Iranian Election Aftermath

Are we witnessing a pro-regime coup in Iran? What should the world do in response? How will the election aftermath affect Iran's projection of power into the Middle East?

Posted by David Ignatius on June 15, 2009 5:30 PM

Readers’ Responses to Our Question (88)

blund Author Profile Page :


I guess I'm just a bad citizen as I reject both your arguments and reasoning. Whether or not the world becomes democratic over the next few centuries is still up in the air. Nobody knows one way or the other if that will ever happen. Using force, as you suggest, to promote democracy isn't very democratic, now is it?


Give me a break. There is huge difference between talking to other countries and expressing your interests then meddling. Telling the Israeli's we think it is a bad idea to build more settlements or grab more land is the expression of an opinion. Funding Iranian dissenters to stir up civil unrest is meddling.

Like you said you pray for regime change in Iran. I just simply hope for it. I don't like the current regime at all. However, I don't believe that gives me the right to covertly attempt regime change.

I do get the biggest kick out your attempts to label me as an Israeli hater since I'm not. I have repeated said I don't care what happens. I don't care if the Israeli's prevail and blow up the Arabs. I don't care if the Arabs prevail and blow up the Israeli's. I'm simply not interested in taking sides in a religous war. If I had my durthers I'd like to see peaceful coexistence take place, but I have serious doubts this is even possible so I'm not holding my breath. Both sides in this conflict have acted poorly. That you can't see this is just another example of going through life with neocon tainted blinders on. An atrocity is an atrocity to most of us. Liberals don't give Israel a free pass to commit as many atrocities as they want because we don't hate the Arabs like you do.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


Questions: which countries are on the verge of financial collapse due to fiancial engineering in past 10-15 years?

1., USA
2., UK
3., Israel partially due to UK/USA + too much spent on IDF, and wars.

Question which other countries face economic collapse?

1., Japan [they have to import almost everything to keep their economy operating [note: did not say growing!]
2., Russia - they survived worse in 1990-s
3., various pacific rim states with too high population and insufficient food production [mostly middle classes and elites will suffer, subsistence farmers/fisherman will survive]
4., major shock to China, but nothing earth-shattering, for they are but one generation removed form absolute poverty.

Question which countries could start a war, to regain natural resources they depend on, or any other reason?

1., Israel WMD-s and absolute idiocity about Iran and imports almost all natural resources
2., USA, hail mary as economy collapses
3., UK??? too small, with some notions of of importnce [we had an Empire]
4., Russia [doubtful], for they did not start one in 1990-s as USA/OECD tried to rape their economy
5., EU doubtful, for does not have the armed forces [aside from some WMD in France/UK]
6.,China - unlikely, for they never did expansionist wars for 3-400 years [Tibet was part of China for long time, so this propaganda issue does not have merit].
6., Nations in Africa - no military
7., OPEC, no military for attack

The question remains which countries might take steps endangering the livelyhood of any nuclear power

1., Israel with respect unknown consequences of any nuclear attack on IRan, though possible even after conventional attack on IRAN.
2., USA the varioous doctorines regarding opec, israel and oil dependnecy

Both of these possibiliites arise for the simple reason that whole ME might end up in flames, thus destroying 40% of the world's oil supply. There were various wargames by the USA indicative that the probablility of IRAN's attack might destroy too much of Opec ability to ship oil, thus NO WAR.

Now it is up to you Daniel to refute the above.

farklol Author Profile Page :


If I gave you the impression that I was singling you out, I apologize. That was not my intention. As far as Bob, Salamon, and Tom are concerned, they arguments they put out have been made a million times before, by scholars and policy-makers and layman for the past two decades. I responded to you because I felt you brought something new, and while your opinions may not be wholly original, is unique and insightful enough to prompt interesting discussions on interesting subjects.

I wish to continue debating with you on PG, if you'd like, and I'll make a sincere effort to not let our discussions descend into ad hominem attacks, as it is prone to happen in heated arguments. Resorting to name-calling and personal attacks are nothing new: the ancient Greeks did it, so did the Founding Fathers. I've fallen into this trap myself many times, though re-reading my posts after the fact I feel rather silly for doing so.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


“…Interferring with their politics because we don't like them is just plain wrong to us. It has absolutely nothing to do about human rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with letting a culture be who they are. If that culture becomes a clear and present danger and/or commits an act of war then we have to deal with them accordingly. This is a very different approach then taken by your brother neocons…”

If you review the post on the present question, you get a feel for what the left believes today. The greatest threats to world peace are Israel and the US. How many posters accused the Great Satan (and little Satan) of meddling in Iran’s election? Iran’s election fiasco is clearly related to a power struggle at the top, but many posters (including yourself) believe that the US (and Israel) is instigating these protest which is horrendously misreading the political climate in Iran.

Let Iran be who they are? As an agnostic Republican, I don’t hope for regime change, I pray for it. While you chastise the US for “meddling” in the Iranian elections, Obama meddles in the internal affairs of Israel - and the left absolutely (and hypocritically) supports these actions. Obama forcefully tells Netanyahu no more construction in settlements. Obama then meekly condemns Iran for cracking down on the protesters:

“…He praised what he called the courage and dignity of the demonstrators, especially the women who have been marching, and said that he had watched the “heartbreaking” video of a 26-year-old Iranian woman whose last seconds of life were captured by video camera after she was shot on a Tehran street.
“While this loss is raw and extraordinarily painful,” he said, “we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.”…”

How about murdered, or at least killed? Loss? How about just saying “got herself killed”. This is not Obama’s at the Berlin Wall moment. Yea, and I get it, Obama is trying to put pressure on Iran diplomatically to end their nuclear program by using a policy of reconcilliation. Unfortunately, the Iranian “elections” will stall US-Iran negotiations still further, thus the Middle East will move still closer to war.

Have we ever talked about Iran’s “meddling” on PostGlobal? How about the time they meddled in the internal affairs of Argentina and killed 100 (+/-) Jews at a Jewish Community Center - just because they are Jews. No other reason, Bob. How about their “meddling” in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan? How about threatening the destruction of a sovereign nation numerous times while developing nukes, or hosting the inflammatory Holocaust Denial Symposium, kidnapping British soldiers, locking up old ladies, killing their own protesters (oops, sorry, got themselves killed). .

Meddling Bob? We have done anything but meddle in this election. Obama has been as low key as a cadaver, and of course, most leftist supports this position - and we hear the standard criticism of the US. The US interfered in the Iranian elections one-half a century ago and meddling will only make things worse. We supported the Shah, etc. Damn, Bob, we are a “downright mean country“. You even go one step further and hold the Republicans responsible for the deaths of protesters for supporting them. In the liberal world view, supporting an individual’s right to protest - free of “getting themselves killed” - is meddling. Again, I fully comprehend the strategy of Obama.

Finally, Bob, concerning “…letting a culture be who they are…“. Why not? Hang gays, well…just for being gay. Stone adulterous women to death (Saudis?). How about those minority populations in many countries that live as second class citizens - at best (dhimmis, for example). The caste system in India. Honor killings. Rwanda? Just an internal matter. As a multiculturalist, you accept human rights violations - such as gender discrimination - as just a cultural phenomena, thus its not really a human rights violation (modern liberalism). No matter how you want to view yourself as tolerant, it’s a sellout to human rights and clearly in conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thank God we have Amnesty International (who I believe) measures human rights violations according to the UDHR. Cultures can change. We did.

To defend you somewhat, if you hated every country/culture in the world that did not adhere to the UDHR, then you would face the same dilemma as Salamon. That’s too much hate even for Salamon, so he just hates two - Israel and the US (for supporting Israel, and of course, for our brutal and widespread use of torture).

Zolko Author Profile Page :

re "What should the world do about Iran" there are some new news to freshen up. From LEAP2020 (no links, so look it up):

"As anticipated by LEAP/E2020 as early as October 2008, on the eve of summer 2009, the question of the US and UK capacity to finance their unbridled public deficits has become the central question of international debates, thus paving the way for these two countries to default on their debt by the end of this summer."

What's more, Sarkozy (you know, the husband of Carla Bruni) is launching a national credit line to help with the french public debt (and don't worry, it has been pointed out that fighting debt with more debt is... well... the sign of the end)

I think the Iranians can rest on their ears. They won't have to face phosphorous bombs or attacks by drones any-time soon. They might have to put up a fight or two against their fellow Iranians, but nothing more severe.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Oh, stop being ridiculous Salamon. Your entire worldview has World war three arriving by the actions of the U.S.--no matter what the U.S. does. Your entire worldview has absolutely no possibility of World War three arriving by any other nation but the U.S. The U.S., the most free and powerful democracy the world has ever seen--a glory ancient Athens wished it could have had in a world of despotism--you call an empire as if no different from the despotisms left and right. In fact in your worldview no countries are more despotic than the U.S.--so save your bullsh*t for your own supper. The fact of the matter is the U.S. is on the right side of history--is not a might makes right nation. The might makes right nations are all the ones all too despotic. But they will fail and democracy will persevere as it has for millenia against the tide of the despots whether it takes world war three or not. In fact, better world war three than your view of the world prevailing--a worldview which more than sympathizes with the despots. The world can crash and man be annihilated and some ape rise again to man and still democracy will be aimed for and your worldview fail. The U.S. to say it again, is on the right side of history--and the right side has the right to use might because all the despotic nations live by that rule, that stupid might makes right. Call me old-fashioned but the U.S. has a manifest destiny, a mission to bring democracy everywhere in the world--and the U.S. has already succeeded beyond expectations. But there is more work to be done. Democracy must spread by every means possible. You call that the path to world war three. I say if the U.S. does not continue moving toward promoting democracy world war three really will arrive--by all your friends, the despots. The only thing I can say kind about you Salamon is that perhaps you are really not a bad person, only complaisant--thinking if everyone just places nice (meaning the U.S.) the world will just rise up out of the despotism remaining and everyone will be happy and democratic. I believe all too much of the world is a problem and world war three is arriving anyway by their actions so the U.S. should do what it can. World war three--interesting how everyone bandies the phrase about. But no one really reflects how exactly such a thing will arrive if it does arrive. Except for you Salamon--you are convinced it will come by the U.S. if it comes at all. Meanwhile here in the U.S. I enjoy my freedom like all my fellow Americans and in so many places around the world freedom is crushed if it tries to breathe. And the threats to freedom have always existed--have tried to crush democracy since its first appearance in ancient times. But what do you know of freedom Salamon? Certainly I have never heard you use that word.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

JRLR and Salamon

Regarding POTUS. Ain't it great that your government in Canada supports the US and is helping us fight the Taliban in Afghanistan? Canadians have always been loyal members of NATO.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


The media tends to report mass movement events, such as the protests in Iran, in simplistic ways. Many politicians, especially the neo-cons with their militaristic ideology and most Republicans seeking temporary partisan gain, are even more likely to oversimplify what is actually going on in Iran.

Dang, I'll bet Jed Clampett was a Republican.

“…Pundits and politicians, especially conservatives, are describing the protests in Iraq primarily as demands by the people there for "democracy" and "freedom." How do they know this to be true? Have they scientifically polled the protesters?…”

The protest are against the hardliners in Iran led by Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader. The protesters are rallying behind Moussavi who is considered a reform candidate. According to Wikipedia, the platform of Moussavi is as follows:

“…Among his policies are creation of a free environment for the flow of information and corrections to the national budget. He wants to promote the creation of private, non-governmental TV networks and stop the operation of the "Moral Police". He has spoken about his opposition to massive changes in ministries which he claims is what Ahmadinejad has done. Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, his plan includes reducing the cost by opposing radical approaches while maintaining what he sees as Iran's right.
He has also vowed to review laws that discriminate against women in Iran. He has said that he would seek to disband the so-called morality police force and ensure that Iranian women are treated equally, with the ability to attain financial empowerment and to serve at the highest levels of decision making bodies.…”

Do you really want me to go through the policies favored by Ahmadinejad who hosted the Holocaust Denial Symposium in Tehran?

“…On the surface, most protesters in Iraq are outraged at likely significant or widespread voter fraud at the expense of their favored candidate. Many are also probably frustrated with the current regime because of pervasive economic distress many have endured in recent years. However, to contend they seek democracy and freedom, as those terms are more or less understood in the west, may or may not be true…”

Iran - and its well known - is one of the most westernized countries in the Middle East. In addition, the country contains a very young population which does not bode well for the Mullahs. They may not seek a western style democracy, but obviously, they are no longer interested in the oppressive theocratic society favored by Khamenei (and Ahmadinejad). Freedom and human rights are clearly culturally dependent. Obviously, a western-style democracy will provide the greatest freedoms, and protections for their minority populations.

“…Had the government rigged the election so the candidate of those protesting, unfairly won, there is very little likelihood they would be protesting, demanding a revote, democracy, freedom or virtual overthrow of the regime. Neo-cons and Republicans would be unlikely to side with any protesters, if the current regime had supported the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq, recognized Israel, generally acquiesced in the neo-con ideology of Pax Americana…”

Sounds just like every other country in the world today. The US is interest driven. That doesn’t mean that Republicans don’t support democracy. Neoconservatives especially support democratic change, however Democrats and Republicans practice realpolitik, thus, Obama held his Cairo speech in, well, Cairo - a human rights and democratic disaster.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld Author Profile Page :

To Yeolds, following your POTUS post.

You may wish to add this to your list, assuming you have not read the news already.

"Deadly 'drone attack' hits Pakistan

A suspected US drone attack on a stronghold of a Pakistani Taliban leader (?) has killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens more in northwest Pakistan, Pakistani intelligence officials have said.

The missile hit a funeral ceremony on Tuesday in the South Waziristan tribal region, a stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud.

Al Jazeera's Kamal Hyder, reporting from Islamabad, said most of those killed were believed to have been attending the funeral for the victims of another drone attack earlier in the day.

"There are reports that Baitullah Mehsud himself was at that congregational prayer and escaped the attack. However, we are told that a number of people present at that particular moment were killed," he said.

"There were unconfirmed reports that the death toll is much higher because a number of the bodies are badly mutilated."


"It may play into the hands of elements like Baitullah Mehsud because the attack took place on a funeral - there are cultural sensitivities here as well, " Hyder said."

What a surprise! It would seem that even in Pakistan, there are "cultural sensitivities" such that attacking funeral ceremonies is not viewed favourably.... Who would have thought?...

yeolds Author Profile Page :


On your last post you indicated that any action is applicable to achieve the end you or Uncle Sam elect to choose anywhere in the world.

You are essentially saying that RIGHT [where you or Uncle Sam define the meaning of the term] IS RIGHT.

