Friday's Iranian Election
Everytime I hear the comment that we went into Iraq to introduce democracy to the Arab World or that Israel is the only democracy in the Mid East, I think of Lebanon. By Saturday I'm probably going to think about adding Iran to the list.
"Lebanon is a telling case," said Osama Safa, director of the Lebanese Center for Policy Studies here. "It is no longer relevant for the extremists to use the anti-American card. It does look like the U.S. is moving on to something new."In fact, some analysts said that it was possible that Lebanon's election could be a harbinger of Friday's presidential race in Iran, where a hard-line anti-American president,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may be losing ground to his main moderate challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi.
While President Ahmadinejad has grown unpopular for many reasons, including his troubled stewardship of the economy, political analysts said that President Obama had blunted the appeal of Mr. Ahmadinejad's confrontation with the West.
We all know the Ayatollahs still have the last say in Iran, but if Ahmadinejad loses on Friday in the Iranian Election, it will be 2 for 2 in Obama's Post Cairo speech election victories. That would be a very powerful message for both democracy and reform that even the Ayatollahs could not ignore.
Advertisement
And how wrong can our own Right get, and still be allowed to cast their pearls of wisdom down upon us from the high perch of our news industry...?
Or NOT!
June 10, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neo-con influence is waning. And that makes the war mongerers sad.
Have you no compassion for the proponents of endless war?
Seriously, don't you think the images of Iranians contesting this election are sending shudders done the spines of the Hate-Iran crowd?
Finally, how many elections must occur in the Muslim world before we stop repeating the lie that Isreal is the only democracy in the ME? Turkey? Cypress? Iraq? Lebanon?
June 10, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself. I've never made the assertion, let alone repeated it. And you left Palestine off your list.
June 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I had to because Mr. Abbas's term has expired and he refuses to leave office.
And as someone who is pro-Palestinian, that is very sad indeed.
June 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what's going on, other than that as an American I spent the years between 2001 and 2009 cringing every single time my supposedly 'elected' president, GW Bush, opened his mouth to bray out whatever bullying, insulting comment he hollered on any given day. I know what it's like to live under a government that you despise, when your nation becomes an international joke.
I am watching this Iranian election with the same rapt attention that I watched Obama's election, in which no one expected Obama to win (not even me) up until the day it happened. And then I walked around pinching myself for days afterward.
All I know is that as a parent, I can really sympathize with those Iranians. I don't think the pundits seem to understand that many of us -- even political junkies like myself -- don't give two hoots about John Bolton's belligerent threats, or Ahmadinijad's bellowing. I think that people all over the globe are probably somewhat like myself: we see pollution, global warming, international fraud, and we're sick to death of it.
I don't think it's as much about Obama as it is about a recognition that the current governments have not addressed financial fraud, nor pollution, nor education in meaningful ways.
I sense a global frustration - it's not necessarily about 'democracy' and it's not about political parties. It's about government failure all over the world to address real, serious problems.
It's probably that simple.
But I am fascinated to watch it play out in Iran; I never dreamed that I'd see the kind of desperate desire for change that Obama represented, and I never -- never! -- expected to see the same kind of public resentment be visible in Iran.
June 11, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: ...David Wurmser, a former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney...and still be allowed to cast their pearls of wisdom down upon us...
NOTE: (EXCERPT) Praising Moskowitz's generous funding, David Wurmser, an adviser on the Middle East to Vice President Dick Cheney and a former AEI fellow, once said that the bingo mogul was a "gentle man whose generous support of AEI allows me to be here" (quoted in Jim Lobe, "New Cheney Foreign Policy Adviser Sets Sights on Syria," Foreign Policy In Focus, October 22, 2003; see also, the Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation, 2005 Form 990).
SOURCE - http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Moskowitz_Irving
June 11, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that a defeat of Ahmadinejad would be 2 for 2 for Obama and progress, but that in no way makes Iran a democracy. It certainly has elements of a democracy, but at the end of the day under vilayat e faqih the clerics can veto anything. The real powers in Iran are the supreme leader, revolutionary guards and various non-elected councils (guardian, expediency, etc.). Iranian voters through the Majlis have some influence over the non-elected councils, but not really, if you consider that the clerics get to decide who stands in an election. (Josh Marshall alludes to this on the frontpage.) Take a look at the history of candidates being disqualified, media organizations being closed and intimidation and violence at the polls. Unfortunately, Iran is a cleric-ocracy with a very superficial democratic veneer. Anything will be an improvement over Ahmadinejad and I wish them well, but after 2 terms, the reformer Khatami accomplished little while paving the way for Ahmadinejad.
June 10, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary Owen,
It should be noted that Mr. Taplin never claimed that it was. In fact, his conclusion -- nonetheless hopeful -- says quite the opposite,
June 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, that does qualify it.
I was more responding to this part: I hear the comment that we went into Iraq to introduce democracy to the Arab World or that Israel is the only democracy in the Mid East, I think of Lebanon. By Saturday I'm probably going to think about adding Iran to the list.
June 10, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turkey. Cypress.
Unfortunately, we cannot include Kuwait, which we supposedly "liberated" in 1991.
