Tuesday
Sep012009
Iran Special: Taking Apart the Regime's Defenses (Shahryar v. Afrasiabi)
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 7:19
The Latest from Iran (1 September): The Ripples of Debate Continue
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Earlier this month, The Huffington Post featured a lengthy opinion piece from Professor Kaveh Afrasiabi, insisting on the legitimacy of the Presidential election and, beyond that, of the Ahmadinejad Government. While The Huffington Post is a high-profile outlet, I declined to reply to Afrasiabi. I had seen his polemical attack on Professor Ali Ansari in a Press TV discussion just after the election, and his arguments on the election had been put forth two months earlier by Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Seyed Mohammad Marandi.
Josh Shahryar (the creator of The Green Brief, one of the outstanding sources in this crisis) did respond, however, with a through dissection of Afrasiabi's assertions. We recommend this not to take sides in a fight but to illustrate how it is possible to marshal information, carefully and thoughtfully, for an analysis and an opinion with political impact. And, even as we are engaged in debate with "mainstream" journalists over the value of new media and Internet sources, we note that Shahryar's reading of events --- based on a network of contacts developed via the Web and Twitter as well as his thorough consideration of emerging news --- is far beyond that of much of the "established" broadcast and print media:
As a journalist who has been covering the Iranian Election, almost every day for the past two months from my puny little computer, I was shocked and dismayed when I read Kaveh L. Afrasiabi’s article on the Iranian Election Crisis. Published in The Huffington Post on August 20, 2009 and titled “Obama Should Congratulate Ahmadinejad,” the article urges President Obama to accept the outcome of the election and congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory.
It must be pointed out, that throughout his article, Mr. Afrasiabi misrepresents the truth, omits key details, and at times simply presents inaccurate or false information to support his point of view. Fortunately, we live in a time of ‘information overload’ where the truth is easy to find, and we all know that there are always two sides to any given story.
Unlike Mr. Afrasiabi - who fails to mention on his Huffington Post profile that he has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad for years - I concede that I have been drawn to the plight of millions of Iranians. I am an insignificant ‘International Green’ who supports Iranians in their struggle to obtain their rights. After reading Mr. Afrasiabi’s article, I had no other choice than to write a response – and I do so as an admirer and supporter of the Sea of Green – not as a representative.
Extracts of Mr. Afrasiabi’s article are included - without any touch-ups or rephrasing below in italics. My comments, rebuttals, and what I believe to be the “whole story” follow the extracts.
AFRASIABI: There are several good reasons why president Barack Obama should join his White House guest this week, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, as well as the UN's Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and dozens of other world leaders who have extended congratulations to Iran's duly re-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to do so reflects a poor judgment on the White House's part, particularly since Obama has yet to fulfill his own post-election promise of responding to Ahmadinejad's letter that congratulated him for his victory.
Contrary to what was stated, neither UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, nor President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has congratulated Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did send a letter to Ahmadinejad after the elections. His spokesperson, Marie Okabe, later clarified that the letter should not be construed, in any way, as congratulating Ahmadinejad. According to Ms. Okabe, “The letter takes advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues." She went on to add, "It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter."
In regards to Mr. Mubarak, the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s website did report, three weeks ago, that Mr. Mubarak had sent a note to Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his re-election. However, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has since denied the report. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossam Zaki’s response to the media about the story was, “I cannot confirm the authenticity of the report.” Furthermore, Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa’s act of congratulating Ahmadinejad cannot, in all honesty, be considered as an endorsement by Arab League Members – including Egypt.
Iranian media and government-run websites have claimed that the Japanese Premier, Taro Aso, has also congratulated Ahmadinejad. However, it comes as no surprise, that this report cannot be confirmed either.
Notwithstanding the above, there indeed have been some world leaders who have congratulated Ahmadinejad. A closer examination, however, reveals that out of the two dozen or so congratulatory notes, the majority were sent either by countries without a democracy or by heads of countries that do not wish to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader – given their geographic proximity and strong regional interests.
It is ludicrous to think that the leaders of China, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Syria, Qatar and Tajikistan would be, in any way, concerned about the fairness of an election. Let us not forget that the above-mentioned countries are dictatorships, strong-arm monarchies or have national leaders whose own elections were considered controversial.