This is the arrogance I pointed to when I deplored the actions of EMPIRES, for they do not think of the future, their concern is the immediate present.

Russia crushed the Eastern Bloc [though they were givern the right at Yalta], and 40+ years later most of these Eastern Countries are in NATO.

The USA illegally invaded Iraq, and occupied Afganistan, committed acts of war against Pakistan, Somalia, and aided and abetted her proxie/ally to attack Lebanon, Gaza, etc. 7 years later the USA has no friends in Arab lands [some satraps still rule, whose life-expectency is rather short] and is facing the possiblity [reality] that it will have to depend on these natins to get its life-blood, oil.

Before you get carried away with your desire of making democracy appear in Iran at the end of a bayonet [or Predator] recall that Iran is China's primary oil supply, that China might not take kindly to such adventures, that China controls the future of US$ and can reply any kindness with Nuclear weapons.

Must consider some deep thoughts Daniel, lest your actions lead to WWIII.

radiantgold Author Profile Page :

We are clearly at the endgame and a pro-gov't coup of sorts seems to be occurring. However, that same gov't still is threatened if they have decided to for a special court to hold protesters accountable. Given the weekend arrests of the several family members of Cleric and former President Rafsanjani, it looks like a fracture exists within the "Guardian Council." After 7 days of peaceful demonstrations, on Saturday the Supreme Ayatollah made good to threats of violence with protesters at the hands of the Basij Militia.

Although the mass-protests have quieted due to the danger in marching, it is clear that the will of the Iranian people will not be fulfilled if Pres. Ahmadenjad is sworn in for a second term-according to sources as early as July 26.

As the fortunes of Iran goes, regional leaders will use events Iran-if the US becomes intrusive- as a pretext to walk away from Israeli-Palestian peace talks. Solving that problems would put a serious dent in backbone of terrorism.

President Obama used his press conference today to tell Republican lawmakers in short-shut up. He made it clear that he did not want to jeapondize the lives of any Iranian protester. Memories are short and only a few years ago, the Bush admin was talking about attacking Iran-a nightmare scenario.

The US is bearing witness to election theft-essentially a coup by the sitting gov't. It is a sad day for the Iranian people as they have lost the power of their voter as well as their freedom.

The last words have not been said but the strategic view is very foreboding at this point.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Blund from Daniel. About five posts back you replied to Tom who accused liberals of throwing human rights under a bus, for not challenging the more despotic and human rights problem regimes etc. You essentially said other peoples--not Western civilization--have the right to self-determination. You essentially said the U.S. has no business meddling in other countries affairs regardless of their political structure. Well you are just plain wrong. You seem to think that if the world is not moving toward democracy that no problems will exist. You seem to think that a variety of governments can coexist in the world--meaning along with the democracies all the types of despotic regime now in existence (typical liberal multicultural view). The fact is the entire world will have to become democratic one way or another--and probably quite a bit of force will be necessary before worldwide democracy will be achieved. Your viewpoint is essentially complaisance--as if all the problem countries will not be much of a problem at all, will not have far reaching effects (meaning touch the U.S.) and the U.S. can simply wait for those countries to catch up to democracy, or at least become somewhat amenable. I believe the neocons are absolutely right to try to spread democracy by force--for it will have to be spread one way or another. Of course I expect you to say concerning the last sentence that we should talk to people, help them, etc. But that is not what you said at first. You flat out say leave them alone--not try to affect them at all. Once again, complaisance--in fact flat out foolishness, as if the democratic countries have not had to fight for millenia to exist, as if today citizens of democracies do not have the obligation to defend and spread democracy. Well I have news for you: perhaps the most necessary and unspoken part of being a citizen of a democracy is that one be willing to spread democracy, no matter what it takes. That is a qualification for citizenship. To not know that is to be a bad citizen....

yeolds Author Profile Page :

Amazing hypocracy, the POTUS wants the the protest to continue unabated. He was quiet as a church mkopuse while Israel was bombing Gaza. He made great speech in Cairo, while Predators under his command were killing pPakistani civilians.

Does this man has moral standards, or is his actions and words based on what the neo-cons propose?

Think2 Author Profile Page :

Whoops, we cannot post a link.
Playing for Change music video below is on Youtube.

Think2 Author Profile Page :

To the people of Tehran in your struggle:

SXSW 2009 Music Video: Playing For Change - Stand By Me
SXSW 2009 SHOWCASING ARTIST - Opal Divine's Freehouse - Friday, March 20 - 8:45 p.m.

Aprogressiveindependent Author Profile Page :

The media tends to report mass movement events, such as the protests in Iran, in simplistic ways. Many politicians, especially the neo-cons with their militaristic ideology and most Republicans seeking temporary partisan gain, are even more likely to oversimplify what is actually going on in Iran.

Pundits and politicians, especially conservatives, are describing the protests in Iraq primarily as demands by the people there for "democracy" and "freedom." How do they know this to be true? Have they scientifically polled the protesters?

People usually do not protest, whether people in this country who opposed the Vietnam war, the Chinese in Beijing about twenty years ago, etc. for exactly the same reasons. On the surface, most protesters in Iraq are outraged at likely significant or widespread voter fraud at the expense of their favored candidate. Many are also probably frustrated with the current regime because of pervasive economic distress many have endured in recent years. However, to contend they seek democracy and freedom, as those terms are more or less understood in the west, may or may not be true.

Had the government rigged the election so the candidate of those protesting, unfairly won, there is very little likelihood they would be protesting, demanding a revote, democracy, freedom or virtual overthrow of the regime. Neo-cons and Republicans would be unlikely to side with any protesters, if the current regime had supported the Bush ordered invasion of Iraq, recognized Israel, generally acquiesced in the neo-con ideology of Pax Americana.

So the reality is most neo-cons and Republicans, in my opinion, pay lip service to "democracy" and "freedom," in trying to undermine regimes they seek to overthrow, while ignoring the lack of democracy and freedom in regimes they support. This has been going on for many decades, so the hypocrisy is hardly new.

blund Author Profile Page :


You wrote:

"The left has always been thoroughly predictable. They used to be, predictably, in support of human rights, and now, predictably, they throw human rights under the bus in search for that ever elusive dream of peace on earth."

I know this is a foreign concept, but nothing you wrote could be further from the truth. We believe people have the right to self-determination. Interferring with their politics because we don't like them is just plain wrong to us. It has absolutely nothing to do about human rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with letting a culture be who they are. If that culture becomes a clear and present danger and/or commits an act of war then we have to deal with them accordingly. This is a very different approach then taken by your brother neocons. Every country that doesn't kneel before the US is a clear and present danger and doesn't deserve self-determination.

In fact the neocons will take it further and interfere with other societies and/or invade them while preaching moral superiority. Iraq was and will remain a neocon war of choice. It was sold to rid the planet of Saddam's WMD's and the harm they could do after 9/11. When a reluctant neocon administration finally had to admit there weren't any WMD's then it didn't matter as Saddam was a bad man anyway. All that has ended up happening is we have wasted American lives, Iraqi lives, destroyed infrastructure, started a civil war, and wasted a vast amount of treasure on this meddling neocons think is useful. What have we got for all of this? A de-stabilized Iraq at everyone's expense. A record to be proud of if there ever was one.

If you don't believe the neocon's aren't fermenting the discontent in Iran you are dead wrong. Groups of American neocon's went flying off to Paris this past week to meet with Iranian opposition leaders. Do you think was done so they could lunch and enjoy the spring flowers in Paris?

Finally, the democracy issue is so passe it's boring. We can't even influence our so called friends down the road of democracy (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait just to mention two) and you think we can influence Iran who is not our friend? Face it, we use democracy as an excuse to meddle and nothing more. It seems just about everyone except the right has already figured this out. Time to catch up, don't you think?

Shiveh Author Profile Page :


Calling the Shah’s regime beastly and the Mullah’s regime democratic shows how little you know about recent Iranian history and events.

There are hundreds of documented stories and acres of cemetery plots that prove Mullah’s is a barbaric regime. I know of some of the stories first hand. I know some of the people involved by their first names. Some from my extended family. So let me tell you of just one. You are free to believe it or reject it; just hear it.

Islam prohibits execution of virgin girls. During the time that Khamenei was president and Mussavi prime minister, there was an uprising in Iran in which about 60,000 people lost their lives; many young girls among them. They were raped the night before execution to obey Islam’s edict. I know of a father who killed the man that knocked his door introducing himself as his son in law before informing him that his daughter was executed the night before. The rapist asked for a customary wedding gift and got a bullet instead. The old man used the second bullet on himself. You should know that savagery in the Mullah’s regime is systematic, it is not isolated.

Be critical of American hegemony as much as you want but do not close your eyes and support any regime just because they are anti American. Choosing sides first and then looking for reasons to justify your side, too often makes you a hypocrite. This regime in Iran is not democratic. They pick and choose the candidates only because if they let people choose who they really want, people will pave the road for a national referendum that’ll end their rein. The uprising is genuine; the hatred real. Do not belittle the brave people of Iran to satisfy your anti-American sentiment.

Mussavi, Rafsanjani, Khatami, Karoubi, and many Mullahs that you do not know of are not American stooges; they are the first among Mullahs that have sensed Ahmadinejad’s plot for establishment of a militaristic fascism in Iran that soon will change the constitution, get rid of term limits and become the sole dictator of Iran. Ahmadinejad with the help of Basij and part of Pasdaran forces will sideline the Mullahs, but his Napolionistic dreams are more dangerous than the present regime.

People are not fighting for Mussavi, they are using an opening they have to fight for their freedom. They are endangering their lives for what they believe in. Honor them or leave them alone, do not belittle them.

I can count many faults with America’s actions in the world, from Chile to Iraq, but looking at all of the superpowers in the history of our world, starting with your favorite China and ending with USSR, I can not name another superpower as civil and as beneficial to humanity as America has been. Everything is relative. Nothing is absolute. And fairness is a virtue.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


You will remember that it was the reform candidate, Mousavi, that first questioned the results of the election. Mousavi is controlling, to a large degree, the rioting and protest, but in reality, the protest and rioting are directed at the regime itself:

1. For blatantly fixing this election,
2. and for the thirty years of repression where the people really have little say in the affairs of their country.

I think that you must be on the same drugs as Rush to hold the Republicans responsible for the deaths and injuries from rioting. Its really a dumb statement.

I agree with you, however, that Republicans (and probably many Democrats as well), hope for regime change, although none of the so-called reform candidates really offer anything at this point to suggest this would lead to major policy changes, but it would be a massive victory FOR THE PEOPLE, just like the 1979 revolution.

Yes, I sincerely hope for regime change because, realistically, there is no other easily achievable way to a democratic Iran, but just as important, only regime change can lead to the possibility of settling their nuclear issue, and other destabilizing regional Iranian policies. Unfortunately, if Khamenei was ousted, I couldn’t take credit, nor could any American (Republican or otherwise). Only the Iranians would be responsible because it’s the Iranian leadership that is at war. It’s a power struggle at the top, and the reform candidates are using popular discontent to voice their opposition to the hardliners. As I mentioned in a previous post, this election is a catastrophe for Obama who does not want to be seen as interfering into the Iranian election. Humanitarian issues are far down the list for Obama in priority (at this point in time). Solve the Palestinian and Iranian nuclear issues first.

I misread the rioting at first as just protest against the fixing of the election - a charge voiced by Mousavi, but the protest by the people are really directed at their government. Of course, the modern left plays an interesting role. Leftist SHOUT (in solidarity) to the Iranian protesters: No one has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of your country. No one has the right to voice their support for your protest - no matter how brutal your government.

The left has always been thoroughly predictable. They used to be, predictably, in support of human rights, and now, predictably, they throw human rights under the bus in search for that ever elusive dream of peace on earth. In Iran, they blame the protest on US and Israeli interference. The Iranians are apparently incapable of noticing the oppression and brutality of their own government.

Thanks for the discussion.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

To those who confuse the Nornmandy invasion [theoretically and actually] a war to oppose foreign occupation of a third party, and imperial police actions by Russia on a land given to it as a reward for WWII at Yalta by the other imperialist powers, I would suggest that they study on the matter of freedom!!!

Normandy was to free Eaqurope of German invasion, Russia just reasserted its occupation power on a small country!

If you can not see the difference, then one would have to adjudge that the USA is made up of jingoist uneducated non-citizenws [for a citizen must know and understand his country's philosophy].

I would suggst that the first step for Mr. Obama, if and only if, he actually wants to have meaningful discussion with IRAN, is to publically renounce all CIA/Mossad/MI5 or 6 attempts to undermine the sovereignity of IRan, and issue an Executive Order to CIA and various other US spy services that they are to cease and desist in this issue, and suspend all funding thereto.

Citizenofthepost-Americanworld Author Profile Page :

What we are witnessing is a long prepared, meticulously planned and well-orchestrated subversive campaign, financed, organized and led first and foremost by the U.S., with the intent of discrediting Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s legitimate revolutionary government, and Iran’s current political leaders, in the hope of replacing them by an Iranian government fundamentally of their own choosing. An interesting new element in this campaign is the extent to which it has been and continues to be drummed up, intensified and kept going by unknown entities, i.e. literally anybody, with no proofs, no facts, not even anything tangible on hand to begin with, simply using very extensively and skilfully the most recent means of communication now available.

There is no mystery in what is happening now, as this is no precedent. To put recent events in context, the U.S has long been known to have repeatedly conspired against and subverted innumerable democratically elected governments it did not like, on every continent, and to have replaced them by friendly dictatorships (“authoritarian governments” is the euphemism normally used). The irony in the present case is that it be claimed that all this is done in the name of democracy. Indeed, we all remember that not long ago (that was in August 1953), in a coup supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments, the democratically elected Iranian Mossadegh government was removed from power by the CIA and replaced by the friendly Pahlavi Shah’s regime, more appropriately considered beastly than barbarian, itself at the very source of the Islamic Revolution and of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is even more ironical that what we are now witnessing be done under the leadership of sweet talker Barack Obama, after Americans having been ruled for four long years (and how clumsily!) by a doubtfully elected president, after a presidential election in which managing to count votes properly was not the least concern of American citizens.

In response, the world would do well to notice that under its new leadership, nothing substantial has changed in the United States of America. It should also take good note that be it in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world, power, however legitimate, needs to be defended without compromise and with the utmost energy against outside interference by the sovereign, i.e. the people, as distinct from what one's enemies calls so. Still today, « ¡Patria o Muerte! » are no vain words, as Cubans continue to remember and to pay generously the price of their freedom from the likes of Fulgencio Batista.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


So it is true that there was some election fraud. Not surprising, but the size is still in dispute. Thanks for the info!

