten out there or there's not, and Mousavi has for a year now had all the information he needs to figure out which it is. It's time he put up or shut up.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

OK, so on the first query --- where is the information from the Form 22s that could establish the legitimacy of the election? --- there is no meaningful response. In the absence of that information, you fall back on what the Guardian Council said was on the Form 22s. Only problem is that Mousavi does not accept that statement, Karroubi does not accept it, Rezaei (and his observers) do not accept it. Indeed, some "conservative/principlists" have doubts, which is why there have been calls to reform the electoral oversight mechanism.

Now, let's move on. Query 2: given that Iranian voters write the name of the candidate, rather than make an electronic choice that can be tallied instantly, how many ballots can a person count in an hour?

Scott

[ScottLucas11]

SmileIran,

Yes, Mousavi asked for a full recount, including the Form 22s. So did Karroubi. So, initially, did Rezaei.

Scott

[Baz]

Scottlucas

"given that Iranian voters write the name of the candidate, rather than make an electronic choice that can be tallied instantly, how many ballots can a person count in an hour?"

Eric Brill, if he is a gentleman, should call TOUCHE to you.

Barry

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE: "Now, let's move on. Query 2: given that Iranian voters write the name of the candidate, rather than make an electronic choice that can be tallied instantly, how many ballots can a person count in an hour?"

Scott,

Even a year after the election, very many casual observers are under the mistaken impression that all ballots were counted at the Interior Ministry headquarters in Tehran. In fact, no ballots were counted there. You might consider whether you owe your readers an apology here. You are misleading them, and I cannot help but wonder whether you know that. You are not a casual observer.

For those among your readers who honestly do not understand how votes were counted in this election, these excerpts from my article will be useful:

From article section entitled: "Complaint: There Were More Votes Than Voters in Some Areas:"

"The ballot box is not delivered to the Interior Ministry, even if a recount occurs. Many analysts mistakenly believed that the 45,692 ballot boxes in the 2009 election were to be physically transported to Tehran for counting – under "police escort" in some accounts, sometimes with stop-overs at "local wards" and "provincial committees," and even with multiple observers along for the ride. Some analysts even considered it evidence of fraud that Mousavi observers had been barred from riding along on these imaginary journeys to Tehran."

From article section entitled: " Complaint: The Announcement of Ahmadinejad's Victory Was Suspiciously Premature:"

"The Interior Ministry's job was not to count ballots (see above), but rather to tabulate the field counts reported by 45,692 polling stations, a far less time-consuming task. The field counts certainly could have been completed well before the morning announcement, and routinely had been in previous elections. After all, election-evening field counts were conducted simultaneously at 45,692 polling stations across Iran, in nearly all cases under the watchful eyes of opposition observers."

At this point, Scott, it's appropriate that such statements be made only by those who really do know very little about the vote-counting process. I do not believe you are in that category.

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE TO SMILEIRAN: "Yes, Mousavi asked for a full recount, including the Form 22s."

My recollection, backed up by a lot of subsequent reading, is much different on both points. Mousavi very early suggested he'd like a full recount, but dropped that idea like a hot potato within minutes or hours. On its own initiative, the Guardian Council declared that a 10% recount would be held, and that a full recount would be held if a material discrepancy should appear in the partial recount (which did not occur). Mousavi very quickly stopped participating in meetings held by the Guardian Council to arrange the recount, and he sent not a single observer to watch it, despite several invitations to do so. The same was true for Karroubi. Rezai, by contrast, sent hundreds of observers.

My recollection, Scott, is that Mousavi demanded a nullification of the election. That is not the same thing as a recount. It means not recounting a single ballot, but rather nullifying every single ballot that has been cast. A recount is what Al Gore demanded in Florida in 2000. Al Gore did not demand that all votes in Florida be nullified and Floridians asked to vote a second time.

As for Mousavi requesting Form 22s, I'm not aware of that either.

Our recollections are much different on this. Can you point me and your other readers to some support for your recollection?

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE: "[You] fall back on what the Guardian Council said was on the Form 22s. Only problem is that Mousavi does not accept that statement, Karroubi does not accept it, Rezaei (and his observers) do not accept it. Indeed, some "conservative/principlists" have doubts, which is why there have been calls to reform the electoral oversight mechanism."

Scott,

The validity of an election does not depend on whether a losing candidate "accepts" the result. As I wrote in my article:

"A responsible government must establish fair election procedures and make it possible, without difficulty, for its citizens to verify that the procedures have been followed. If the government does not, a challenger may rightfully complain even if he has no concrete proof of electoral fraud. But if the government has satisfied this obligation, as Iran's government did in the 2009 election, the burden fairly shifts to those who allege fraud. They must examine the available information and specify improprieties so that their charges can be investigated."

I do not "fall back on what the Guardian Council said was on the Form 22s." What I "fall back on" is that the Guardian Council stated what was on all 45,692 Form 22's and that Mousavi has not contradicted that statement for even one of those 45,692 Form 22's. That is what I consider very important. I am surprised you do not.

