Iranian Regime Cracks Down On Citizens Protesting Rigged Election
- Thread starter hellblazer
- Start date
- Status
It is because the protesters are on board with the media centers agenda, which is the removal of the Iranian Government.
I read a report that there is going to be a recount, but I don't see how the Iranian Government could do anything but report the same results. Otherwise, they would be completely validating the protesters.
Iranian politics are very difficult to predict. Ahmadinejad himself came out of nowhere in 2005, and reliable polling is pretty rare.
In the back of my mind, I never really expected Mousavi to win. I also think that the media is doing a lot of people a disservice by making it look as though the opposition is stronger than it actually is - but either way, the Iranian government is always somehow influenced by religious agendas that get in the way of truly free and fair elections, so I doubt that this is any exception. Ahmadinejad may very well have won, just not by the margin that he was projected as having won by (which may have been fabricated to avoid a runoff election).
Regardless, Ahmadinejad makes more news over his behavior and rhetoric than his actual policy decisions or his influence on the structure of Iranian government and society, most of which instead lies with the religious establishment. So this is a disappointment but not a game-changer.
In the back of my mind, I never really expected Mousavi to win. I also think that the media is doing a lot of people a disservice by making it look as though the opposition is stronger than it actually is - but either way, the Iranian government is always somehow influenced by religious agendas that get in the way of truly free and fair elections, so I doubt that this is any exception. Ahmadinejad may very well have won, just not by the margin that he was projected as having won by (which may have been fabricated to avoid a runoff election).
Regardless, Ahmadinejad makes more news over his behavior and rhetoric than his actual policy decisions or his influence on the structure of Iranian government and society, most of which instead lies with the religious establishment. So this is a disappointment but not a game-changer.
There is limited polling to suggest that. A 2:1 ratio does surprise me given how badly Ahmadinejad makes the country look and how poorly he has managed Iran's economy. Still, given how alienated Iranians have become in recent years, I didn't expect hardliners and conservatives to lose their appeal.
Both candidates were picked by the supreme leader. Neither of them represent any real "democracy". The theocracy runs the show now and will no matter what figure head is placed in power. I feel bad for these Iranians that are willing to put their lives on the line, for even the smallest glimpse of artificial freedom.
You're an overwhelmingly boring idiot.
Your embarrassing understanding of history and the world, while not surprising, should get you banned from commenting on current events that exist outside your dual-monitor internet command center.
This might be true if the theocracy were unified, but the fact of the matter is they are highly divided, with each branch pushing its own candidate. The hardliners put their support behind Ahmadinejad while more liberal elements (ie reconciliation with the West, establishing diplomatic ties with US) rally behind Mousavi. Thus, even though the title of President in Iran is mostly symbolic, whoever holds that title will prove who has dominance in the theocratic politics of Iran.
WTF you talking about? "Take note"? We Americans fucking invented rigged elections. In fact, I don't know that we've ever had a "legitimate" election on the whole of American soil, ever, in our nation's history.
What we learned from Gore/Kerry: When someone rigs your election, you STFU AND TAKE IT. And then, if the country is "enraged" but not "rioting", you LET THEM DO IT AGAIN IN 4 YEARS.
That's the American way. Moron.
[/sarcasm]
He appears to be referring to Khamenei et al when he mentions the "theocracy." Khamenei has always been a hardliner, and that preference trickles down throughout the rest of the Iranian power structure. It's largely designed to keep its power intact regardless of what might be occurring politically.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Khamenei does not have the absolute power of his fore bearer, and the only reason there hasn't been a schism up til now is that he hasn't done anything of note. He rules by building a consensus, not by issuing orders and watching his subordinates quake in fear. And as I've pointed out before, the theocracy is divided into a multitude of factions, several of which oppose Khamenei openly by endorsing Mousavi as a candidate.
Khamenei's conservative policies may direct the regime now, but his mandate (along with his influence) as Ayatollah is shaky at best (Mousavi has openly questioned his religous credidentials, and many view his appointment as political).
What we are seeing here is a game of "king of the hill" in between the hardliners (rallying behind Ahmadinejad) and the dissatisfied clerics (rallying behind Mousavi). Whoever wins will show who is truly in power in Iran. However, the way things are going, I think the hardliners will put down these riots, purge the clergy, and in general further consolidate their power, making the lives of the Iranian people even more miserable.