Daniel, Shivez et al:

I am not bitter about the USA/Hungary discrepency in 1956. Both the USSR and the USA were imperial powers who used their power in their perceived interest. The only thing I dislike in these imperial actions is the utter confusion by the appropriate leaders to take into consideration the long time effect of their misguided behavior, the necessary blowback coming years later with very damaging effect on the respective imperial powers' standing.

Contrary to your assertion I am not anti-semetic, whether towards the semitic tribe of JEWS or the semetic tribe of ARABS. I deplore the actions of Zionist Israel as much as I deplore the actions of the Arab monarchs, or the suicide bomber of Palestine or the actions of Mubarak in Egypt.

I am fully aware that proponents of laissez faire capitalism, neo-con imperialsism, Zionist apologist could not subscribe to Aristotle's [Nichomedian ethics], Conficius's and other similar adages considering the way to have a harmonious society.

Of course, this attitude by Neo-cons et al leads to the demonization of THE OTHER, wherein their pain, their death, their bankrupcy due to lack of health insurance is of no concern - IT IS THE EFFECT OF THE MARKET, and has nothing to do with the neo-con et al individual's actions toward the OTHER.

The important thing to these neo-cons et al is the PROFIT, the high standard of living for themselves and blindly following the fairy tale of propaganda: WE EXCEPTIONAL [forget the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such documents - all part of our Constitution], WE SUPPORT DEMOCRACY [as long as it supports us, else to hell with the notion], WE ARE FOR PEACE [only on our own terms] as we bomb other countries to the stone age etc.

Question: would Bush have invaded Iraq if the result of such invasion is that the USA's cities are bombed to the extent that Bagdad etc was bombed? Or is it that we the exceptional arrogant nation have DECLARED BY WORD AND DEED THAT MIGHT IS RIGHT?

If the answer is positive to the notion that might is right, then murder, torture, fraud, etc is not a criminal act, but only an aspect of might is right.

Your views on this issue of MIGHT IS RIGHT would be most welcome - your explanation must be related to IRaq, I/P, health care, and the 1000000 bankrupcies in USA, 60 % of which nis caused by serious illness.

blund Author Profile Page :


That's not beef, that's even chicken soup. Iran has a long history of votes exceeding eligible voters according to the lists of eligible voters. However, what is being purported here isn't a case a few thousand or even a million tombstone votes. Iran is being accused by the wingnuts of a massive fraud that far exceeds anything over zealot campaigns could cause.

This whole thing so far seems to be a ruse to justify regime change. Since you are neither fair or balanced I would expect you on the ruse bandwagon. We all know you hate the Muslims and instability in Iran is viewed as a positive change in the region by your kind.

Here's the only problem that I'm sure doesn't effect you at all. At some point the powers in Iran will step on the protesters. I don't mean a couple of dozen. I mean thousands are risking death while being spurred on by the right wing. When, and if, this happens and regime change fails these dead and seriously injured people will just be collateral damage in your pursuit to meddle in Iran's internal affairs. That's sick. If there is one thing the R's don't have it's the Muslims best interests at heart. Yes, I am accusing your side of using these poor souls. The right views this as a no lose scenario. Accuse them of voter fraud without anything more then innuendo, dump money into the fray, tell them they are being supported and stir up the pot. Either two things can happen. First, regime change takes place and you'll consider that a win. Second, they step on the protesters and kill a few thousand to quell the riots and the wingnuts get to sit back and say I told you this was a repressive regime. Again, very sick minds think this stuff up with no concern to peope's lives.

This whole affair has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. It has everything to do with taking out a regime the wingnuts see as bad.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob and Salamon

From the New York Times this morning, “Iran admits Possible Dicrepancy in Three Million Votes”, June 22, 2009:

“…TEHRAN — Locked in a continuing bitter contest Monday with Iranians who say the presidential elections were rigged, the authorities here acknowledged that the number of votes cast in 50 cities exceeded the actual number of voters, state television reported following assertions by the country’s supreme leader that the ballot was fair….”

Here’s some more “beef” for you, Bob.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


"...The U.S. apparently promised to help (is this true or not?) and now Salamon is no doubt one of the many Hungarians dedicated (a life project?) toward discrediting the U.S. any way possible. Apparently being an antisemite helps him in his discrediting of the U.S. What the U.S. supports must be bad. Israel must go down...."

Sounds like leftist philosophy, in general. The two greatest threats to world peace - Israel and the US.

Apparently (through radio free Europe) the Hungarians were misled by the US which promised to help.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Dang, it was rather slow.

"...Iran: bad, Israel: good..."

Iran fix elections, Israel don't. That is good.

Zolko Author Profile Page :

Tom; looked like a busy week-end for you. No BBQ, no swimming-pool, no bicycle promenade, no movie... only "liberal-bashing @ WaPo" ? Iran: bad, Israel: good.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Tom, I see you are heroically trying to put some sense into Salamon. Face it, if Salamon is not a Muslim he is what he says, an Hungarian bitter about the U.S.'s actions back in 1956, when the Hungarian revolution against the Soviets was crushed. The U.S. apparently promised to help (is this true or not?) and now Salamon is no doubt one of the many Hungarians dedicated (a life project?) toward discrediting the U.S. any way possible. Apparently being an antisemite helps him in his discrediting of the U.S. What the U.S. supports must be bad. Israel must go down. Of course Europe and Canada and Japan and other U.S. allies must go down too.--Wait, Salamon says he lives in Canada. Canada must be spared....

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

Here is the reasoning of Salamon: "Do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you".

You mean expose yourself to others because you wish them to be kind?

I sure bet Salamon and all other social democrats/liberals wish others would do as they, the social democrat/liberals, try to do unto them, the others.

The only problem is people do not do as we wish them to do--no matter how kind we are. If they did we would not need such wishes at all.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


“…He would then be siding with those rightly protesting voter fraud, but also who did not democratically win the election.…”

Uh, what’s the point of fixing an election if the candidate won that you wanted to win? After all, Khamenei could wait until the results were tabulated before he fixed the election.

“…Obama's critics are oblivious to this, of course, which suggests their main goal is not to promote democracy in Iran, but to destablize and overthrow the government there…”

Well, if your goal is democracy in Iran, then what other way are you going to achieve that goal other than a regime change? Sure, you can wait for it to happen internally, but that isn‘t likely for the foreseeable future. In addition, there are many other benefits to regime change (besides the elusive Middle East democracy) such as the end to funding, arming and training Hamas and Hezbollah, ending their nuclear weapons program etc. Of course, this all depends on who assumes power.

“…Electoral fraud for many decades characterized many elections in this country and was practiced by both parties….”

How does a fraudulent election in the US make a fraudulent election in Iran more acceptable. Fraud is fraud.

“….Some neo-cons seem to be implying they support military intervention in Iran if the government crackdown becomes more pervasive….”

"...Some…seem to be implying..."?  There is not a lot of force behind that statement because even a neocon can figure out that our military is busy at the moment.

“…Republicans and some Democrats declare they are on the side of democracy in Iran. However, the second Bush was indisputably not democratically elected in 2000. Using the "logic" of some Republicans in demanding another election in Iran, there clearly should have been a revote in Florida…”

Just a suggestion for you: get over the 2000 election, however, I wouldn’t have opposed a second vote in Florida (and I’m as Republican as it gets) - or an internationally monitored second vote in Iran.

Republicans may claim to be standing for "democracy" and "freedom," yet they….oppose equal rights for gay, transgendered people in this country.

Interestingly enough, so does the President,

“…"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."…”

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


It really doesn't matter if you threw molotov cocktails at tanks or stormed the beaches at Normandy, if you say something stupid, you should be held accountable - just like the rest of us.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob and Salamon

More tidbits of information meant to undermine the validity of the Iranian election (besides the fact that the opposition candidate is risking his life). Eventually, you will both come around, but it may take awhile.

From the New York Times - today.

"...A Lede reader points out an interesting analysis of Iran’s election results that was published by London-based Chatham House. The analysis [which can be googled if you go to the New York Times], based on the province-by-province breakdowns of the 2009 and 2005 results released by the Iranian Ministry of Interior, challenges some of the assertions about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection made by Iranian officials.

The authors cite these highlights of their analysis:

1) At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent conservative majority.

2) In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and all former centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two groups.

3) In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas. That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces flies in the face of these trends..."

TomW2 Author Profile Page :

Bob and Salamon

Here is some indirect evidence that the election was fixed, however, if you are waiting for Khamenei to admit that he rigged the election, its just not going to happen. This is an article from the Washington Post yesterday:

The Devil Is in the Digits

By Bernd Beber and Alexandra ScaccoSaturday, June 20, 2009; 12:02 AM
Since the declaration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory in Iran's presidential election, accusations of fraud have swelled. Against expectations from pollsters and pundits alike, Ahmadinejad did surprisingly well in urban areas, including Tehran -- where he is thought to be highly unpopular -- and even Tabriz, the capital city of opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi's native East Azarbaijan province.
Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. Eyebrows have been raised further by the relative consistency in Ahmadinejad's vote share across Iran's provinces, in spite of wide provincial variation in past elections.
These pieces of the story point in the direction of fraud, to be sure. They have led experts to speculate that the election results released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior had been altered behind closed doors. But we don't have to rely on suggestive evidence alone. We can use statistics more systematically to show that this is likely what happened. Here's how.
We'll concentrate on vote counts -- the number of votes received by different candidates in different provinces -- and in particular the last and second-to-last digits of these numbers. For example, if a candidate received 14,579 votes in a province (Mr. Karroubi's actual vote count in Isfahan), we'll focus on digits 7 and 9.
This may seem strange, because these digits usually don't change who wins. In fact, last digits in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election. They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud. For example, an election in which a majority of provincial vote counts ended in 5 would surely raise red flags.

Why would fraudulent numbers look any different? The reason is that humans are bad at making up numbers. Cognitive psychologists have found that study participants in lab experiments asked to write sequences of random digits will tend to select some digits more frequently than others.
So what can we make of Iran's election results? We used the results released by the Ministry of the Interior and published on the web site of Press TV, a news channel funded by Iran's government. The ministry provided data for 29 provinces, and we examined the number of votes each of the four main candidates -- Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai -- is reported to have received in each of the provinces -- a total of 116 numbers.
The numbers look suspicious. We find too many 7s and not enough 5s in the last digit. We expect each digit (0, 1, 2, and so on) to appear at the end of 10 percent of the vote counts. But in Iran's provincial results, the digit 7 appears 17 percent of the time, and only 4 percent of the results end in the number 5. Two such departures from the average -- a spike of 17 percent or more in one digit and a drop to 4 percent or less in another -- are extremely unlikely. Fewer than four in a hundred non-fraudulent elections would produce such numbers.
As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections.
But that's not all. Psychologists have also found that humans have trouble generating non-adjacent digits (such as 64 or 17, as opposed to 23) as frequently as one would expect in a sequence of random numbers. To check for deviations of this type, we examined the pairs of last and second-to-last digits in Iran's vote counts. On average, if the results had not been manipulated, 70 percent of these pairs should consist of distinct, non-adjacent digits.
Not so in the data from Iran: Only 62 percent of the pairs contain non-adjacent digits. This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent. And while our first test -- variation in last-digit frequencies -- suggests that Rezai's vote counts are the most irregular, the lack of non-adjacent digits is most striking in the results reported for Ahmadinejad.
Each of these two tests provides strong evidence that the numbers released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior were manipulated. But taken together, they leave very little room for reasonable doubt. The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot.
Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, Ph.D. candidates in political science at Columbia University, will be assistant professors in New York University's Wilf Family Department of Politics this fall.

Aprogressiveindependent Author Profile Page :

The ongoing events in Iran need to be examined within a broader historical context. While there is strong likelihood there was fraud in the election, no one can prove, at least so far, the utlimate outcome, in terms of who won, would have been altered if all votes had been fairly counted. This suggests, if Obama openly sided with the regime's opponents demonstrating in the streets, he could be supporting the side which did not actually win the election. He would then be siding with those rightly protesting voter fraud, but also who did not democratically win the election. Obama's critics are oblivious to this, of course, which suggests their main goal is not to promote democracy in Iran, but to destablize and overthrow the government there.

Electoral fraud for many decades characterized many elections in this country and was practiced by both parties. Widespread fraud by both parties was especially prominent in the 1876 election and the net result was probably a "stolen" election. Some Republicans complained voter fraud in Illinois and Texas resulted in Kennedy's narrow victory in 1960. The United States government, whether led by Republican or Democratic presidents, has silently acquiesced in essentially rigged elections in some countries, since the 1950's, as long as the regimes were deemed "friendly" toward this country.

The mostly Republicans, especially neo-cons, who criticize Obama for being "timid" in his public reaction to protests in Iran, seem to be urging him to explicitly meddle in the domestic affairs of Iran, potentially to be on the side of those demonstrators, who are in effect, calling for an overthrow of the government. Some neo-cons seem to be implying they support military intervention in Iran if the government crackdown becomes more pervasive. Unless they want a United States invasion of another country in the Middle East, prevocative rhetoric by some neo-cons is only a repeat of the Eisenhower administration and first Bush administration in encouraging active resistance respectively in Hungary and Iraq, but doing nothing as the protestors were repressed.

Republicans and some Democrats declare they are on the side of democracy in Iran. However, the second Bush was indisputably not democratically elected in 2000. Using the "logic" of some Republicans in demanding another election in Iran, there clearly should have been a revote in Florida. Republicans may claim to be standing for "democracy" and "freedom," yet they oppose the citizens of the nation's capital having voting representation in Congress, oppose abolition of the antiquated, undemocratic electoral college, are against equal rights for gay, transgendered people in this country.

blund Author Profile Page :


I don't have any information the election in Iran was fixed. If it was and someone can show it I'll change my previous comments. Until then I'll stick by what I've said.

I do know the repub's have constantly challenged voting rights in this country right up through our last presidential election. They think all elections are rigged. I think it's one of those cases where "they doeth protest too much." Election fraud with them this trying to limit and intimidate people from exercising their right to vote. We all know the people they go after are the poor and disenfranchised since they are much more likely to vote liberal. On one hand they (R's) are fond of telling us how fair and balanced they are and on the other forgetting to tell us their definition of fair and balanced is so narrow it has lost all meaning.

