Iran as usual blames Britain for stiring up protest riots.

[Germanicus]

'Evil Britain': Iran's religious leader accuses UK of stirring up unrest over election while quashing hopes of a recount


By David Williams
Last updated at 10:19 PM on 19th June 2009



Iran’s supreme leader yesterday branded Britain the ‘most evil and sinister’ of his country’s enemies.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the UK had been trying to stir up unrest during days of mass demonstrations over the disputed presidential elections.
As a vast crowd chanted ‘Death to the UK’, the ayatollah said the protests had to stop. If they did not, he added, opposition leaders would be responsible for any bloodshed.


Defiant: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tells a packed meeting at Tehran University that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won


'Death to the UK': Cheering crowds saluted the attack on Britain as the supreme leader said protests must stop
He firmly endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slammed the door on any chance of a recount or fresh election.
Within two hours of his unexpected attack on Britain, Tehran’s envoy to London, Rasoul Movahedian, was summoned to the Foreign Office to explain.




Gordon Brown was swift to condemn the outburst, stressing it was for Iran to prove to the world that the elections were fair.
The Prime Minister said: ‘I believe that it is right for us to speak out for rights, to speak out against repression, to speak out in condemnation of violence, to speak out for a free media that is prevented from doing its job, and we will continue to do it.

Religious backing: Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (centre) was among the audience


Enlarge

Protest: Opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi amid a sea of supporters during Thursday's rally in Tehran

Noise: Mousavi attempted to speak through a loudhailer, but the noise was too great to be heard
‘It is also the wish of the world that the repression and the brutality we have seen in these last few days is not going to be repeated.’
President Ahmadinejad was among the crowd crammed into the campus of Tehran University for Friday prayers. Tens of thousands packed the streets outside.
It was not clear if his chief opponent, Mirhossein Mousavi, was in the audience.

State television did not show him, but Iran’s Arabic-language state TV channel had said before the service that he would attend. Mr Mousavi and his supporters are planning a massive demonstration today, but they now know they may face a brutal crackdown.

Anger: Crowds came out in a show of defiance and mourning for those killed in recent violent clashes



Supporters held candles and made peace signs during the event

Mourning: Mousavi's supporters have started to wear black in memory of those killed in the protests

A picture posted on Twitter shows thousands protesting for the fifth straight day

The ayatollah said the election had been ‘a political earthquake’ for the country’s enemies, describing Britain as the ‘most treacherous’.

This was believed to refer to the criticism by Mr Brown and Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who had said there ‘were serious questions’ over the elections.
Khamenei said: ‘Some of our enemies intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory. It is your victory.

'They cannot manipulate it. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference.
‘The enemies are targeting the Islamic establishment’s legitimacy by questioning the election and its authenticity.’




A protester shows the injuries he says he received after being arrested, transferred out of the city and tortured




A woman clad in colours of mourning and wearing an Iranian flag uses a mobile phone on the streets of Tehran











Khamenei said the gap of 11million votes between Mr Ahmadinejad and his nearest rival was proof that fraud did not occur.
He asked: ‘If the difference was 100,000 or 500,000 or one million, well, one may say fraud could have happened. But how can one rig 11million votes?’
The massive street rallies have posed the greatest challenge to Iran’s ruling system since the 1979 Islamic Revolution that brought it to power.
An estimated 20 protesters have been killed and hundreds arrested.

The government has not so far stopped the protests with force, despite an official ban on them.

But Khamenei has now set the scene for harsher measures.

[Milesian]

As soon as I saw the protests on the news I said, "The CIA has been busy"
My father immediately laughed, "That's exactly what I said"

[Routasydän]

Originally Posted by Milesian

As soon as I saw the protests on the news I said, "The CIA has been busy"
My father immediately laughed, "That's exactly what I said"

And the Mossad.

I'm currently reading a book called "The Secret War With Iran", written by an Israeli journalist. It documents the covert struggle between CIA, Mossad and certain other Western intelligence agencies on one hand and the Iranian intelligence agency and Teheran's fronts elsewhere in the Muslim world. Very interesting reading, you might say, and in light of these recent protests, even more interesting.

[Milesian]

I'm sure these "colour protests" are all stirred up by "Western" Intelligence agencies.

[Dvx]

I think Iran should have let UN people monitoring the voting procedure. If they are so certain about the victory of Ahmadinejad, they should have nothing to fear. The problem is that UN inspectors would act as propaganda for the opposition.

Well, having a final thought, I think these agitations would be inevitable. "Western" agencies must have been preparing this quite long ago. And "they" will make up more "Mousavi"s until they succeed.

What if Europe had made the same when W. Bush was elected in 2000 with less votes than Al Gore? Wasn't it reason for protests like this? What about if the winner turned to be the public face to blame for not only turmoils but many thousands of deaths?

[Vale]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I'm sure these "colour protests" are all stirred up by "Western" Intelligence agencies.

It is, CIA and Mossad are hard at work to give the globalists an excuse to invade yet another nation-state that's not to their liking.

All these fake youth revolutions we have seen lately are not popping up randomly, darker forces are hiding in the shadows as usual.

[Susi]

What I find interesting is how all these "moving" photos are of young, relatively attractive women. :\

[Germanicus]

Originally Posted by Milesian

I'm sure these "colour protests" are all stirred up by "Western" Intelligence agencies.

What a load of tripe.......There are millions of Iranians who are protesting their disaproval of the result.




Iran media: Council rejects claims of voting irregularities

• Story Highlights
• NEW: Iran's Press TV: Council acknowledges excessive balloting in 50 cities

updated 6:27 a.m. EDT, Mon June 22, 2009


TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's election authority has rejected claims of voting irregularities by a defeated presidential candidate, while acknowledging that the number of ballots cast in dozens of cities exceeded the number of eligible voters there, state-run TV reported Monday.
Protesters face Iranian riot police on a street in Tehran on Saturday.

Iran's Guardian Council -- which approves all candidates running for office and verifies election results -- said candidate Mohsen Rezaie alleged irregularities in 170 cities, and that excessive ballots were found in 50 cities, according to government-funded Press TV.
Council spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei said voting in those locations did not noticeably affect the outcome of the election, adding that the council will continue to investigate complaints that are filed through "legal channels," Press TV said. The council declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner of the June 12 election.
Rezaie had reported some irregularities and called for a recount of some ballots, while opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi and candidate Mehdi Karrubi have rejected the election as fraudulent and demanded a new one.
Earlier Sunday, thousands of riot police and militia lined Tehran's streets as the public rift among Iranian leaders appeared to be widening.
The country's foreign minister disputed allegations of ballot irregularities in Iran's disputed presidential election, and the parliamentary speaker implied the nation's election authorities had sided with one candidate.
Amateur video showed large crowds marching down a major Tehran thoroughfare shouting, "Don't be afraid, we're together!" and "Death to dictator!" The person who shot the video said it was taken Sunday, but CNN could not immediately verify that the protest had taken place.
Eyewitnesses reported a protest also took place at southern Tehran's Azad University, where final exams were postponed after about 200 students refused to take them.
Thousands of riot police and members of the Basij militia lined the streets of the city, according to eyewitnesses. Security personnel surrounded the headquarters of the country's state television and radio. Many shops were closed, and shopkeepers whose stores were open said they planned to close early Sunday. However, no tanks were seen on the city's streets. Traffic was light. Watch amateur video of a volunteer paramilitary forces headquarters burning in Tehran »
A statement purportedly from Moussavi on Sunday called on Iranians to "exercise self control" during protests in Tehran, while still supporting their right to demonstrate against the government and the results of the disputed June 12 presidential election.
"The country belongs to you. The revolution and the system is your heritage," the statement attributed to Moussavi said in a statement posted on his Web site. "Protesting against lies and cheating is your right. Be hopeful about regaining your rights. Do not allow anyone who tries to make you lose hope and frighten you make you lose your temper."
The authenticity of the message could not be verified; it was posted in Farsi and translated by CNN.
The message came a day after hospital sources said 19 people were killed in clashes between anti-government protesters and police. Unconfirmed reports put the death toll as high as 150. See images of the clashes Saturday »
"The sad news of the martyrdom of another group who protested the results of the elections has caused our society astonishment and our people mourn them," said the statement attributed to Moussavi. "Firing on people, militarization of the city's atmosphere, threats, agitations and show of force are all the illegitimate children of law breaking and we are facing all of that. It is a wonder that the perpetrators accuse others of breaking the law for expressing their opinions." Watch how social-networking sites spread the word on Iranian news »
Police have not been given permission to use firearms in confronting protesters, Tehran Police Chief Azizollah Rajabpour told Iran's semi-official Mehr news agency. Police have not used firearms on the public, he said. Allegations to the contrary are false and "spread by those who want to muddy the waters," the agency reported.
News coverage in Iran has been limited by government restrictions on international journalists. On Sunday, the BBC said Iran had expelled Jon Leyne, the British network's permanent correspondent in Tehran. And Al-Arabiya, a Dubai-based Arab satellite network, said its Tehran bureau was ordered closed.
Press TV confirmed 13 fatalities Saturday, saying the deaths resulted from police clashes with "terrorist groups" in Tehran. But the station did not say whether all the deaths took place Saturday or spanned the length of the weeklong protests. iReport.com: Share images from Iran
Videos posted on social networking Web sites depicted tense scenes and chaos Saturday, and one graphic video that captured the death of a young woman became the iconic symbol of a brutal day. But like most of the information coming out of Tehran, it is impossible to verify her name -- Neda -- or the circumstances of her apparent death. Watch a portion of the video »
Press TV also reported Sunday that five relatives of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani were arrested for allegedly "inciting and encouraging rioters" in Tehran's Azadi (Freedom) Square on Saturday, the Web site reported.
Faezeh Rafsanjani, the former president's daughter, was released Sunday, and the four others were released earlier in the day, Press TV reported on its Web site. The woman's brother said she was arrested while taking part in a protest.
The elder Rafsanjani is chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which is responsible for appointing or removing the supreme leader. He is a supporter of Moussavi, while Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remained staunch in his defense of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
A spokesman for the Guardian Council told state television that Wednesday is the last day it can recount the votes disputed by candidates.
Meanwhile, prominent figures, many of whom were part of Iran's Islamic revolution 30 years ago, issued conflicting statements, a sign that Iran's leadership was far from unified.
The foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, said Sunday an investigation into claims of fraud in the election will be announced by week's end.
But speaking to foreign diplomats in Tehran, he called the possibility of irregularities almost nonexistent.
"The possibility of organized and comprehensive disruption and irregularities in this election is almost close to zero given the composition of the people who are holding the election," Mottaki said.
On the other hand, Iran's influential parliamentary speaker, Ali Larijani, implicated the same people -- the Guardian Council -- of siding with one candidate.
"Although the Guardian Council is made up of religious individuals, I wish certain members would not side with a certain presidential candidate," Larijani told the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on Saturday, without naming whom he meant.
The comments were reported on Press TV and on another news Web site, Khabaronline, Sunday.
Larijani's statement was in direct contrast to that of Khamenei, who in a sermon Friday declared the elections a "definitive victory" for Ahmadinejad and rejected charges of vote rigging.
"A majority of people are of an opinion separate" from that of a minority, Larijani said.
While Larijani and Ahmadinejad have had a tense relationship in the past, Larijani is seen as being aligned with Khamenei. For him to directly contradict the leader's statement amounts to another example of the growing disagreement among ruling conservatives.
Meanwhile, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, in an open letter posted on his Web site, said, "the presence of the people is one of the achievements of the revolution and must be respected."
"Sensational and insulting propaganda against the people, who have always acted independently, and insinuating that their healthy movement is directed by foreigners is itself a sign of the implementation of faulty policies which will widen the gap between the people and the government," Khatami wrote

[Dvx]

Germanicus, Iranian authorities have quite a lot of reasons to suspect that Moussavi is a puppet sponsoured by the Israeli-American-Turkish (and probably British too) scheme.

Mossad and CIA have a network of agents deployed in Iran. They've been bribing and kidnapping high-ranked officers. Since Iran was imposed with several restrictions regarding buying technology and raw materials to build them, the JewSA coalition as been creating a a fake paralell network of technology suppliers for Iran, using European supposedly neutral countries as pivots.

They have been infiltrating the country through the Irano-Jewish community, instigating propaganda, using rich expatriated defectors to finance internal turmoil (Iranian communities in America are way rich and staunch supporters of the Friends-Of-Always), depicting the west as an El Dorado, baiting youth and inciting them (youth that is acting as what the Friends-of-Always have in Iraq called human shields to have an excuse to transfer the guilt of civilian deaths to Iraqi authorities).

Riots done by young mobs were obviously predicted and desired by the FOA. What would be the reaction of authorities in the UK if enraged masses of young rebels started to cause havoc attacking Westminster and Windsor asking for the abolishment of Monarchy?

The FOA know that these human shields will be martyrized by our media. Ou media is controled by them. I often check the same footages in our public media and compare to those provided by the System's footages. It's a network, and we are shown what they want us to see. I know pretty well how the grid and alignment of news is selectively assembled to cause whatever effect they want us to feel.

The puzzle is not that complicated to solve. The invasion of Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan was a military move to encircle Iran. Pakistan still being a British lackey and with India grabbing their balls, is under control. The bordering Turkey is a fierce enemy of Iran and totally willing to make anything both to weaken Iran and appease NATO, and ultimately the EU. Azerbaijan is an outpost of Turkey. Armenia is too small to play any role here and the Arabic states south of the Persian Gulf hate Iran more than any one based on racial and religious hatred. Finally we have Turkmenistan which is a pan-Turanist (pro-Turkey) state that can't survive without Russia (Russia who ultimately flies in circles above Iran to see what happens).

Speaking about Russia, remember how Russians and Brits have tacitly combined efforts to annihilate the Persian Empire since the beginning of The Great Game (beginning of 19th century) until recently:

The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was the invasion of Iran by British and Commonwealth forces and the Soviet Union, codenamed Operation Countenance, from August 25, 1941 to September 17, 1941. The purpose of the invasion was to secure Iranian oil fields and ensure supply lines (see Persian Corridor) for the Soviets fighting against Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front.

Following Germany's invasion of the USSR in June 1941, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union became allies. Although still a neutral nation, Reza Shah Pahlavi had brought Iran closer to Germany. This concerned the British who feared that the Abadan Oil Refinery, owned by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, might fall into German hands — the refinery produced eight million tons of oil in 1940 and was thus a crucial part of the Allied war effort.

The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as you know is the modern BP (the third largest global energy company) who was founded by exploit the oil of Iran, for an instance. Several attempts to halt this vampirization were sabotaged by Anglo-American secret infiltrated operations.

By 1978 the economy of Iran (then Persia), namely the oil, was in the hands of the Anglo-American axis. And the Shah of Iran was an American puppet like all our European politicians are. Sepoys. I wonder if the big sharks of mass-media won't make exhaustive analysis on this and show the mass protests and demonstrations who threw off the vampires and reclaimed their own Economy and Self-Determination.

If you doubt of the Anglo-British well founded suspicions of acting with Israel, Turkey and minor allies to cause turmoil in Iran and manipulate ir from inside out, just remember all the history of aggression of the UK towards Persia/Iran. Or for an instance google for the infamous Operation Ajax.

P.S: (Ajax, a name so cherished by the Jews, just out of curiosity).

[Germanicus]

Originally Posted by Dvx

Germanicus, Iranian authorities have quite a lot of reasons to suspect that Moussavi is a puppet sponsoured by the Israeli-American-Turkish (and probably British too) scheme.

Mossad and CIA have a network of agents deployed in Iran. They've been bribing and kidnapping high-ranked officers. Since Iran was imposed with several restrictions regarding buying technology and raw materials to build them, the JewSA coalition as been creating a a fake paralell network of technology suppliers for Iran, using European supposedly neutral countries as pivots.

They have been infiltrating the country through the Irano-Jewish community, instigating propaganda, using rich expatriated defectors to finance internal turmoil (Iranian communities in America are way rich and staunch supporters of the Friends-Of-Always), depicting the west as an El Dorado, baiting youth and inciting them (youth that is acting as what the Friends-of-Always have in Iraq called human shields to have an excuse to transfer the guilt of civilian deaths to Iraqi authorities).

Riots done by young mobs were obviously predicted and desired by the FOA. What would be the reaction of authorities in the UK if enraged masses of young rebels started to cause havoc attacking Westminster and Windsor asking for the abolishment of Monarchy?

The FOA know that these human shields will be martyrized by our media. Ou media is controled by them. I often check the same footages in our public media and compare to those provided by the System's footages. It's a network, and we are shown what they want us to see. I know pretty well how the grid and alignment of news is selectively assembled to cause whatever effect they want us to feel.

The puzzle is not that complicated to solve. The invasion of Iraq following the invasion of Afghanistan was a military move to encircle Iran. Pakistan still being a British lackey and with India grabbing their balls, is under control. The bordering Turkey is a fierce enemy of Iran and totally willing to make anything both to weaken Iran and appease NATO, and ultimately the EU. Azerbaijan is an outpost of Turkey. Armenia is too small to play any role here and the Arabic states south of the Persian Gulf hate Iran more than any one based on racial and religious hatred. Finally we have Turkmenistan which is a pan-Turanist (pro-Turkey) state that can't survive without Russia (Russia who ultimately flies in circles above Iran to see what happens).

Speaking about Russia, remember how Russians and Brits have tacitly combined efforts to annihilate the Persian Empire since the beginning of The Great Game (beginning of 19th century) until recently:



The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company as you know is the modern BP (the third largest global energy company) who was founded by exploit the oil of Iran, for an instance. Several attempts to halt this vampirization were sabotaged by Anglo-American secret infiltrated operations.

By 1978 the economy of Iran (then Persia), namely the oil, was in the hands of the Anglo-American axis. And the Shah of Iran was an American puppet like all our European politicians are. Sepoys. I wonder if the big sharks of mass-media won't make exhaustive analysis on this and show the mass protests and demonstrations who threw off the vampires and reclaimed their own Economy and Self-Determination.

If you doubt of the Anglo-British well founded suspicions of acting with Israel, Turkey and minor allies to cause turmoil in Iran and manipulate ir from inside out, just remember all the history of aggression of the UK towards Persia/Iran. Or for an instance google for the infamous Operation Ajax.

P.S: (Ajax, a name so cherished by the Jews, just out of curiosity).

Of course there is involvement by our secret services, the name of the game is let them play their game, we will play ours, it would suprise me if quite a few goverments were not muddying the waters so to speak.
But the underlying truth is if we did nothing to unsteady this little jumped up failed goat herders regime he would get up to a lot of mischief in the region would he not?

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Germanicus

Of course there is involvement by our secret services, the name of the game is let them play their game, we will play ours, it would suprise me if quite a few goverments were not muddying the waters so to speak.
But the underlying truth is if we did nothing to unsteady this little jumped up failed goat herders regime he would get up to a lot of mischief in the region would he not?

from Stratfor's intelligence newsletter:

The Real Struggle in Iran and Implications for U.S. Dialogue

June 29, 2009

By George Friedman

Speaking of the situation in Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama said June 26, “We don’t yet know how any potential dialogue will have been affected until we see what has happened inside of Iran.” On the surface that is a strange statement, since we know that with minor exceptions, the demonstrations in Tehran lost steam after Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for them to end and security forces asserted themselves. By the conventional wisdom, events in Iran represent an oppressive regime crushing a popular rising. If so, it is odd that the U.S. president would raise the question of what has happened in Iran.
In reality, Obama’s point is well taken. This is because the real struggle in Iran has not yet been settled, nor was it ever about the liberalization of the regime. Rather, it has been about the role of the clergy — particularly the old-guard clergy — in Iranian life, and the future of particular personalities among this clergy.
Ahmadinejad Against the Clerical Elite

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ran his re-election campaign against the old clerical elite, charging them with corruption, luxurious living and running the state for their own benefit rather than that of the people. He particularly targeted Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an extremely senior leader, and his family. Indeed, during the demonstrations, Rafsanjani’s daughter and four other relatives were arrested, held and then released a day later.
Rafsanjani represents the class of clergy that came to power in 1979. He served as president from 1989-1997, but Ahmadinejad defeated him in 2005. Rafsanjani carries enormous clout within the system as head of the regime’s two most powerful institutions — the Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the Guardian Council and parliament, and the Assembly of Experts, whose powers include oversight of the supreme leader. Forbes has called him one of the wealthiest men in the world. Rafsanjani, in other words, remains at the heart of the post-1979 Iranian establishment.
Ahmadinejad expressly ran his recent presidential campaign against Rafsanjani, using the latter’s family’s vast wealth to discredit Rafsanjani along with many of the senior clerics who dominate the Iranian political scene. It was not the regime as such that he opposed, but the individuals who currently dominate it. Ahmadinejad wants to retain the regime, but he wants to repopulate the leadership councils with clerics who share his populist values and want to revive the ascetic foundations of the regime. The Iranian president constantly contrasts his own modest lifestyle with the opulence of the current religious leadership.
Recognizing the threat Ahmadinejad represented to him personally and to the clerical class he belongs to, Rafsanjani fired back at Ahmadinejad, accusing him of having wrecked the economy. At his side were other powerful members of the regime, including Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani, who has made no secret of his antipathy toward Ahmadinejad and whose family links to the Shiite holy city of Qom give him substantial leverage. The underlying issue was about the kind of people who ought to be leading the clerical establishment. The battlefield was economic: Ahmadinejad’s charges of financial corruption versus charges of economic mismanagement leveled by Rafsanjani and others.
When Ahmadinejad defeated Mir Hossein Mousavi on the night of the election, the clerical elite saw themselves in serious danger. The margin of victory Ahmadinejad claimed might have given him the political clout to challenge their position. Mousavi immediately claimed fraud, and Rafsanjani backed him up. Whatever the motives of those in the streets, the real action was a knife fight between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani. By the end of the week, Khamenei decided to end the situation. In essence, he tried to hold things together by ordering the demonstrations to halt while throwing a bone to Rafsanjani and Mousavi by extending a probe into the election irregularities and postponing a partial recount by five days.
The Struggle Within the Regime

The key to understanding the situation in Iran is realizing that the past weeks have seen not an uprising against the regime, but a struggle within the regime. Ahmadinejad is not part of the establishment, but rather has been struggling against it, accusing it of having betrayed the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The post-election unrest in Iran therefore was not a matter of a repressive regime suppressing liberals (as in Prague in 1989), but a struggle between two Islamist factions that are each committed to the regime, but opposed to each other.
The demonstrators certainly included Western-style liberalizing elements, but they also included adherents of senior clerics who wanted to block Ahmadinejad’s re-election. And while Ahmadinejad undoubtedly committed electoral fraud to bulk up his numbers, his ability to commit unlimited fraud was blocked, because very powerful people looking for a chance to bring him down were arrayed against him.
The situation is even more complex because it is not simply a fight between Ahmadinejad and the clerics, but also a fight among the clerical elite regarding perks and privileges — and Ahmadinejad is himself being used within this infighting. The Iranian president’s populism suits the interests of clerics who oppose Rafsanjani; Ahmadinejad is their battering ram. But as Ahmadinejad increases his power, he could turn on his patrons very quickly. In short, the political situation in Iran is extremely volatile, just not for the reason that the media portrayed.
Rafsanjani is an extraordinarily powerful figure in the establishment who clearly sees Ahmadinejad and his faction as a mortal threat. Ahmadinejad’s ability to survive the unified opposition of the clergy, election or not, is not at all certain. But the problem is that there is no unified clergy. The supreme leader is clearly trying to find a new political balance while making it clear that public unrest will not be tolerated. Removing “public unrest” (i.e., demonstrations) from the tool kits of both sides may take away one of Rafsanjani’s more effective tools. But ultimately, it actually could benefit him. Should the internal politics move against the Iranian president, it would be Ahmadinejad — who has a substantial public following — who would not be able to have his supporters take to the streets.
The View From the West

The question for the rest of the world is simple: Does it matter who wins this fight? We would argue that the policy differences between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani are minimal and probably would not affect Iran’s foreign relations. This fight simply isn’t about foreign policy.
Rafsanjani has frequently been held up in the West as a pragmatist who opposes Ahmadinejad’s radicalism. Rafsanjani certainly opposes Ahmadinejad and is happy to portray the Iranian president as harmful to Iran, but it is hard to imagine significant shifts in foreign policy if Rafsanjani’s faction came out on top. Khamenei has approved Iran’s foreign policy under Ahmadinejad, and Khamenei works to maintain broad consensus on policies. Ahmadinejad’s policies were vetted by Khamenei and the system that Rafsanjani is part of. It is possible that Rafsanjani secretly harbors different views, but if he does, anyone predicting what these might be is guessing.
Rafsanjani is a pragmatist in the sense that he systematically has accumulated power and wealth. He seems concerned about the Iranian economy, which is reasonable because he owns a lot of it. Ahmadinejad’s entire charge against him is that Rafsanjani is only interested in his own economic well-being. These political charges notwithstanding, Rafsanjani was part of the 1979 revolution, as were Ahmadinejad and the rest of the political and clerical elite. It would be a massive mistake to think that any leadership elements have abandoned those principles.
When the West looks at Iran, two concerns are expressed. The first relates to the Iranian nuclear program, and the second relates to Iran’s support for terrorists, particularly Hezbollah. Neither Iranian faction is liable to abandon either, because both make geopolitical sense for Iran and give it regional leverage.
Tehran’s primary concern is regime survival, and this has two elements. The first is deterring an attack on Iran, while the second is extending Iran’s reach so that such an attack could be countered. There are U.S. troops on both sides of the Islamic Republic, and the United States has expressed hostility to the regime. The Iranians are envisioning a worst-case scenario, assuming the worst possible U.S. intentions, and this will remain true no matter who runs the government.
We do not believe that Iran is close to obtaining a nuclear weapon, a point we have made frequently. Iran understands that the actual acquisition of a nuclear weapon would lead to immediate U.S. or Israeli attacks. Accordingly, Iran’s ideal position is to be seen as developing nuclear weapons, but not close to having them. This gives Tehran a platform for bargaining without triggering Iran’s destruction, a task at which it has proved sure-footed.
In addition, Iran has maintained capabilities in Iraq and Lebanon. Should the United States or Israel attack, Iran would thus be able to counter by doing everything possible destabilize Iraq — bogging down U.S. forces there — while simultaneously using Hezbollah’s global reach to carry out terror attacks. After all, Hezbollah is today’s al Qaeda on steroids. The radical Shiite group’s ability, coupled with that of Iranian intelligence, is substantial.
We see no likelihood that any Iranian government would abandon this two-pronged strategy without substantial guarantees and concessions from the West. Those would have to include guarantees of noninterference in Iranian affairs. Obama, of course, has been aware of this bedrock condition, which is why he went out of his way before the election to assure Khamenei in a letter that the United States had no intention of interfering.
Though Iran did not hesitate to lash out at CNN’s coverage of the protests, the Iranians know that the U.S. government doesn’t control CNN’s coverage. But Tehran takes a slightly different view of the BBC. The Iranians saw the depiction of the demonstrations as a democratic uprising against a repressive regime as a deliberate attempt by British state-run media to inflame the situation. This allowed the Iranians to vigorously blame some foreigner for the unrest without making the United States the primary villain.
But these minor atmospherics aside, we would make three points. First, there was no democratic uprising of any significance in Iran. Second, there is a major political crisis within the Iranian political elite, the outcome of which probably tilts toward Ahmadinejad but remains uncertain. Third, there will be no change in the substance of Iran’s foreign policy, regardless of the outcome of this fight. The fantasy of a democratic revolution overthrowing the Islamic Republic — and thus solving everyone’s foreign policy problems a la the 1991 Soviet collapse — has passed.
That means that Obama, as the primary player in Iranian foreign affairs, must now define an Iran policy — particularly given Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s meeting in Washington with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell this Monday. Obama has said that nothing that has happened in Iran makes dialogue impossible, but opening dialogue is easier said than done. The Republicans consistently have opposed an opening to Iran; now they are joined by Democrats, who oppose dialogue with nations they regard as human rights violators. Obama still has room for maneuver, but it is not clear where he thinks he is maneuvering. The Iranians have consistently rejected dialogue if it involves any preconditions. But given the events of the past weeks, and the perceptions about them that have now been locked into the public mind, Obama isn’t going to be able to make many concessions.
It would appear to us that in this, as in many other things, Obama will be following the Bush strategy — namely, criticizing Iran without actually doing anything about it. And so he goes to Moscow more aware than ever that Russia could cause the United States a great deal of pain if it proceeded with weapons transfers to Iran, a country locked in a political crisis and unlikely to emerge from it in a pleasant state of mind.

and also from Stratfor

Western Misconceptions Meet Iranian Reality
June 15, 2009 | 1745 GMT

by George Friedman


In 1979, when we were still young and starry-eyed, a revolution took place in Iran. When I asked experts what would happen, they divided into two camps.

The first group of Iran experts argued that the Shah of Iran would certainly survive, that the unrest was simply a cyclical event readily manageable by his security, and that the Iranian people were united behind the Iranian monarch’s modernization program. These experts developed this view by talking to the same Iranian officials and businessmen they had been talking to for years — Iranians who had grown wealthy and powerful under the shah and who spoke English, since Iran experts frequently didn’t speak Farsi all that well.

The second group of Iran experts regarded the shah as a repressive brute, and saw the revolution as aimed at liberalizing the country. Their sources were the professionals and academics who supported the uprising — Iranians who knew what former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini believed, but didn’t think he had much popular support. They thought the revolution would result in an increase in human rights and liberty. The experts in this group spoke even less Farsi than those in the first group.
Misreading Sentiment in Iran

Limited to information on Iran from English-speaking opponents of the regime, both groups of Iran experts got a very misleading vision of where the revolution was heading — because the Iranian revolution was not brought about by the people who spoke English. It was made by merchants in city bazaars, by rural peasants, by the clergy — people Americans didn’t speak to because they couldn’t. This demographic was unsure of the virtues of modernization and not at all clear on the virtues of liberalism. From the time they were born, its members knew the virtue of Islam, and that the Iranian state must be an Islamic state.

Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization — a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook “iPod liberalism,” the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n’ roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran — a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.

There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand — but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.

Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to poll, the numbers turned out quite different.

Some still charge that Ahmadinejad cheated. That is certainly a possibility, but it is difficult to see how he could have stolen the election by such a large margin. Doing so would have required the involvement of an incredible number of people, and would have risked creating numbers that quite plainly did not jibe with sentiment in each precinct. Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it. Mousavi still insists he was robbed, and we must remain open to the possibility that he was, although it is hard to see the mechanics of this.
Ahmadinejad’s Popularity

It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn’t speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.

First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization — whether from the shah or Mousavi — as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.

Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs — who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this — have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.

Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don’t necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war — something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.

Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad’s favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran — something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Upper East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn’t win.

For a time on Friday, it seemed that Mousavi might be able to call for an uprising in Tehran. But the moment passed when Ahmadinejad’s security forces on motorcycles intervened. And that leaves the West with its worst-case scenario: a democratically elected anti-liberal.

Western democracies assume that publics will elect liberals who will protect their rights. In reality, it’s a more complicated world. Hitler is the classic example of someone who came to power constitutionally, and then proceeded to gut the constitution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s victory is a triumph of both democracy and repression.
The Road Ahead: More of the Same

The question now is what will happen next. Internally, we can expect Ahmadinejad to consolidate his position under the cover of anti-corruption. He wants to clean up the ayatollahs, many of whom are his enemies. He will need the support of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This election has made Ahmadinejad a powerful president, perhaps the most powerful in Iran since the revolution. Ahmadinejad does not want to challenge Khamenei, and we suspect that Khamenei will not want to challenge Ahmadinejad. A forced marriage is emerging, one which may place many other religious leaders in a difficult position.

Certainly, hopes that a new political leadership would cut back on Iran’s nuclear program have been dashed. The champion of that program has won, in part because he championed the program. We still see Iran as far from developing a deliverable nuclear weapon, but certainly the Obama administration’s hopes that Ahmadinejad would either be replaced — or at least weakened and forced to be more conciliatory — have been crushed. Interestingly, Ahmadinejad sent congratulations to U.S. President Barack Obama on his inauguration. We would expect Obama to reciprocate under his opening policy, which U.S. Vice President Joe Biden appears to have affirmed, assuming he was speaking for Obama. Once the vote fraud issue settles, we will have a better idea of whether Obama’s policies will continue. (We expect they will.)

What we have now are two presidents in a politically secure position, something that normally forms a basis for negotiations. The problem is that it is not clear what the Iranians are prepared to negotiate on, nor is it clear what the Americans are prepared to give the Iranians to induce them to negotiate. Iran wants greater influence in Iraq and its role as a regional leader acknowledged, something the United States doesn’t want to give them. The United States wants an end to the Iranian nuclear program, which Iran doesn’t want to give.

On the surface, this would seem to open the door for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Former U.S. President George W. Bush did not — and Obama does not — have any appetite for such an attack. Both presidents blocked the Israelis from attacking, assuming the Israelis ever actually wanted to attack.

For the moment, the election appears to have frozen the status quo in place. Neither the United States nor Iran seem prepared to move significantly, and there are no third parties that want to get involved in the issue beyond the occasional European diplomatic mission or Russian threat to sell something to Iran. In the end, this shows what we have long known: This game is locked in place, and goes on.

[Dvx]

Originally Posted by Germanicus

Of course there is involvement by our secret services, the name of the game is let them play their game, we will play ours, it would suprise me if quite a few goverments were not muddying the waters so to speak.
But the underlying truth is if we did nothing to unsteady this little jumped up failed goat herders regime he would get up to a lot of mischief in the region would he not?

Mischief in the region? Germanicus, it would take a century to equal the amount of mischief the Friends-Of-Always have done in every country around: UK destroying Palestine (and occupying Jordan) to build a house for Jews, Iraq (how much times the UK have sacked Iraq?), Russo-British partitions of Iran (how much oil was looted overthere?). Colonization of India, Burma, Malaysia. The Opium Wars where the UK managed to make 1/4 of the Chinese population addicted to Opiates. And of course always depleting these countries for the sake of chosenism.


Back to Iran itself, Iran is not properly what you see on TV. I thought the myth about them being Arabian shepherds had already gone. And if you missed the thread about the famous misquotation of Ahmadinejad check this thread to see what he really said and the "west" deliberately manipulated and mistranslated as "Israel must be wiped off the map". As a matter a fact, Beograd was bombed for much less than this endless shame upon the Palestinians. Why does the UK not supports an invasion of Israel to rescue a people forced to live enslaved?

Why the British people keep condoning any international act of their state no matter how wrong it is? And why the UK stirred so much for the independence of Portuguese colonial Africa whilst keeping meddling in other countries' affairs?

Last but not least: why does the United Kingdom still occupies a part of Ireland, a part of Spain and parts of Cyprus?

Even the French have left the Saar alone, why is the UK and Russia still allowed to intra-European colonization? and why do your peoples find it righteous?

[Spartadux]

Originally Posted by Susi

What I find interesting is how all these "moving" photos are of young, relatively attractive women. :\

why does it sound strange or particulary interesting?
It's a nation of well known beautiful women with ancient style and modern fashion's attitude.
We think at Iran as a spooky and obscure world but it seems it's not like that.
Anyway i don't thin k that elections have been polluted, not as much as elsewhere.
IN Egypt we are tolerating a one man's regime since tens of years with fake elections each time, why don't we hear a single protest by our western diplomacy?

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Germanicus

What a load of tripe.......There are millions of Iranians who are protesting their disaproval of the result.

Like the Orange revolution in Ukraine, you mean.?

This is actually part of a long standing policy of interference in Iran of toppling democratically elected governments. Just like the last time they put their western puppet, the Shah, in power after the democratically elected leader decided to nationalise the oil industry, causing western oil companies to go into a collective shock.

[Susi]

Originally Posted by Spartadux

why does it sound strange or particulary interesting?
It's a nation of well known beautiful women with ancient style and modern fashion's attitude.
We think at Iran as a spooky and obscure world but it seems it's not like that.
Anyway i don't thin k that elections have been polluted, not as much as elsewhere.
IN Egypt we are tolerating a one man's regime since tens of years with fake elections each time, why don't we hear a single protest by our western diplomacy?

It's strange because I doubt these women represent the entire population of the protest, it's just an example of what media tends to focus on-- beauty, in spite of a "revolution" occuring.