But like I said before, the people only have themselves to blame.
Khamenei's conservative policies may direct the regime now, but his mandate (along with his influence) as Ayatollah is shaky at best (Mousavi has openly questioned his religous credidentials, and many view his appointment as political).
What we are seeing here is a game of "king of the hill" in between the hardliners (rallying behind Ahmadinejad) and the dissatisfied clerics (rallying behind Mousavi). Whoever wins will show who is truly in power in Iran. However, the way things are going, I think the hardliners will put down these riots, purge the clergy, and in general further consolidate their power, making the lives of the Iranian people even more miserable.
But like I said before, the people only have themselves to blame.
He rules because the Iranian constitution is designed in such a way that all major political authority, ultimately, rests with him. Article 110 of the Iranian Constitution:
Article 110
Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership:
- Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council.
- Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.
- Issuing decrees for national referenda.
- Assuming supreme command of the armed forces.
- Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.
- Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of:
- a. The fuqaha' on the Guardian Council.
b. The supreme judicial authority of the country.
c. The head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
d. The chief of the joint staff.
e. The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
f. The supreme commanders of the armed forces.
- a. The fuqaha' on the Guardian Council.
- Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations.
- Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council.
- Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council; and, in the case of the first term [of the Presidency], by the Leadership.
- Dismissal of the' President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution.
- Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation [to that effect] from the Head of judicial power.
To recap:
1) The Supreme Leader sets the general policies of the Iranian state in conjunction with the Exigency Council. The Exigency Council is appointed by the Supreme Leader.
2) The Guardian Council has the ability to veto any legislation passed through the Iranian Parliament (Majlis).
3) Half of the Guardian Council is appointed by the Supreme Leader.
4) The other half are appointed by the Majlis. However, members of Parliament, like anyone running for a political office, must be approved by the Guardian Council.
5) Anyone who is running for office in the first place must swear allegiance and loyalty to the Supreme Leader.
6) If a dispute arises, the Expediency Discernment Council is tasked with resolving it. The Expediency Council also acts as a conduit between the Supreme Leader and all branches of government, ensuring they are not conflicting with his agenda.
7) All members of the Expediency Council are appointed by the Supreme Leader.
8) The President can be removed by the Supreme Leader if the Supreme Court concurs.
9) The Supreme Leader controls appointments to the Supreme Court.
So, I'm not sure where your claim that Khamenei only holds power through consensus is coming from. It sounds to me like he has a pretty solid hold on power regardless, even if he lacks the force and charisma of his predecessor.
As for Mousavi, if you can show me where he's presented himself as a serious challenge to Khamenei's authority (which would make it hard to see how he was permitted to run by the Guardian Council), or where that perception gained traction, I would be interested in seeing it.
All foreign reporters have been banned from reporting/filming/writing about anything going on in Iran...
Have you EVER lived or even remotely visited or set foot in a country that has an authoritarian regime ? Have you EVER been in the Middle East region or Central Asia ?
If there is ONE thing that the people should not have to do in those regions, it's blame themselves.
I don't think you understand what it means to be forced into complying with rules that constantly impeach your rights to freedom.
It's like saying the people of ex-USSR countries have only themselves to blame for their current poor economic situation. It's extremely retarded.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcHT8-ps64w]YouTube - BBC - Protest against Iran election results -please share-[/ame]
BBC got their tapes confiscated, started filming again("more discreetly"..but they interviewed people still), got in trouble again, and then the protesters actually chased the fucking cops away
Yes and Yes. I've resided in Tito's Yugoslavia and speak the language (Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, whatever the fuck) fluently. Furthermore I've traveled to Egypt and frequent Turkey for business, and have a multitude of friends and aquaintainces who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, or contract there. I am also pursuing a minor in Middle Eastern studies from UC Irvine (along with a major in Computer Science, in an attempt to get a formal education). I have also read a number of books pertaining to the Middle East pre and post Cold War. So I have a remote idea what I'm talking about, but I will not pretend to be an authority (since I'm not).
