Ahmadinejad defiant about result of Iranian election

jkforde

I didn't think yesterday's NewsHour (the 1300 GMT edition) was up on the site yet, I'd like to hear it again so could you post where you got it... thanks

wes

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Thanks for that, but how far into the programme is this? 20 mins in now and so far I've only heard one guy slating the Western media for being biased and interviewing people mostly from one side!

He may have a point, considering Britain and America's actions in 1953! I hope most people here know about the CIA funded propaganda campaign against Mohammed Mosaddeq as part of Operation Ajax.

We all know the West really wanted Mousavi to win, and has it in for Ahmadinejad, so the current coverage is quite predictable I think.

Are there any text based links with evidence of rigging? Again, I know there is something so I'm really hoping someone can link me.

While it true, that the US/UK have stuck there nose's into Iran business before, but in this case Mousavi isn't a million miles away from Ahmadinejad. He will likely still pursue nuclear technology, but domestically would allow the Iranians to have more freedom's. So I don't see why Western government would interfere, when regardless of who won, things wouldn't change too much.

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

CQD I'm amused at your straight-faced credulity, you might as well have posted an indymedia rant.

Well I did say above id be in the pro ahmadinejad camp...the links were just articles I stumbled upon, so I cant comment on the integrity of the sites, although that 2nd article is written by Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term, as well as Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.A bit too far left for you or what?
(and you are linking to CNN like., who just rippped it off AP surely and reprinted it..)...Did you read the article?...Would you think the CIA or Mossad are active in Iran at the minute?..

While it true, that the US/UK have stuck there nose's into Iran business before, but in this case Mousavi isn't a million miles away from Ahmadinejad. He will likely still pursue nuclear technology, but domestically would allow the Iranians to have more freedom's. So I don't see why Western government would interfere, when regardless of who won, things wouldn't change too much.

You haven't been aware of the last few years anti iranian rhetoric all over most western media?..This is the one chance to destabilise iran internally that they'll have for the next four or five years..Do you think mousavi has went to al this trouble to bring down the revolution he brought about?

carveone

jkforde wrote:

...an English academic who has crunched the provincial numbers and he basically admitted that it was blatant fraud based on his experience monitoring elections and voting around the world...

Like Skip Hammond, Nuclear Expertmaybe The Onion is great sometimes...

"Experts" on Iran are crawling out of the woodwork for their 15 mins of fame. Personally, I'd rather trust the CPO pre-election polls sponsored by the BBC. The report is here for those interested.

I believe (personally) that Ahmadinejad won the election and it is Mousavi's supporters who are trying to undermine the result with violence.

wes wrote: »

While it true, that the US/UK have stuck there nose's into Iran business before, but in this case Mousavi isn't a million miles away from Ahmadinejad. He will likely still pursue nuclear technology, but domestically would allow the Iranians to have more freedom's. So I don't see why Western government would interfere, when regardless of who won, things wouldn't change too much.

I agree with that. But it's plausible that covert Western support or promises of support for Mousavi is possible anyway. Perhaps the West see support for Mousavi as a chance to get their nose into Iran. Or maybe some would like to see some sort of civil war break out, a war by proxy. I think they'll be disappointed given that the unrest seems to be contained to the capital - the rest of the country seems happy enough. I think that if a war in Iran were to happen then one side effect (that people in the West care about that is) would be brutal oil prices.

jkforde

So you reckon the people who won the vote fairly would turn around and shoot unarmed civilians?
Just to clarify, the academic wasn't an expert on Iran, he's an electoral research academic and never claimed to be an Iran expert.

gurramok

carveone wrote: »

I think they'll be disappointed given that the unrest seems to be contained to the capital - the rest of the country seems happy enough. I think that if a war in Iran were to happen then one side effect (that people in the West care about that is) would be brutal oil prices.

In case you have not noticed, there are plenty of youtube videos of severe rioting in Estefan and other cities in the region.

jkforde

jkforde wrote: »

So you reckon the people who won the vote fairly would turn around and shoot unarmed civilians?

Well what Im saying is Iran has a long history of democracy..Isreal/the west have been openly hostile to Iran for the last number of years..Its not that much of a stretch.And especially seeing how it developed(bookface/twatter etc)..

What reaction would you deem reasonable, to demonstrations organised by an external destabilising force?

Please note..Im not actually condoning killing unarmed civilians..

(unless they really piss you off..)

carveone

jkforde wrote: »

So you reckon the people who won the vote fairly would turn around and shoot unarmed civilians?

Yes. This isn't Ireland. If law and order needs to be restored it will be. I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that if rioters go up against the Revolutionary Guard, people are going to get hurt. In any country this is true. Remember, quite a lot of people were killed in the LA riots in, when was it, the 90s sometime. A quick google shows 10 were shot by police/national guard.

Just to clarify, the academic wasn't an expert on Iran, he's an electoral research academic and never claimed to be an Iran expert.

Certainly, I was being snide without hearing what he had to say. Just wondering where he got his numbers from.

I'm not a very good writer but the argument I was (trying to) go for here was that I think the West is getting involved to deliberately destabilise the country. Plus millions of people die around the world every year in wars that the West don't give a rats ass about.

jkforde

carveone wrote: »

Yes. This isn't Ireland. If law and order needs to be restored it will be. I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that if rioters go up against the Revolutionary Guard, people are going to get hurt. In any country this is true. Remember, quite a lot of people were killed in the LA riots in, when was it, the 90s sometime. A quick google shows 10 were shot by police/national guard.

Yikes... 'if rioters go up against the Revolutionary Guard, people are going to get hurt'. Shot through the heart with one bullet while standing in the street is not getting hurt, it's murder. Do you consider THAT 'law and order'?

carveone

carveone wrote: »

Yes. This isn't Ireland. If law and order needs to be restored it will be.

Hum, that sound unnecessarily brutal. What I'm saying is that whenever protests and riots happen, people get hurt. In Dublin outside embassys, in London G20 protests and in riots in LA and Tehran. It does look like the police are being overly violent, but that's an issue for Iran.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You haven't been aware of the last few years anti iranian rhetoric all over most western media?..This is the one chance to destabilise iran internally that they'll have for the next four or five years..Do you think mousavi has went to al this trouble to bring down the revolution he brought about?

You give the West too much credit. The US is a shadow of its former self and quite frankly has far too much crap on its plate.

Also, Mousavi was at least at the start trying to reform the current system and **EDIT** not **END EDIT** tear it down. His supporters are wearing green, and shouting "Allah Akbar", so there hardly counter revolutionaries.

If the current system in Iran falls apart, it will be due to the heavy hand of the regime and there disrespect for the rights of there own young people.

Mousavi wanted to be president of the regime..not tear it down,..after he lost maybe..

The US may have more important things on its plate now, but you wouldn't think it watching fox news for the last 3 years..as far as they're concerned Iran is America's big scary arab baddie..

carveone

Deleted User wrote: »

You haven't been aware of the last few years anti iranian rhetoric all over most western media?..This is the one chance to destabilise iran internally that they'll have for the next four or five years..Do you think mousavi has went to al this trouble to bring down the revolution he brought about?

CQD, do you think that the West is setting out to demonise Iran in the minds of their populace? Even subtle things like calling Ali Khamanei the "Supreme Leader" instead of Supreme Guide seem designed to paint a certain face on Iran. So that if Israel attacks Iran over the whole nuclear thing, the West will just shrug and say "well, they were asking for it".

wes

carveone wrote: »

I agree with that. But it's plausible that covert Western support or promises of support for Mousavi is possible anyway. Perhaps the West see support for Mousavi as a chance to get their nose into Iran. Or maybe some would like to see some sort of civil war break out, a war by proxy. I think they'll be disappointed given that the unrest seems to be contained to the capital - the rest of the country seems happy enough. I think that if a war in Iran were to happen then one side effect (that people in the West care about that is) would be brutal oil prices.

Mousavi, was Prime Minister during the Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam was gassing his people, with help from the West. The guy would be unlikely to accept there help in way shape or form. I am sure he wants to avoid conflict with the West, but I honestly doubt he would be a fan of people who helped gas hundreds of his fellow Iranians.

jkforde

your language is gas.... 'unnecessarily brutal'... which form of brutality is acceptable and necessary?

carveone

carveone wrote: »

CQD, do you think that the West is setting out to demonise Iran in the minds of their populace? Even subtle things like calling Ali Khamanei the "Supreme Leader" instead of Supreme Guide seem designed to paint a certain face on Iran. So that if Israel attacks Iran over the whole nuclear thing, the West will just shrug and say "well, they were asking for it".

Well yes..But they're probably much more concerned with the chinese and russian reaction than that of their own populace..

And really, the subversive elements were hardly in direct contact with mousavi..but once they got a few people out protesting it sort of snowballed, due in no small part to western media coverage..

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Mousavi wanted to be president of the regime..not tear it down,..after he lost maybe..

I still don't think he wants to tear it down. I think he wants to reform the system that exists, to allow more personal freedoms. I think the issues that Iranian care about are internal more than anything else.

Even if Mousavi came to power, he will still develope Nuclear tech, which is his countries right.

Deleted User wrote: »

The US may have more important things on its plate now, but you wouldn't think it watching fox news for the last 3 years..as far as they're concerned Iran is America's big scary arab baddie..

Yeah, I know that some elements of the US media like to scare monger, but I think the election of Barak Obama, show's that they haven't quite succeeded. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't put what your saying past the US, but in this case, I don't think they are involved.

FYI, the Iranians are not Arabs btw.

carveone

Deleted User wrote: »

The US may have more important things on its plate now, but you wouldn't think it watching fox news for the last 3 years..as far as they're concerned Iran is America's big scary arab baddie..

Even though Arabs make up only 2% of the population and the official language is Farsi ! I think Iran seems a pretty stable country when the West isn't interfering.

carveone

jkforde wrote: »

your language is gas.... 'unnecessarily brutal'... which form of brutality is acceptable and necessary?

The one that doesn't appear on TV.

jkforde

carveone wrote: »

The one that doesn't appear on TV.

Yes, enjoy yourself.

wes

wes wrote: »

Yeah, I know that some elements of the US media like to scare monger, but I think the election of Barak Obama, show's that they haven't quite succeeded. Now, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't put what your saying past the US, but in this case, I don't think they are involved.

FYI, the Iranians are not Arabs btw.

Ok, so under Obama, the CIA are probably not directly officially involved(although over the weekend a government representative on cnn would not say that america is not involved..her name escapes me)..Mossad on the other hand, more than likely have direct involvement here..Ill refer you to the article i posted above in relation to a jewish twitter campaign,your knowledge of the medias view of iran, and common sense..


And as far as fox news is concerned they'r brown and they live in the desert..be afraid..

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, so under Obama, the CIA are probably not directly officially involved(although over the weekend a government representative on cnn would not say that america is not involved..her name escapes me)..Mossad on the other hand, more than likely have direct involvement here..Ill refer you to the article i posted above in relation to a jewish twitter campaign,your knowledge of the medias view of iran, and common sense..

I know Israel would love to cause trouble in Iran, but regardless of who win's, they will still pursue a nuclear program, which is what there against.

I honestly don't see what they have to gain, as either way Iran will not change from a foreign policy pov and if Mousavi won, then the US/Israel would lose a lot of support against Iran, as he would have huge legitimacy the world over and would be more likely to pursue a nuclear program with less interference.

I think Mousavi winning would be bad for Israel, as it would be hard to demonize a guy who clearly represents his people and there legitimate aspirations to nuclear technology.

This is most definetly a internal issue, that has arisen due to internal contradictions in the Iranian system. The Western media, seem to think the protester's are trying to tear down the Islamic Republic, but they are only seeing what they want to see in this regard and at least at present they are not trying to do so.