By his own count, Mousavi had observers at 25,000 polling stations, and I think it's fair to assume that most or all of them wrote down the vote count. For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether any of them received a Form 22, or whether any of them signed a Form 22, or whether the Guardian Council later changed the number on the Form 22, or even whether any Form 22 ever existed. Even if the Guardian Council just made up numbers for every single one of the 45,692 polling stations, those numbers were still numbers that Mousavi could have compared (and, let's face it, did compare) to the vote counts recorded by his own observers. Not one of them has mentioned any discrepancy. How can one not find that significant?

Scott, it's time for you to move on. There certainly are issues on which your arguments must be stronger. I feel confident making that comparison without even needing to consider your argument on any other issue.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

1. You seem to have misunderstood my 2nd query: How many ballots, given that names are written rather than votes lodged electornically, can a single person count in an hour?

2. As for Query 1, your repeated repetition of your report and your diversions do not fill this key absence: the Form 22s have not published. They have probably been destroyed, so they will never be produced.

And, yes, all candidates except Ahmadinead asked for a full recount, which rested on production of the ballot boxes and the Form 22s. Mousavi and Karroubi also called at times for a nullification of the election.

Scott

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE: "1. You seem to have misunderstood my 2nd query: How many ballots, given that names are written rather than votes lodged electronically, can a single person count in an hour?"

It probably varied. But let's suppose a polling station has 2 election workers and 14 observers, 16 people total, sitting 8 on each side of a long table. One worker unfolds each ballot and hands it to the other worker, who reads the candidate's name and then slides the ballot face-up along the table so that every observer can confirm the announced name with his own eyes. Let's say this happens 5 times a minute, or 300 times an hour. Sound reasonable, even conservative? That works out to 13,707,600 votes counted per hour nationwide (45,692 x 300 = 13,707,600). Many low-population polling stations will finish in less than an hour. Others might take five or six hours. On average, just under three hours.

SCOTT WROTE: "2. As for Query 1, your repeated repetition of your report and your diversions do not fill this key absence: the Form 22s have not published. They have probably been destroyed, so they will never be produced."

Why speculate about whether they've been destroyed? Just ask to see some – which Mousavi has never done. Maybe Mousavi could start by asking some of his own observers. Election rules called for each observer to be given a copy of the Form 22, and not one of Mousavi's 25,000 observers has ever claimed he didn't receive one.

But let's suppose you're right – that all 45,692 Form 22's have been destroyed. Better yet, let's suppose that not one of them ever even existed – that not one of Mousavi's 25,000 observers received his copy but all of them forgot to mention this and not one of Mousavi's staff people thought to ask. However absurd this assumption may be, let's suppose it's true. So what? Didn't any of Mousavi's observers write down the vote count at his polling station? If even one of them did, suggest he compare it to the Interior Ministry's vote count. Won't you be surprised if the number written down by Mousavi's observer matches the number "picked out of the air" by the Interior Ministry? For every ballot box you compare? I would be utterly amazed – enough to consider that the Interior Ministry's numbers might not have been "picked out of the air" after all.

SCOTT WROTE: "And, yes, all candidates except Ahmadinejad asked for a full recount, which rested on production of the ballot boxes and the Form 22s. Mousavi and Karroubi also called at times for a nullification of the election."

Simply saying, again, that Mousavi asked for a "full recount" doesn't make it any more true than when you said it the first time. Though Mousavi initially said he would demand a recount, he quickly dropped this request and thereafter refused to participate in any recount, partial or full. If he had wanted every single ballot box to be recounted, why did he not send a single observer to watch when the first several thousand ballot boxes were recounted? Only Rezai sent observers (hundreds of them); neither Mousavi nor Karroubi sent even one.

None of what I am claiming here is in dispute. Can you point to an article, report or any other writing that backs you up on this?

[Catherine]

And the RUMBLING goes on! :-)
I am so happy you're keeping it to one thread.

[ScottLucas11]

Re your speculation on Query 2:

1. What time did polls close in Iran?
2. What time were the first results returned to Tehran?
3. What time did state television begin announcing the first "confirmed" results?

Scott

[ScottLucas11]

The Form 22s were destroyed on orders of the Ministry of Interior in August/September 2009. So you are left with your assertion, "the absence of evidence (for legitimacy) is not evidence of absence (of legitimacy)".

Assertion, not proof.

The narrative on Mousavi, Karroubi, Rezaei and their response to/negotiation of the outcome can be found on EA in the daily updates going back to June 2009.

Scott

[eabrill]

Catherine,

As I mentioned at the outset of this thread, I regret that I was unable to find the thread on EA where the election was discussed, and so posted my first comment on this thread. You might note, however, that the issue of the election was raised on EA by Scott, and that you and Guniy saw fit to post rather disrespectful comments about me and (in Guniy's case) even my name.

My very first comment followed -- not preceded -- all of these remarks.

Please think about.

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE: "Re your speculation on Query 2: 1. What time did polls close in Iran? 2. What time were the first results returned to Tehran? 3. What time did state television begin announcing the first "confirmed" results?""