And here is the reason I think the Iranians have themselves to blame: after they overthrew the Shah, the people of Iran were behind the wheel. They could've done anything they wanted, from setting up a communist dictatorship to a socialist democracy. And yet they sat down and let a couple of Islamist nutjobs take hold of the entire country. Now they're wondering, 30 years down the road, why their country is such a shithole. The answer is in their own lap.
Another example would be Israel. Since its creation in 1947 the country has gone from a ragtag settlement of Jewish terrorists armed with WWII surplus weaponry to a regional superpower that has militarily defeated its neighbors several times over, established a reign of economic and political stability, and cemented itself as a fixture in the region. At the same time, the surrounding countries, even with the vast economic resources and opportunities available to them, continue to stagnate and live in almost Medieval societies. Why is this? People blame the oppressive Americans, Israelis, the West, the fall of Communism, but in my opinion those are all excuses. If those people want to blame someone for their currently shitty situation, they don't have to look far from home. If the Israelis could get their shit together in under a century while getting pommeled from all sides by millions of genocidal Arabs, then I don't see what the Arabs excuse is.
My claim is simply a rehash of what I've read in a variety of magazines and online articles. I have no original sources to refer to, and I doubt anyone does. You refer to the constitution of Iran, but I would like to point out that things in Iran appear to work far differently from what the constitution suggests. If the Iranian leader truly had absolute authority, why not just appoint a President that suits him? Because the consitution doesn't allow it? Ok, then why doesn't he only appoint candidates that suit him, creating a fake competition? Because, in my opinion, he doesn't have that power. There are factions within his regime who are opposed to them, and who have presented a candidate (Moussavi), and have rallied behind him. The very fact that Moussavi exists and has drawn national attention pretty much proves that Khamenei's grip on power is tenuous.
I will try to link you to an interesting analysis of the current situation in Iran that I read the other day. The author states more clearly (and with more authority) what I am trying to say. No promises I'll find it though.
Your use of the phrase "genocidal Arabs" is more than a tad bit offensive. The majority of Arabs in the region are neither now nor were they in 1948 "genocidal." They simply didn't like the idea of a Jewish state being created next door, particularly at the expense of those who lived there already.
Your comparison of the Arab states to Israel is also a poor one. You cannot compare a country that simply emerged (thanks to diplomatic support from certain countries, but above all to pivotal arms dealing) and whose population was largely made up of immigrants from around the world or people whose families had immigrated a generation or two earlier, bringing with them, in many cases, education, skill sets and financing not commonly found in the region, to Arab countries around it that had experienced no such phenomena.
Furthermore, Israel does not rely heavily on natural resources. Most of the Arab countries do. Since natural resources are sold to foreign markets, the money ends up in the government's hands and not the people's. The people don't get the sort of voice and representation that they might have in a society where their tax dollars are something that the government relies on and where there is a thriving private sector, something that few Arab countries have. Some Arab states are making progress - life expectancies have increased as governments are finally spending some money on health care. Literacy rates are improving and some countries are getting university enrollment out of the single digits. There is still a long way to go, though.
So I would have to agree with AceofSpades that asserting that "the people" have no one to blame but themselves is more than a bit unfair. Nobody can snap their fingers and create a free and open democracy. It takes a long time, and in many cases, a lot of long, protracted battles.
It's not a question of whether or not people like Mousavi exist or if there are reform movements that Khamenei and similar hardliners take exception to. There are plenty. It is a question of which has leverage over the other one. The fact that Khamenei indirectly decides who is eligible for holding any political office and can remove most of them (including the President) more or less as he pleases should answer that question handily.
I think the point here is that countries can't simply be classified as "democracies" in one category and "theocracies/dictatorships/totalitarian states" in the other. Many fall in between. Iran is one such country. There is a framework of democracy there that Khamenei can't simply ignore, but at the same time, he has far more leverage over it than it has over him. Only when enough efforts to reform take root is that going to change - but again, you can't simply expect that sort of thing to happen overnight.
I'd be curious to see the author's position and the reasoning behind it. I'm no expert on Iranian politics, but rarely do I hear expert analysis suggesting that the country's religous establishment is currently at the mercy of the reformists and not the other way around.
+rep..although there is a significant number of Iranians who truly desire freedom, but are held back by the more ruthlessly psychotic elements..
- Status