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: "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."

As I've said in each of my two previous posts on the "destroyed" Form 22's, let's assume for the sake of argument that your unnamed reliable sources are entirely correct – all Form 22's were destroyed in August/September 2009. Let's assume further that not one of Mousavi's observers ever received a copy in the first place. Let's even assume that no Form 22 ever existed. How, then, do you respond to my argument based on these charitable assumptions, which I'll now present for the third time:

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

As I said in my previous post, polls closed at varying times, some as late as 2 AM, most around 8 PM (or so I recall, without examining my notes), others much earlier than 8 PM, as in small villages where everyone had voted and there was no reason not to start counting the votes. I don't know when the first counts were reported to the Interior Ministry. I'll venture a guess that they started coming in less than an hour after the first poll closings. If you examine the ballot-box reports, you'll see that many thousands of polling stations recorded only a few hundred votes, if that many. It doesn't take long to count a few hundred votes.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

The Iranian Government has the Revolutionary Guard, detention facilities, snap executions, a stranglehold on newspapers and filtering of the Internet, cyber-warriors, an array of media outlets....and we're the "danger"?

You crazy guy....

S.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

Well, according to Iran's police chief, the first results came into Tehran at 11 p.m.

State media reported at 11:30 a.m. that Ahmadinejad had 69% of 5 million votes cast.

Pretty impressive turn-around....

S.

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

How do I respond to your mantra, "Why didn't Mousavi and his observers do X, Y, and Z?"

Well, my response is that you interminably chant this because the evidence to establish the election's legitimacy is lacking and, if the Iranian regime can't produce it, you certainly can't.

But let me hand over to an Iranian analyst:

****Mr Brill asks, "If you really suspect that fraud occurred, why not suggest that Mousavi send the following email to his election-day observers, and then publicize the responses he receives…”

Whadayou, kidding me? Mousavi is daily accused of treason and subversion and all of his friends and allies (and even his bodyguard) are imprisoned and often coerced in show trials to incriminate themselves and a list of co-conspirators that includes Mousavi, the CIA, the Mosad and, last but not least, Max Weber. Do you really expect him to start a one-man investigation on the last year's election? And with what staff, what computers and what guarantee for his safety and that of anyone who responds to his email?

Immediately after the elections Mr. Mousavi and indeed the entire opposition did ask for the formation of an impartial body to conduct an investigation but this was rejected. The Guardian Council and Ahmadinejad’s Ministery of the Interior were tainted with flagrant expressions of support for the incumbent and accused of election fraud. Their vote counting (that Mr. Brill quotes) would not be acceptable to anyone involved in such an electoral challenge. The fox is not usually put in charge of counting how many chickens it hasn’t killed.

Would Brill’s one-man “email investigation” work in Florida’s disputed election of 2000 for instance? Imagine a situation where Gore would be isolated from his staff and office, where the only official news agency would be the Fox News and where the streets would be filled with Hell’s Angels and clubs wielding Michigan Militia beating Democratic protesters and sending them to concentration camps to be further beaten and raped.

This would be the situation where the entire “liberal” corps of reporters are fired and/or imprisoned and given heavy jail sentences. Would Mr. Brill then exhort Gore to calmly sit at his personal computer and email thousands of elections officials for information with no guarantees for his safety, their immunity and with no hopes that such an investigation would be allowed to continue? Would you still put “the burden of proof” on the besieged and beleaguered opposition rather than calling on due process and a properly institutionalized and impartial investigation?****

Scott

[eabrill]

Scott,

We've beaten this to death, and I'll rely on your readers to make their own judgments. My argument boils down to what I've said very clearly: Mousavi needs merely to pose the following question to his 25,000 observers, or at least to the one or two who aren't dead, in prison, or cowering in fear somewhere:

"Here's the vote count reported by the government for your polling station. Does this match your vote count?"

