Friday
Jun252010
The Real Race for Iran: Human Rights v. Tehran's Defenders (Shahryar)
Friday, June 25, 2010 at 7:56 
Since Iran was thrust into internal turmoil by last year’s election, the world has been moved by events that unfolded during the protests of the Green Movement. As we watched the violence of the agents of the Iranian government against peaceful demonstrators, most of us thought that it would be impossible to defend the regime’s position amidst the bloodshed we witnessed on our TV screens.Not so. The Iranian Government, despite all the detentions, abuses, and unlawful killings since June 2009, still has support overseas in the guise of purportedly unbiased political analysts, none more vocal than that of the authors of Race for Iran, one a former CIA and National Security Council official, the other a former diplomat in the State Department.
Their solution to the human rights abuse issue? Pretend it is not relevant. Arrests, torture, rape, and the murder of protesters are set aside.
The testament to how far they can go in defending an indefensible position? Consider the lengthy response of RFI's authors to “Misreading Tehran”, a series of seven articles published on the Foreign Policy website.
In this article, the duo close their eyes to all other internal matter to declare that the 2009 Presidential election is legitimate, simply because the opposition has allegedly not provided any evidence to back up claims of fraud. Thus, the vote for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad must be free and fair.
If we were to accept this argument, then every election under Suharto in Indonesia was free and fair. Every election held in Islam Karimov’s Uzbekistan is free, as is every vote held in Cuba under Fidel Castro. Robert Mugabe is the rightful ruler of Zimbabwe. If stolen or "created" ballots cannot be exhibited, the result is not only legal but legitimate.
Under this "legitimate" Iranian Government, freedom of speech is severely curtailed. Newspapers are regularly banned; journalists regularly imprisoned. Candidates for elections are screened by the establishment, and only those passing the Guardian Council's ideological tests are allowed to run. There are hundreds –-- perhaps thousands –-- of political prisoners suffering in Iran’s jails. Under such harsh conditions, it is a distortion --- a dishonourable distortion --- to say that elections in Iran can be free, fair and honest.
If that were not enough, high-ranking clerics –-- from within Iran’s own establishment –-- came forward and decried the elections as fraudulent. Grand Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani was quoted, "Every healthy mind casts doubt on the way the election was held.” Ayatollah Jalaleddin Taheri called the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "illegitimate" and "tyrannical". Perhaps the most revered cleric after Khamenei, Grand Ayatollah Lotfullah Safi Golpayegani called the results “a grand lie”. Their voices were silenced by the media blackout, with Western journalists unaware of their clout within Iran’s government and society.
But to RFI's authors, it is beyond consideration that Iran's leadership is a brutal regime hell-bent on keeping itself in power. They dismiss that people from within Iran's establishment question the legitimacy of the election. To them, an inquiry can only be considered if the Green Movement takes up arms, fights the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, confiscates all the ballot boxes from the election through force of arms and then counts them somewhere in Europe in front of international media. Only then, will ‘healthy” minds accept fraud.
Yet there is a somewhat tortured twist in RFI's line, illustrated in the article in Foreign Policy. Having declared --- following the sudden execution of five Iranians on 9 May --- that the consideration of human rights was beyond their agenda, the authors resurrect two months-old "studies" of the 2009 election to establish that the political and civil rights of Iranians were respected and defended.
Doing so, they hold up a cracked mirror with RFI's reflection of post-election Iran: one of the purported reports on the election is by little-known "analysts" who have also suggested that Neda Agha Soltan, killed during the protests of 20 June 2009, was slain by agents of "the West":
It is inconceivable that an Islamic regime which understands the power of martyrdom in its own culture would sanction the cold-blooded murder of an innocent and ordinary young woman on the streets of Tehran.
However it is every bit conceivable that those who thought the opposition movement needed a symbol and icon of resistance – recipients and supporters no doubt of a $400m CIA-backed destabilization program for Iran - would have arranged this horrible murder and try and pin it on the Iranian authorities.)
If RFI's authors claim that rights have no place in their forum, why resurrect a long-surpassed and rather creaky case for a proper vote on 12 June 2009?
