That "democracy Genie" sure turned out to be a joke...and a few bought it.

How sad...how blind.

HH
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-

Iran's Elections: A National Show Designed to Delay Democracy

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=2974


Dr. Walid Phares
14 Jun 2009

Iran’s presidential elections are over and — as predicted by the unapologetic regime’s experts and the real opposition groups in exile — Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the “pure son” of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, Pasdaran, wins, and wins big. For the connoisseurs in Khomeinist politics the win was a given from the beginning of the so-called Iranian presidential elections — there wouldn’t be any result that would contradict the principles upon which the “Islamic Republic” was founded. There was not a shred of doubt about the complete control the supreme ruler, Ali Khamenei, had on the process and the result.

As detailed by many specialists on the regime’s tentacles, the selection process of a “new” president for the “Republic” has multiple security mechanisms which ensure that the “elected” leader is in line with the Khomeinist ideology, platform, and long term goals.
First, no candidate opposing the “Islamist ideology” can be granted the authorization to run. The institutions regulating the elections are solidly in the hands of the ayatollahs. Hence, there is no pluralist process to begin with. Voters must select from those candidates “chosen” for them by the regime. Democracy dies in the first stage of the process, since citizens can only choose from one basket and candidates can only discuss what is permissible by the authorities. In short, Iran’s presidential elections are a charade, a show of colors and sounds, nothing more, nothing less. But international public opinion, particularly in the West, has seen images of “different” candidates, some labeled more moderate than others, and have seen large numbers of voters rushing to the polls in Iran. Weren’t the candidates really clashing over real differences? In fact, they were engaged in a “real” clash but not over “real” differences.

Here is why: In a well-orchestrated process which unfolds the ruling Mullahs’ scrutiny, four candidates have been selected by the Guardian Council — the supreme Islamist politbureau which sanctions all critical decisions in the country — to run for this election: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezai, and Mehdi Karoubi. The first is the current president, a previous member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). The second was Iran’s prime minister during the war years of the 1980’s, under Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leader who advocated the nuclear weapons program. The third is a former chief of the Pasdaran, wanted by the Interpol for alleged involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Argentina. The fourth, a former speaker of the Parliament, was one of Khomeini’s activists who supported the fatwa to execute British novelist Salman Rushdie.

Thus the four candidates were all part of the regime and were his faithful sons running against each other to snatch the top office of the executive branch. Khamenei’s top elite throw these bones to the public every presidential cycle to have them choose the “best CEO” for the “Islamic Republic” but would never allow a candidate to argue against this “Khomeinist Imamate.” Thus the question here is why would a solid regime, with a powerful repressive Pasdaran, endowed with millions of petrodollars even allow this charade? Why the show and for whom? Here are the two reasons for this spring’s production:

Playing to the Domestic Audience

With the rise of political pluralism in the country’s larger “neighborhood” in the Middle East, pressure is growing in Iran from young people, women, labor unions, intellectuals and many other citizens to move towards democracy. Watching women being freely elected in Afghanistan after the Taliban, witnessing the rise of more than a hundred political parties in a multi-ethnic Iraq after the fall of Saddam, and watching the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon defeat the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in elections has led to an epiphany among regular folk living under the oppressive rule of the Mullahs. The longing for debates, the simple freedom to carry signs, scream the names of candidates out loud, and watch televised debates cannot be so easily contained, and the ruling elite of Tehran have realized this. Even Kuwait and Pakistan are producing slowly mutating democracies. “If you don’t give some room to breathe they will explode,” advised the regime’s architects about their country’s citizens. In addition, the question of ethnic minorities is already exploding: Arabs in Khusistan, Baluch in the East, Azeris in the Northwest and Kurds in the West are all in ebullition over obtaining autonomy. The regime organized this sumptuous feast of a presidential “election” as way to divert national attention from the real ethnic uprising taking place in many regions of the “Republic.” How ironic it is to conclude that the Iranian presidential elections have been initially organized as a national show to delay democracy, not to hasten it. How can the real domestic opposition, whose leaders and cadres are assassinated, pursued, exiled, tortured and jailed claim a lack of freedom if millions of Iranians have been “part” of an election? To preempt a full democracy, the regime plays a few of its tunes to the public, before it closes the gates on real change.



