Iran’s presidential race is getting quite colorful — literally — as Iran’s two reformist candidates have taken the unprecedented steps of adopting colors for their campaigns. Mir Hussein Musavi’s camp has taken on green, and Mehdi Karrubi’s white — both venerable colors within Islam and Iran. (symbolizing to many joy and peace).
Presidential Ahmadinejad’s team initially thought of adopting “red” (the third color in Iran’s national flag) as their color, but changed their mind, perhaps knowing Iranians are a bit weary of blood red. Ahmadinejad partisans instead complain that campaign painting misuses sacred symbols and darkly implies imposed color revolutions. Reformists counter their colors are “religious, not velvet.”
“Red” though might describe the intense “heat” being generated within Iran’s current Presidential elections, including on policy issues that might surprise western ears. For example, on Tuesday, Musavi told students in Tabriz that he supports free-speech, since that was a key goal of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution:
“The revolution was aimed at guaranteeing us freedom of speech. It is not in our best interest to not tolerate opposition, because this would make it impossible for us to be part of the modern world.”
On related issues, candidate Karrubi recently has even been arguing for reforming the constitution, whereas Musavi has challenged the appeal of that argument by advocating that existing protections of liberties within the Constitution should be better implemented first.
Battling perceived government media bias in favor of Ahmadinejad, Musavi’s strategy has relied upon modern technology to get out his message, especially among younger voters, using e-mail, cell-phone text messaging, twitter, and even facebook. The government briefly tried to block Iran access to facebook, but has since restored it.
As I suggested on Saturday here, foreign policy also continues to loom large, with candidates trading blistering barbs about nuclear negotiations.
Ahmadinejad’s sensational jibes at the “humiliation” of his predecessors have been met by intensely indignant retorts, with many observing (quite rightly) that past strategic moves, including suspension of enrichment during Khatami’s time as President, were done under the approval and direction of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei. (In effect, if Ahmadinjad wants to criticize former President Khatami for failings in past nuclear negotiations, he is also criticizing his hinted supreme backer – Khamenei.)
Former chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani, head of Iran’s Center for Strategic Research (the thinktank underneath the Expediency Council) has called out Ahmadinejad to a debate: “If the president is ready to defend his remarks about the system’s nuclear policy, I am ready to hold a debate with him in order to enlighten the public.” I’ve also been hearing suggestions that Rowhani, who doubles as Leader Khamenei’s representative to the Supreme National Security Council, is threatening to reveal serious complaints about administrative purges carried out during Ahmadinejad’s tenure.
Yet Ahmadinejad continues to accuse Khatami of having been “naive” in his approach to the world. Today he claims that when President Khatami shook hands with his French counterpart, it was among “the saddest days of his life:
Jacque Chirac was standing on top of the stairs and Iran’s former president … had to climb several flights of stairs to reach him, that kind of behavior is insulting to us,”
See picture here. The issue of “respect” is a potential winner for Iranians, and an arena that the Musavi camp are not conceding, as they produced pictures showing Khatami and Chirac standing side by side.
There’s also been accusations of various “dirty tricks” in the campaign. Potentially undercutting Musavi’s advantage among Iran’s large Azeri population (Musavi hails from Tabriz), a video is circulating claiming that Khatami (whose face is on Musavi posters) made a disparaging “joke” about Azeris. Demands for an apology compete now with claims the video is a defamatory fabrication.
Stay tuned, Iran’s electoral colors are just heating up.
How legit are these elections in Iran? Are they monitored? How do we know that the Supreme Leader does not just hand pick the President of Iran.
It’s not like the President even has the real power. Ahmadinejad is more like the Press Secretary of the Supreme Leader than the President of a country.
Fair and often heard question Michael — particularly given stock myths in US corporate media. Yet stick around — or look back at recent posts, like this one,
https://vintage.justworldnews.org/archives/003570.html“
or the recent one where I commented on the June 1st issue of Newsweek. (e.g., “Everything you know about Iran is wrong”)
Yes, Iran’s elections have their serious problems — as Iranians themselves intensely debate…. Some Iranians elections have had more “zip” — more perceived tolerated debate than others to be sure, more consequence….
Of interest, even firm critics of the IRI system on the outside, like Abbas Milani and esp. Mehrangiz Karr have advocated participation in this round of voting — rather than boycotting it (as I recall with the last one)….
They judge that there’s “real issues” at stake — and “change” is potentially in the air….