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

That's not an argument, in my opinion --- that's an abdication of responsibility in light of the issues surrounding not only the vote but the abuses of civil rights during and after the electoral process.

For the next time defenders of the Iran Government's legitimacy choose to mount a campaign that the election is above suspicion....

Query 3: Why did the Supreme Leader short-cut the legal process, which requires three days before the election is certified by the Guardian Council, and declare Ahmadinejad the victor on the morning after the vote?

Scott

[WitteKr]

Enough already, Eric Brill. Time to step in. You went overboard here!
Mousavi has NO position to simply 'MERELY' do anything.
Do not insult those that ARE dead, in prison on in fear of their life.

You are in serious denial of the present situation in Iran. You seem to be incapable to imagine what life is like in a country that does not have your constitution - or any form of 'safety' your constitution provides.

Scott, please don't change the title of your blog. EABrill has become my very definition of ENDURING America. (As have Obama, McChrystal and Petraeus, Gates, Clinton etc...)

[Gunniy]

@WitteKr

Thanks’ for your reply - I couldn’t say it better. The discussion above would be very quickly finished unveiling the election fraud if the people who are in jail now and hardly oppressed could say anything without fearing for their safety.

But thanks to Scott – when he asked for the form 22 - I think it was a question which leads to the right direction.

[eabrill]

Scott,

I certainly can understand why you chose to bow out early from the debate on the Race for Iran thread recently devoted to the 2009 election:

http://www.raceforiran.com/persistent-and-game-changing-myths-iran%E2%80%99s-2009-presidential-election-one-year-later#comments" rel="nofollow">http://www.raceforiran.com/persistent-and-game-...

[ScottLucas11]

Eric,

I'm sure you can :-). There was no new information or analysis with which to engage --- merely the authors of Race for Iran trying to claim some expertise on internal Iranian matters by grabbing the coattails of two months-old reports by their readers.

Scott

[eabrill]

Scott,

I have no doubt that was your reason.

[Bijan77]

Mr. Brill -

You have proven you have both a high level of knowledge on this subject and a strong opinion. Thank you for sharing, however, I humbly ask that this topic be put to rest. I am always curious to learn different perspectives however was unable to make it through all the posts as the dialogue became too much. Let us all focus our attention to what is important..the Iranian people who are risking life and safety for what they feel is righfully theirs.

Scott -

I humbly ask that you end this discussion as well so that, as we, frequent readers of this site and come here every day, can read your posts and analysis and to do our small part in supporting the green movement in Iran by educating ourselves to in turn educate others.

Regards,

[eabrill]

Bijan77,

Respectfully put by you, and I'll gladly comply.

[Catherine]

Hi Bijan,
I haven't followed the rest of this discussion since my last post here early yesterday, but I saw your post in the recent comments sidebar and just want to add my support to your request. I don't care if Eric has nothing better to do than repeat the same arguments ad nauseam here and on every blog, website and newspaper comments section where the subject of the 2009 Election comes up, but I do think Scott has made his points clearly and frequently enough so that he can in all good conscience stop spending his time refuting arguments made by someone who neither possesses nor can acquire trustworthy evidentiary proof to support his arguments. As Dave put it so well the other day, we read and contribute to this blog because of the top-notch analysis it provides on a range of issues and events. Scott's excellent contributions to these analyses and his effort to gather reliable information from inside sources and analyse it require much time and effort. Far be it from me to tell him how he should spend his time, but I personally would also be very grateful if this discussion, which has "interrupted regular service" on more than one occasion :-), can now finally come to an end.

[Bijan77]

Thank you sir.

[Bijan77]

Catherine -

There was a difference of opinion. Let's leave it at that. Please see Mr
Brill's response which was respectible.

Regards,

[ScottLucas11]

Fahad,

Personally, my queries over the election do not centre on the application of Benford's Law, although I have heard a persuasive explanation of the possibility: when certain officials (which ones?) decided to put out a manipulated result --- not necessarily before Election Day but on it or even after the polls had closed --- they asked computer science specialists to generate a set of results. (Those setting out this scenario point to other phenomena, such as the very low number of "spoiled ballots" in the official results.)