The countries of Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Armenia and Iraq fall into the second category of “not wanting to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader.” Turkey - because of the Kurdish issue; Lebanon - to appease Hezbollah; Armenia - because Iran is one of the few neighbors with which it has friendly relations - and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - because their interests strongly demand good relations with Iran, regardless of the leadership.
This leaves out Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Yemen and Hamas-held Gaza. As for countries such as Japan, Nations in the EU bloc, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – all countries that rank at the top when it comes to democracy – none have congratulated Ahmadinejad. Thus, Obama’s refusal to send a congratulatory note actually shows sound judgment on his part, as he heads a Nation that is a world-leader in democracy.
AFRASIABI: First, with the dust of the post-election turmoil settling and the absence of any hard evidence of "rigged elections" becoming more and more transparent, time is actually on the side of Ahmadinejad, who has been much vilified in the western press, and maligned at home by his reformist challengers, as the grinch who "stole" the election.
Unfortunately, the sum of evidence presented by Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to corroborate their allegations of widespread fraud in the June 12th elections simply doesn't add up. This author has examined in depth both the official complaints of losing candidates, as well as the various reports issued by their "truth committee", and has found them to be dreadfully lacking in substance, contradictory, and thick on irrelevant innuendo, such as passing off such pre-election "irregularities" seen in television debates as evidence of election fraud.
The description of, “‘the dust of post-election turmoil settling” baffles the mind. The Iranian people have been protesting at every opportunity - in spite of an extremely high security presence. They have been shot at, beaten, tear gassed, imprisoned, tortured, and in many cases brutally killed. How has the dust settled?
In late June, thousands gathered at Ghoba Mosque and around Tehran. Thousands more turned out, facing the brutality of the security forces on July 30th. Hundreds were chanting in support of Karroubi, in front of Etemaade Melli’s office less than two weeks ago, although he explicitly asked them not to. Nightly, people chant “Alloha Akbar” from their rooftops, despite the threat of being shot at, fined, arrested or imprisoned. When the opposition calls for a protest, the people of Iran protest, not only in Tehran. We must keep in mind the thousands that gathered around the country, whose voices cannot be heard because of the government’s media blackout. The claim that, “The protests are over,” can only be made, IF and WHEN:
* Protests are no longer illegal; meaning that people can protest without the fear of reprisal
* Opposition Leaders call for a protest
* No one shows up
The truth of the matter is, if there are no “grand protests,” it is not because people don’t want to protest, but because the opposition has not called for one.
Regarding the claim, “The elections were not rigged,” the mere fact that "defeated" candidates and reformist politicians – and their followers - were not the only ones to have cast doubt on the results should merit speculation. Many others have challenged the validity of the results, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who expressed his doubt during his sermon at Friday Prayer’s, as well as Khatami, who released a statement calling for a “referendum” over the issue.
For the sake of argument, let us set aside for a moment, that the previous Supreme Leader Rohullah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamanei are dictators in the guise of religious sanctity. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani are all two-term heads of the Iranian Government. Even if we discount Mousavi as a stakeholder in the election, dismiss Khatami as a reformist, what about arch-conservative Rafsanjani? Then again, these people are politicians and you never know what Rafsanjani might be hoping to gain from this.
Then what about a class of Iranian leaders who have little to nothing to gain by questioning the legitimacy of the government? Where do the clerics stand? In case anyone missed their comments here is what they have to say:
Read rest of article....
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Earlier this month, The Huffington Post featured a lengthy opinion piece from Professor Kaveh Afrasiabi, insisting on the legitimacy of the Presidential election and, beyond that, of the Ahmadinejad Government. While The Huffington Post is a high-profile outlet, I declined to reply to Afrasiabi. I had seen his polemical attack on Professor Ali Ansari in a Press TV discussion just after the election, and his arguments on the election had been put forth two months earlier by Flynt and Hillary Leverett and Seyed Mohammad Marandi.
Josh Shahryar (the creator of The Green Brief, one of the outstanding sources in this crisis) did respond, however, with a through dissection of Afrasiabi's assertions. We recommend this not to take sides in a fight but to illustrate how it is possible to marshal information, carefully and thoughtfully, for an analysis and an opinion with political impact. And, even as we are engaged in debate with "mainstream" journalists over the value of new media and Internet sources, we note that Shahryar's reading of events --- based on a network of contacts developed via the Web and Twitter as well as his thorough consideration of emerging news --- is far beyond that of much of the "established" broadcast and print media:
As a journalist who has been covering the Iranian Election, almost every day for the past two months from my puny little computer, I was shocked and dismayed when I read Kaveh L. Afrasiabi’s article on the Iranian Election Crisis. Published in The Huffington Post on August 20, 2009 and titled “Obama Should Congratulate Ahmadinejad,” the article urges President Obama to accept the outcome of the election and congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory.