Performing for an International Audience

But the “show” had an international audience as well. Iran’s regime has been accused by many in the West, including the former Bush administration, of being “oppressive.” Even though the current Obama administration has dropped the word from its lexicon and calls Tehran’s totalitarian Ayatollahs with the name they prefer, “The Islamic Republic of Iran,” still the regime feels it needs to embellish its tarnished image. And, as the current U.S. administration and some European governments are gearing up for a sit-down with the Iranian rulers to eventually cut a “realistic” deal with them, it would be very helpful for Western liberal democracies to show their own public that they are indeed dealing with an emerging democracy in Iran. Hence, covering Iran’s elections as real and free suffrage with people actually “electing” a president will allow certain leaders in the West to move more comfortably in the direction of Khamanei’s Islamist republic. Hence, not only the multi -candidates’ (controlled) cacophony is good to numb democratic feelings inside Iran, but it is also good to numb criticism abroad and facilitates deals between diplomats and eventually businessmen.

However, a more ominous goal is smartly embedded in the charade. As the international community presses Iran’s regime on the nuclear crisis, electing a “new” president,  in fact “reelecting” the current president is an enormous boost delivered in the ideal international context. By the time countries all over the world prepare to strike back with bombs, missiles and counter missiles and more at the Tehran’s regime’s plan for installing a nuclear military systemm another powerful shield will have been added to the Khomeinist layers of defenses: the claim that Iran has a “democratically” elected president. Indeed, the power of just such an argument will resonate deeply in the West. With a global media astutely manipulated to cover a dynamic election in Iran, the political reality will be different: future Iranian propagandists and their operatives in the West will argue that democracies cannot disarm other democracies. One of the most dramatic consequences of framing this presidential election as “real” will be felt much later, when the time to deal with the nuclear armed regime in Iran comes.



An Unexpected Uprising

Unlike previous elections, this last one ended with violent demonstrations, rioting and civil unrest in Tehran and some other locations in the country. For the first time Western audiences were watching Iranian police and Pasdaran cracking down on demonstrators upset with the regime’s electoral fraud. Mousavi’s supporters rejected the results and filed an appeal against the election’s outcome. Observers wondered why thousands of his partisans took to the streets chanting against the “regime” as a whole.  In fact, this was an optical illusion: The massive demonstrations against Ahmadinejad were (and are) conducted by real opposition masses. Students, young people, men and women have been emulating the Tiananmen Square uprising, as well as Eastern Europe’s awakening against the Soviets and going beyond the electoral dispute. In reality, the people clashing with the regime’s militia aren’t solely Mousavi’s supporters. Most of them are anti-Khomeinist protesters who are seizing the opportunity of the election fraud to show the world how disenfranchised they are. They are a “third” group, the real underdogs.



Thus the unexpected happened and the regime, which was hoping to produce an election and get away with its results, is now clamping down. As in other authoritarian regimes, the Khomeinists used the “counter-masses”, those members of the ruling party and its organizations to gather a super-demonstration “in support” of Ahmadinejad. By acting fast, the supreme rulers showed they are in control of their own people. Their propaganda machine and their allies worldwide rushed to prove that the Ahmadinejad supporters are greater in numbers, thus minimizing the uprisings by smaller groups of youth. Unless international solidarity builds quickly around the democracy movements on the streets, the Pasdarans will regain the streets again.

Once again, the Khomeinists have demonstrated their skills in taming their people, fooling the international public and outmaneuvering many Western chanceries. But this is only to delay an irreversible forthcoming real change. Time will tell when.

I'll agree with the sham part. However, the time when things really do change may be when Iran launches nukes at Israel (remember, they are religous Jihadists, MAD means nothing to them).

