On March 19, 2009, President Obama spoke directly to the people of Iran. He spoke of the "common humanity that binds us together" and of the "promise of a new day". He told the Iranian people that "you too have a choice".
The Iranians have given their answer to President Obama and have made their choice. They have overwhelmingly voted to continue their support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over reformist candidate Hossein Moussavi. Yes, I know that there are many who are questioning the results and the fairness of the election. There probably were irregularities. But there would have had to be massive fraud to overturn results which showed that Ahmadinejad out polled his rival by nearly two to one, gaining approx. 63% of the vote. Assuming that the vote is more or less representative of the feelings of Iranians and meets Secretary of State Clinton's "hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", what is their will and desire"?
Ahmadinejad is a vicious anti-Semite, anti-American, anti-Westerner, Holocaust denier, nuclear program developer, supporter of terrorism and terrorist states, and downright crazy nutbar. Unlike Hillary, I for one hope that the outcome does NOT reflect "the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people", because if it does, there is big trouble ahead. When, (NOT if), Israel goes after Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq's and Syria's, I will remember this election choice made by the Iranian people. President Obama probably is beginning to learn that "sweet talk" and disparaging comments over his predecessors' foreign policies will not get the USA very far. Obama has offered his hand of friendship. What he got in return was a clenched fist. Act One is over. Now let's see what Act Two brings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteYou're right: many well-informed people have declared the election a fraud. One of them is Laura Secor, the New Yorker's Iran contributor. She said yesterday that:
There can be no question that the June 12, 2009 Iranian presidential election was stolen. Dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying as much. Government polls (one conducted by the Revolutionary Guards, the other by the state broadcasting company) that were leaked to the campaigns allegedly showed ten- to twenty-point leads for Mousavi a week before the election; earlier polls had them neck and neck, with Mousavi leading by one per cent, and Karroubi just behind. Historically, low turnout has always favored conservatives in Iranian elections, while high turnout favors reformers. That’s because Iran’s most reliable voters are those who believe in the system; those who are critical tend to be reluctant to participate. For this reason, in the last three elections, sixty-five per cent of voters have come from traditional, rural villages, which house just thirty-five per cent of the populace. If the current figures are to be believed, urban Iranians who voted for the reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatami in 1997 and 2001 have defected to Ahmadinejad in droves.
Maybe it's a little premature to see this election as a resounding rebuke to President Obama.
I also found it heartening how many people actually voted. In the last Canadian federal election, the turnout was 59% of eligible voters. Polls show the turnout in Iran's elections was around 85%. That level of participation suggests the future of Iran as a democratic state is brighter than you'd think. They aren't taking their right to vote for granted. This Ayatollah may be the last to control Iran's government.
scott
The election in Iran was, like most elections, driven by multiple issues. And, like most elections, it is difficult to reduce the "message" to the single one that you, perhaps in a fit of pique, have chosen to ascribe to a complex nation comprised of millions of voters. So, to say that Iranians, by this vote, have "chosen" to convey a "clenched fist" to the American people, is worthy perhaps of Sean Hannity, but not of someone who claims to be from the "ivory tower". I am, sir, quite astonished.
ReplyDeleteI am curious, by the way, to know what you define as a "supporter of terrorism".
Scott, you may want to take a look at an article in the Washington Post, Monday, June 15 by Ballen and Doherty. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?referrer=emailarticle)
ReplyDeleteThese American pollsters contend that the extensive polling which they conducted indicate clearly that Ahmadinejad had a significant lead prior to the election. The authors explain their polling methods, taking into account all factors which may have skewed their results. They conclude their article by suggesting that "the fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted."
Ali: The election may have been driven "by multiple issues" aside from the destruction of the Jewish state, the support of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the development of a nuclear program in contravention of UN resolutions. Who knows, maybe Iranian voters were concerned with other more important things to them, and decided to support a crazy man despite his views on the Holocaust and the destruction of Israel and the West.
Prof. Klar,
ReplyDeleteMay I say without rancor that you are displaying a profound ignorance of Iranian politics and society? The "destruction of the Jewish state" would not have factored in that election, although the price of gasoline and of basic foodstuffs were important issues that were discussed. Ahmadinejad's posture towards the Jewish state was not mentioned in any coverage I saw. There was some discussion of the nuclear program, although there was just as much discussion about the Jewish state's nuclear program. That is something that you do not mention. Why is that, I wonder?