It must be pointed out, that throughout his article, Mr. Afrasiabi misrepresents the truth, omits key details, and at times simply presents inaccurate or false information to support his point of view. Fortunately, we live in a time of ‘information overload’ where the truth is easy to find, and we all know that there are always two sides to any given story.
Unlike Mr. Afrasiabi - who fails to mention on his Huffington Post profile that he has been a staunch supporter of Ahmadinejad for years - I concede that I have been drawn to the plight of millions of Iranians. I am an insignificant ‘International Green’ who supports Iranians in their struggle to obtain their rights. After reading Mr. Afrasiabi’s article, I had no other choice than to write a response – and I do so as an admirer and supporter of the Sea of Green – not as a representative.
Extracts of Mr. Afrasiabi’s article are included - without any touch-ups or rephrasing below in italics. My comments, rebuttals, and what I believe to be the “whole story” follow the extracts.
AFRASIABI: There are several good reasons why president Barack Obama should join his White House guest this week, Egypt's president Hosni Mubarak, as well as the UN's Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, and dozens of other world leaders who have extended congratulations to Iran's duly re-elected president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to do so reflects a poor judgment on the White House's part, particularly since Obama has yet to fulfill his own post-election promise of responding to Ahmadinejad's letter that congratulated him for his victory.
Contrary to what was stated, neither UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, nor President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has congratulated Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon did send a letter to Ahmadinejad after the elections. His spokesperson, Marie Okabe, later clarified that the letter should not be construed, in any way, as congratulating Ahmadinejad. According to Ms. Okabe, “The letter takes advantage of the occasion of the inauguration to express the hope that Iran and the United Nations will continue to cooperate closely in addressing regional and global issues." She went on to add, "It is not accurate to refer to this as a congratulatory letter."
In regards to Mr. Mubarak, the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s website did report, three weeks ago, that Mr. Mubarak had sent a note to Ahmadinejad congratulating him on his re-election. However, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry has since denied the report. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hossam Zaki’s response to the media about the story was, “I cannot confirm the authenticity of the report.” Furthermore, Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa’s act of congratulating Ahmadinejad cannot, in all honesty, be considered as an endorsement by Arab League Members – including Egypt.
Iranian media and government-run websites have claimed that the Japanese Premier, Taro Aso, has also congratulated Ahmadinejad. However, it comes as no surprise, that this report cannot be confirmed either.
Notwithstanding the above, there indeed have been some world leaders who have congratulated Ahmadinejad. A closer examination, however, reveals that out of the two dozen or so congratulatory notes, the majority were sent either by countries without a democracy or by heads of countries that do not wish to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader – given their geographic proximity and strong regional interests.
It is ludicrous to think that the leaders of China, North Korea, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Syria, Qatar and Tajikistan would be, in any way, concerned about the fairness of an election. Let us not forget that the above-mentioned countries are dictatorships, strong-arm monarchies or have national leaders whose own elections were considered controversial.
The countries of Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Armenia and Iraq fall into the second category of “not wanting to upset Iran’s Supreme Leader.” Turkey - because of the Kurdish issue; Lebanon - to appease Hezbollah; Armenia - because Iran is one of the few neighbors with which it has friendly relations - and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - because their interests strongly demand good relations with Iran, regardless of the leadership.
This leaves out Brazil, India, Russia, Venezuela, Indonesia, Yemen and Hamas-held Gaza. As for countries such as Japan, Nations in the EU bloc, Australia, New Zealand and Canada – all countries that rank at the top when it comes to democracy – none have congratulated Ahmadinejad. Thus, Obama’s refusal to send a congratulatory note actually shows sound judgment on his part, as he heads a Nation that is a world-leader in democracy.
AFRASIABI: First, with the dust of the post-election turmoil settling and the absence of any hard evidence of "rigged elections" becoming more and more transparent, time is actually on the side of Ahmadinejad, who has been much vilified in the western press, and maligned at home by his reformist challengers, as the grinch who "stole" the election.