I'm sorry, but after the neocons lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction I have a hard time believing anything they say that they can't prove. They started two wars they couldn't finish, they almost busted the world economy, they set medical research back 8 years and they were incapable of rebuilding an American City after telling all of us Brownie was doing a heck of a job. What's to believe? If they were children we'd put them in time out for bad behavior. If one person of recent events represents my frustration with neocons it has to be Sen. Ensign. This bastion of morality went off on Clinton for his affair with Lewinsky. He told the president the right thing to do was resign. Ensign told Craig to resign. Now, he gets caught with his pants down for doing one of his best friends wife and he doesn't resign. It's the typical do as I say and not as I do. That just about sums up a neocon. As a group they have the collective intelligence of a card board box.

These are same people who are telling us we ought to meddle in Iran's election. Hmmmm, let me see...I've been lied to, lied to and lied to again and now I should believe you without a shred of evidence? Color me pink for questioning their veracity, but I've learned better. It's kind of like Iraqi's will welcome us with open arms. Iranians will be happy if a Christian county meddles in their elections. That's the neocon line and they're sticking to it and they could care less if facts (or lack thereof) get in their way.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


You never went through a bloody revolution/crushing process. I did. I do not trust any news source without data.

After you have faced a T-35 Tank with nothing but a Molotov Coctail, then you may criticize my blase comments about death and destruction.

As I told Tom and the crew here, I AM NOT A LIBERAL!!!, If anything I am Social Democrat, who tries to apply the multicultural adage [present in most cultures from China to USA, from Norway to s. tip of Argentina] whose one form runs like:


Starting fire on an occupied building is a crime in the USA, in Canada, and most other countries. Self defence would exorniate any person under these circumstances in most Jury Trials.

Aside from the above I have grave suspicion that there is such a thing as unbioused reporting from IRAN in the USA MSM, which clearly underwrites the notion of USA HEGEMONY [especially with respect to oil].

Shiveh Author Profile Page :


It is easy to relax in Canada and support the Iranian regime. You have no first hand direct information and reject all MSM and Internet amateur reporting. That leaves you with your leftist ideology and petty prejudices (yes Tom, I’m starting to see it) to come up with comments like “One protestor gets himself killed” frankly one of the most insensitive and careless comments I’ve seen on this site. You need to care for humans before you get to comment on humanity.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


I have no information from anywhere that the election was fixed. There is absolutely no data on the NET.

Election day,
M declares himself a winner BEFORE THE VOTES COUNTED!!

Government replies a few hour later that A won - probable from most analyses I read: based on demographics and state subsidies.

As Per analysis of the TWITTER ISSUE, it appears that there are some outside forces in the game. 10-50 000 protesters, mostly middle calss educated with access to the internet demonstrate [and start fire on a house occupied by the B-paramilitary non army, One protestor gets himself killed.

The hoopla over who won reminds me of the MSM feeding frenzie before the Iraq Invasion -- lots of BS, no data, no investigation: Cohen, Fisk etc are in Tehran, no reliable news from the farms, the poor sections of Tehran, etc.

Now we know that approx $400 000 000 was devoted to "regime Change in Iran" in the last couple of years, We are not informed if Massad is involved - though the Jerusalem Posts; article [and revison of article after analysis] indicates that there are some power from Israel in the mix.

The notion that the USA is interested in democracy is well debuked by the 30+ regime changes, "colored revolutions" in the last 20 odd years. Not forgetting Hamas just lately, the support of Abbas, whose term has expired months ago, etc.

Interesting, there was no MSM report that I read that Panama just had an election. In fact, I do not recall too much news about elections in the 195+ sovereign states, except if such was on the radar of the US/UK promoted USA hegemony.

The fight in Iran seems to involve a corrupt previous President, who becqame extremely rich [billionair per Forbes] during the last 10 or so years [this co-incides with his Presidency] and A, who lives a very standard middle calss life according to Irani living standards.

R's group lost control of the oil revenue, and A used big part thereof to subsidize the poorest segments and the bureaucrats.

You say there is no USa involvement [overt], this is invalid observation:
1., Constitutionally the Supreme Leader is the power
2., MSM and USA politicians always talked of A as the real power -establishing the sceneario to lambast Iran if A is in after election.

2 a., note that the Federal Government has never made any statement about A's speech mistranslation, a point indicative of political meddling, since clarifying the issue would have served the TRUTH MORAL BEHAVOIR and would have negaqted the political spin propragated by Neo-Cons, Aipac and related FRIENDS OF THE COMMON USA CITIZEN!

3., Look at the map, there is no neighbor of Iran which does not have USA troops, Planes, Missiles, with the inclusion of the Persian Gulf, excluding the Caspian Sea

You could also look at the present bruhaha as a continuation of the Great Game, control Iran's power either by Russia [with China], or England - going on since the xixth century, with the USA replacing UK after 1956.

It is true that the selcetion of candidates in Irani election is controlled. But that is true of USA elections, with the parties, with the money procurers, with K-street and with SCREAMING SOCIALIST.

Observe the moneys spent by Iran and USA: in Iran most goes to the poor to compensate for inflation manufactured by USA's organization of long standing trade sanctions, bank sanctions etc. Here in USA land in the last 10 months 12+ trillion dollars [only about 3+ was spent, however the info is restricted]was appropriated by Congress and the Federal Reserve to bail out the super rich.

Look at the health care debate: 80% or so wants public Healthcare [the OECD standard] yet Congress and Administration talk of fooling around to save the insurance industry's take from health care spending.

The pressure on the USA is greater now than a few months ago, as the price of oil is rising, yet again, and for good in the long term, thus strengthening the suppliers, and weakening the buyers. Almost 1/2 way to the recent top, a level of prices that teh USA economy is incapable of facing! Would not it6 be just loverly if we coulod get our ahnds on Irani resources, we almost got thye Iraqui resources sown up. We are still dreaming of the trans Afganistan pipeline from Central Asia.

Also recall that the #2 and #3 superpowers [via access to WMD-s] also back the present Irani Government. BEST BE CAREFUL!

blund Author Profile Page :


How can you make a statement like the elections were clearly fixed? Where's the beef Tom? What's the fix? I could understand a statement like in my opinion they appear to have been fixed, but not that they were clearly fixed when there isn't a shred of evidence yet to back up that statement. Unless you have facts the rest of us aren't privy to this just continues to show your hostility towards the Muslims.

As much as the leadership in Iran would love to blame the US for their unrest today they are finding it rather difficult to do. Why? Because Obama has been smart enough to stay out of it and only indicate the world is watching.

Here's the real issue Tom. You never want to address the fact Israel is sitting on nuclear weapons and has never signed the non-proliferation treaty and in fact doesn't even acknowledge they have them. You have never acknowledged we treat our barn yard animals better then they treat the Palestinians. You have never said a word about their land grabs or settlements. You have never said a word about Israeli's spying on the US. All you have consistently done is blame the Muslims. In your mind one side (Israel) can do no wrong and the other side (Muslims) can do no right. You'll smear Muslims at every chance and turn a blind eye to Israel's transgressions. Why don't you just start advocating the whole sale slaughter of the Muslims? You seem to be incapable of believing they are worth anything.

In one of your previous posts you went after liberals for not being fair and balanced. If you don't think I'm laughing my butt off over that post you'd be mistaken. There is nothing fair or balanced about your views on the ME. It is all one sided with zero interest in being fair or balanced.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


"...No. I think the Israeli Zionist Government Cabal [and unfortunately too many citizens] will not accept Obama's plan..."

What plan?

Living under Palestinian rule may not be that bad?
Yea, look at how many benefits the Palestinian leadership has brought their people since partition.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


No. I think the Israeli Zionist Government Cabal [and unfortunately too many citizens] will not accept Obama's plan.

the 3-4 years for two state solution is the time-frame of the Present President [barring re-election].
I maintained previously that the PEAK OIL, Global Warming, and exhaustion [or nearly so] of numerous trace metals, with the degadation of farmland due to industrial agriculture will limit any and all nation's ability to wage war, for even the winner ends up wasting precicous naturqal resources, which it can not replace.

At that time, 10-15 year hence, Israel will have a choice: one state [and being minority, which may not be so bad] or N-war - which will be a an empty victory, for ISrale will cease to exist.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Its fairly clear that Obama has a strategy for solving the problems in the Middle East. Obama's overall strategy is to put pressure on Iran with a policy of reconciliation. He hopes to isolate Iran so that if (when) the negotiations over Iran's enrichment program fail, he will gather support from Europe to impose tough sanctions on the Iranians. The US offered peace and respect to Iran, and abandoned the policy of regime change. Iran rejected the overtures and continued with their enrichment program anyway.

The election in Iran is a nightmare scenario for Obama's strategy of a peaceful and respectful US - a US that no longer tolerates meddling in the affairs of another country - especially a Muslim country (OK, forget Iraq and Afghanistan for the moment). Obama, in no way, wants to confront Iran on human rights - and be seen as interfering in the internal affairs of Iran. Confrontation only paves the way for the Iranian leaders to blame the US for their own internal problems - and allows Iran an escape if negotiations with the US fail.

Obama is under pressure to more forcefully support the people of Iran rebelling against the tyrannical rule of the Mullahs. The elections were clearly fixed, but this protest is taking the shape of a general rebellion against the oppressive theocratic state. So far, Obama has responded meekly to say the least.

This is exactly what I’ve talked about in the past, and what I’ve called “reconciliation” liberalism. Human rights abuses are overlooked in the name of peace and/or cultural relativism. It’s a peace at all cost strategy. In affect, Obama is throwing human rights under the bus for the overall goal of peaceful coexistance.

yeolds Author Profile Page :
TomW2 Author Profile Page :


The British figured out long ago that the Palestinians and Jews had much different aspirations for statehood which were not compatible. A two state solution was first proposed in 1937. A single state solution is mostly favored by leftist (and Islamists) who believe that multiculturalism can be applied to the Middle East - like South Africa - and that two cultures can be preserved under one rule.

In the world of multiculturalism, the single-state proposal is the just solution, and South Africa is the model. Four million refugees would return and the Jews would soon become a minority in their own state under Palestinian rule. But the Palestinians haven't even demonstrated any success at self rule, and in fact, have engaged in a civil war vying for power - which is still in progress with no end in sight. Furthermore, there isn’t even a Muslim country in the Middle East that subscribes to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a requirement for your support.

Multiculturalists are idealist, but the Israelis have a different interpretation of history. One state under Palestinian rule would more likely resemble Zimbabwe than South Africa - followed by a mass exodus of Jews from Palestine. The single (Jewless) state solution to the Palestinian conflict.

Do you really expect the Jews in Israel to support this alternative in 3-4 years?

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


“…Please note, I am not opposed to the existence of Israel as a society, I am only opposed to Israel as a JEWISH NATION - a conntradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights….”

No question that Israel must skew their laws in favor of Jews to maintain a Jewish majority. That’s simply because Jews are small in numbers world-wide with an estimated 13 million total, but most countries in the world, in one way or another, violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) with the “west” being the general exception.

Israel has been at war for over half a century, but is democratic, in principal. I briefly went through the articles, but I didn’t see anything that indicated being a Jewish state, a Muslim state or even an Armenian state violated the UDHR. I’d be interested in which articles that Israel violates just for being a Jewish state? Were not Bosnia, Kosovo and Pakistan created as Muslim states? Kosovo and Bosnia were created to protect their human rights.

From Wikipedia (UDHR):

“…In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law. On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam [CDHRI], an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah"…”

Muslim nations - who are some of the worst offenders of human rights on earth - rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in favor of the more culturally sensitive CDHRI which is based on Islamic law.

From Wikipedia (CDHRI):

“…In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CDHRI limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: "The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration."
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CDHRI: "undermines equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law….Similarly, CDHRI is criticized as not endorsing equality between men and women; moreover, it is accused of asserting the superiority of men.  In the Article 6, women are guaranteed equal dignity, in contrast to the Universal declaration which offers equal rights. Rights are specific and can be enumerated, whereas "dignity" is an amorphous concept which means one thing to one group, and another thing to another group….Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries…”

There are 57 members of the organization of Islamic Conference (48 with Muslim majority populations) that, presumably, subscribe to the CDHRI which permit’s a degradation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because of cultural relativism. That’s 57 Muslim states that do NOT recognize the UDHR! And you are concerned about one Jewish state that might not meet every aspect of the UDHR? By the way, one of those states is Pakistan - which was partitioned from India as a Muslim state by the British (more colonial meddling).

It seems to me that you can’t accept the idea of a Jewish state any more than the Palestinians, but is the UDHR the primary reason? How many Muslim countries actually meet your standard for human rights? Why don’t you object to Pakistan, Bosnia or Kosovo - all three created for Muslims? How many articles on the UDHR list does Saudi Arabia violate alone?

How many does China, North Korea and Iran violate? It seems to me that you are holding Israelis to a different standard that everyone else.

blund Author Profile Page :


The Israeli's using dirty tricks to help enflame world opinion against Iran? How can that be? According to Tom they are the bastions of all that is good.

If this blog is correct then we have a fraud to prove a fraud. Soon we'll have the fraud to prove the fraud of a fraud and so on.

I do agree with Zakaria's interview on CNN. Obama is doing the right thing staying out of this mess and if you have a controlled election that turns into an uncontrolled election it speaks volumes as to the longevity (or lack thereof) of the regime in Iran. How much power do you really have if you can't control a controlled election? Ah, isn't life great? We have frauds to prove fraud and Iran can't control a controlled election. Anyone else getting dizzy thinking about this?

yeolds Author Profile Page :


An interesting analysis of the tweeter traffic from IRan. Done by expat USA citizen now in Spain:


It is not the left or the right which supposes that there is only solution in I/P is the single state. Without short term solution to the two state issues [3-4 years], the inevitability of 6-7 million Jewws vs 100+ million Arabs is a non-sequitor.

blund Author Profile Page :


Fair and balanced? Depends completely on your point of reference. Fair and balanced when compared to the myopic right? Yes, very much so. In order to be fair and balanced one needs to view all sides of an issue and have legitimate debate to increase the probability of coming up with the best possible solution. This is a completely foreign concept to a neocon. They are not interested in free and open debates unless they can limit the parameters to their point of view. (I told you Cheney's continued remarks about being un-American, treasonous and emboldening the enemy would come back to haunt your party. It was simply an attempt at limiting the debate within the neocons agenda).

The Israeli's blame everything on the Palestinians and the repub's blame everything on the dem's. Why is this Tom? I'm not sure but, it smells an awful lot like being unable to accept responsibility for one's actions. To balance this out the Arabs blame everything on the Israeli's and their allies. Not a lot of responsibility from them either. See, you have more in common with the Muslims you despise then you thought.