In part, it is a necessary tactic to support the authors' main objective, which is to promote US-Iran discussions on important regional and global issues. Putting forth that case requires the notion that President Ahmadinejad can be engaged because he has a legitimate position.
More importantly, though, the tactic is a deflection. The Green Movement and civil rights organisations inside Iran long ago moved beyond contesting the elections to the campaign for a political, social, economic, and religious system that upholds rather than abuses its citizens' rights. Mir Hossein Mousavi has released several statements in recent months emphasizing that the Green Movement needs to firm up its ties with the Iranian populace to spread the message of change and to ensure that the Islamic Republic fulfills the rights set out in its Constitution.
Iran's Government is unable to address these issues, but they are also unable to prevent their consideration. It has persisted in arresting people who protest brutality and human rights abuses, but the challenge continues. It has tried to penetrate the ranks of the Green Movement, but it cannot prevent activists from interacting with disgruntled Iranians who have been affected. It has pursued the alternative of proclaiming Iran's exalted international position, but that distraction cannot be sustained when headlines are re-claimed by the heckling of Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson and the attacks on Iran's most esteemed clerics.
So the solution is sought by Tehran's defenders: while announcing that rights do not matter, revive the notion of the "legitimate" rule --- with the implication that legitimacy confers the authority to pursue any and all acts in the name of the Iranian state --- established by the 2009 election.
The problem for this defence is that rights will not go away. Those who bravely persist in the face of repression are emphasising human rights and democracy more than ever. Ten days ago, Iranians who marched in Tehran were not heard chanting, "Where is My Vote?"; amidst the calls of God is Great, they were demanding that their rights --- as Iranians and as human beings --- be affirmed by their Government and by their Supreme Leader.
An objective analysis worthy of the label would question why the Iranian government fills the countries streets with security forces if it is stable and loved by its people. It would investigate why foreign media is effectively banned and why dozens of Iran's journalists are in jail, barred from working, or under threat of punishment if they dare to write. It would at least raise a quizzical eyebrow at the scores who are on death row and the hundreds more behind bars or on heavy bail simply because they voiced their opposition to the regime.
But that analysis would be tantamount to a questioning of legitimacy. And there the authors of RFI meet their self-imposed limit. They have shackled themselves even more effectively than the Government which they defend has shackled its people.
If there is a Race for Iran, those who defend the regime --- in the name of the irrelevancy of human rights --- can only stand still, stamping their feet loudly that there is no alternative. And in that race, it is the alternative which --- while hobbled by intimidation, restricted by suppression, hindered by punishment --- continues to move forward towards its goals.
Reader Comments (27)
[...] Real Race for Iran From The Real Race for Iran: Human Rights v. Tehran’s Defenders (Shahryar) | Enduring America [...]
Josh,
RE "The Iranian Government, despite all the detentions, abuses, and unlawful killings since June 2009, still has support overseas in the guise of purportedly unbiased political analysis, none more vocal than that of the authors of Race for Iran,"
RFI (est. October 2009) is not alone. I've noticed similar attitudes towards the GM and defense of the current Iranian government's positions running through the editorial choices at The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), founded on 1 December 2005..Do you know if there is any connection between the people at http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/" rel="nofollow">http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/ and the authors of Race for Iran?
Josh,
Well written article. I have posted several times at RFI and everytime I walk away stunned how so many can simply ignore the human rights violations. The irony of the whole debate is the myth espoused by the regime and it's supporters like Race for Iran than the movement is not viable. Quite funny that these regime supporters continually try to delegitimize a movement that is supposed to be dead and without power!! One would think if the Green Movement is a lost cause why then continually write about it or why does the regime still feel the need to field tens of thousands of security personnel on significant dates? I just laugh because the actions of these regime stooges often are the greatest support for why the Green Movement is alive, well, and growing!!
Thx
Bill
CASMII are indeed part of the same detente, but far more harmless.
No problem, Bill, and agreed!
I wrote on exactly that a while ago. You might enjoy it:
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/11/iran-analysis-the-green-movement-and-the-lesson-of-51-pegasi-b-shahryar/" rel="nofollow">http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/11/iran-anal...