One or two hits...Tev Aviv or elsewhere would be horrible for Israel.  I don't think they can chance that if there is anyway possible to pre-emptively stop them.  I'm not sure they can stop Iran.  It's pretty clear to anyone with a brain that it's only going to get worse...of course, we do have iranian/terrorist lovers that will continue to blame Israel for everything.  It's to be expected from them...they shed tears at every terrorist death.

HH

All that recent developments have proven is that Amahdinejad is as dangerous as he sounds.

I agree, but many Iranian ass-sucking dumbasses don't believe that.  Really, even more than kissing their favorite terrorists, they despise Israel.  

Doncha just love the "democracy Genie out of the bottle" joke?  To think that anyone believe it'd be any different was laughable.

It's hard to be wrong all of the time....you can flip a coin and be right half the time.

HH

The majority of Iran's population is young (2/3) and pro-western and resents the Mullahs in power, and wants to become a secular, and modern nation.

The Mullahs know that the writing is on the wall.  

The fact that they even held these elections at all is proof of the fact that they know they must do something to placate the more pro-western majority of the population.

The absoloute worst thing for the entire region, Israel included would be, an Israeli attack on Iran.  It would galvanise the population against the West.

You divide and conquer, not unify and attack.

Time is what Iran needs, and the Iranian people will eventually clean house.

They are not Arabs, they are not Sunni Wahhabi Fundementalists.  

At heart the Iranian people have always been wanting to embrace the modern world.  They do NOT want to turn the clock back to the dark ages.

Under the Shah, Iran was a vibrant pro-western nation, and also Israel's closest muslim ally in the region.

The problem the West faces in the Middle East, is not Islam, it is:

1) Wahhabi Fundementalists.
2) Western Ignorance of the people, religion and cultures of the ME.
3) ME ignorance of the West.

Wahhabi fundementalism was a direct by-product of western ignorance.

Israel should desire a pro-western, secular Iranian government.  They would then have, an ally against the Arabs, and conversely the Iranians would also have an ally against the Sunni Arabs.  As it was 30+ years ago.  Furthermore a pro-western Iran would also reign in the Hezzies, which would also be in Israel's best interest.  

Israel has so much to lose by attacking Iran, and nothing to gain.

I am willing to give peace in our time a chance.

Very altruistic, Nick, but I'm sure that millions of Israeli's are glad you're not PM of Israel.

HH

ETA:  Please give ONE instance of Khamenei or Ahmadinejad declaring they want peace with Israel...just one.  We'll wait patiently.

HH

It's a beautiful thought.  I'd like to give those 2/3 a chance too.  Unfortunately, unless they can manage to take control of their country, it doesn't matter what percentage of the population is pro-western if and when the people running their country do something evil.

An Israeli attack is just what Ineedahandjob wants.  That way he can solidify power and tell the moderates "I told you so."

The current regime of Iran does not want peace with Israel, that's one of the things that keeps them in power.  

The majority of the Iranian population just wants to be left alone to modernize, and become a part of the modern world.  As under the Shah, Israel is a country with which they would share a common goal of western, secular government, and a common enemy in the Sunni Arabs.

Israel's best hope for peace, and continued survival is an alliance with a pro-western Iran.

Wow...please tell us how that will happen.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but we'll need specifics here.

HH

The people running Iran, have had the capability to attack Israel with WMDs for almost 30 years and have not.  There is also the distinct possibility that since the break-up of the USSR the Iranians may even have a handful of nuclear weapons.  None of which have yet been used.

The regime in Iran knows its days are number, and they also know the only way for them to stay in power is for the Israelis to attack Iran.  That way they will be able to galvanize the population together against a common enemy.  

Now with rioting in the streets due to the election results the population is divided, and their power edifice is beginning to shake.  Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake.

The bottom line it the Iranians do not want to get vapourised.  So are not going to launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel with WMDs.  Therefore, we should leave them be and let them come into the modern secular world, by their own hand.  When they do it will be the best thing that ever happened to Israel, for they will both share a common enemy in Arab Sunni Wahhabi Islam.  Furthermore, as under the Shah, Israel will be able to buy things like oil from the Iranians, something which there is not a drop of under Israel.