You're not interested in being fair or balanced. Anyone who would call Jimmy Carter anti-semetic is neither fair nor balanced. They are completely agenda driven and have flushed the concepts of fairness and balance from their systems. Carter is actually more of one of your kind then mine. He's a devout Christian would reads the bible with his wife daily. His only "sin" was pointing out Israel hasn't treated the Palestinians well (that's an understatement by the way) and he's automatically labeled a anti-semite. Shame on you.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


In addition, it’s the left that’s led the effort to boycott Israel (because of their racist and apartheid system of government), and the left that has been calling for the single state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for the same reasons…..

The left. Fair and balanced?

yeolds Author Profile Page :


Thank you for clarifying the history of Colonalism in ME. Being on the loosing side, the Ottoman Empire was divided among the winners, such as UK, France, and the Borders redrawn to reflect the balance of power. Certain local rulers were moved along, and others were allowed to take over, Thus Jordan has a king from Saudi Arabia, the House of Saud is allowed to rule [being a nomad war lord before] We give Basra to IRaq, but take away Kuwaqit from the Basra ruled area, and install another local warlord [establishing Kuwait]. The result is that Palestine becomes a UK Colony, Lebanon A french, the rest are satraps....
Lo and Behold Lord Balfour at the bequest of the Rothchild Family proposes .... Does not go well...
1949 President Truman allows [and USA votes for establishment of Israel in UN] wherein only 40+ states are present of the approx 200 [at present]. All major western Colonial Powers {USA, UK, France, the declared winners of WWII excluding the greatest winner USSR - which was compensated in Yalta, by being given East Europe] decide the fate of another colony, the Palestinian MAndate - Finally the plan of the Crusades overwhelms the Muslim/Arab World - western hegemony over ME.

Now in 1956, the ragtag Colonial powers, UK/France object to Nasser's claim to the Suez Canal and start a war. At the same time USSR is upset with the aspirations of Hungarians, and reasserts the result of Yalta, via military might.

President Eisenhower persuades Fr/UK to cease and resist, while disregards the USSR/Hungary issue - contrary to promises made via the Voice of America [CIA supported "free" radio]. Result the USA assumes control of ME via the UK installed satraps [ruling families].

Then comes the various Israeli Government actions re Palestineians mostly supported blindly by the UK/USA rooted double standard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention, the early Security Council directives on Israel, etc.
This 1956 event [aside from the loss of the Korean War, when China stepped in As USA was getting too close to Chinese Border] defined the political future of USA - EMPIRE BUILDING whose most recent aspects are the Wars in IRAQ and AFGANISTAN [oil/pipeline related] the various color revolutions financed by USA [and USA NGO-s, with ample help from CIA and related grey organizations [though some are black, for they assissinate] with the latest being the effort in IRAN -the last bastion standing against USA hegemony in ME [with Syria].

The USA and other ex/part Colonial powers allow aid and abet Israel's nulear weapon development, declare various Doctorines relating to their own national interest and keep Israel supplied with the most modern weaponry.

The USA becomes the energy hog of the world [for a long time the largest producer of oil] then comes 1973 [the Hubert Peak] wherein the USA starts depending on IMPORTS - disregarding for 30 years Presidential desires to become less dependent on foreign oil. The Petro dollar/major reserve currency helps the appearance of WEALTH CREATION. Bush II totally mismanages the USA economy/ wars [with ample help from all Congress Memebers - all being in pocket of Military-industrial-oil cohort] til the time that the cost of oil/gas/coal reaches 25% of world's GDP, causing an implosion of economic activity and destruction of wealth.

Israel being aware that the Bush area [great supporter of Israel] is over, tries to eliminate HAMAS -its own creation, by starting an overwhelming military led destruction of GAZA with USA supplied Phosphorous, Bunker Busting and other Bombs, Apache Helicopters, F-16-w,USA supplied rockets, ammo, etc.

The actions are so inhumane that even parts of the Jewish disapora [more Jews in USA than in Israel] gets fed up by considerable %.

President Obama makes a nice speech in Cairo [and before that to Saudi satrap owned nwspaper and in Turkey, however the actions of the Congress, Dod, Cia, NGO-s belie the reality of the speech, for the Imperial effort to control ME and excuse any and all actions by Israel continues with even more bombings, Predator Missiles, and political/militatry double speak ]actually lies or propaganda].
To me it appears that the USA is on a skid, and will fall faster if the Congress and Administration continues to waste scarce resources on Wars and Destabilization of foreign countries. China and Russia are getting fed up with the USA effort to encirclle them via the moneys they lend to USA. Were these two countries get really upset, the USA dollar will be destroyed - which event also can occur through the actions of Administration/Congress without any outside influense - too much dept, too much off budget promises, too much military effort destroying scarce natural resources.

As the USA $ falls the cost of energy rises. at present it represents approx 12% of World GDP, getting closer daily to the level which made a big dent in USA wealth, ability to operate a beneficial economy [to all citzens, not just the idle rich].

So uncle Sam has some serious issues to resolve, in such manner that China, Russia and Opec Japan does not get upset. Were these 4 groups/entities get too riled, the USA will either start WWIII or collapse. The Staus Quo vis-avis the economy, finance and monetary behaviour is unsustainable.

The future of USA's economic/military health has great efffect on Israel, for short of Using N- weapons, Israel is a walking dead in face of 1.5 billion Muslims, when the BRIC powers are uninterested in her existence.

Final point: no nation has a right to exist. History clearly indicates that even the greatest, wealthies nations collapse sooner or later due to internal political hubris, eg. Egypt, Greece, Rome, China [5 times], Maya, Inca, UK, France, Germany, USSR and many more through the ages.

Please note, I am not opposed to the existence of Israel as a society, I am only opposed to Israel as a JEWISH NATION - a conntradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

With respect to the Geneva Convention[and laws on Torture] you either accpt them as a whole, or reject them as whole - in a similar fahion that a woman is either pregnet or not pregnant - there is no third choice of little pregnant.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Words have meaning, and Carter like everyone else, must be held accountable for what he states.

How did you feel about the white racist government of South Africa, Bob? What images does South Africa bring to your mind? Carter is simplifying the conflict as one based on race. If the Jews just accept the Palestinians, there will be peace - like South Africa today.

To Carter, those racist Jews are the problem, but who has had the problem accepting who? Forget that the Palestinians have never accepted the Jewish state, or that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel. Forget that after partition of Palestine, the Arabs attacked the Jews (and so on). None of this seems to register with Carter who visited Hamas last year, and believes that peace can be achieved if the Jews just quit hating Arabs.

Equating Israel to South Africa is inflammatory, a basic lie and anti Semitic. If Carter doesn't want to be labeled an anti Semite, he (like the rest of us) should choose his words more carefully. Just because he is a human rights activist, that doesn't mean he automatically deserves a free pass on what he says.

Trust me, Bob, the left spends far more time and effort labeling the Israelis as racist (because of books like Carters) than calling the Arabs anti Semites. Because Carter does have credibility, his books are very influential. I would bet that the left cites Carter's book more than any other as proof of the racist nature of Israel. Only one side is given preferential treatment by the left (led by Carter) on the issue of racism - Israel.

You want so much to believe that the left is perfectly fair, unbiased and incapable of anti-Semitism and bigotry. I got news for you, Bob. You are wrong.

blund Author Profile Page :


This single statement is a serious flaw in your reasoning:

"One of the most unjust results of this conflict is that only the Israeli Jews are labeled as racist."

That simply is incorrect and reflects your bias. While Israeli's are racist they are no more or less so then the Arabs. The Arabs hate the Jews and the Jews hate the Arabs. Most of us agree on this.

Both sides will tell you they want peace. However, they both want peace on their individual terms. For the Arabs peace is defined as driving Israel back into the sea. For the Israeli's it is defined as grabbing as much land as they want, when they want and having the Arabs sit back and accept it.

Both sides acts of brutality are well documented. Both sides say it's justified because they are fighting for their homeland and their religion.

As long as the balance of power (military) in the region is tipped in the favor of the Israeli's they will continue to prevail. However, all this comes down to is a might makes right argument. It does nothing to address the acts of barbarism committed by the Israeli's in prevailing which greatly outnumber the acts of barbarism committed by the Arabs at this point. Should the balance of power shift in the region I have zero doubt we won't be calling the Arabs barbarians for butchering the Israeli's.

Labeling Jimmy Carter as anti-semetic is sick. Only a deluded human being could look at Carter's life work and come to that conclusion. What makes this so sick is it really has nothing to do with Carter being an anti-semite. It has everything to do with defining how the discussions over how the issue of the Palestinians will take place. Since it is not in the best interests of Israel to have an open and honest dialogue over this issue they continually invoke security as justification for anything they do. If you don't agree with what they've done then they just label you an anti-semite. While this tactic may or may not be effective politics it most certainly is intellectual rubbish at best. It is used specifically to limit open and honest discussion. I'm sorry, I forgot. You were the champion of GW who set a new standard for intellectual rubbish so this point will probably have no meaning for you.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Here’s the rule of law:

Israel is a legal state under international law.

Outside of voting for partition, the US played a neutral role in Israel’s war of independence. The US has absolutely nothing to do with Israel’s immigration laws which clearly favor Jews over all other religions. The US had nothing to do with the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, but it should be fairly obvious by now that the Palestinians did not accept partition and attacked the Jews which led to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine as well as the expansion of the state of Israel to the 1949 armistice line. It should be noted that many Palestinians left because of the war - and many also left because the Palestinian leadership ordered them to leave. Most Palestinians thought they would soon return after the defeat of the Jews.

The creation of Israel was not a colonialist project - even though that is what you want to believe. It was a Zionist project which began in the 1880s during the pogrom against Jews in Russia. Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman empire at the time and, as far as I know, the British had nothing to do with the initial immigration of Jews to Palestine. Nearly 40 years later, Palestine came under the British mandate when the Ottoman empire collapsed, and Britain oversaw the creation of Israel. Remember, Salamon. British mandate - not American mandate.

Hamas, by its written charter, seeks the destruction of an internationally recognized and legal state. No one is required by any international law to recognize the government of Hamas since Hamas clearly seeks the destruction of Israel - a legal state. Ahmadinejad, a legal representative of the state of Iran, has also threatened to destroy a legal state under international law - on numerous occasions.

No doubt that there was a great deal of anti Semitism present in Europe and the US in the early 1900s - and there still is (mainly in Europe) - but Israel was not created to relocate all the Jews to Palestine. There was a lot of sympathy toward the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the “west“. Very little, understandably, from the Arabs.

In general, I support the Geneva convention, but I completely, and unequivocally (and without any regret, what so ever), support the methods (torture) used on KSM to save the potential loss of more American lives after 911. How does Hamas (and the PLO) feel about the Geneva Conventions regarding the targeting of civilians?

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


When you label Israel the same as the South African, then you are calling the Jews the most vile kind of racist that existed in the twentieth century (besides the supremacist, Nazi state of Germany). Is the Jewish state racist? Its common to see references to the racist Zionist entity, or the racist state of Israel. Zionism is racism, etc.

Do Jews in Israel harbor racist feelings toward Palestinians living in Israel, the West and Gaza? The answer is clearly “yes“. No one can deny that the Israeli Jews are racist with respect to the Palestinians. Clearly, Jews treat Palestinian Arabs different than other minorities. However, there is no evidence to suggest that Jews are racist with respect to all non Jews even though Jews have faced anti Semitic bigotry and racism throughout their history. Some Jews are racist - possibly even supremacist - but Jews, in general, are no different than anyone else. No one would suggest that all Jews are racist. Clearly then, the racism of the Jews toward the Arabs is related to the conflict - and that‘s just common sense. If, suddenly and sincerely, the Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza converted to Judaism, and they were denied entrance to Israel, that would be racism at its core.

For the same reasons, Palestinian Arabs harbor anti Semitic and racist feelings toward the Jews. Palestinians view Israel as a colonialist venture - a gift to the Jews from the guilt-ridden west for the Holocaust, and a theft of Palestinian land which has resulted in the worst kinds of anti Semitic hatred and racism taught in Palestinian society through Mosque and schools in the West Bank and Gaza, indeed, in many Mosque and schools throughout the Middle East. There is no need to repeat them here. This is a well known fact. Anti Semitism - plain and simple. No one can deny that hatred which takes the form of racism and anti Semitism exist on both sides of this conflict and most of the bigotry is related to the distrust and hatred developed over the entire 100 years of the war(s).

In addition, all Jews in the Middle East, living outside of Israel, were blamed for Zionism - whether they were Zionist or not. Nearly one million Jews left the Middle East, and many were expelled, or harassed into leaving. It’s the equivalent of Japanese internment in WWII. To punish all Jews for Zionism is the same as blaming all people of Japanese descent for Japanese imperialism in WWII - thus the expelling of almost one million Jews from the Arab world was anti Semitic just like the internment of Japanese Americans was a racist directive. The one difference is that Japanese-Americans were interned because of a (perceived) fear by the US government of a Japanese American attachment to their motherland, whereas, the Jews were expelled as punishment for Zionism. The Jews living in Arab lands did not threaten or pose any (perceived) threat to Arabs. No one can deny that many (if not most) Jews were forced out of the greater Middle East - and that‘s anti Semitism. No one calls it anti Semitism, however. In fact, the “left” rarely acknowledges the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East - let alone calls it anti Semitism. The left apparently accepts this as justice and reparations for Zionism. The Arabs had every right to punish all Jews for Zionism (and confiscate their land) - whether they were Zionist or not. The actions taken by the Arabs were, of course, related to the conflict with Israel. Had Israel never been created, the Jews would not have been forced out of Arab countries - although Jews were still classified as dhimmis, or second class citizens. Thus, a perpetual state of war between Jews and Arabs has clearly resulted in extreme hatred, anti Semitism and racism from Jews and Arabs - both inside and outside of Palestine.

One of the most unjust results of this conflict is that only the Israeli Jews are labeled as racist. Even Palestinians call Israelis racist, and label the state of Israel apartheid - while plotting to destroy the Jewish state. Doesn’t that seem odd to anyone? I’m going to destroy the Jewish state, but you are a racist society because you create laws, checkpoints, walls and barriers to keep that from happening. In fact, the Jews are no more racist toward the Palestinians than visa versa. Laws were created to protect the Jews from people hell-bent on their destruction (and that includes demographics). Racism is a natural reaction to suicide bombers, rockets reining down on their cities and the attempt to destroy internationally recognized Israel as a Jewish state, just like anti Semitism is a natural reaction to the settlements, disproportionate death tolls and the creation of Israel itself, none the less, it is anti Semitism and its no more (or less) valid than the racism of the Israelis.