Polls closed at various times, some as late as 2 AM, though my recollection (without reviewing my notes) is that most polls closed at about 8 PM – much later than usual to accommodate the record turnout. I have been told that, in some small villages, polls closed much earlier, because everyone in the village had already voted and so there was no reason not to start counting the votes.

My understanding is that Iran's official news agency projected Ahmadinejad's victory about one hour after most polls had closed, based on 5 million reported votes. At the reasonable (even leisurely) pace I estimated in my previous post, which you haven't challenged, over 13 million votes could have been counted in the first hour. It's worth noting, incidentally, that the Iran news agency's first announcement of Ahmadinejad's projected victory came after Mousavi's announcement of his "victory," which occurred before most of the polls had closed.

The initial announcement by Iran's news agency didn't "confirm" Ahmadinejad's victory. It merely announced that this appeared highly likely, since reports of 5 million votes counted so far showed Ahmadinejad had received 69% of them. Similar announcements have been issued by US TV networks for decades (though a bit more hesitantly since some of them guessed wrong about Florida in 2000). No "confirmed" victory was announced – by Iran's official news agency or anyone else – until several days later, though the Interior Ministry's "official" announcement of Ahmadinejad's victory came at about 5 AM on the morning after the election. That was about 9 hours after most polls had closed, roughly three times as long as was necessary to count every vote. Even that announcement turned out not to be "final," since the post-election challenges caused the Guardian Council to require a partial recount 8 days after the election.

[eabrill]

SCOTT WROTE: "The Form 22s were destroyed on orders of the Ministry of Interior in August/September 2009. So you are left with your assertion, "the absence of evidence (for legitimacy) is not evidence of absence (of legitimacy)". Assertion, not proof."

In your last post, you speculated that the Form 22's were "probably" destroyed. I see you've now "upgraded" that "probably" to "were." And you've even named a date – two months after the election. But just saying things over and over doesn't make them true, even when each rendition of the story gets better and better, more and more detailed. With all due respect, I think you're just making all this up as you go along, and I will continue to believe that until you take up my offer to point to some support for what you claim.

But let's suppose you're right -- that, in August/September, the Interior Ministry ordered all Form 22's to be destroyed. Was that 2-3 month period long enough for Mousavi to have asked to see the Form 22's if he was interested? Or should they be kept (along with all ballot boxes) for, say, several years, on the off-chance that Mousavi might not want to challenge the election right away but might change his mind several months or years down the road? And did the Interior Ministry's "destroy" order apply to the copies of Form 22's that had been given to Mousavi's 25,000 observers. Or were they allowed to keep their copies? Most important of all, so what if all Form 22's "were destroyed?" As I said in my earlier post, which I'll repeat here since you've ignored it so far, if Mousavi has a case to make, he doesn't need the Form 22's at all:

EABRILL WROTE: "But let's suppose you're right – that all 45,692 Form 22's have been destroyed. Better yet, let's suppose that not one of them ever even existed – that not one of Mousavi's 25,000 observers received his copy but all of them forgot to mention this and not one of Mousavi's staff people thought to ask. However absurd this assumption may be, let's suppose it's true. So what? Didn't any of Mousavi's observers write down the vote count at his polling station? If even one of them did, suggest he compare it to the Interior Ministry's vote count. Won't you be surprised if the number written down by Mousavi's observer matches the number "picked out of the air" by the Interior Ministry? For every ballot box you compare? I would be utterly amazed – enough to consider that the Interior Ministry's numbers might not have been "picked out of the air" after all."

[eabrill]

Scott, and others who dispute the election,

You ignore how dangerous is your baseless challenge to the 2009 election.

There is no question that Iranian democracy could be better, as could US democracy with its electoral college system and its heavy emphasis on a candidate's ability to raise vast sums of money. I cannot think of a single democracy that does not have flaws. Iran's system of pre-selecting candidates can fairly be criticized – but not by Mousavi or Karroubi, each of whom obviously made the cut and did not complain about this shortcoming of Iranian democracy until after the election. Do you suppose either of them would have complained if he had won?

Your arguments that massive attendance at post-election demonstrations, and the government's harsh treatment of protesters at those demonstrations, prove that Mousavi was really the winner remind me of entries from Joseph Goebbels' diary in the dying days of the Weimar Republic, when he would return home after a night of Nazi marches in the street, utterly convinced that the beatings and arrests of goose-stepping Nazi protesters by police and militia had weakened the government in the eyes of the German people.

Iran's election process indeed could be improved. But you make no contribution at all to that worthy objective by lodging complaints about elements of that process – voter identity verification, voting, vote-counting, and vote-reporting – that already work just fine but happened not to yield a victory for your preferred candidate this time. I suggest you simply accept that Mousavi lost, and focus on improving elements of the Iranian electoral process that really could use some improving.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

OK --- polls closed at 8 p.m. When did the first counts reach Tehran's Ministry of the Interior?

Scott

[ScottLucas11]

You are a perceptive man. I have double-checked with reliable sources: the Ministry of Interior ordered the destruction of the Form 22s in August, to be completed by September.

I have never seen any reference that indicates observers had copies of Form 22s.