I have never been to war, but I know it should be something that is to be avoided at all costs.

Popular revolt, supported by western Intelligence services, CIA, MI6 etc.  

They can't suppress the wants of the young majority indefinitely, and they know it, that's why they felt they had to go through even the pretense of holding "fair" elections.

What will they use?  Rocks?....bricks?...sticks?

There is no doubt that many of the *street Iranians* hate the ruling clerics, but please tell us how they'll overthrow them.

In your world, how will the overthrow of the mullahs happen?

Just curious....by the way, you never answered my question:  Name one time Khamenei or MA has stated they want peace with Israel.

HH

Revolutions do not always have to take a violent form of civil war.  Help of organizations like the CIA would be of great assistance in any overthrow of government.  

What will the Iranians use to overthrow their government?  Time, MTV, playboy, booze, reality TV, you know all those depraved western pillars of life.  

Like I said the regime of Iran has never sought a peace with Israel, because it is one of the things that keeps them in power, making a demon out of Israel and the US.

Well, by golly Nick, I'll take your word for it!  Please let us know when that happens!



HH

The terrorists' (read mullahs and their thugs) frame of mind is rather very simple and easy to understand, perhaps too simple for the most sophisticated minds of the modern politics. They intimidate, they kill anybody mercilessly they lie and  they cheat. They have been doing this for 1400 years  as a way of life and their means of survival, so they are really good at it.

So with the basics in mind, the mullahs regime DID approve of the so called moderate mullah as the so called presidential candidate for two reasons.
1) To distract the world's mind and to create the illusion that there is 'hope" for change in Iran by the people themselves.
2) While in reality what happens inside the terrorist mullahs and their thugs are identifying and "marking" every single person who has spoken out against them, simply to destroy them.

There is no hope for change in Iran from within, not on it's own, and not even by the moral support of the whole world, the ONLY thing that will take down the mullahs and their international terrorist network is real bullets and bombs fired at each and every one of them repeatedly until they are all dead or surrender unconditionally. This will require a world coalition army against them on several fronts, as well as uniting, organizing, arming and training the Iranian opposition groups, who's numbers are in millions, an army in itself if it can get organized.

Israel can surely deliver major punches to the terrorist mullahs regime, but it will only make the terrorist networks worldwide mad and active, and it will recruit the so called moderate Muslims into the ranks of terrorists, (not that they ever condemn any act of terrorism anyway). Just imagine the lefty media, and the BHO regime and their reaction, they will make a monster out of Israel for defending itself, and sympathize with the terrorists. So that is not a good solution, but adding to the problem.

Chances are the world will not do anything about it, and the mullahs will crush their opposition in the most barbaric ways as they have always been doing, then they will hand over the nukes and several other Wads that they have been stock piling for decades to all kinds of the terrorists who have been on their payroll for a long time and have found their ways amongst every free nation, and already taken key positions.

Well then let's play out the other option that you favour.

Israel launches a pre-emptive air-strike against Iran's nuke program.

We will pretend that they have bombs big enough.

We will pretend they have the fuel to get there and back.

We will pretend they won't lose the better part of their Air Force in this strike.

We will pretend they can hit every single vital part of a program that has been dispersed over hundreds of different hardened facilities.

Even the Israelis themselves admit the best the could ever dream to accomplish would be to push the program back 2 years.  

Ok so the Israeli's successfully hit the Iranian nuke program, what happens next?

1) Entire Iranian population comes together against a common foreign enemy, any hopes for a moderate pro-western government evapourate.

2) Iran increases assistance to the Shia terrorists in Iraq, meaning more US deaths.

3) Iran increases assistance to the Hezzies meaning more Israeli deaths.

4) Iran may well decide to go shopping in Pakistan for nukes, and with the very shaky edifice of power in Pakistan, the odds are very good they would get nukes.

AND/OR

Iran develops its own nukes 2 years later anyway.

6) A nuclear armed Iran now decides it wants revenge for the Israeli attack.

7) Canned sunshine exchanges happen.

END RESULT= both Israel and Iran glass each other.  