Racism and anti Semitism fester because of the perpetual state of war that exist between Israel and the Palestinians. Both Arabs and Jews perpetrate racist and anti Semitic acts against each other, but only the Israelis are called racist by the “left” even though racism and anti Semitism clearly exist throughout the Arab world. Labeling the Israelis racist without acknowledging the racism and anti Semitism perpetrated by the Arabs displays a clear bias against the Jews in Israel. In addition, without giving context to why this racism exists, it mischaracterizes the conflict. For example, Israel hardly compares to South Africa. But isn’t this the idea of the left? The left has also compared Israel to Nazi Germany, and even compared Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto. These injurious lies directed at Jews living in Israel - principally by the left - is anti-Semitic to the core.

Thus, it is fair, in my opinion, to label Jimmy Carter anti Semitic - at least with respect to his characterization of Israel in his book.

yeolds Author Profile Page :


Sorry was not clear in my posting. Am aware that the USA is 3rd largest exporter [though with caveat re armaments], I shouold have calrified with respect to the balance of payments -- not nearly enough to pay for oil/ refined metal/etc imports on a barter [as opposed to petrodollar] basis.

Thanks for pointing out my error.

blund Author Profile Page :


You wrote,

"for she does no produce much that the world wants to import from USA."

You might want to check your statistics. The US is the world's 3 largest exporter of goods. Only behind Germany and China respectively. All three of these countries are very close in their export volumes. Our problem has never been producing products and selling services the world wants it has been importing more then we export.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

It is notable that the monetary fact, that Iran gets paid in yen, not in USD id not get any mention. Sadam was the last meber of Opec who wanted to get away from petro dollars.
Withour petro dollars the USa has a very lower standard of life, for she does no produce much that the world wants to import from USA.

Without doubt the neo-cons great worry now that sgort of punishing IRan, this notion thaty the USD is not quite what it seems might be reenfoced aside form Chinese, Russian and other voices. There is a difference, The USA can not even thin of attack9ng Russia or China, for they ahve their own stock of nuclear weapons.

blund Author Profile Page :


I didn't exactly hear Iran claiming the US should have another election when the Supreme Court of the US declared Bush the winner in his first presidential election. What gives us the right to suggest to Iran they need to hold another election? I'll answer this for you, nothing. Even suggesting Iran hold another election is meddling for the sake of meddling and insulting. However, being insulting towards the Muslim world when they don't agree with your point of view has never been a problem. I have yet to hear a single accusation against Iraq for rigging this election that isn't innuendo. I know when you can support the invasion of a country (Iraq) without credible evidence why look for it at all. They're Iranians so they just must be bad. Afterall, this is the same group that ousted the Shah the CIA engineered into power against the people of Iran's will. Yeah, we have ton of moral authority when it comes to questioning Iran's elections. I've got an idea. Let's let the CIA decide who won. What could be fairer from inside a conservative bubble?

"The title (and I haven't read it) of the book unfairly characterizes Israel of a racist and apartheid system of government similar to South Africa. Its inflammatory and one-sided. Forgive the Jews in Israel for being offended."

It does? Seems to me like it struck a nerve. There is no doubt Israeli policies have created basically an apartheid system in that region. The Israeli's response has been consistently they have no choice if they want to protect their security. It's the Palestinians fault they are being starved to death. The land grabs, the settlements, the destroying of Palestinian infrastructure and agriculture has all been the Palestinians fault according to the Israelis. Everything is the Palestinians fault so Israel is justified in killing them at will and making the survivors lives unbearable. If you are a zionist or a neocon this is fact. If you are anyone else it's a crock of _____. We treat our farm animals better then the Israeli's treat the Palestinians.

My point was just to criticize an Israeli policy opens up anyone to being called an anti-semite. It doesn't matter how ridiculous the charge is it's their first line of defense. Agree with us or be an anti-semite. Calling Jimmy Carter anti-semitic is so disingenuous it's laughable and shows just how low the Israeli's have sunk in their rhetoric. So on one hand you'll take every pot shot you can (true or not doesn't make a difference) at every Muslim who you don't think is in the pocket of the US and on the other hand excuse all of the horrendous behavior by Israel. Read Carter's book. He has no axe to grind with Israel. He's only interested in advancing peace in the region.

This is the same man who when the Camp David summit was failing had a number of pictures of Carter, Sadat and Begin standing together at Camp David autographed and personalized for Begin's grandchildren. He took these pictures to Begin and expressed his sorrow for not being able to reach an accord. He went on to say he wanted Begin's grandchildren to have these pictures to show while they were not successful at least their grandfather had tried to reach a peace agreement with Egypt. Begin, who was the stumbling block on the Camp David accords, thought about this for about 10 minutes and sought Carter out to tell him he had changed his mind and would sign the Accords. While Carter was not a good president he has been a very honorable and moral man. He has been a friend of Israel for too many years to count and hasn't deserved or earned their condemnation for this book or it's title.

yeolds Author Profile Page :

Hamas could not have a coup d'etat in Gaza, for it was a democraticly elected [ as per internationally supervised election deemed to be democratic and lacking any sign of corruptive practices - so prevalent in USA states] against forces trying to destroy the elected government [Fatah with USA/IDF provided arms and USA provided training].

Your neo-con supporting views indicate a total disregard for the rule of LAW. Under the theory of democracy and rule of law Fatah and its supporters were guilty of TREASON, for trying to usurp the RULE OF LAW.
The 1947 partition of Palestine was an act of colonialism, wherein ANTISEMITE USA/UK and related satraps gave 60% of the extant land to less than 10% of the population, then allowed a law of return for JEWS, while insuring that Palestinians would be exiled and or killed and their property expropriated without compensation.

It is notable that according to USA Statute Law, the USA is forbidden to give, donate sell any armament to Israel, for Israel has used USA supplied armaments for agressive actions, thus breaking USA statute Law [so did Bush for allowing export during the recent Lebanon and Gaza bombung months].

So the question arises which part of the Rule of LAW you subscribe to? the USA Constitution? then that implies that you subscribe to the Laws of War/Geneve Conventions, Universal Human Rights, Laws on Torture - all part of USA Constitution as per Supreme Court of USA?

Or that our subscribe to Yoo's interpretation, which was debunked - If so Bush, Cheney etc should be turtured for undisputable evidence is available that they were the enemies of USA - they wrecked the economy, committed war crimes, etc.

Please be clear on your answer regrding the RUKE OF LAW.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


“…"We did it for our security." Color me silly, but I reject, without proof, these claims as dangerous for any society….”

But, up above, you say the Muslims don’t want Israel to exist. Seems like a security problem to me. Isn’t that proof?

“…Carter's motivation for the book was nothing more then attempting to push the peace process along and point out Israel needed to change it's policies regarding Gaza and the West Bank and how they treated the Palestinians…”

The title (and I haven't read it) of the book unfairly characterizes Israel of a racist and apartheid system of government similar to South Africa. Its inflammatory and one-sided. Forgive the Jews in Israel for being offended.

I saw in the New York Times this morning where Khamenei said that it would be impossible to rig an election where Ahmadinejad won by 11 million votes - so he rejected a call for another election. Now wouldn’t you think that if , in fact, Ahmadinejad did win by that many votes, another election, this time monitored by international observers would produce the same result?

blund Author Profile Page :


Thank you for reinforcing my point. You actually believe you know more about what's in the best interests of the Muslims then they do. This is the exact type of arrogance that gives all Americans a bad rap overseas when in fact only a portion of our population is this delusional.

The Muslims don't want Israel to exist. They have a legitimate reason for this feeling. They are positive the West stole their land. We keep telling them we didn't, but they don't believe us. So go right on and keep telling them they have to accept Israel at the same time we provide weapon systems to Israel (this is a trap we've created for ourselves basically since the Johnson Administration) and they will keep thinking we're very bad people.

You have a significant problem on the nuke issue. Israel is sitting on somewhere between 20 and 200 nukes. We're not sure what the number is, but the accepted consenus is have them. Now exactly who started the proliferation of nukes in the ME? Iran? Are you kidding me? What are we doing to negotiate with Israel to give up their nukes? Nothing. It's not a topic America wants to address. I'm fairly sure Israel would refuse to give up their nukes. In essence all we're doing is supporting a policy where the balance of power in the region is heavily tilted in Israel's favor. (That's what they call taking sides)
So on one hand we're telling the Muslims to believe we're good people who promote democracy around the world and on the other we're arming their enemies and doing everything we can to ensure the balance of power is in favor of their enemies. Can you see the problem here Tom?

Have you followed the reaction to Carter's book: "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." Here's a man who is the antithesis of Anti-Semitism being called an Anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. Carter's motivation for the book was nothing more then attempting to push the peace process along and point out Israel needed to change it's policies regarding Gaza and the West Bank and how they treated the Palestinians. Israel's response was to attack him personally. Israel and Dick Cheney have a lot in ocmmon. To start with security or perceived security justifies bad human behavior. Also, no matter what you do all you say is, "We did it for our security." Color me silly, but I reject, without proof, these claims as dangerous for any society.

I can't change your views on what's happening in the ME any more then you can change mine. I think we can agree on this. That being the case why is it so difficult for you to come to the conclusion the Israeli's and the West can't change the minds of the Muslims? As you and I firmly believe we are correct so do both sides in the conflicts over there. This is the basis for my repeated claims that I'm neutral. This is a fight between the Muslim world and Israeli's. Nothing good has come from or will come from taking sides in a religous conflict.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


“…The hypocracy of the right-wing is mind-blogging. It was the rigth wing which insisted that there be a democratic election in Palestine. To assure that the election is honest, it was arranged that international observers be present [Majpority USA citizens] and declare their opinion on the election process. They done so, and deemed the elction to be fair under "ideal democratic procedures".
Hamas won….”

OK, this is one instance when I agree with you, but maybe “stupidity” should be substituted for "hypocrisy“.  Bush did want to spread democracy, but the election of Hamas was not a victory for democracy in the Middle East. Israel didn’t really support the elections because they feared that Hamas would do very well - which they did.

The success in the Palestinian elections by Hamas was not a victory for those who have a misguided hope for peace and (real) democratic change in the Middle East. The coup in Gaza by Hamas only reinforced that belief. Hamas is not a democratic organization, nor are they interested in peace with Israel.

Israel has aggressively defended her right to exist in the Middle East as a Jewish state since partition. The Palestinians have aggressively defended their right to recover (what they perceive to be) their stolen land since partition. If we suddenly returned to 1947 (knowing what we know today), most Palestinians would probably be happy with the 1947 partition line. Of course, Hamas would not - but maybe Hamas would not exist.

The Palestinians always believed that that Israel could be defeated.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Say that Obama brings peace to the Middle East, solves the Palestinian conflict, ends the Iranian nuclear enrichment program, and supports and brings democratic change to the Middle East. In addition, our economy recovers and for the first time, the poor are covered by health insurance. After eight years in office, no one would want to see Obama step down, There would be cries for a third term, yet our constitution would force Obama to step aside. No matter how much good his presidency accomplished, he would have to step aside. Another Bush would be elected. OK, not.

This is the problem in a nutshell that Khamenei faced. Ahmadinejad has been remarkably successful as the President of Iran - as a leader of Muslims, both Sunni and Shiite. Ahmadinejad used the anger of the Muslim world toward President Bush, in addition to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to build Iran's image in the Arab world. Ahmadinejad is a brilliant propagandist. He has been fearless in the face of much more powerful adversaries - Israel and the US - and he has challenged them in every possible way (from Iraq to Columbia University). Under his guidance, Iran has risen regionally, and is recognized as a regional power.

Ahmadinejad used the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a wedge issue in the Middle East - amassing tremendous popularity on the Arab street. He decried Israeli aggression against the Palestinians - especially in Gaza - and defiantly hosted the provocative Holocaust Denial symposium. He traveled to the Durbin 2 conference amid great controversy and called Israel a racist nation, and a creation of western guilt. He also threatened the destruction of the Jewish state on numerous occasions. The “west” has never quite figured out how to deal with Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has constructed strong relations in South America by building on strong anti American dissent - especially with Hugo Chavez. He exploited a rift in US-Russian relations to build a strong alliance with the Russians.

Ahmadinejad took a side trip from the UN to appear at Columbia University where the President of Columbia University rudely insulted the President during his introduction. He fielded questions in the backyard of the “Great Satin“, and came away more popular than ever. He is absolutely fearless and fanatical in his Islamic beliefs, and he is supremely confident in his abilities. Ahmadinejad is committed Islamist and extremely loyal to the Iranian state. He is a great Iranian leader.

By “fixing” the election, Khamenei certainly recognized the many contributions and loyalty of Ahmadinejad. Would it have made any difference if Mousavi was elected? At a time when Obama is trying to isolate the Iranian regime for their nuclear enrichment process, someone other than the confrontational and provocative Ahmadinejad might have been a good counter to the Obama policy of reconciliation. Amongst western leaders, Ahmadinejad is not very popular, and an election victory for Mousavi would have been viewed by the west as proof (by many) that Iran is democratic - and that a resolution of the nuclear issue is still possible. Khamenei endorsed Ahmadinejad’s policies during the last several years, and the election “results” only reinforce his support of those same policies, so I have my doubts that the election of Mousavi would have changed much. If Khamenei didn’t fix the elections, then Iran may not be as “westernized” as we thought - and that doesn’t bode well either.