I anticipate a huge turn-out…. and not just as in days of old, to “get your thumb stamped.”
Students of the Iranian revolution may hear an echo in the reference to using innovative, cutting-edge technology to get out one’s message — despite pressures from the status quote to keep it bottled up.
Recall Khomeini’s technology of choice?
The cassette tape
Michael W. might just as well ask about the legitimacy of US elections. Instead of mullahs, we have an infinitesimal segment of the population pre-selecting candidates via campaign contributions according to the candidate’s ability to satisfy the ideological preferences of Big Money. Obama strayed from that ideology during his campaign but is now taking back most of his campaign promises, because most of those he has to deal with are still under the sway of Big Money.
The US is in no position to lecture or even question others regarding politically legitimate elections.
I can’t believe I’m reading this. The American elections are a billion times better than the Iranian elections. Sure, a canidate needs to raise a lot of money, but even if he doesn’t get a lot of money, it is up to him to be known. Nothing in a canidates position limits him from running, unline in Iran. It’s like saying the American education system is just as bad as Somalia.
In the late 80’s thousands of political prisoners were killed in months, and many of them weren’t even charged of serious crimes.
Doesn’t ultimately decisions rest upon the Supreme Leader. And the candidates are few and pre-selected anyway.
So can anyone answer me, are these elections even monitored? Throwing BS on the US election system is obviously a red herring.
Michael W. says that “nothing in a candidate’s position limits him from running, unlike in Iran.”
Sure, in America anyone can run,just as anyone can go bark at the moon. To become a serious candidate, one with even a remote prospect of winning, a candidate must jump through lots of hoops set out by Big Money.
The net effect is the same. You are talking about a distinction without a practical difference.
JohnH, Big Money doesn’t have the same power or effect as the Supreme Leader.
First of all, if Big Money was so powerful, why would their be labor unions and employee benefits? They didn’t exist before.
“Big Money” is only as big as you make it. Sure, blame “money” and lobbies, but incompetance and unpopular views come in there somewhere. Why blame yourself when you can blame “money”?
Heck, even in Israel, Arabs that openly support Israel’s enemies get elected.
Perhaps the money follows the popularity? Hmm?
So back to Iranian elections, are they monitored? Even if the person the people voted for, how powerful is the one elected to make policy change since the Supreme Leader, as the names indicates, rules supreme.
As compared to the US, where a president can get impeached and the media and people can criticize the government.
Recall Khomeini’s technology of choice?
The cassette tape
Wrong, post revolution the technology of choice was rope with a noose.
Sure, in America anyone can run,just as anyone can go bark at the moon.
Psst, wake up dude. We just elected a half black, son of moslem, Hawaiian from a broken family that grew up in Indonesia, community organizer in Chicago with a venomously anti-establishment pastor/mentor. Were you asleep or just stoned through all that.
No change in Iran will come from within, people are too cowardly to stick out their necks. They are brave when burning flags and chanting against imaginary enemies, but defecate in their pants when facing real authority and personal risk.
“We just elected a half black, son of moslem, Hawaiian from a broken family that grew up in Indonesia, community organizer in Chicago with a venomously anti-establishment pastor/mentor…”
But has he challenged Wall Street, the monied elites, Big Pharma or the energy security/defense industries on anything yet? Not in the least.
Or are you asleep or just too stoned to notice?
P.S. Iran’s supreme leader has only so much clout. By all accounts, decision making is diffused. Likewise, the elites in the in the US are not monolithic. Nonetheless nothing gets done in Washington without their approval. You call that a credible democracy?
Ummm…. say Michael, I politely offered you some other links with backgrounders (posted here to jwn) on the current Presidential elections process in Iran. Why not read ’em before more venting here.
And Titus, you reveal your ignorance and/or bile about the revolution. Most serious accounts of the revolution, by critics and sympathizers alike, recognize the role of the cassette (circa mid 1970’s technology) in transmitting Khomeini’s messages to potential supporters.
John writes But has he challenged Wall Street, the monied elites, Big Pharma or the energy security/defense industries on anything yet? Not in the least.
Or are you asleep or just too stoned to notice?
Obama has imposed his will on the banks, pretty much nationalized them, replaced GMs CEO and dictated to Chrysler and GM a script and a deadline, has stated his immediate plans on healthcare reform and a clearly redistributive tax change, all of which I support and I see as massive change. He has prostrated to Iran and muslims in general and will do that again in Egypt next (won’t help, we are Satan and always will be) Change like that in Iran can take 1000 years.
Are you detached from reality or just a typing zombie?
Scottie boy, the cassette was used to trigger the revolution, but they needed thicker rope to hang people from the revolution until now. You must know that recording tape ain’t strong enough to hang a dissident to death by. You know that, or should I send a link with pictures of Iranians hanging so you can see it is rope?
The question is what technology can the Iranians rely on now to liberate them from their oppressive mullahs. Other than their reliance on toilet paper the question remains unanswered.
Titus, that’s quite ENOUGH of your hostile paternalism with “Scottie boy”, etc. Future posts of that nature will be deleted, or your IP address banned.
Keep it courteous as per guidelines, or go get your own blog to vent on.
Au contraire Helena, I meant it in a warm and familiar way.
This from Radio Free Europe provides more on the “creative” technology efforts to “get out the vote” by reformists — and also of note, to get those who had not participated the last time, to do so this round. (warts and all)
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/may/1305.html
remarkable. fyi
And about the joke Khatami did (or did not) make, here’s another RFE report, with the gist of the joke and the initial protests:
http://www.rferl.org/content/Khatamis_Joke_Backfires/1741034.html
and a report of Khatami’s denial:
http://www.rferl.org/archive/Iran_Election_Diary/latest/2213/2213.html
Imagine, faking a video to make a candidate (or one of his allies look bad). They don’t do that in “real” democracies now, do they?
Whether its true or not points to the very real ethic sensitivities inside Iran….
Just to add what Helena pointed out and complained about Titus comment.
Been long time reader here the writer of the post have and had many times used and insult commentators those who oppose his views when it comes to Iran/Mullah for no big deal.
What Helena complained about is very minor comparing to the writers words and insults some he/Helena did deleted so no trace back for them.
I agree with Titus that his attention not more than a way of use of words not respectable way of talking or comment. The writer should warren or blocked from writing here as he demonstrated worse than Titus genuine words.
Salah my brother, my friend, thanks for coming to my defense even though I am not a very popular poster here. You can only make enemies by supporting me, but you are absolutely right, JWN is censored, and is censored against only one type of poster. Like a miniature version of Iran, either you agree or else…
I think my question on Roxana Saberi was also removed. I heard her yesterday and I feel she was working as a spy. That is my intuition, just like I said many times my intuiton is that Helena is being paid by a foreign state.
Salah, you are closer geographically to the Iranian mess, so I do defer to your judgement on Iran, but I am deeply suspicious of characters like Helena, Scott, and John that in their effort to sully the US, paint an idillic picture of Iran. I wish Helena had gone from the UK to Iran instead of the US. Res non Verba. Don your burka Helena or whatever you want to call it and lead by example.
Imagine, faking a video to make a candidate (or one of his allies look bad). They don’t do that in “real” democracies now, do they?
You mean like the fake memo circulated in the 2004 US Presidential Election? Scott, I don’t think that anybody here questions the fact that this sort of thing goes on in other democracies.
If you go back and read what he actually wrote, I don’t think that Titus was countering your argument that Khomeini(or rather his loyal aides) discovered early on in the 1970 that they could use cassette tapes to get his sermons out to the masses. He is saying that after the revolution the mullahs relied on the noose (or the Uzi) to consolidate their power. I don’t think that anyone but a diehard revisionist would disagree.
on Roxana Saberi was also removed. I heard her yesterday and I feel she was working as a spy.
Titus, I did made a comparison between Roxana Saberi and Sandra Mackey a journalist for the Christian Science Monitor, she had to smuggle the notes for her book out. which NT called her “A SPY IN THE HOUSE OF SAUD”. we don’t know full story of Roxana Saberi now but the time will tell just like the spy Sandra Mackey the writer’s friend both join and published a book about Iran in 1998 “The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation”
The writer of the post here holding that attitude of white superiority believes that his visit to Iran 30 years ago gave him good shook to be “exepert” of the ME /Iran.
His believes of righteousness and his views about Iran made him to denial of others views who opposes his view it’s very common in his writing like here.
But let ask one simple question here is the Iranians as a nation / people happy with their regime?