Definately preferable to giving peace a chance.  

Israel's best hope for long term survival is a pro-western Iran, as they both share a common enemy in the Sunni Arab nations.

Bibi just said he would agree to a Palestinian state, maybe the Israelis want to give peace in our time a chance too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/5534791/Benjamin-Netanyahu-supports-creation-of-demilitarised-Palestinian-state.html

Yup, and the Palestinians pushed it off. Like they have with similar actions in the past. .

How dare you bring a logical analysis in to this discussion!!!!!!!

I have never seen a single post by anyone at anytime on this entire board that "sheds tears" for Islamic fundementalist Terrorists death.  Quite the opposite I think we are all happpy on this board when they get killed by the good guys.  I have seen a few that support the IRA, but that's the only terrorist organization I have ever seen posts in support of.  

For that matter I have never seen a post of someone in love with Iran either.

Now there are some people here that disagree with military action against Iran, does that make one a terrorist lover?

An Iranian/terrorist? Do you mean that all Iranians are terrorists?

I think he means certain people who like to go around talking up Iran and saying shit like, "Israel needs to shut up and go sit in the corner while the adults are talking ." One of the "adults" being a government run by the guy who wants to suck the 12th Imam's dick and his puppetmasters with double roll toilet paper on their heads.

One of them even got a temp lock for pro-Hez nonsense at one point.

Then when what they swear up and down fails to happen they leave for awhile. And don't touch it with a 20ft. pole.

Could you quote one of these posts of at least provide a link to the thread where someone explicitly states that they love terrorism and shed tears for every terrorist death?  Or even say something to that effect?  If there are people on this board who truly think that way I'd like to be made aware.

Again never have I ever seen anyone on this board, even in the many years I was reading even before I began posting, was there a person who wanted to "kiss their favourite terrorist."  Like I said it makes us all happy on this board when the terrorists get killed by the good guys.

I have only ever seen posts by one member who "despises Israel" and their name did not begin with v or 5.  There are though many members on this board who believe that Israel like so many other nations, is not perfect.  

Just because a member does not believe that Israel can do no wrong, does not mean they despise Israel.  Members who point out that Israel is not perfect, are doing simply that, no nation, the United States included, is perfect.  No big deal, all nations are governed by men, therefore they can never be perfect.  

Members should not be slandered if they do not agree with your opinion.  That's what so great about this board, so many different opinions and points of view, which most of the time we can voice respectfully.  

Anyway as always I enjoy the debate with you HH, and with A_F if he's reading.  

Yes, exactly.

Guy on the bottom remind you of anybody?


(Maybe write "Mousavi" on the carrot)

And of course he'd like us to believe these guys are actually "not so into extremism, and Ahmadinejad is stepping on their toes."

"He" does not like the .gov of Iran anymore than any of us, "He" just wants to illustrate that the Iranians are not some "Evil Untermenschen."

Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

As someone with Persians in his family (by law, not blood), I'm perfectly aware they're not. However, pretending the Iranians are all really pro-Western reformers just itching for an opportunity to turn into Los Angeles #2 isn't really honest either.

Not all Iranians are pro-western, but the majority of the population is.

Metallurgist's Law:

As an Israel/Iran discussion grows longer, the probability of it focusing on vito113 approaches 1.

A very slim majority, and one that is about as potent as throwing firecrackers at a Challenger.

The mullahs are a lot smarter about how to keep power than the Shah was, and no matter how much one pretends they're actually moderates, there is no evidence to back it up other than, "Hey, one of them is only 98% batshit crazy instead of 100%. REFORM!"

Ever read the "democracy is out of the bottle thread"?

Don't get me wrong, I think he's got a lot of valuable input on a lot of topics here. However, Iran is one of those where he does exactly the same thing he accuses his opponents of: letting personal biases completely and totally cloud judgment.

Though at least when he's finally and utterly proven wrong, he has the good sense to leave it alone unlike a certain other poster who will and has gone down swinging by completely dodging the issue and insulting your typos and personal hygeine if he has to.