As my line of questioning to Mr Brill indicated, however, I am more interested in the gaps/tensions in how the election was conducted and then justified. In the end, I think this is a case where fraud cannot be proven but legitimacy cannot be established.

Scott

[ScottLucas11]

My deepest gratitude to readers both for their feedback and for their patience as this discussion was conducted.

Before setting this aside, a word of explanation as to why I engaged in another round with Mr Brill.

Personally, I believe that we are well beyond the 2009 election, in the narrow sense of "Where is My Vote?" The wider and ongoing importance is the deprivation of civil rights that connects the manipulation before and during the election with the repression after it.

Therefore, I had left the discussion of the intricacies of the election to others.

In recent weeks, however, I notice a concerted effort by those defending the Iranian Government to resurrect the studies "proving" the rightful conduct of the elections. In my opinion --- complementing that of Josh Shahryar in his analysis today --- that effort was both a diversion from the ongoing post-election conflict and an attempt, given the anniversary of 12 June/22 Khordad, to sweep it away.

Personally, I am unhappy with those who try to prop up the notion of the legitimacy of the Government in 2010 --- avoiding meaningful consideration of the last 12 months --- by invoking the legitimacy of 12 June 2009. (I must add that I do not consider Mr Brill to be one of those doing this; rather, those who carry out the diversion are using his report.)

So, with some regret, if Mr Brill's report is going to be used as a screen to rationalise and even exalt the Ahmadinejad Government, then that screen has to be whipped away, not only by pointing to the diversion but also by putting the probing objections to the supposed evidence of "legitimacy" of the election.

And with that, back to normal service....

Scott

[Fahad]

Scott,
As far as I remember I read the first time that the results might have been fixed before election day on this blog and I am quite sure it was you in response to one of Brill's lengthy comments. Those who had questioned the election have mentioned unconvincing, wak evidence, such as Benford's law, ethnical anomalies, more than 100% turnout, stuff like that. Also Brill, who might not have understood that no evidence of fraud doesn't mean evidence of no fraud, focuses on these things.

Well, if you and Sahimi now present vague indications (not convincing either) of a completely doctored result, every single number, of all 46000 ballot boxes, adding up to the district, province and total levels, that's remarkable. I have asked Safdari the same question but he has not even posted it as a comment.

Don't get me wrong, but if you decide to argue now (one year later) for a fixed election, in the presence of all ballot box results, you must provide more evidence. Otherwise the apologists will prevail. Computer scientists may have been involved, but I would suppose that that would have leaked.

[ScottLucas11]

Fahad,

"Might" have been fixed. Not "definitely" fixed.

That, I think, was my opinion in June 2009, and it still is today. To be definitive --- for either legitimacy or fraud --- we would need the original ballots (all the original ballots) and the Form 22s. In the absence of those, there might be testimony from those involved with the count.

We will never get the Form 22s and it is highly unlikely we will ever see the original ballots. In the current political climate, it is not possible that we will get reliable testimony from witnesses.

So my starting point is not that the election was "certain" but that it remains --- and will likely remain for years --- "uncertain".

Scott

[SmileIran.Com]

Scott, be assured that if you HAD scan of every single Form 22, you'd have just said they were doctored.

There is no absolutely no evidence the government could give that could satisfy you.

[ScottLucas11]

SmileIran,

Try me. Produce some semblance of original evidence beyond the Guardian Council's claimed enquiry.,

S.

[SmileIran.Com]

I cant imagine any "evidence" from the government that would somehow appease you. In an alternative universe, there is different reality where each form was scanned and published online. In that alternative reality, there is ScottLucas2 posting about how that evidence is doctored and photoshopped and fake.

[ScottLucas11]

SmileIran,

With respect, your lack of imagination is the least of my concerns....

S.