Unfortunately, the sum of evidence presented by Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to corroborate their allegations of widespread fraud in the June 12th elections simply doesn't add up. This author has examined in depth both the official complaints of losing candidates, as well as the various reports issued by their "truth committee", and has found them to be dreadfully lacking in substance, contradictory, and thick on irrelevant innuendo, such as passing off such pre-election "irregularities" seen in television debates as evidence of election fraud.
The description of, “‘the dust of post-election turmoil settling” baffles the mind. The Iranian people have been protesting at every opportunity - in spite of an extremely high security presence. They have been shot at, beaten, tear gassed, imprisoned, tortured, and in many cases brutally killed. How has the dust settled?
In late June, thousands gathered at Ghoba Mosque and around Tehran. Thousands more turned out, facing the brutality of the security forces on July 30th. Hundreds were chanting in support of Karroubi, in front of Etemaade Melli’s office less than two weeks ago, although he explicitly asked them not to. Nightly, people chant “Alloha Akbar” from their rooftops, despite the threat of being shot at, fined, arrested or imprisoned. When the opposition calls for a protest, the people of Iran protest, not only in Tehran. We must keep in mind the thousands that gathered around the country, whose voices cannot be heard because of the government’s media blackout. The claim that, “The protests are over,” can only be made, IF and WHEN:
* Protests are no longer illegal; meaning that people can protest without the fear of reprisal
* Opposition Leaders call for a protest
* No one shows up
The truth of the matter is, if there are no “grand protests,” it is not because people don’t want to protest, but because the opposition has not called for one.
Regarding the claim, “The elections were not rigged,” the mere fact that "defeated" candidates and reformist politicians – and their followers - were not the only ones to have cast doubt on the results should merit speculation. Many others have challenged the validity of the results, including former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who expressed his doubt during his sermon at Friday Prayer’s, as well as Khatami, who released a statement calling for a “referendum” over the issue.
For the sake of argument, let us set aside for a moment, that the previous Supreme Leader Rohullah Khomeini and the current Supreme Leader Seyed Ali Khamanei are dictators in the guise of religious sanctity. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani are all two-term heads of the Iranian Government. Even if we discount Mousavi as a stakeholder in the election, dismiss Khatami as a reformist, what about arch-conservative Rafsanjani? Then again, these people are politicians and you never know what Rafsanjani might be hoping to gain from this.
Then what about a class of Iranian leaders who have little to nothing to gain by questioning the legitimacy of the government? Where do the clerics stand? In case anyone missed their comments here is what they have to say:
Read rest of article....
tagged "The Green Brief", Amr Moussa, Arab League, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ban Ki-Moon, Flynt Leverett, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Hillary Leverett, Hosni Mubarak, Hossam Zaki, Huffington Post, Iran, Iran Elections 2009, Josh Shahryar, Kaveh Afrasiabi, Marie Okabe, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohammad Khatami, Press TV, Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Taro Aso in Middle East & Iran
Reader Comments (7)
If Mr. Obama is forced to recognize Ahmadinejad, as we need to be prepared for this outcome, I strongly propose he recognize him as the president select of Islamic Shia Sheikdom of Iran. This will be a realistic reflection of what AN wants to achieve. Then there is no argument.
The whole argument is when you insert the words "legally" and "elected". We can say forcefully selected, and I will conceded.
Sorry, but there is in fact no real evidence of election fraud in Iran. The site IranAffairs.com has listed each of the claims and counter-claims, and the fraud claims do not withstand scrutiny.
But aside from that, just ask yourself this: Mousavi, the opposition leader, was a former Prime Minister and is a regime-insider. He was specifically vetted and precleared by the regime to run for office. We're supposed to think that his election posed such a danger to the same regime that they resorted to massive election fraud? No, sorry, that makes no sense.
@ Hass
I wish I had the pager number of the person you have contacted to get your great Ganja... I want some please too. Is there any means to send me some via internet?
Please stop quoting an unsubstanciated report by a site as proof. What better proof of fraud do you want other than half the regime standing up and saying there was fraud? Lets discount the people, but can you also discount the mullahs themselves that cried foul?
Some facts for your education, although I suspect with the smoke of Ganja not fully settled its penetration chances are low:
1) 3 of the 4 candidates claimed fraud, not Mousavi
2) Process and proceedure and constitutional law was broken. According to Iranian constitution the electoral body publishes the results, and after 3 days of deliberations all parties submit their claims of fraud, after that the Guardian council reviews all results and submits a report. The leader then decides. This process has been followed for 30 years. In this instance it was short cut. some 12 hours after closure of polls, the supreme leader announced the results. How can we trust the decision when process was not followed?