Its entirely possible that history will view this moment as a lost opportunity for Iran. A failure of the Obama policies to prevent the Iranian nuclear bomb will likely result in more hard-line policies in the future by the US (or another war - likely between Israel and Iran). Clearly, the people of Iran would have benefited. Iranians believed in “hope and change”. Ahmadinejad’s domestic policies failed badly. His leadership at home was also a total failure.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Farklol from Daniel. You bring up some good points. I admit it. But you should also understand that I have no plan which is supposed to bring man to perfection. I believe perfection is not possible. I am neither religious nor idealistic in the sense of belonging or subscribing to a political party. And I am well aware of the dangers of the genetic sciences. And what I wrote, to be honest with you, was just that day's writing. Tomorrow something else will interest me. Go back to previous postglobal topics. I think you will find on previous threads that I write about this and that--whatever interests me at the time. The piece that you just read by me was written by one of my methods: I took a sheet of computer paper (11 by 8) and started writing and filled up the paper both sides until I ran out of paper and just stopped writing. Then I typed it up. I really have no view that I feel I have to defend and which if destroyed will cause some sort of personal anguish as if my personality has been attacked. I fully agree with you on the difficulties of genetic engineering--and I do agree that probably at first there will be ethical problems,--in fact there have already been problems. But I also believe that genetic engineering and eugenics are inevitable. Man quite simply is going to take his evolution into his own hands. And although it might seem like some big disaster to go in the direction stated remember that every single step of human progress has been questionable as to ethics. Take the big and ongoing battle here on postglobal between Blund, Salamon (yeolds) and Tom. Salamon especially should be mentioned because he is critical of the U.S. as if he has some secret and more humane government in mind. But despite whatever he dreams of democracy marches on--the most fair and humane political process marches on, and like all political processes is shot through with ugliness, trampling on rights here and there. The catch though is that the process is not as unethical as all the other political processes. Human progress at the best is still ugly. If you want to criticize Blund and Salamon and Tom say that each in his own way thinks he knows the way forward for humanity without any ethical ugliness. I submit there is no clean way forward. Even the best of democracies must grind on and overcome people who prefer the more despotic governments and religions. In fact democracy was once considered quite evil, as leading to chaos (read Burke on the revolution in France). But now we more and more accept democracy. What was ugly at first has been getting better and better--so good that now it is the most desirable political structure. Well, eugenics and genetic engineering will follow the same path. We had the ugliness of Hitler with his eugenic ideas and no doubt there will be some more ugly processes with eugenics and genetic engineering. But science and man march on and eventually a measurable and acceptable degree of success will occur and we will accept it just as now many of us not only accept democracy but wonder how people could have ever lived without it. Farklol, you write good stuff, bring up good points. I hope you hang around here on postglobal.

Zolko Author Profile Page :

re-the Iranian election, and the supposed fraud, could anyone explain why do protesters hold "where is my vote" pannels, in *english* ? Why in english ? And why are they all identical, looking as if printed in numbers. *I* know that when french protest, they bring "pancartes" in french, not in english (or german or farsi). So I'd expect that when Iranians claim something from their government, if they go out by millions, they'd write in farsi, wouldn't they ?

Unless, of course, the protests are aimed not at the Iranian regime, but at the US/UK population ? (like: "look how bad this Ahmanidejad is, he robbed the elections, we're going to save the Iranian people and bomb their regime !"

If nothing else, this is proof that the protesters are funded by foreigners.

bwana3 Author Profile Page :

I posted this on Ettefagh's comment. The message indicates my comment is held for approval of the blog owner. Is that WaPo or Ettefagh? In the past, my comments have been deleted from his postings.

Here is what I wrote:

It has been many, many months since I read anything by Ettefagh - sometimes when I had time, I would check to see his postings just for comic relief and to refresh my understanding of how dissemblers and sophists operate.

Today, in light of what is going on in Iran, I wondered if he had offered some new outlandish "Eureka!" moment of revelation. Sure enough, there it is. As someone else said, he's truly lost his marbles.

This stuff is beyond comical - petulantly childish and vacuous. Yes, it must be the foreign media that caused so many Iranians to protest that THEIR election was stolen.

One interesting point is Ettefagh's attempt to infuse his sense of statistical justification: "The top two candidates had about 60,000 observers at every polling station to observe the voting process (in addition to about 430,000 election functionaries, officials and independent observers in about 22,000 polling stations). All were present for counting of the votes and could register complaints with the election commission, demand recounts and report irregularities. That is exemplary, and conforms with established and modern election procedures in other democracies."

If he means the top two candidates had 60,000 observers at each of 22,000 polling stations, that would be 1,320,000,000 (or more than the population of China). So, he must mean 60,000 observers spread over 22,000 polling stations, or 2.727 observers on average per polling station. So, some had 2 and some had 3.

Meanwhile, the Iranian bureaucracy had 430,000 functionaries over those same polling stations, or 19.545 on average, so some had 19 and some had 20 functionaries per polling station.

So, Mr. Ettefagh, I get it. 2 or 3 observers are sufficient to keep track of what 19 or 20 "functionaries" are doing. No wonder Mr. Ahmadinejad won by a landslide.

Unbelievable that the Washington Post continues to print the rubbish this man writes but then, exposing the thought processes of dissemblers and apologists is probably a legitimate press function.

blund Author Profile Page :


OK, now you have me confused. If nobody who doesn't represent the interests of the theocracy can run why do we care who wins? One candidate is then really no different then any of the other candidates. If were seeing this type of protest over two candidates that are basically the same you can imagine what upheavel we'd be witnessing if there was a candidate who was popular and not supported by the theocracy. Anyway, I guess your saying this was a system fraud as opposed to specific voter fraud issues.

Just out of curiousity do you feel there is any area in the ME, with the exception of Israel and maybe Iraq (today) that isn't controlled by radical Islam? Maybe Saudi Arabia? No, that wouldn't be a good example as they don't have elections or even a political party and still stone women to death for adultery under Sharia Law. Maybe Kuwait? No, again even after we rescued them from the clutches of Saddam they still have a monarchy, no elections and no political parties either and operate under Sharia Law as well. Pretty tough to find a country over there that isn't run by fundamentalist Muslims, isn't it? Remember the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi? Remember BinLaden is Saudi? Remember a lot of money was coming out of Saudi to reward families of Holy (if there is such a thing) suicide bombers. Ditto for Kuwait (with the exception of 9/11 hijackers. Silly Muslims. They just want to be Muslims and they don't want Israel. Sillier Americans. One day we're arming the Afghans to beat up on the Soviets and the next we're at war with them. At some point we decided we wanted Israel to exist so we told the Muslims they have to accept them. Without a doubt America thinks it knows what's in the best interest of the Muslims more then the Muslims know what's in their own best interest. Leave it to us to tell the children of Allah how they should live. And anyone even wonders why this part of the world is such a mess or is hoping beyond hope peace will break out some day?

Shiveh Author Profile Page :


There is proof and it is coming out. See the piece below – and thanks for the comment.

“Two renowned Iranian film makers have urged the European Parliament not to endorse Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as winner of Iran’s Presidential election. Marjane Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf said the people of Iran and opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi were robbed of the vote:
“We have a document from the Interior Ministry which says votes for Mousavi: 19 million, Karoubi 13 million and Ahmedinejad five million. That is 12 percent of the vote, not 62 percent.”
Speaking in Brussels, the pair also claimed that military chiefs had told Mousavi he would not become President despite getting the majority of the votes.

Satrapi made the internationally-acclaimed “Persepolis”, an autobiographical graphic work. She is considered an influential figure in Iranian cinema.”

yeolds Author Profile Page :


The hypocracy of the right-wing is mind-blogging. It was the rigth wing which insisted that there be a democratic election in Palestine. To assure that the election is honest, it was arranged that international observers be present [Majpority USA citizens] and declare their opinion on the election process. They done so, and deemed the elction to be fair under "ideal democratic procedures".
Hamas won.
Reaction: via use USA provided guns/armaments via USA trained goons [with ISrael's IDF's assistance] attempt to destroy Hamas ending in a final attempt wherein USA supplied Planes, Phosphorus bombs, apache helicopters, bombs of other types, ammunition was used with the aim to destroy HAMAS, the infrastructure of Gaza, the UN's various aid out-posts, etc. Hamas survived.

Under International law, any Palestinian, or group thereof is entitled to resist the ILLEGAL OCCUPATION OF THEIR LAND by your "perfectly innocent buddies", the Zionist Cabal.

That the USa Governemnt and her satraps all over the "democratic world" and various other puppets purchased by the USA [at the expense of USA's next generations] call Hamas a terrorirst organizqation is meaningless under international law. I do recall that the French Resistance during WWII [and many other similar groups} were called TERRORISTS by Germany, the illegal occupier of these lands. Their nomenclature was also meaningless.

In international affairs since the end of WWII two nations stand out as war-starting criminals: 1., USA - approx 30 wars, regime changes etc.
2., Israel at least four international acts of war, plus 60 years of terrorism in Occupied lands, with targeted assissinations, indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, etc.

I would respectfully suggest that you please join the xxi-st century, and adjust your thinking from terrorizing others to worrying about their rights to live in peace under the type of government that they choose, not under the type of government you wish to force unto them, especially when this forcing involves invasions, the greatest crime of humanity according to a past Chief Justice of the USA.

Or is it that you really do not give a hoot for RULE OF LAW in general, except when it is convinient to your world view?

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


First of all, I never said that the Hamas election victory was a fraud - and there is no reason or requirement to support the winner of any election if the winner is a terrorist organization that, in no way, seeks reconciliation or peace with Israel. Why are we required to support the winner? Wasn’t Hitler elected to office? And the coup by Hamas in Gaza? Was that free and fair? Besides, in 2006, Carter monitored the Palestinian elections. Who monitored the Iranian elections? No one - and by design.

You mentioned “free and fair”, but there is nothing in the Iran election process that is remotely free and fair - and I‘ll assume for this discussion that Ahmadinejad was voted into office.

One Supreme (Islamic) leader is responsible for all the major decisions of the state of Iran - and is NEVER challenged by election. The Guardian council, which is composed of six theologians and six appointments by the Supreme leader (assuring he will remain in power), decides who is going to run for office - in the interest of the Islamic state.

So the election of the President of Iran is just someone who represents the interest of Islam in Iran - and he is hand-selected to run for President by the Guardian Council. That’s fairly straight forward in my opinion. No one else can win the Presidency. If you are a Catholic, a Protestant, a Hindu, an atheist or a communist you are just out of luck. You cannot win, but even if you could, then you must answer to the Supreme leader who makes all the final decisions anyway - in the interest of Islam.

What is democratic about this political system? Yes, its more democratic than if there were no Presidential elections, but none the less, the system is set up by and for (radical) Islam, and the affairs of the state are in the hands (solely) of the Ayatollah Khamenei. All other interest need not apply. So the election of the President isn’t free or fair. It’s a scam to begin with - even without fixing the Presidential election.

So if Iran is a country that allows “free and fair” elections, why did they shut down the internet after the election? The government harasses (and arrests) and censors foreign reporters in Iran. They jammed the BBC signal. The state controlled media does the reporting. In addition, some opposition leaders were arrested in free and fair Iran. Some protesters were shot. Students were attacked, etc. The Guardian Council offered a partial recount of the votes which was rightly rejected by the opposition leader. That was another scam in the making. Does this sound like a regime that is concerned about a free and fair election?

The post election actions of Iran, and the autocratic nature of the regime are exactly why people are questioning the results of the election. Of course, there is no definitive proof (and there may never be) because of the tight lid placed on the election by the Iranian government, but in a dictatorship, censorship and state control of the media are the primary weapons to control the people - especially in a fraudulent election and a fraudulent democratic state.

Even the “anointed one” questioned the results of the elections. Isn’t that enough proof in itself?

mdash2001 Author Profile Page :

It is really shocking to to know US allocation of fund specially in reference to Iran and Iraq.Though the regime changed,countries like Syria are still in fold and many of them appear reasonable.Iran issue can be tackled that way.Chauvinistic approach will worsen the things further.

blund Author Profile Page :


Your conservative roots are showing again. We hated the fact Hamas won, yet it was a free and open election and they won it fair and square. I haven't seen or heard of anything that would indicate Iran isn't any different up to this point. Not liking an outcome is no reason to assume it wasn't a free and open election.

Your argument simply centers around Iran is a bad country so the elections must be bad as well. Well, as they said in the Wendy's commericals, "Where's the beef?" What exactly are you purporting happened? You used the word fraud. What was the fraud you referred to?

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


There will always be people on the left to deny the obvious - that try to prop up the Iranian regime as peaceful and democratic.

These elections never could have been free and fair because the system is so flawed to begin with, but even their hand-selected candidates must now understand that the election system is a fraud. Running for office under an authoritarian government has its drawbacks.

Ahmadinejad has run a brilliant foreign policy. Khamenei considers the current President far too important - to the rise of Iran - to allow him to be removed from office. That’s the prerogative of a dictator running scams for elections.

You don’t have to be a right-wing nut to see that.

farklol Author Profile Page :


You might have missed it but I did reply to you in the previous thread on this topic. I'll repost it here:

"Thank you for your reply, I have a clearer picture of what you are trying to say. I think in the end you are trying to be an advocate of genetic engineering.

My issue with genetic engineering is this: you mention that you believe genetic engineering will bring true equality to this world. The problem is, it doesn't. For genetic engineering to be applied it takes a high level of technical knowledge and resources, which only wealthy industrialized nations have. And it's not everyone that have access to it, only those better off. Commercialized genetic engineering, if existed, would be no different than cosmetic surgery today: expensive procedures that are only available for those who can afford it. That means while the affluent make themselves smarter and prettier and perform better in society, while the rest of us are out of luck. And before you know it, the disparaties become WIDER.

And I didn't even mention those poor saps who live in 3rd world nations (where they don't even have clean water let alone multi-billion dollar genetics labs), those people would have even a LESS of a chance than before. Just think of all the inequalities that exist, and compound that by genetic ability, a permanent genetic underclass. Genetic haves and have-nots. Eloi and Morlocks.

How is that humane?"

I'm not taking issue with eugenics, I'm just curious why you feel that genetic engineering will solve all the world's problems. People like Blund and Shiveh believe that righting past injustices will solve the world's problems. Tom believes in cultural and political change. You believe in genetic engineering.

How are you any different than them, believing that some magical Deus ex Machina will solve everything and make everyone happy? How much do you truly understand genetic sciences for you to be betting all your money on this one thing? I'm not saying it won't bring benefit to mankind but I can make a laundry list of the potential ethical and moral pitfalls of genetic engineering, the one I listed above is just the first that came to mind.

Don't think I'm putting you down or anything, I think it's great that you believe so strongly in something. For me, it's space colonization. But I just think you need to understand this better to make a more convincing argument.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


Excellent post. Belongs in the Washington Post.

TomW2 Author Profile Page :


The Supreme leader of Iran sent a simple message to Obama and Netanyahu. Iranian regional hegemony, imperialism and their nuclear program will continue unabated - and that‘s not negotiable. There is no wiggle room in an Ahmadinejad government. However, in light of the events of the past few days, does it really make any difference in policy if Ahmadinejad (really) won the election, or if the - so called - reform candidate won?

Since Obama was elected in 2008, Obama has made overtures to the world that US policy had changed. He apologized for past US behavior (mainly Bush policies) which had inflamed tensions around the world - especially in the Muslim world. Obama assured Iran of US intentions. He reached out to the Iranian leadership in friendship and trust. Obama visited Egypt and Turkey to waylay fears that the US was anti Islam. He grew up in Indonesia, and had a Muslim name. He ordered Israel to halt construction in the West Bank settlements. Surely, the Muslim world would believe that he worked in the interest of all Muslims, and would respond accordingly.

Furthermore, the left argued that Iran only developed nuclear weapons to counter the threat from the US. After the US invasion of Iraq, Iran had every right to defend themselves from US aggression and imperialism. Polls in Europe indicated that Europeans believed that the US was more of a threat to world peace than Iran. The answer? Provide a security blanket to Iran, and guarantee that the US will not support regime change in Iran - a policy which led (in part) to the “disastrous” invasion of Iraq.

Leftist believed that Iran - if not democratic - was at least partially democratic, and that Ahmadinejad had alienated his population because of poor domestic policies. The Iranian people had suffered under the leadership of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad could be voted out. A more moderate, reasonable Islamic President would lead to a peaceful resolution of their nuclear program (forgetting that Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program proceeded under the guidance of the “moderate“ Khatami - before 911).

The left was duped. When the Iranian revolution exploded amid the anti Americanism inflamed by US support for the Shah, the Ayatollah Khomeini promised democracy for the Iranians. Khomeini lied. What dictator doesn’t shout democracy before “assuming” power?

The Ayatollah knew that he couldn‘t deliver on that promise, and that a theocratic, autocratic state would be imposed on the population. He would rule. There never was any hope for “real” democracy in the Islamic country - a state that tightly regulates their own citizenry. A state that has an abusive human rights record. A state that selects a handful of Islamic candidates to run for President - and then chooses the winner.

The left was naively deceived into believing that Iran was democratic. The election was a scam. The Iranian people were violated by their government. There will be no dignity, freedom, democracy or justice for the people of Iran while this regime rules. In addition, the Iranian regime will remain the largest obstacle to peace in the region. Only a violent (internal) upheaval will topple this government.

Two questions:

1. In light of the evidence that the Supreme leader decides the elections of even their hand-selected Islamists - and clearly holds power over he President - would the election of the reformer Mousavi have made any difference in foreign policy?

2. Does anyone now really believe that the Iranian nuclear weapons program is subject to negotiation?

Zolko Author Profile Page :

re-the survey, what they say is that only 1/3 of Iranians have Internet. They probably happen to be among the opposition's supporters, so what we hear from Iran through Internet is probably very tainted.

Many people from small towns in Iran are said to have benefited from Ahmanidejad's policies, and probably don't know so much about international affairs, except that the US-led sanctions make their life difficult AND the US-led coalition has destroyed their neighbor-country, therefore their current president who opposes firmly the US might be seen there as a hero (whereas our regimes here try to portray him as a devil, which only show that our the western regimes never learn)

This doesn't mean that their elections where not rigged in some form, but the same can be said about elections here (for example: there were recent elections for the european parliament 5-9 june, and the social-democrats lost by far. So what happens: we get to see social-democrats every-where on TV and newspapers telling how they'll reform themselves... WTF ? They *LOST* ! Nobody wants them anymore, so why are they on television all the time ? Because the bi-partisan political system suits the bankers, the true masters as became obvious with the current financial break-down. Because the "green" won, but they're for the downscaling of the economy which doesn't suit *AT ALL* the Ponzi-scheme the bankers are trying to run.)

Shiveh Author Profile Page :


The Guardian article you are referring to has been popping up in different publications around the world for the last few days. Our own Washington Post published it first. The article is written based on a survey done by telephone from outside Iran. The survey itself was published also and you can find it at

Comparing the survey to the article brings about some interesting points. Let’s go over couple of them and then tell me if you like the smell of it.

The timing of the survey by itself is curious! It was done from May 11th to 20th, while the Guardian Council released the names of the candidates on May 20th and the campaign started on May 22nd!

Now let’s compare:

The survey says: “At the stage of the campaign for President when our poll was taken, 34 percent of Iranians surveyed said they will vote for incumbent President Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s closest rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi, was the choice of 14 percent, with 27 percent stating that they still do not know who they will vote for.”

And the article says: “Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.”

Did you noticed how 34% approval rating for Ahmadinejad morphed to a larger than 2 to 1 margin of victory? At the time of the survey, Mousavi was only one of many possible so called moderates that were going to challenge Ahmadinejad. The Writers are conveniently forgetting that other perhaps more popular moderates like ex president Khatami dropped out later that week and indorsed Mousavi.

Again, the survey says: “A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of those who state they don’t know who they will vote for in the Presidential elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current system.” And a few lines later it concludes that “The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50 percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi, is likely.”

But the article leaves no doubt that “While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.”

I think that there was a survey for sale and the highest bidder got to say how it should be interpreted!

yeolds Author Profile Page :

This manufactured by UK/USA talking heads has two underlying cuases:

1.,We can demonize IRan and take off eyes from the biggest problem for USA citizens: the USA economy imploding. putting lipstick on a pig is still leaves you with a pig. Calliong banks "solvent" does not change the underlying toxic asssets and coming creditcard/commercial loan mess.
2., We can demonize IRan and take our eyes off the latest NON_PEACE OFFER FORM ISRAEL. If it was meant to be a joklem it is too late, April 1st passed away, else the Israel political class and the western political class which praised this non-offer must have just escaped form a mental institutio0n.

daniel12 Author Profile Page :

To Blund and all those (Farklol?) concerned about my views of genetics and people...

Difference and equality: Squaring the genetic differences between individuals in America with the rights of man.

In American life there is a particular conflict no one sees, or if noticed considered next to completely solved by a quite simple exercise of the moral sense, a declaration that all men deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This conflict I speak of is the one between the quite evident qualitative differences between individuals (genetic) and our belief that morality as it now stands is sufficient to mitigate these differences, smooth them over in a way that results in those with the less fortunate qualities reconciled to the more fortunate. I submit that our morality is at best ineffective and at worst a sham, a piece of hypocrisy, with respect to the supposed ability to make all feel as if a life of liberty and happiness is being lived, that sadness, envy and sorrow do not exist, and that all men are equal.

Human morality has never been equal to the qualitative differences between individuals. Before the theory of evolution by natural selection existed--this theory which brings to attention individual differences (genetic) and the critical role they play in whether a species survives or goes extinct--individual differences for all their obviousness were forced into various types of Procrustean bed of which the most evident one for our purposes here, our discussion of the conflict between individual differences (genetic) and the rights of man in American life, our democracy, is the Christian religion. In American life, for all our celebration of individuality and the political structure both made by difference and representative of that, we have had both our right and left wing parties heavily influenced by Christianity, the one party (right) more directly aligned with Christianity, but the left not left out at all,--in fact the left if anything is more leveling of difference, and this of course is called socialism.

As our gaze goes backward into our human past we notice that this conflict of which I speak--how to reconcile differences between individuals (genetic) with the moral need to be fair to all men--is not so obvious for the simple reason that not only did democracy not really exist by which individuality is celebrated, perhaps democracy did not exist because men had yet to demonstrate a threshold level of individual difference (genetic) by which democracy could be born in the first place. But the democratic idea has been advancing, has been proving all Procrustean beds by which men are held to a level of equality in nondifference exactly that, Procrustean. And the problem has now become undeniable with the realization of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the importance an individual difference (genetic) can make to our entire species. In short, now we know for certain individual difference (genetic) is important--in fact for the first time in human history the importance of individual difference (genetic) has superseded all leveling discourses whether they be religious, socialistic or otherwise.

What this means is that among all the other perils to democracy the main one--the possibility that a lack of centralization of power and the increasing location of power in a spread of individuals leads to a state of chaos--not only does not recede, it becomes more acute than ever before. And we are rudely faced with the utilitarian ethic as never before in contradistinction to the possibility of chaos. True, American democracy is not the first society to study individual differences (genetic--even though not necessarily framed "genetic" as we know it) between people and elevate those with the better qualities over the less fortunate, but now the problem is becoming acute and making more a myth every day that all will be living a life of liberty and happiness in America. We might declare all are equal and no person is more valuable than another because he possesses a more desirable quality, but that familiar scenario from high school--the most beautiful girls thinking they can do better than take up with all but the most desirable boys, and all the boys thinking they can do better than take up with the ugliest girl--just becomes writ larger every day and penetrates to every aspect of society.

The crux: We can no longer be moral in that essential sense without hypocrisy--if we ever were without hypocrisy. We can no longer say we treat all people equally. The people with the most desirable qualities clearly think they deserve the best, and the less fortunate come more and more to be filled with a mixture of envy and self-hatred. Quite simply, what we typically call morality no longer exists, is no longer adequate because man becomes more and more capable of ascertaining differences, categorizing,--and it could very well be the human race is breaking up to be not so much the unity "human race" as a riot of individual differences which at best seek to compose a higher, more flexible and adaptive, human race. So what is the solution? How does each individual live a life of liberty and happiness when more clearly every day we ascertain differences between individuals and condemn all too many to just being undesirable?

My solution is not without controversy. I say clearly try to overcome the ethical dangers inherent in eugenics and in fact turn eugenics (with no small aid from the genetic sciences) into morality itself by closing individual differences between people genetically in a sort of advanced type of leveling. Not seek to abolish individual difference of course--in fact that would be impossible--but close differences enough so that all people have a relatively fair measure of beauty and intelligence and other abilities. This way we would not have the all too evident stark differences we have today and the less genetically gifted living a life of agony as so many of us strut and preen and congratulate ourselves on our humanity, our fair treatment of people, our belief that every person deserves a life of liberty and happiness. Certainly the alternative to not seeking a clear solution is unpleasant. Imagine individual differences between people becoming even more stark. In such a world all we know of morality would not only give way to immorality, morality would become impossible. Morality is impossible in a world where some men are Gods and others are only...clay.

blund Author Profile Page :


There is no doubt the US would like the results to be tainted (fraudulent). When you spend as much time demonizing the Iranian leadership as we have it's almost a given we'd call into question any election that wasn't pro US.

Assuming the Guardian survey is loosely correct then only the right wing nuts will continue to argue the election was rigged to enflame tensions between our countries. I think it's encumbent on our current leadership to come out with a statement as to the validity of the Iranian elections. Were they fair or not? If so, then democracy has triumphed. If not, then we should rally support for another election.

Daho Author Profile Page :

It is difficult to answer your question, when the party you are dealing with (Iran) is a theocratic totalitarian regime run by an Ayatollah and his pasdarans.
We have observed that North Korea ignores all the UN sanctions and all the big powers seem unable to do anything about it. Ghadafi visits European countries, makes insulting comments and because of the economic hopes, the hosts just shut up. For Iran, you cannot expect much more, as they know that democracies will abide by rules whilst they will ignore them and continue to do what they wish and send everybody who criticizes them to hell.
The United Nations has no powers - except workds - and the diverging economic and political interests of the big countries block their possibilities to act, and so nothing will be done to contain the arrogance of the various mentioned countries and the terrorists which abound all over the world.
Let us hope that an awakening will occur before it is too late.

Bogdan_in_Chicago Author Profile Page :

When Netanyahu visited Washington last month, some Washington residents must have taken a European vacation, hopefully for jaunts to drop off suitcases of money in Tehran to the opposition. It would be difficult to believe that Iranian protests are "loosely organized," with no outside help.

Zolko Author Profile Page :

To hear an alternative voice, I invite the readers to visit the following link:

"Ahmadinejad is who Iranians want. Iran's election result may not be fraudulent. Our polling suggests that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory is what voters wanted"

Zolko Author Profile Page :

Bomb'em back to stone-age, that'll teach them democracy !

"A pro-regime coup d'état" had to be invented, that's a funny one.

As for "democracy" in Iran, I have objections to "democracy" in France (or Europe) as several people (Irish, French, Dutch) have voted against the modifications to our constitutions that represents the TCE/Lisbonn treaty, but the regimes in place disregard that and still try to impose that. Interestingly, you could call that a "pro-regime coup" too.

Shiveh Author Profile Page :

Soon after the initial fever of the revolution subsided, Iranians witnessed the despotic character of the new regime and decided to fight back. First they tried the legal and civic avenues to oppose the regime but were cruelly subdued. Later they tried a coup and armed resistance which ended in a massacre; so they chose the long path of gradually changing the character of the regime from within. Iranians historically have chosen this path for resistance many times before. After Alexander conquered Persia, Iranians offered him a Persian princess to wed and gradually familiarized him with Persian costumes to a point that before he died, he was ruling as a Persian king. They did the same with Arabs, with Mongols, with Turks and with many others.

30 Years ago Mullahs used the animosity Iranians had for the Shah and his corrupt regime to start a revolution and consolidated power with exceptional savagery by employing the most criminal and psychotic minds available to them. In 30 years people in Iran have changed this regime to a comparatively bearable Theocracy in which savagery and cruelty is not the norm anymore. This gradual change will continue till a responsible government answerable to the people is established in Iran.

The present events should be viewed as the natural continuance of this policy. Mir Hussein Mossavi is a pawn, an excuse that people used to push the regime back in order to open up some more breathing space; they will push Mullahs authoritative regime to a corner but will stop right before Mullahs are scared enough to start a killing spree. After this is done, there will be a new understanding between Mullahs and people in Iran; a little more freedom for people, a little more answerability in the part of the regime.

The events of the last few days destroyed regime’s remaining chances to endure past the present generation. In a short week, Mullahs lost the next generation of Iranians. These young people who will run the country in the near future shall not forget the disappointing results of their participation in this election and will hurt the regime openly as much and as often as they can. Women are another very crucial group that regime lost today. Women as a group were never supportive of the regime in Iran, but the little tolerance they had just ended. I see no man courageous enough to tell them their hair shows after the events of these last few days!

In short, regime just had its “Katrina,” and as President Bush can tell you, after today there is no other possible way to go except down!

The best that the world can do is to stay out of this dispute and let Iranians sort out their own differences. The natural development of the events in Iran is in line with what the world hopes to see there in near future. It should be clear by now that only an external act of aggression can unite Iranians behind a regime that is otherwise destined to fail.

Iran’s foreign policy is on hold till the current events play out their course. The new strategy depends on who remains and who is eliminated by the time this situation is back to normal.

Recent Comments

  • blund:
    Daniel, I guess I'm j...
  • yeolds:
    Bob: Interesting: htt...
  • yeolds:
    Daniel: Questions: wh...
  • farklol:
    Daniel: If I gave you...
  • TomW2:
    Bob “…Interferring wi...
  • Zolko:
    re "What should the wo...
  • daniel12:
    Oh, stop being ridicul...
  • TomW2:
    JRLR and Salamon Rega...
PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send us your comments, questions and suggestions.