I did.  You're holding it against vito that he didn't count on an election rigging that was so widespread and profound it would make ACORN jealous?

I also recall that thread title came from the title of an article posted therein.

Guess what, whoever the party bosses wanted to win in the Soviet "elections" always won too no matter how much people liked the bullshit "other choices."

One can be faulted for swallowing the bullshit that a theocracy has a real vote, yes.

I have a prediction: Hugo Chavez will win the next time there's a vote in Venezuela too, even if 60% of Venezuelans oppose him.

Wow, pull much out of your ass? Talking about everyone on here that says that always say the Iran gov. will not do this or that then when it happens backpedales and ignores it.

Based off the protests currently going on there, a whole lot of Iranians thought they had a real vote, too.

Last I heard, Chavez had an approval rating of somewhere around 60%, FWIW.

69 million Americans thought Obama was bringing hope, change, reform, fiscal responsibility, and transparency. Oops.

People are naive and fall victim to wishful thinking everywhere.

The sick thing is some of those 69 million will actually think they've gotten that from Obama.  And those are the folks you can't try to persuade through a respectful discussion because they're irrational emoting boobs to start with, but I digress.

I don't know that your analogy's completely perfect.  Obama's a snake oil salesman who preyed upon a certain type of people.  He's no more than that.  Iran's government is a theocracy cloaked in a democracy.  The theocracy wanted Ahmadinejad and that's brought it in to direct conflict with the "electorate".  What's to come of that now is the issue.  The article HH posted originally makes it seem like the die is cast that the protesters will go away and nothing will change.  I'm not yet sold on that.  I could be wrong.  I hope (and I'm going to assume you're with me on this) I'm right and the Iranians won't just roll over and take it, but we'll see.  In any case, I'm not ready to proclaim vito wrong yet.

Oh, I don't think they'll roll over and take it at all.

What I do think is it doesn't matter if they roll over and take it or not, unless they can grow guns and tanks from their asses. The percentage of Iranians who want the national Allahcide to stop is only a slim majority, and they don't control the IRG or Artesh or media or anything else. They've got as much of a chance as those students at Tiananmen.

I wish they had a chance, but they don't. Their parents fucked them with the Islamic Revolution and they're going to remain fucked until some kind of paradigm shift there.

At this point we're both speculating.  We've both had contacts with people who lived there so saying the Mullahs aren't supported by the majority isn't news to either of us.  How wide or slim the majority is is something I don't claim to know for sure.  Regardless, I agree the whole thing could turn out to be another Tiananmen depending on the IRG.  As far as I know the military's somewhat apolitical.  If the protests continue and they are called out then, well, we're stuck watching and hoping for the best.  The military firing on Iranian citizens could be the paradigm shift you mentioned.  In the end the theocracy could fall or a whole lot of good, liberal-minded, pro-Western reformers could get killed.  We'll wait and see and hope it ends well.

OTOH, this is the army that gave the kids plastic keys to heaven and sent them out to clear minefields and run the Iraqis out of ammunition.

I'll admit I'm extremely cynical when it comes to Iran, but it's hard to stop being cynical when the cynical point of view keeps being the one that always pans out regarding Iran.

He's not saying that any of the regime's folks want peace with Israel...



He believes there will be a 2nd Iranian Revolution, and that it will toss the Mullahs out...



As for 'how would it happen'...



It would require SIGNIFICANT foreign intelegence agency support...



Take street protests/riots like they just had...



Then you have a series of carefully planned attacks that (a) ratchet the violence up beyond burning tires to lethal force against the regime (Some folks 'in the crowd' of rock-throwers & chanters, who throw grenades, molotov cocktails, or gunfire), and (b) sabotage the regime's response (truck bombs against IRGC targets & C&C, etc)....



Have supporting assets ready to arm any groups that want to fight...



[b]That said, the worst thing that ever happened for pro-democratic revolution was Tienanmen Square... Why? Not because of the crackdown, but because it 'sainted' the Chinese dissadents and made dissadents in other countries think 'That is how you do it', completely ignoring that it failed..