3) All candidates can specify 1 volounter to be at the polling booth and present at the counting centere. During this election the volounteers of Mousavi and Karoubi and Rezaie were barred from entery. No indipendant means of verification now exists.
4) Mousavi and Karoubi had designed a system of using volounterrs outside polling stations to do exit poll surveys and the results to be transmitted to the head office using SMS message network for statistical analysis. The SMS network was cut off.
5) 2 1/2 month after the dispute, still we do not have poll station results. In Iran each voter gets a vote stub, plus a stamp in his / her identity card. Poll station results can be verified. How, here it is.... If 100000 people show up with stubs and an affidavit claiming they voted for Mousavi at poll station A, this can be verified against the actual votes, which bear their birth certificate number and the stamp which proved they voted. Unfortunately this did not happen
6) The Ministry of Interior printed some 13 million additional voter cards ( exact number under question now) and has not ever achnowleded what happened to these 13 million additional cards it printed. These cards should be blank and exist somewhere with their serial numbers and stubs intact, but we have been unable to get any information on them. They were stuffed into the boxes at a great hurry when the polls were closed, to ensure AN victory.
7) I can go on till 200 if you wish, but I would be boring the average reader of this forum, that has been witness to much of it....... Please read many analysts and independent people that have published the results of in depth analysis proving many of these points. Ignorance is not justification for shallow comments.
But you raised one point that needs direct address:
Mousavi was a staunch rival of Khamanei for 8 years prime minister run that he had. Mousavi was unconditionally backed by Khomeini as the light of his eyes... Mousavi was selected as a safe candidate to create an arena where by the western world and Iranian people could be shown that there is hope and change. AN government and the SL did not think in their life that Mousavi has a chance. For good measure Karoubi was also thrown in to split the reform vote, and then all other conservatives banned from running such as Ghalibaf that got into an open confrontation w.r.t his wish for running. The remaining candidates were all banned too. That left the field well in control of AN, and Rezaie, which has no hope, no support and no chance of ever winning was allowed to run too to please Rafsanjani and some traditional conservatives that felt disenfranchised. All the pieces were in play for a good solid AN win, however Mousavi proved charismatic, the people proved vigilant and the AN strategy weak. AN performance during the TV debates also made him a laughing stock and the people really turned off him. Additionaly AN miscalculated the dislike of people against him, and beleived all the BS that his croneys surrounding him had told him.
The coupe was organized so quickly, that they had no time to cover their fingers. They left finger prints of the crime everywhere.
Sir, the AN government got votes, we acknowledge it, and we acknowledge that he got 8 million votes, but Mousavi and Karoubi got close to 34 million votes, and Rezaie the remainder. Still AN was declared the winner... What else do you want to know? I can not make night day, nor can I make someone who has made their mind up, change it...
To know reality, you need to sometimes have lived it. I have lived it, in Iran in elections in its aftermath. This does not make me special but allows me to express my opinion knowing the truth I witnessed w my eyes. I ask have you really lived it? I can tell you that the dislike of AN is deep and across economical, religious and political lines. I have gone to small towns in the poor part of the country and people dislike AN, I have gone to the poor part of Tehran, to Qom, to Mashhad and the like, and the dislike is deep. The people wanted change, wanted hope wanted something and someone else. People hate and dislike the Pasdaran, the Basiji and the small class of idologs that have taken control.
[...] zeniths cluding Enduring America has printed Niteowl's rebuttal here. Iran Special: Taking Apart the Regime’s Defenses (Shahryar v. Afrasiabi) | Enduring America [...]
Very well said. Thank you for your detailed description of what actually occurred, rather than how some sycophants might like to describe it. I might only add that regime official went to Mousavi and told him he won handily but to hold off his announcement until they made theirs. Then the other shoe dropped.
Iran deserves to have their vote count. It has become clear what AN is willing to do to steal the presidency. But the people of Iran will win this time if they persevere.
People of Iran! What are YOU willing to do?
[...] interesting comments I found over at EnduringAmerica # hass says: September 1st, 2009 at [...]
@ Hass
Just to carry on where others left off, it is intresting to see how over 150 cities had +130% show up !!!!
Also intresting is that Rezai not even getting a single vote in some parts of the country !! What about his own staff they voted for A.N too ?? And he had a HUGE staff....