Like many parts of the world, there are political cleavages in Iran between young and old, and between urban and rural. In this respect, it bears some similarities to Alberta. Tell me, would you appreciate a former dean of law at the University of Teheran blogging about how Albertans all supposedly want to deny human rights to gay and lesbian people? If not, then why do you perpetuate these ridiculous stereotypes of Iranians supporting "a crazy man"?
One final point, if I may. It seems to me that the dangerous aspect of Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism is not that he is a "crazy man" but that he is in fact a rather ordinary, possibly stupid but clever populist. He is not "crazy", but he is a good politician. To ascribe these baseless qualities to him denies the true danger of his anti-Semitism.
Please sir, try to learn something about Iran before you spout such pedestrian insults about an entire country of people, many many of whom did not vote for Ahmadinejad.
Prof. Klar,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the informative article; maybe I was too hasty in siding with the conspiracy theorists. Still, I think that poll raises more questions than it answers. Nate Silver at Fivethirtyeight points out that almost half of those polled were either undecided or refused to answer. Probably the vote was rigged, but you're right: it is unlikely that the rigging changed the outcome.
I do think there's strong evidence the election was much closer than reported. And if Mousavi only lost (say) ~52/44, you shouldn't tar the whole country with Ahmadinejad's hatred. That's millions of Iranians voting for change-- and now demonstrating for it.
A moderate reformer lost to an ultraconservative man of the people, who had already served one disastrous term. Those who voted for that reformer regard the winner as a tyrant and a bigot, as does the rest of the world. That sounds an awful lot like the 2004 U.S. election.
I appreciate the input you gave, Ali, and the courteous manner in which you gave it.
ReplyDeleteLewis, I have to chuckle at you, of all people, dissing the Iranians for failing to be moved by the pretty speeches of Obama - you, who have spent so much time on this blog slamming the guy.
Also, I agree with Ali. You should learn more about a country like Iran before you start making wholesale pronouncements on its people.
Two people have died in those protests, I've seen the bloodied faces and hands of others. I've been sending news to a friend of mine in Iran who can't get it directly, because the govt has shut down so many of the news and networking sites. Does that sound like a govt that's confident it won a whopping majority to you?
Where's your compassion, man? Thousands of people are struggling desperately over there to get just one small bit of the precious freedom you were born with and never had to fight for.
Why don't you write about them?
Why do you always have to be so negative? (Except when it comes to hot-looking women eating raw meat...)
Sorry friends, but I just don't buy it. Maybe some of you should be doing some more reading about Iran as well.
ReplyDeleteRead for example George Friedman's article entitled "Western Misconceptions About Iran" in A Stratfor Intelligence Report, published in Real Clear World, June 16, 2009. Mr. Friedman claims that "Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years", and that Ahmadinejad won the election because he enjoys widespread popularity. He "speaks to the fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country" (those other than the "urban professionals"). These are piety, corruption of the Islamic Revolution, and Iranian national security. (Sorry Ali - "price of gasoline and basic foodstuffs" do not seem to factor in here). Friedman sees the victory as "a triumph of both democracy and repression".
For those of you who doubt the victory, read "Ahmadinejad won. Get over it" by Leverett and Leverett in Politico, June 15. Or take a look at the polling which I pointed out above.
As for some of your other comments, please. To compare the election of an anti-Semite, Holocaust denier, supporter of terrorism, and repressive crazy person, to some Albertan political leader who is against gay marriage, is beyond preposterous.
Where is my compassion, Fakirs? My compassion is for the State of Israel which Ahmadinejad has threatened to annihilate. Yes, there are protests in Iran, and good people there who undoubtedly do not harbour these hopes. I feel for them. BUT, the majority of the country just elected a person who has made his intentions crystal clear about what he would like to do. And they are not protesting over these views - only that their guy did not win.
And no Scott - I see no comparison between the 2004 US election and this one, and the "tyrant and bigot" who Iranians elected and George Bush. I assume you were being a bit hyperbolic there.
And yes Ali. Ahmadinejad is "crazy". He might be a good politician, and so was Hitler.
Professor Klar,
ReplyDeleteYou really ought to reconsider this post, particularly in view of the mass executions now being carried out, and documented by Canadian MP Cotler, of the anti-Ahmedinejad protesters on trumped-up charges.
"Ali" is right. You really don't know what you are talking about here, and you are just embarrassing yourself in the public square.
I am not exactly sure what you are saying "Anonymous". I totally agree with you and my post made it explicitly clear that I detest Ahmedinejad and his tyrannical, murderous regime. I would have liked regime change and democracy in Iran, if it occurred. But it did not. Perhaps it will some day. I think we both hope it does.
ReplyDelete