Iranian Election Watch: The U.S. Response

June 16th, 2009 By: Michael Merritt | Tags:

I would write more on this, but I simply don’t have the time or the speed writing skills to both keep up with the news and write it down.  Other people, like Andrew Sullivan, simply can do it faster thanks to help he has.  Not even all our main bloggers could keep up, I think.  So rather than report the news as it comes in, I find it better to give analysis after a while.  That way some facts have been laid out.

Iran is into full protest mode now.  Well, at least in some of the cities, and especially Tehran.  Last  we heard, Ayatollah Khamenei has announced an investigation by the Guardian Council.  I think there is reason to be skeptical of what results they may find, especially since we already know how much government manipulation of the results have occured.  It’s an attempt to look legitimate to the wider world, but I don’t think they will buy it.

Unless, of course, you’re Barack Obama.  Or so it seems to be.

One of the reoccuring discussions I noticed over the weekend is how the administration should approach this.  Some are suggesting a careful, moderated approach, while some seem unhappy unless Obama gives his outright backing to Mousavi.  Some are also a little dismayed by earlier statements that they will continue working with the regime, even with a sham president.

I sympathize with the latter concerns.  The administration cannot be seen to legitimize any administration in Tehran until this is sorted out.  To do so will give the appearance of U.S. acceptance of that regime.  So all talks with the Ahmadinejad government must cease until this is over and the right leader has been chosen.  Like I said, I’m not confident of any investigation from the Guardian Council, and Tehran is never going accept the true results it seems.  One suggestion is to re-do the election, as Mousavi is calling for, but would this not simply produce the same result?  Government interference?

At this point, nothing short of an internationally observed election will probably be acceptable.

On the flip side, I don’t believe that Obama can outright back Mousavi either, like some so clearly want him to do.  It would just provide another form of propaganda for Ahmadinejad to play over and over on the state run press.  All about how the Americans are trying to interfer in Iran’s political process.  Or something like that.  That would probably make Iran walk away from the discussion table really fast.  Do we really want that?

So, that said, Obama’s address to the press later on, basically saying he’s leaving it up to the Iranians, is the right way to go.  It is their country and they must decide, no matter how we might not like it.  They seem to be doing a pretty good job so far.  After all, even if it is only another sham, it got Khamenei to call the investigation.  I just hope the Iranians can also see how this might be manipulated as much as the election results were.

I think they do and will call fraud for fraud if it happens again.  Meanwhile, they’re not giving up.  Mousavi has called for people to refrain from going to work tomorrow, so we will see if that does anything.

On a final note, I think some people need to beat down their hopes for the destruction of the theocracy system in Iran.  I don’t know for sure if even most reformers want that.  I am reminded of something one Twitterer from Tehran wrote the other day:

We’re not looking for a way to change our regime,we just need some changes, some reforms,80% of people voted for that, but…

This could be just his opinion, of course.  Yet, don’t forget that Mousavi had to allowed to run by the government.  So he is unlikely to be in favor of widespread changes.  Though some of his supporters have been calling for the removal of Khamenei, he himself has simply been calling for an election do-over.

That said, the revelation of this sham election could spark something in many Iranians if they think that their system of government isn’t working for them.  Over the past few days, I’ve read many things saying that this is how the ‘79 revolution began.  So who knows?

Below is Obama’s statement from today:

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. nebben
    June 16th, 2009 at 06:55
    Reply | Quote | #1

    This Stealection is proving Twitter’s worth, http://bit.ly/UVPmW.

  2. Folklight
    June 16th, 2009 at 17:33
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Twitter vids:
    Garbage men against ‘Ima-NutJob’
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=102_1245134843

    Basij Compund riot yesterday:
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b06_1245159552

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.