Iranian are definitely against any aggression coming from US or from Israeli simply because they love their country and their land. they saw US mess in Iraq, how US brook a nation with 5000 years history. but people in Iran when it comes to their Mullah regime the majority don’t like them.
talking about election how colourful and freedom in Iran is hoax and laughable matter.
let read some report form UN agencies about Iran and her Human Rights:
and here another
and here also
To see how colourful the race of election in Iran let read this:
Sadly in last Iraqi elections Iran’s midwife Da’awa party and Al-Hakeem party did the same, they sent their slaves to those poor Iraqis (recent numbers telling 50% Iraqi under the poverty line) calling to vote for their party handed voters a “Wool Blanket” as the could winter approached in Iraq was could…..yah Mullah bribes….”Islamic” way practise of Mullah
Salah, you are simply incorrect (and libelous) to claim that Sandra Mackey, or Helena, or me are working as spies for any government. (unless you subscribe to the dictators’ position that any journalist or scholar who doesn’t repeat the government line is a “spy.” )
You’re also caught in your visceral “feedback loop” that seems disposed to block out any rational debate about Iran matters — like others here.
In the Saudi context, if you go back and look at the Saudi book, S.M. happened to be there as the spouse of a valued American doctor, and in her own right, she had public administrative skills then needed in Saudi Arabia. (she has an M.A. from UVA) In her duties, yes, she had deep inside access “to the real data” …. She wrote a long series of articles for the Christian Science Monitor (even before Helena started, as I recall) under male names….. and to be sure, such writings caused consternation…. Funny thing, it never dawned on them that a woman could be so daring. Of course, that was long ago…. much has changed in Saudi land. (and some things have not)
You might want to look at her more recent book on Iraq (The Reckoning) which had all sorts of stern warnings about the mad US rush to invade Iraq. No doubt you might agree with a lot of it.
Yet you seem bent on this crusade to create a load of fiction and drivel about me, which I’ve had enough of — and will hencheforth be inclined to remove. Do you have anything better to do? If you don’t appreciate reading my insights into Iran, you don’t have to read ’em. Besides, you (and JES) have gone way past jwn etiquette in hogging threads with your often longggggggg screeeds that so often are only tangentially related to the original topic of the thread)
Yet to your claims about censorship, I will very much enjoy discussions and debates about interpretations of ongoing events involving Iran and the region — that would be in tune with the very high ideals of this forum.
Changing the subject though or hurling ad hominen attacks will no longer be welcome.
Now, on to the substance of the original thread here — the fact that there is a real and significant contest going on in Iran’s election. (much as our resident Iran bashers refuse to even discuss it):
See today’s excellent report from the Washington Post: (another solid piece by journalist Thomas Erdbrink — who I have also since learned caught early the emphasis and debate over Iran’s foreign policy — as a key issue in Iran’s elections)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052903108.html?hpid=artslot&sub=AR
Last thing, just because one observes a serious contest going on inside Iran doesn’t mean that the analyst per se is taking sides therein.
What I am challenging is the stale, deliberately misleading images from certain propaganda outlets that Iran’s elections are meaningless….
That’s up to the Iranians themselves to decide. Last Presidential round, indeed, many Iranians did take that position — and voted with their feet — if you will — and stayed home.
This time, signs suggest a massive interest in the election, there and yes, among even leading dissident voices from outside….
It’s worth considering, soberly.
About the cassette vs. the noose, how disingenuous. I never made the distinction “post revolution” — you did — and as such, you changed the subject. My original comparison was a very light one — between the role of new technologies in getting out a message of “change” or resistance today — and that used by Khomeini to distribute his message, while he was still in exile (in Iraq, then France — pre-revolution)
(as is well known)
The challenge is a red herring anyway. The revolution consolidated, twisted & turned for a host a factors, repression being but one of many factors…. again, that’s a rather different subject….
About Salah’s last longgggggg post, another red herring. (e.g., the longggg quotes of sections from older human rights reports) Nowhere did I claim that Iran didn’t have serious human rights problems. Indeed, they are well known even inside Iran — and both of the reformist candidates have been pushing the envelope on women’s issues, on free speech & press, and especially on rights of ethnic minorities. (Musavi’s campaign has reportedly been issuing many of their broadsides in Kurdish — unprecedented as far as I know)
Your posting of the “potatoes” protest from last month actually illustrates my point — that there has been some very “interesting” debates going on inside Iran. (as happens of course also in democracies across the world, candidates often resort to “chickens in every pot” arguments for their candidacy — classic “populism”)
Yet another striking debate taking high profile in Iran’s elections: — executions of minors and the question of whether or not human rights have deteriorated under Ahmadinejad:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355320443064445.html
— good report on the debates by Farnaz Fassihian…. appearing in yet another bastion of naive, liberal reporting (irony alert) — the Wall Street Journal.