June 10, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the best way to describe it is that Iran has strong democratic tendencies. Iran has a way to go before it is a true democracy, but it seems to be evolving naturally in that direction (as it was in the 1950s before the US and Britain overthrew the government to install a dictator). Encouraging this natural evolution is a far more promising way to achieve the desired end than trying to impose democracy by force as the neocons once advocated (or at least pretended they were advocating, since I'm not sure imposing democracy was their true end--I think their real goal was establishing American control over the region or maybe, more viscerally, just putting the Muslim world in its place.)
June 11, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Funny. I follow Lebanon closely and have yet to see any Lebanese discussion of TEH SPEECH/"outreach" having any impact on the election results either pre or post event. Discussions related to current US policies in Lebanon revolve around the perceptions that it's a continuation of the SOS. Go figger.
But who cares what the Lebanese people think, right?
After all, when we have the fabulist Tom Friedman crowing that Obama beat Ahmadinejad in Lebanon, who cares? It's a feelgood moment.......
BTW folks, the "opposition" won the popular vote; estimates of the margin range from 9% to 15%.
I wonder when American pundits will finally understand that more than pretty words, it's our policies that matter to those on the receiving end of them.
So here's a wet blanket of reality presented in an attempt to smother this stupid it's ALL about OBAMA(!) meme in it's crib:
"Instead, voters on Sunday affirmed the status quo, prompting some observers to claim that the region's political tide had turned against Iran and its "rejectionist" allies.
One Israeli official claimed that "Hizballah was punished for the [2006] war," while New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman announced, "President Barack Obama defeated President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran" in Lebanon's vote. Yet these are somewhat far-fetched claims for an election that was decided by Christian swing voters — and that affirmed the raw sectarianism of Lebanese politics.
Sectarianism is the organizing principle of Lebanese democracy, because the constitution allocates a fixed number of seats in parliament to each religious group — on the basis of a formula derived from the population statistics in 1936. (The slicing of the political pie no longer matches the demographic reality: Christians, for example, are allocated half of the seats in parliament, but probably comprise little more than a third of the population; Shi'ites are allocated 20% of the seats but their share of the population is closer to double that proportion.)
In Sunday's vote, as expected, Shi'ite Muslims overwhelmingly backed Hizballah, while Sunni Muslims overwhelmingly supported the Saudi-backed Sunni party that leads the ruling coalition. The high turnout of Sunni voters, however, was not a response to Obama's outreach, as some have claimed, but rather a desire to avenge the defeat of Sunni militias by Hizballah militants in the streets of Beirut last spring.
The election was more of a referendum less on President Obama than on Michel Aoun, the former general and leader of Lebanon's largest Christian bloc."
snip]
"Although he had a limited imact on the outcome of Lebanon's election, President Obama could still reap benefits from it. For one thing, it avoids the embarrassment of the Administration having to cut aid to the most democratic country in the Arab world, as it would likely have done if its voters had chosen the opposition."
snip]
"To imagine the election as signaling the demise of Hizballah, however, would be a mistake. While accepting the results of the poll, the opposition pointed out that it had, in fact, received the majority of the actual votes cast."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903754,00.html
June 10, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Angry Arab, the opposition actually won the popular vote in the election. Due to the Byzantine nature of the Lebanese confessional electoral system, that doesn't matter.
See http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/thomas-friedman-in-beirut.html
June 10, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I were Ahmadinejad, I think I'd print up several million copies of that photo of the Lebanese woman wearing that sexy strapless bodice, above, and distribute it widely in the Iranian hinterlands.
Under the photo? "You decide!"
June 10, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wouldn't be that hard, either, all he'd have to do is call up Pat Buchanan and say "I want to hire you to do that Spiro Agnew shtick again." Scare the bejesus (be-allah?) out of that "moral majority" about all those wild and crazy kidz these daze in the cities.
June 11, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Better than potatoes.
June 11, 2009 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "...if Ahmadinejad loses on Friday in the Iranian Election, it will be 2 for 2 in Obama's Post Cairo speech election victories. That would be a very powerful message for both democracy and reform that even the Ayatollahs could not ignore...
BUT SEE: "ISRAEL WAGES PROPAGANDA WAR AGAINST IRAN’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION", by Richard Silverstein, 06/01/09
(EXCERPT) Haaretz reports that the Israeli foreign ministry plans to wage an all out diplomatic war against Iran in the run up to its June presidential election. The purpose is to show the world that Iran is a medieval, homophobic, misogynist nation outside the norms of western civilization...
...Barak Ravid, known as a conduit for Israeli political and military figures, is remarkably explicit about the tactics behind the campaign:
“We decided to move from defense to offense,” a senior Foreign Ministry official said, explaining the decision to broaden Israel’s public diplomacy campaign against Iran to showcase other issues, such as human rights violations, instead of focusing solely on Iran’s nuclear program. “We need to show the world who the real Iran is and make sure that the presidential election does not create the illusion that it is a Jeffersonian democracy.”
If you attempt to peek behind the Wizard of Oz’s heavy curtains to parse the meaning of this I’d guess that Bibi and Yvet are afraid that the moderate presidential candidate might win the election. This might mean a potential new Iranian opening to the U.S. In turn, this could prove disastrous for Bibi’s goal of bombing Iran. Therefore, it’s in the interest of Israel’s rightist government to smear Iran even, if, or especially if a moderate candidate assumes the presidency....
ENTIRE POST - http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/06/01/israel-wages-propaganda-war-against-irans-presidential-election/
June 11, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of hyper v manager windows 7, iscsi mcs
March 29, 2011 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability disaster recovery
April 28, 2011 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink