Advertise here: Contact FM.

Some of this morning's major Iran stories
June 22, 2009 9:59 AM Subscribe

Study definitely shows massive ballot fraud. Link to download the study here. From Andrew Sullivan's curated tweets: “Head of parliament’s judiciary committee: Mousavi accountable for illegal protests, can be pursued legally.” AP: Police attack protesters with tear gas. Italy will let wounded protesters into its embassy.
posted by Stephen Elliott (128 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

Studies are great, but they just flat out admited it.
posted by furtive at 10:01 AM on June 22 [3 favorites]

There are a few open Iran threads — perhaps updates can be appended to those?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:03 AM on June 22

Double.
posted by chunking express at 10:06 AM on June 22

Finally, Metafilter's outrageous silence on the Iran presidential vote controversy ends!
posted by Plutor at 10:08 AM on June 22 [9 favorites]

Fuck. Before I clicked, I read that on the front page as, 'Study definitely shows massive bailout fraud.' I was about as surprised as I am now that I know what this is actually about.
posted by gman at 10:10 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]

I don't really think this is a double. The other thread was about a completely different topic, where people talked about the nature of imagery and propaganda. This stuff could have gone in the original thread, but that's a bit old at this point.
posted by delmoi at 10:10 AM on June 22

God forbid we have more than one thread about a country of sixty-five million people revolting against their oppressive regime! More SLYT posts! Less Reality!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:12 AM on June 22 [37 favorites]

The other thread was about protesters being killed in demonstrations and about whether some of the video images that resulted should have been disseminated. I don't think that this thread is a double.
posted by blucevalo at 10:13 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

The University of My Ass will have a study out next week indicating the range of measured temperatures for fire. Preview: Hot.
posted by DU at 10:13 AM on June 22

five fresh fish: "God forbid we have more than one thread about a country of sixty-five million people revolting against their oppressive regime!"

It's a topic whose importance justifies separate posts for separate facets, imho.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:14 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Double or not, I'd like to suggest that we not link to Andrew Sullivan's blog. Reposting tweets is not real journalism, and that guy has all the moral sense of a rotten turnip.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:18 AM on June 22 [7 favorites]

I'm confused. That revolution is being televised. That's not right.
posted by qvantamon at 10:19 AM on June 22 [12 favorites]

God forbid we have more than one thread about a country of sixty-five million people revolting against their oppressive regime!

Well, not everyone is revolting.
posted by smackfu at 10:21 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

It's a topic whose importance justifies separate posts for separate facets, imho.

Yes, but while I share the poster's interest in the topic -- I've been following it keenly here, on Sullivan's blog, and on the Lede -- this post doesn't explore a particular facet. It's an update on a number of facets. Given that the other general Iran threads are still open it seems appropriate to keep the conversation there.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 10:22 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

The post is a bunch of random links about the current situation in Iran. The original thread, on the election and election fraud is still open. So maybe this a better fit there?

Also, maybe people should practice being less shrill. Damn.
posted by chunking express at 10:23 AM on June 22

Maybe Andrew Sullivan isn't much of a journalist, but he is a truly dedicated blogger and a fantastic source of links to all kinds of expert knowledge on the subject.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:23 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]

So a post is valid only if it explores one facet? I'm not getting that.
posted by blucevalo at 10:24 AM on June 22

Some of this morning's major Iran stories

The topic is very interesting, but if we endorse this presentation of information, aren't we opening it up for catchall update posts every few hours?
posted by snofoam at 10:27 AM on June 22

Does Rafsanjani already have 40 votes from the 86-member Assembly of Experts?

Here is the source, perhaps someone can judge its reliability?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:28 AM on June 22

posted by smackfu Well, not everyone is revolting.

Maybe not everyone. But Ahmadinejad is really gross.
posted by mattdidthat at 10:28 AM on June 22 [3 favorites]

DU: immoral rotten turnips. "Rotten" is the key word.
posted by blucevalo at 10:28 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Reposting tweets is not real journalism

It's more than what CNN is doing.
posted by Skeptic at 10:29 AM on June 22 [12 favorites]

Skeptic: "Reposting tweets is not real journalism

It's more than what CNN is doing."

Which is odd for CNN, anymore.
posted by boo_radley at 10:31 AM on June 22

I would argue that "curating" tweets can tease out a storyline that isn't apparent and can therefore be considered journalism in at least some cases. To claim otherwise would be like saying reposting ledgerbook entries "isn't real journalism" and therefore any "follow the money" stories are out of bounds.

The difference, perhaps, is that ledgerbook entries can be confirmed. Of all the media outlets, I think only the NYT has bothered to discuss publicly the ethical and factual implications of the press and of bloggers assuming these sources are legitimate, sight unseen. What is Sullivan's process for validating what he's curating, when his blog seems to be treated like a matter of record? I'll bet there isn't much of one.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:33 AM on June 22

I'd rather we have a couple of reasoned threads here, than the 30+ logorrheic threads that Fark had.
posted by pjern at 10:34 AM on June 22

Actually I think CNN is doing massively better on this story than some of their recent output. Actual reporting and analysis, and (this weekend at least) actual airtime dedicated to what matters rather than Jon & Kate Plus Illegal Immigrants or what have you. They are not the BBC, or even CNN International, but they are improving.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 10:35 AM on June 22

It's more than what CNN is doing.

From the Economist: Twitter 1, CNN 0

My favorite bit: "Meanwhile the much-ballyhooed Twitter swiftly degraded into pointlessness."
posted by smackfu at 10:35 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

"News is what someone, somewhere, doesn't want you to know. Everything else is advertising." ~~ Alfred Harmsworth, Lord Northcliffe

By this definition at least, what Sullivan is doing definitely is journalism.
posted by Skeptic at 10:38 AM on June 22 [5 favorites]

smackfu: "From the Economist: Twitter 1, CNN 0""

Much more impressive were the desk-bound bloggers. ... Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic... waded into a morass of information and pulled out the most useful bits. ... It was not pretty, and some of it turned out to be inaccurate. But it was by far the most comprehensive coverage available in English.

Maybe that's not saying much in this case, BP. But I agree with them.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:40 AM on June 22

Reposting tweets is not real journalism

It's more than what CNN is doing.

True, but sullivan's breathless fanboyism cuts both ways. His bold denunciations of the evils of the mullahs are pretty similar to his bold denunciations of the left in the run up to the Iraq war. He's a political nerd looking for the next great moment in history to be a part of so when he's older he can lean back, enjoy a good scotch, and tell a starstruck admirer "I was there you know. Right at my keyboard as it happened"
posted by slapshot57 at 10:41 AM on June 22 [7 favorites]

MetaFilter: a political nerd looking for the next great moment in history to be a part of so when he's older he can lean back, enjoy a good scotch, and tell a starstruck admirer "I was there you know. Right at my keyboard as it happened"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:44 AM on June 22 [9 favorites]

[Krrrlson, BP, contain that shit.]
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on June 22

Well, OK, there's definitely a confirmation problem. But that problem isn't specific to Andrew Sullivan or his blog and is therefore not an argument to avoid linking to him particularly.

If you have a source of unimpeachable facts regarding Iran, or know of a particular reason to distrust some subset of the tweets, I'm sure everyone would love the contribution.
posted by DU at 10:45 AM on June 22

True, but sullivan's breathless fanboyism cuts both ways. His bold denunciations of the evils of the mullahs are pretty similar to his bold denunciations of the left in the run up to the Iraq war. He's a political nerd looking for the next great moment in history to be a part of so when he's older he can lean back, enjoy a good scotch, and tell a starstruck admirer "I was there you know. Right at my keyboard as it happened"

Yes. I've been reading his blog despite him. His smug, histrionic self-righteousness and overly inflated sense of His Role in World History are pretty unbearable.
posted by foxy_hedgehog at 10:46 AM on June 22

slapshot57: "[Sullivan is] a political nerd looking for the next great moment in history to be a part of so when he's older he can lean back, enjoy a good scotch, and tell a starstruck admirer "I was there you know. Right at my keyboard as it happened""

Cheap ad hominem that's irrelevant even if it's true.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:46 AM on June 22 [3 favorites]

Economist: "By deluging threads like Iranelection with cries of support for the protesters, Americans and Britons rendered the site almost useless as a source of information—something that Iran’s government had tried and failed to do."

#iranelection is not a "thread." Twitter does not have "threads." If you consider Twitter to be a "source of information" rather than as a channel to potential sources of information, you may need to recalibrate your definition of information.

"Even at its best the site gave a partial, one-sided view of events."

As did all of the bloggers, as did CNN, as did ..... ad nauseam.

"Both Twitter and YouTube are hobbled as sources of news by their clumsy search engines."

Right, as opposed to the Economist's state-of-the-art search engine.
posted by blucevalo at 10:47 AM on June 22

[Krrrlson, BP, contain that shit.]

Thanks for deleting those comments. I'm sorry I responded to him.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:47 AM on June 22

Right, as opposed to the Economist's state-of-the-art search engine.

Well, I read this article in print, and found it on their site by typing "CNN" into their search engine and selecting Print Edition. So... works for me.
posted by smackfu at 10:50 AM on June 22

smackfu: "God forbid we have more than one thread about a country of sixty-five million people revolting against their oppressive regime!

Well, not everyone is revolting."

If you're a misanthrope, they are!

ba-dum-chk

Thanks, I'll be here all night.
posted by symbioid at 10:51 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

I'd rather we have a couple of reasoned threads here, than the 30+ logorrheic threads that Fark had.

Well THIS certainly isn't one of them.
posted by edgeways at 10:51 AM on June 22

We should have some button people can press to alert mods when we think a post is a double or redundant so that we don't need to make comments about it in the thread. Is this possible?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:51 AM on June 22 [18 favorites]

Hey guys, sorry if this thread is redundant. I didn't think it was, but I can see the argument some people are making. Also, I should have placed a lead-in.
posted by Stephen Elliott at 10:54 AM on June 22

Well, OK, there's definitely a confirmation problem. But that problem isn't specific to Andrew Sullivan or his blog and is therefore not an argument to avoid linking to him particularly.

That could be an argument for linking to all kinds of horrible sites on the web and presenting those sites as sources for factual news stories. Is that really a good defense for the practice?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:54 AM on June 22

I was there you know. Right at my keyboard as it happened

Ha. I like quite a bit of Sullivan's stuff. But this is a great description of what he's like when he gets all excited, self-important and squeaky about something.
posted by rhymer at 10:55 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

Astro Zombie: "We should have some button people can press to alert mods when we think a post is a double or redundant so that we don't need to make comments about it in the thread. Is this possible?"

I'm sure it's technically achievable - although maybe the site doesn't have the programming resources necessary to tackle it.

But the larger problem is that a simple mod deletion might not deliver enough negative reinforcement to the wayward poster. Additional shaming from the community is indicated.

That's where the thread-shitting comes in.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:55 AM on June 22

And I'll tell you what, I see both sides of the "this is doublish" argument, and given the length of the previous election thread and the bumpiness of the situation I'm okay leaving this one open in principle but it'd be great if the thread that I'm leaving open were more about the ostensible topic and less about (a) whether or not it should stay up or (b) how much Andrew Sullivan does or does not suck if the thread really has a reason to live.
posted by cortex at 10:56 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]

It seems beyond doubt that the initial state reports of Ahmadinejad's sweeping electoral victory were not only inaccurate, but fraudulent. As pointed out up-thread, some officials have as much as admitted it. But I think there's a lot of dangerous generalization and misunderstanding going around about what motivated these steps, and a misplaced sense of certainty that a more fair process would have yielded a different outcome.

The polls leading up to the election showed wildly mixed results, with even many independent polls giving the election to Ahmadinejad. It seems likely that Iranian officials were extremely nervous about Western interests interfering in the election process to attempt to bring about regime change, and simply made a clumsy political calculation in rushing to declare victory for the current regime.

(Most of the following is a word-for-word reiteration of a comment I made in the other post on the tragic situation in Iran, but I think it's even more relevant here.)

Iranian officials had legitimate reasons to be worried. There's more than ample reason to believe that the groundwork for the current "grassroots" political uprising in Iran was laid with the support of the US State Department working in conjunction with our intelligence agencies.

Back in 2007, ABC News reported that President George W. Bush had signed a secret "Presidential finding" authorizing the CIA to mount covert "black" operations to destabilize the Iranian government [cite 1, cite2].

These plans, according to current and former intelligence officials, also reportedly included:

"a coordinated campaign of propaganda broadcasts, placement of negative newspaper articles, and the manipulation of Iran's currency and international banking transactions."

Note that one of the most consistent themes in the US campaign of criticism against Ahmadinejad's administration has been to point out its economic failures. Perversely, these inside intelligence official reports indicate that at least one aspect of the US covert campaign against Ahmadinejad was to stoke economic problems within Iran, in order to bolster the case that Ahmadinejad was mishandling the nation's economy.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:57 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]

posted by Blazecock Pileon That could be an argument for linking to all kinds of horrible sites on the web and presenting those sites as sources for factual news stories. Is that really a good defense for the practice?

Flag it and move on, or open a MetaTalk thread if it offends you so.
posted by mattdidthat at 10:57 AM on June 22

Flag it and move on, or open a MetaTalk thread if it offends you so.

I'd prefer to continue the discussion about ethics. Thanks, though!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:00 AM on June 22

Iran admits 50 cities had more votes than voters
posted by Joe Beese at 11:00 AM on June 22

Roger Cohen's latest: Iran’s Children of Tomorrow
posted by homunculus at 11:11 AM on June 22

That may be saulgoodman, I'm not sure if anyone can, or will, substantiate CIA involvement with any level of legitimacy. Personally, I think the (probable) vote tampering was just a result of one side being nervous about losing, period, doesn't have to be about the CIA for those in power to feel that a little extra help is needed to "ensure" victory.

What's ironic is Ahmenidajad would likely have won anyway, but he blew his credibility with the vote stuffing. Of course, there is all the talk that the two candidates where pretty similar in many ways anyway, it seems a shame such passions are being ignited over what would be such a small change.

Finally, while it may be too soon to tell, I personally think it likely the crackdown is having the intended effect, we'll see in the next week. Revolution is hard, ask the citizens of Myanmar, it very rarely works Twitter, or no Twitter.
posted by edgeways at 11:14 AM on June 22

Of all the media outlets, I think only the NYT has bothered to discuss publicly the ethical and factual implications of the press and of bloggers assuming these sources are legitimate, sight unseen. What is Sullivan's process for validating what he's curating, when his blog seems to be treated like a matter of record?

I don't think Andrew Sullivan ever said his tweets were accurate. He's said several times that it's impossible to know how accurate they are, but rather they give a sense of the mood and what people are saying to each other. The average person on the street in Tehran probably doesn't know all that much about what's going on overall either.

But he certainly isn't treating those tweets as "A matter of record"

The other thing you can do is look and see which posters have provided information that ended up being validated later.
posted by delmoi at 11:16 AM on June 22

I'd prefer to continue the discussion about ethics. Thanks, though!

The previous Iran thread was partially derailed into a discussion about Andrew Sullivan's worth as a blogger. I was in part responsible for that. I would prefer that this one did not, as Andrew Sullivan's political viewpoints are at best tangential to the overall topic of the events in Iran, esp. given that the vast majority of what he's posted has been links to information available elsewhere. He may in what he choses to post be offering an editorial viewpoint. But he is far from the only source of availible information, as very little of what he's posted has consited of his own commentary or emails to him. If you find the man so despicable you want to try and have him blackballed from metafilter, it would seem metatalk would be the appropriate place to discuss that, as it's related to his overall value as a source rather than the particular events in Iran.
posted by Diablevert at 11:23 AM on June 22 [1 favorite]

The approval for the CIA to take covert action under Bush with the intent of destabilizing Iran is not controversial.

The authorization itself is on the public record and The Telegraph also reported on this back at the time in 2007. Some interesting details from that reporting:

The CIA will also be allowed to supply communications equipment which would enable opposition groups in Iran to work together and bypass internet censorship by the clerical regime.

And:

the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan

posted by saulgoodman at 11:23 AM on June 22

Oh yeah, and this bit from The Telegraph:

Under the plan, pressure will be brought to bear on the Iranian economy by manipulating the country's currency and international financial transactions.

posted by saulgoodman at 11:24 AM on June 22

Green vs. Saffron. Comparing Iran's Green revolution with Burma's (failed) Saffron revolution. (Also, I have yet to meet someone from Burma who calls the country Myanmar.)
posted by chunking express at 11:24 AM on June 22

Does anyone know how this admission of >100% turnout in 50 districts related to the <10% of ballots they were going to go over as part of the official recount? Has the ball moved on that score at all?
posted by Diablevert at 11:25 AM on June 22

posted by edgeways there is all the talk that the two candidates where pretty similar in many ways anyway, it seems a shame such passions are being ignited over what would be such a small change.

Well, the two candidates are similar, but the change in leadership would be tremendous. For example, Ahmadinejad and Mousavi both deny the Holocaust happened, but Mousavi added that he enjoyed Schindler's List.
posted by mattdidthat at 11:26 AM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Those last two comments were meant in response to edgeways remark:

I'm not sure if anyone can, or will, substantiate CIA involvement with any level of legitimacy.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:26 AM on June 22

But he certainly isn't treating those tweets as "A matter of record"

Others are, however.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:29 AM on June 22

(Also, I have yet to meet someone from Burma who calls the country Myanmar.)

The first person I met from Burma was a guy who I worked for referred to it that way. Imagine the somewhat tense moments when the next person with Burmese heritage I met wanted to know, in a mildly pointed way, why I used Myanmar.
posted by rodgerd at 11:39 AM on June 22

Studies are great, but they just flat out admited it.

Sorry- I only trust Twitter for real news, because I'm a geek.
posted by Zambrano at 11:43 AM on June 22

I'm glad to see the seriousness of the events in Iran has faded, leaving nothing but petty arguments and snark. I was worried about Metafilter there for a minute.
posted by threeturtles at 11:49 AM on June 22 [4 favorites]

Even the CIA gets its Iran updates via Twitter
posted by adamvasco at 12:03 PM on June 22

Iran's first official response seems to be the election was fair, so go back to work (Friday's prayers). Then today/yesterday, they admit that 50 cities had more votes than voters, so some discrepancies had occurred. However, even if every extra vote went for Ahmadinejad, it's still not enough to explain the landslide, so go back to work.

The message is extremely insulting to the Iranian people. In the most obvious fraud cases, the government flat out admits it, but acts like it must be the only fraud perpetrated. But given the fierce response we're seeing to the protests, I'd be surprised if the people can hold out for more than a couple of days barring any large scale support from above.

I'm actually surprised to see the protesters not resorting to more violence. To my untrained eye, the police/guard in the videos I've seen seem open to a counter attack. Perhaps the repercussions to the entire neighborhood would be so severe that the people know better.
posted by ShadowCrash at 12:33 PM on June 22

NY Times

“Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100 percent of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80 to 170 cities are not accurate — the incident has happened in only 50 cities,” Mr. Kadkhodaei said.

But he said that a voter turnout in excess of the registered voting list was a “normal phenomenon” because people could legally vote in areas other than those in which they were registered.

So it seems to me that the Guardian Council hasn't really admitted any fraud - the official bullshit line is that gigantic numbers of people voted in a different location. Since the story has been universally picked up as an admission of fraud, their strategy has clearly backfired.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:39 PM on June 22

Yeah, given the CIA's extensive history of interfering with foreign governments, not to mention the information saulgoodman posted, I wouldn't be surprised if they got involved this time around, either. I know just using the acronym "CIA" in any given political discussion sets of the tinfoilhat alarm bells, but what they did in Chile, Nicaragua and Iran in the past are a matter of public record.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 12:42 PM on June 22

Protest today
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:43 PM on June 22

Even the CIA gets its Iran updates via Twitter

From the linked article:

We might even assume [emph. added] that the CIA is getting more information on the events from CNN (constrained as it is by the Iranian authorities), the blogosphere and Twitter, than from its agents deep in the land of the ayatollahs.

I hope for our sake that our leaders are not getting their info from green-colored Twitter excerpts. That approach of act-first-confirm-later didn't work out so well for Iraq and the WMDs we have yet to find.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:47 PM on June 22

There's no doubt the CIA is involved. What exactly are covert ops for, if not to promote American interests and undermine hostile foreign governments? The Iranian government would denounce the foreign meddlers even if there weren't any, so there doesn't seem to be a downside to covert action from the CIA's perspective.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:51 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Yet more evidence of fraud. Mousavi's home province is Azerbaijan (Eastern). Does that look like a legitimate result to you?
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:59 PM on June 22

Interesting piece from a Iranian in the New Yorker. Anecdotal, of course, but suggestive.
posted by Diablevert at 1:01 PM on June 22

What exactly are covert ops for, if not to promote American interests and undermine hostile foreign governments?

Well, I don't remember anything in the founding charter of our nation arguing that covert ops were supposed to be for anything, but since that ship has long ago sailed, I'll address a couple of other aspects of your argument.

Frankly, history more than sufficiently demonstrates that these cynical, realpolitik approaches to foreign policy we keep falling back on again and again are a total failure and there's no reason to think they actually serve our long-term interests in the slightest.

The anti-Western animosity of the current regime in Iran is broadly acknowledged to be an unintended consequence of the CIA's previous, nearly identical meddling in the region that led to the installation of the brutal, autocratic regime of the last Shah. Again, what guarantee exists that we won't ultimately be making the situation in the region far worse with this latest variation on the theme of applied sociopathy as foreign policy?

In the very best case (from the CIA's perspective), this plan might lead to regime change, but it could only do so after a bloody internal power-struggle that's far likelier to favor the more relentlessly brutal participants in the conflict over the more democratic and reform minded ones. Because it inevitably takes brutality, not virtue, to come out on top when all the stabilizing power institutions in a nation break down.

On the other hand, suppose it failed to achieve regime change, but satisfied what might be its secondary purpose: to encourage a brutal crackdown that inflames public sentiment in Iran against Ahmadinejad and undermines his political power base, so that the US is in a better diplomatic posture. The people of Iran still vividly remember what we did to their country when we helped put the Shah in power. So in reality, public sentiment is just as likely to cool toward the US, particularly as the CIA's role became clearer over time (which it inevitably would).

And not only that, but this policy completely undermines whatever vestigial claims to moral authority the US still has, because it depends almost entirely for its effectiveness on massive losses of civilian lives in Iran during either a major state crackdown or a revolution. No one with any credibility would argue that a bloodless coup is among the possible outcomes. And even if it were, wouldn't which ever side eventually prevailed now have every reason in the world to be even more suspicious of external threats to its authority originating in the West?

What was it Einstein reputedly said about insanity (although this may be apocryphal)?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Well, that's our foreign policy in a nutshell: Insanity.

We did this in Panama and ended up with Noriega. We did this in Chile and ended up with Pinochet. We did this in Iraq and ended up with Saddam Hussein. And that only scratches the surface of our pattern of destructive meddling as foreign policy.

And all the while, goodwill around the world toward America has steadily eroded, and more and more militant groups that define themselves by their violent opposition to America and its Western allies are cropping up around the globe. Is that what covert ops are for? To weaken the US's position by virtually every sensible measure?
posted by saulgoodman at 1:38 PM on June 22 [8 favorites]

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94, see What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election? I'll quote the bit that answers your question, though the whole thing is interesting:

It is true that Mousavi has an Azeri background. But the CPO poll mentioned above, and published before the elections, noted that “its survey indicated that only 16 per cent of Azeri Iranians will vote for Mr. Mousavi. By contrast, 31 per cent of the Azeris claim they will vote for Mr. Ahmadinejad.” In the end, according to official results, the election in that region was much closer than the overall result. In fact, Mousavi won narrowly in the West Azerbaijan province but lost the region to Ahmadinejad by a 45 to 52 per cent margin (or 1.5 to 1.8 million votes).

However, the double standard applied by Western news agencies is striking. Richard Nixon trounced George McGovern in his native state of South Dakota in the 1972 elections. Had Al Gore won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, no one would have cared about a Florida recount, nor would there have been a Supreme Court case called Bush v. Gore. If Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards had won the states he was born and raised in (South and North Carolina), President John Kerry would now be serving his second term. But somehow, in Western newsrooms Middle Eastern people choose their candidates not on merit, but on the basis of their “tribe.”
posted by shetterly at 1:40 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

In general, I agree with your comment, but I've heard that definition of insanity before, and it doesn't sound like insanity, but instead like human nature.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:10 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

Surely this...
posted by zardoz at 2:15 PM on June 22

In general, I agree with your comment, but I've heard that definition of insanity before, and it doesn't sound like insanity, but instead like human nature.

You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy here.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:24 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]

saulgoodman, let's say for the sake of argument that the CIA is attempting to support the duly elected Mousavi, and to undermine the dictators who have stolen the election. Would you really equate that with the overthrow of the duly elected Mosaddeq and the promotion of an unelected and autocratic Shah? I would agree with you that it is wrong to covertly crush democracy, but I am not so sure it is wrong to support it.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 2:32 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 I would agree with you that it is wrong to covertly crush democracy, but I am not so sure it is wrong to support it.

I don't think it's wrong, either. But I doubt Americans would appreciate offers the Iranians made to support our democracy in early November, 2000.
posted by mattdidthat at 2:41 PM on June 22

Well, it would still kind of bother me, on an existential level, if it turned out the CIA had already decided to "support the duly elected Mousavi" all the way back in 2007, when the roughly half-a-billion dollar covert operation to destabilize Iran reported on by ABC News, in The Telegraph and elsewhere was first authorized and set into motion under Bush, fully two years before Mousavi was "duly elected"--and if I'm not mistaken, long before Mousavi was even a contender.

It would bother me because then I might have to start taking more seriously those among the tin-foil hat wearing crowd who think the CIA has gained access to time traveling technology.

Sure. That's possible, too.
posted by saulgoodman at 2:44 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

~~I don't think it's wrong,~~ I'm not so sure it's wrong, either
posted by mattdidthat at 2:45 PM on June 22

I would agree with you that it is wrong to covertly crush democracy, but I am not so sure it is wrong to support it.

What kind of support can a foreign intelligence/covert ops organisation offer to a democratic movement that doesn't taint that movement's legitimacy or compromise its integrity? That's not a rhetorical question: I'd like some examples.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 3:50 PM on June 22

posted by i_am_joe's_spleen What kind of support can a foreign intelligence/covert ops organisation offer to a democratic movement that doesn't taint that movement's legitimacy or compromise its integrity? That's not a rhetorical question: I'd like some examples.

San Francisco techie helps stir Iranian protests
posted by mattdidthat at 4:13 PM on June 22

Ooooh, I like the CIA theory. But let's go back further. Let's suggest that the unrest in 2003 and 1999 were CIA ops, as well. Those wily students who wanted more freedom of the press were simply lackeys of the Zionists. And let's infer, also, that the CIA actually killed Iranians as a way to influence other Iranians susceptible to the West's subterfuge, that the Islamic regime was corrupt. Then, before that, the CIA infiltrated the highest ranks of the regime and, uh, uh, see, what they did was, they limited free speech. And they executed people all willy-nilly. And they were all mean to women and stuff. And in general, they were all coockoo for cocoa-puffs. I mean, across the board. And when Khatami tried to push through the reforms to modernize Iran, he was rebuffed, but he was rebuffed, actually, by the CIA - see, what I mean is the clerics who struck down those reforms were with the CIA - right, and then that provoked a backlash, see, just like they planned, because they knew full well that those oppressive measures would turn the people against the regime. But really, was that the first of the interference? Hardly. In fact, the CIA knew they messed up in 1953, royally (ha!). They knew they lost the trust of the people of Iran, and they would need a long term strategy to win them back. Those guys sure do play the long ball. So you see it's quite obvious they helped Khomeini set up the Islamic Republic in the first place - and it was their plan all along to install a cruel, brutal, oppressive regime for the sake of encouraging the people of Iran to topple their cruel, brutal, oppressive regime - thirty years later. And before you call me out for being silly, and before you say, "hey you baldhead, that's not what I meant to say, and though you are clearly making the point that the people of Iran already have lots of reasons to want to overthrow their current leaders, my point was simply that the CIA may be involved and that is bad," I want you to remember, this is what the CIA has done in other countries, and if they've done it once, then clearly they are doing it here as well. It's as plain as day. Okay, I'm getting off track - my point is that the CIA killed that poor woman, Neda, to turn the people of Iran against their leaders. In fact, Neda was a CIA operative. In fact, pretty much half of Iran are CIA, and that is why they know the election was rigged, because they were all ordered to vote for Karroubi and I mean, he only got like 1% of the vote. And that's just logic.
posted by billysumday at 4:14 PM on June 22

billysumday, since you want to look at the CIA/NED involvement in Iran lately, here's a handy batch of places to look. (Yes, some of these have been posted before. I'm just pasting in a grabbag.)

National Endowment for Democracy - SourceWatch

National Iranian American Council - SourceWatch

t r u t h o u t | Iran: Who's Diddling Democracy?

Political Research Associates - Right Web - Profile - Foundation for Democracy in Iran

Media Lens Message Board: Iran: Who's Diddling Democracy? WRH

Are the Iranian Election Protests Another U.S. Orchestrated "Color Revolution"? by Paul Craig Roberts on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

National Iranian American Council (NIAC) - Questions Remain about Iran Democracy Fund

Regime Change in Iran? « P U L S E

VDARE.com: 06/21/09 - Iran Falling to US PSYOPS?

MWC News - A Site Without Borders - - Shut Up about Iran

Moslems Around The World: National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Behind Mousavi Green Revolution
posted by shetterly at 4:53 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

billysumday, a P.S. There are several issues in the current protests. I have no doubt that the CIA has been acting in Iran--if it's on the ABC news, you can't dismiss it as a "theory".

But my heart is with the protesters. I hope they get far more than the CIA or the mullahs' approved candidates want them to have. They want true democracy. So do I. Not a democracy directed by theocrats or billionaires, but a democracy controlled by the people.
posted by shetterly at 4:58 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

Well, it would still kind of bother me, on an existential level, if it turned out the CIA had already decided to "support the duly elected Mousavi" all the way back in 2007

OK, point taken. But I don't think supporting a democratic movement, a movement which seeks to gain power through increased democracy and public support leading to liberal reforms, is comparable to installing or propping up a dictator. Maybe this won't be a successful uprising, but it is an uprising which the Iranian people desperately want, and I don't think it is necessarily wrong to aid it. The CIA has committed many crimes, but it ultimately a tool of the US government, and I want to believe my present government is capable of being better and smarter than its predecessors.

What kind of support can a foreign intelligence/covert ops organisation offer to a democratic movement that doesn't taint that movement's legitimacy or compromise its integrity?

Well, I would guess money, technology and resources. I suppose that would taint their integrity in terms of their support for the US government, but I can live with that.

shetterly: Linking to the "White Nationalist" site VDARE is an unfortunate kind of super-Godwin which does not help your argument.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:03 PM on June 22 [1 favorite]

Iran to create special court to try election protesters: A judiciary official says tribunals will process hundreds of 'rioters' and 'thugs' caught in security sweeps during the unrest after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected president
posted by homunculus at 5:47 PM on June 22

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94, I was grabbing one of Roberts' articles and didn't notice the site that had copied it. It's what comes of googling too fast, I guess.

But on googling a bit more, I don't think it's right to call them "White Nationalist." I hate their position on immigration, but as their Wikipedia article notes, they've got support from rightwingers of various races.
posted by shetterly at 5:54 PM on June 22

But I don't think supporting a democratic movement, a movement which seeks to gain power through increased democracy and public support leading to liberal reforms, is comparable to installing or propping up a dictator.

Fair enough, East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94. My only fear is that this latest keg barrel will blow up in everyone's faces again, and we'll find yet another brutal dictator riding to power on a wave of populist, democratic sentiment.

I'm really just completely vexed by how uninspired and almost obsessive-compulsive our foreign policy has become over the last few decades.

It's like our foreign policy apparatus is a one-trick pony: Whenever we have trouble reaching rapprochement with some foreign nation we need influence over to shore up our strategic interests (well, assuming they're not one of the big boys, like Saudi Arabia, China, or Russia--we can't seem to bend over far enough to take it up the ass from one of those guys), we always take the same lazy, cookie-cutter approach to crafting our policy.

We start funding covert propaganda campaigns to completely vilify their political leaders (even if they're doing a fine job of it on their own without our help) and to agitate for social unrest under the banner of democratic reform. We arm and support militia groups to make the threat of force more real, heightening the paranoia of the ruling establishment until they inevitably start curtailing liberties and behaving in ways that seem arbitrarily autocratic to the ordinary citizens who understand little about the kinds of machinations that go on behind closed doors. Then we lie and claim we had nothing to do with it when a populist uprising begins to take hold, all the while insisting, it doesn't matter anyway, because--no really, this time it's really, REALLY justified and it really, REALLY will work out for the best when the dust settles.

(Consider, if still one more horrific example is called for, the CIA's support of the military junta in Cambodia that ultimately ended up empowering the Khmer Rouge! We're like a freaking wind-up robot that just keeps marching forward and crashing into a wall, only to pick itself up and start marching right back into the same wall again.)

Why can't we try something really new? Like stopping the endless flow of arms from the US to military trouble spots around the world? And embracing a foreign policy in which we work tirelessly to reinvent ourselves as honest brokers and genuine good-faith champions of international law? It's not like all the sneaky cloak and dagger shit has actually been working out all that well for us. Our economy is dying a slow, agonizing death. Even our closest allies are in the awkward position of having to conduct an embarassing inquiry into their role as our partners in what many consider to have been an illegal war of aggression. We might start by simply renouncing our immoral past, and reaffirming our commitment, as a nation, to respecting the sovereignty of the other nations of the world. Or just anything that shows even a trace of original thought and moral principle.
posted by saulgoodman at 7:34 PM on June 22

God, I hope Iran's leaders find it in themselves to remember what the book teaches about mercy and compassion.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:24 PM on June 22

shetterly: Linking to the "White Nationalist" site VDARE is an unfortunate kind of super-Godwin which does not help your argument.

Note: Not the first time that shetterly quotes questionable sources in MeFi.
posted by Skeptic at 8:15 AM on June 23

Ah, Skeptic and East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94, I hope you're enjoying your exercises in ad hominem arguments. Yes, you're quite right; I'm a fascist communist. Next?

I think it's useful to cite sources on the left and right. If you go through life depending on Time and Newsweek, your knowledge of the world will be comfortable, but limited.
posted by shetterly at 8:29 AM on June 23

But on googling a bit more, I don't think it's right to call them "White Nationalist." I hate their position on immigration, but as their Wikipedia article notes, they've got support from rightwingers of various races.

And some of my closest friends are black.

That site is a piece of shit hang out for racists who think they aren't dumbasses. Previous MetaTalk thread on the topic.
posted by chunking express at 8:32 AM on June 23

I think it's useful to cite sources on the left and right.

They aren't a right wing news source. They are a news source for racists.
posted by chunking express at 8:33 AM on June 23

shetterly a "fascist communist"? Who knows, the political extremes are often closer than one may believe, and they share their lack of empathy for the suffering of human beings. In any case, if someone has a history of quoting blatantly tainted sources, I don't think it's an "ad hominem" to take his or her contributions with a largeish pinch of salt.
posted by Skeptic at 8:47 AM on June 23

Iranian republic splintering? a synopsis from Al Jazeera.
posted by adamvasco at 9:08 AM on June 23

I just read Keeping America White. I won't be linking to vdare again.

chunking express, off to read the mefi post on 'em now. Thanks for the link!
posted by shetterly at 9:30 AM on June 23

What the Arab world is--and isn't--saying about the protests in Iran.
posted by homunculus at 12:24 PM on June 23

Thanks shetterly!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:48 PM on June 23

Clerics join Iran's anti-government protests
posted by homunculus at 2:21 PM on June 23

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94, my pleasure. What threw me was I'm familiar with White Racists who don't like Jews or Asians. I'd never encountered White-Asian-Jewish Racists before. But in researching vdare, I came on a racist site that said Indians were okay because they're Asian, and all of sudden the faux diversity of vdare became clear. /digression
posted by shetterly at 2:24 PM on June 23

Washington and the Iran Protests: Would they be Allowed in the US?
posted by homunculus at 8:31 AM on June 24 [1 favorite]

Worth reproducing from homunculus' Juan Cole link above:

More recently, the US backed the creepy and cult-like Mojahedin-e Khalq (People's Holy Warriors or MEK), which originated in a mixture of communist Stalinism and fundamentalist Islam. The MEK is a terrorist organization and has blown things up inside Iran, so the Pentagon's ties with them are wrong in so many ways. The MEK, by the way, has a very substantial lobby in Washington DC and has some congressmen in its back pocket...
. . . .

At the Republican National Committee convention in St. Paul, 250 protesters were arrested shortly before John McCain took the podium. Most were innocent activists and even journalists. Amy Goodman and her staff were assaulted. In New York in 2004, 'protest zones' were assigned, and 1800 protesters were arrested...

The number of demonstrators arrested in Tehran on Saturday is estimated at 550

posted by saulgoodman at 9:28 AM on June 24

The MEK were disarmed during the Iraq war. I'm also pretty sure they haven't blown anything up in something like 20-30 years, and I don't think they have been shooting anyone in the last decade. The leader of their political wing is a woman, and most of the commanders in the military wing are women. So I don't think they are rocking the whole fundamentalist Islam thing. These labels strike me as arbitrary and political more than anything else -- i.e. they aren't considered a terrorist group in Europe now. I'm pretty sure the group was banned in most Western countries as an overture to the Iranian government. (I've met/know a few members from the NCRI, which is the political wing of the group.)
posted by chunking express at 11:54 AM on June 24

Here's more on MEK and NCRI (and the debates on both sides surrounding their role in Iran) here at Time. My impression is that Cole isn't suggestion these organizations are currently relevant in Iran, just pointing out that they did recently carry out terrorist attacks there with some level of US support.

And the Telegraph, in the same reporting I cited above about Bush's 2007 CIA covert operations authorization to destabilize Iran, notes that as recently as two years ago:

...the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.
posted by saulgoodman at 12:40 PM on June 24

From Nico Pitney's blog, this is an interview conducted by CNN, via phone, with an Iranian woman describing today's events, as she witnessed them - firsthand. You people should help us! It's time to act!
posted by heyho at 12:54 PM on June 24

heyho, her account may not be right. From the NIAC blog: I saw many people get blindfolded and arrested, however it wasn’t a massacre. I heard that someone was killed, however I didn’t see it.
posted by shetterly at 4:21 PM on June 24

Iran supreme leader's son seen as power broker with big ambitions: Mojtaba Khamenei is being positioned to succeed his father, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but he lacks the stature to overcome any opposition from a key panel, analysts say.
posted by homunculus at 8:41 PM on June 24

From TehranBureau, please let this be for real: a possible compromise runoff vote? unconfirmed, but coming from good sources: http://tehranbureau.com/ira...
posted by Anything at 10:21 AM on June 25

More than 180 Iranian MPs appear to have snubbed an invitation to celebrate President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election win, local press reports say.
posted by homunculus at 10:21 AM on June 25

A Deal To Save Iran? Reza Aslan reports that Iran’s clerics may be close to forcing a compromise from the Supreme Leader—one that would entail a run-off election between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on June 25

Watching The Lord of the Rings in Tehran
posted by homunculus at 3:38 PM on June 25

BBC's John Simpson: Secret voices of the new Iran
posted by adamvasco at 8:02 AM on June 26

Mousavi Vows to Continue Efforts; Ahmad Khatami calls for Death Penalty on Protest Leaders
posted by homunculus at 12:26 PM on June 26

Media fantasies in Iran | Abbas Barzegar. I recommend going back to read his earlier posts from Iran if you haven't.
posted by shetterly at 1:48 PM on June 26 [1 favorite]

Warren Ellis regarding the death of MJ: Yes, it does occur to me that right now everyone in Iran's going "why the hell can't we get on Twitter?"
posted by Artw at 1:54 PM on June 26

China, Cuba, Other Authoritarian Regimes Censor News From Iran
posted by homunculus at 9:59 AM on June 27

Night Raids Terrorize Civilians: Security Forces Wreck Homes, Destroy Property to Stop Protest Chants
posted by homunculus at 2:55 PM on June 27

The End of the Beginning: What will be the legacy of the Green Revolution?
posted by homunculus at 3:29 PM on June 27 [1 favorite]

The Basij are now removing people from hospitals.

There's going to be a slaughter. Goddamn it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:32 AM on June 28

Khamenei Uses The Cheney Methods
posted by homunculus at 5:17 PM on June 28

From that link:

And the impact of America's endorsement of these torture techniques can only make the experience of the tortured that much harder to endure. Before Bush-Cheney, the tortured around the world knew that there was a place that didn't do this, that there was a human ciivilization bigger and better than this. No longer.

Uh-huh. Because the USA tortures, there are no places at all now that do not torture. That makes perfect sense, Sullivan. Jackass.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:50 PM on June 28

Face of the dead and detained
posted by Artw at 9:30 AM on June 29

San Francisco techie helps stir Iranian protests

His latest project: Haystack: Good Luck Finding That Needle
posted by homunculus at 10:18 AM on July 5

« Older Samuel Kent is the first judge to be impeached by ... | Thomas Berry passed away early... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Some of this morning's major Iran stories June 22, 2009 9:59 AM Subscribe

Some of this morning's major Iran stories
June 22, 2009 9:59 AM Subscribe