It's now 13.30 GMT, which means that in San Francisco, California, where Mr Brill lives, it is 05.30. Let's see how long it takes for him to show up in this thread and flog his blog..... then we'll know approximately what time he gets up :-).
Historically I have avoided reading any discussion by RFI, simply based on responses posted on this site and others I visit frequently for news and analysis, but this time I decided to see for myself. First Josh your discussion above was very well written and presented. It points out several holes in RFI's logic specifically its dismissal of so many facts and circumstances which are not just part of the green movement but a part of the Iranian psyche as a whole. I can't help look at their stance as an insult not just to the brave Iranians who have taken to the streets but those everywhere that want to see a proud, prosperous and free Iran.
Well done Josh! Thanks!
No prob, azize dilam. :)
This type of article was a long time coming. I can see their influence on forums elsewhere. I would love to ignore them, but can't.
I commend you Josh, on also keeping it as short as it was. I could go on. I had five paragraphs written here, but it'd be preaching to the choir, so I've kept it brief.
P.S., there's a homophonous typo in the last paragraph. ;-)
Another ad hominem assault on the Leveretts out of frustration for the fact that they never took this "green movement" as anything other than a distraction.
Josh slanders myself, Yousef and Eric for having completely eviscerated the "stolen election" nonsense in our respective studies.
I'd like to see him try and write a 11,000 word essay that examined the results of all 45,632 ballot boxes.
Reza,
Right back at ya --- I'd like to see an essay based on the original ballots and Form 22s for the 45,632 boxes, rather than the Guardian Council's summary of what was supposedly in those boxes.
Scott
Scott, since when was every single ballot paper, and every form used in an election , ever been disclosed? I have never heard of this before.
But the Interior Ministry, not the GC, released the results of all 45,632 ballot boxes within 10 days of the poll:
http://moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=News&ID=3a120d23-ac85-4ce8-9312-74f62edc27e4&LayoutID=b05ef124-0db1-4d33-b0b6-90f50139044b&CategoryID=832a711b-95fe-4505-8aa3-38f5e17309c9" rel="nofollow">http://moi.ir/Portal/Home/ShowPage.aspx?Object=...
To date, the candidate monitors have not come forward to say that any one of those tallies was fraudulent and did not reflect the count they observed.
Now, what my report focuses on is the central question asked by others like Mebane and Lotze: do the results actually appear credible or have they been massaged or simply plucked out of thin air?
I show that they are credible and comport to a natural outcome.
Reza,
I could do a "credible" analysis of Santa Claus to show how he "comports to a natural outcome". Doesn't mean he exists.
The Ministry of Interior's numbers --- without the support of the original documents --- are no more than numbers.
Scott
"I could do a "credible" analysis of Santa Claus to show how he "comports to a natural outcome". Doesn't mean he exists. The Ministry of Interior's numbers --- without the support of the original documents --- are no more than numbers."
DIXIT.
Scott,
Another snide remark - this time attacking scientific methodology and investigation itself.
If you claim the figures for all 45,632 ballot boxes were just made up (think about how ridiculous that claim is for a moment) then we would EASILY find evidence of fraud:
1) Election monitors ,who signed the forms you refer to, would point out that they were clearly in error and would have produced their own data.
2) There would be serious distortations and anomalies indicative of artificial manipulation. It is possible to make up numbers for 30 provinces and 366 districts and just about get away with it, but not 45,632 ballot boxes.
3) There would be results that did not make any political sense.
I have looked into all 3 possibilities and find no instances of fraud.
You can't diss the ballot box data without first looking at it. Thr form 22 issue is just another stawman. Even if I presented all the forms used on election day, you would claim that they were fraudulent, just like you did with the one I sent u.
Reza,
Not being snide, just pointing out that your essay (which I have had the joy of reading and re-reading) rests on this assumption: the Ministry of Interior figures are genuine, so they must be true. That is both the basis and the limit of its contribution to discussion.
I don't know how many of the ballot boxes may have been manipulated. You do not know how many are free of manipulation. No Form 22s, no chance of proving either fraud or legitimacy.
Beyond that, your three points are irrelevant (Points 2 and 3) or oblivious to political context (Point 1) to the specific queries.
With that, I ask you to catch up with the discussion via comments on this thread --- http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/22/the-latest-from-iran-22-june-rumbling-on/" rel="nofollow">http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/22/the-lates...
Best,
Scott
Scott,
You seem to miss the point entirely. The entire objective of my report is not to vouchsafe for every single ballot cast - I was not there at the count of the vote . It is rather to analyse the results from all 45,632 ballot boxes and determine if there are reasonable grounds to suspect artificial manipulation or even outright fabrication. Unfortunately, there are none.
I assume nothing in my report. I merely examine the data and assess it for what it is worth. There have been claims that the results don't make any sense because candidates should have done better in certain regions and so forth and I completely show this is to be unfounded and baseless.
To date, the losing candidates have not presented alternative election data at the provincial, district and ballot box level. Their representatives clearly observed the count, signing and certifiying individual results as I showed you, so they should be able to produce something.
But they have not.
At the end of the day, forms are not going to suffice you, neither are the meticulously researched post-election surveys. You are going to cling to this outlandish conspiracy theory which I believe harms your legitimacy as a scholar rather than the Iranian government.
Reza,
"I merely examine the data and assess it for what it is worth."
Since it is the Ministry of Interior's claimed data that is in question --- given the lack of Form 22s to verify counts and the presence of observers --- it has no intrinsic "worth". And thus a study based on that data also has the same amount of "worth".
As I said, please catch up with the discussion --- which is far beyond your months-old report --- on the 22 June thread. Your assertion above about the losing candidates and their representatives is false and --- deliberately or unwittingly --- ignorant of political context.
Scott
Reza,
Maybe you should try and prove that "$400 million/CIA"claim before you accuse me of slander?
Reza,
Not 1 Form 22 --- 45,000+; Produce them and we have a basis for discussion --- your "electoral forensics" is no substitute.
As for Mousavi and Karroubi, ask them the question. Better yet, encourage the Iranian state to allow them and their supporters to give their answer publicly without fear of repression or retribution.
Best,
Scott
Scott, You know you are talking nonsense. This "form 22" gimmick is just another belated excuse on your part to continue denying the election results. If I did have access to them , which I don't , you would claim they were fraudulent.
You insult all political scientists when you denounce electoral forensics - but why should I be shocked bythe lack of academic standards by green fanatics like yourself. I suggest you read Lotze's report on the ballot box data which shows that they simply couldn't have been manipulated or concocted.
http://thomaslotze.com/iran/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://thomaslotze.com/iran/index.php
Does it not surprise you that not one of the 500,000 election workers, whch includes teachers, have not come forward to claim that the results were different? They would be applauded and given asylum in the West if they did so.
Reza,
My comment wasn't directed at "all political scientists"; it was just for you. If you cannot see the production of Form 22s as more than a "gimmick", you have either condemned the Iranian electoral system or your understanding of it.
When you have a numerical study based on original records rather than the Ministry of Interior and Guardian Council assertions of what those records contain --- when you can acknowledge a political context in which coming forward can lead to intimidation and detention ---when you have taken note of the queries put to Mr Brill on the 22 June thread --- when you can address why Rezaei, as well as Mousavi and Karroubi, were addressing a letter to the Supreme Leader within hours of the closing of the polls, querying and implicitly condemning the electoral process --- then get back to me.
Scott
No, professor, you DO attack all political scientists when you dismiss electoral forensics - the raw results from the ballot boxes are deemed sufficient to investigate claims of fraud. Forms and ballots used on election day will never be evidence for or against fraud because , according to people like you, they can be made up anyway. The "original records" are still Ministry of Interior material, and so something you would not be prepared to accept . This is indeed a gimmick, ruse, diversion by yourself.
I couldn't care less what Mousavi and Karroubi were claiming on election night - the former declared himself the "definite winner" with no results in...enough said.
Reza,
Once again --- those are not necessarily the "raw results". And you might want to cover up the blatant oversight of Rezaei.
I fear that you no longer entertain me with your repetitions, so farewell until you have something of substance or even a humourous diversion..
Scott