Deleted User wrote: »

And as far as fox news is concerned they'r brown and they live in the desert..be afraid..

Yeah, true Fox are a joke, but I don't think they have as much influence as they use to. If they did John Mc Cain would be US president.

carveone

jkforde wrote: »

Yes, enjoy yourself.

What's that supposed to mean. I was obviously being sarcastic. Darfur doesn't appear on TV. Presumably that means that whatever is going on there is perfectly acceptable. There's that sarcasm again.

Well, there has been talk of regime change for the last couple of years..there was talk of an all out attack on iran also..by the states first, then when it became apparent they wouldn't be up to it, an attack by proxy on their nuclear sites..

it would be hard to demonize a guy who clearly represents his people and there legitimate aspirations to nuclear technology.

have both the states and israel been doing this for the last 3-4 years while ahmadinejad was clearly representing his people and their lgitimate right to nuclear technology?

tricky D

This analysis is long but well worth it.


Stratfor

---

THE IRANIAN ELECTION AND THE REVOLUTION TEST

By George Friedman

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located
single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment,
asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This
segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere
as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive,
disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads,
the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn
from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn
on the regime, and stop following the regime's orders. This is what
happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia
in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the
initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated.
When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations
either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces
-- who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the
demonstrators -- and use force to suppress the rising to the extent
necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The
students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were
not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in,
and the students were crushed.

A Question of Support
This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media,
obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators -- who were supporters of
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's opponents -- failed to notice that
while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of
people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations,
reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other
classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking
demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators
spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these
as the signs of a failing revolution.

Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops --
definitely not drawn from what we might call the "Twittering classes,"
would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons. The
troops had about as much sympathy for the demonstrators as a small-town
boy from Alabama might have for a Harvard postdoc. Failing to understand
the social tensions in Iran, the reporters deluded themselves into
thinking they were witnessing a general uprising. But this was not St.
Petersburg in 1917 or Bucharest in 1989 -- it was Tiananmen Square.

In the global discussion last week outside Iran, there was a great deal of
confusion about basic facts. For example, it is said that the urban-rural
distinction in Iran is not critical any longer because according to the
United Nations, 68 percent of Iranians are urbanized. This is an important
point because it implies Iran is homogeneous and the demonstrators
representative of the country. The problem is the Iranian definition of
urban -- and this is quite common around the world -- includes very small
communities (some with only a few thousand people) as "urban." But the
social difference between someone living in a town with 10,000 people and
someone living in Tehran is the difference between someone living in
Bastrop, Texas and someone living in New York. We can assure you that that
difference is not only vast, but that most of the good people of Bastrop
and the fine people of New York would probably not see the world the same
way. The failure to understand the dramatic diversity of Iranian society
led observers to assume that students at Iran's elite university somehow
spoke for the rest of the country.

Tehran proper has about 8 million inhabitants; its suburbs bring it to
about 13 million people out of Iran's total population of 70.5 million.
Tehran accounts for about 20 percent of Iran, but as we know, the cab
driver and the construction worker are not socially linked to students at
elite universities. There are six cities with populations between 1
million and 2.4 million people and 11 with populations of about 500,000.
Including Tehran proper, 15.5 million people live in cities with more than
1 million and 19.7 million in cities greater than 500,000. Iran has 80
cities with more than 100,000. But given that Waco, Texas, has more than
100,000 people, inferences of social similarities between cities with
100,000 and 5 million are tenuous. And with metro Oklahoma City having
more than a million people, it becomes plain that urbanization has many
faces.

Winning the Election With or Without Fraud

We continue to believe two things: that vote fraud occurred, and that
Ahmadinejad likely would have won without it. Very little direct evidence
has emerged to establish vote fraud, but several things seem suspect.

For example, the speed of the vote count has been taken as a sign of
fraud, as it should have been impossible to count votes that fast. The
polls originally were to have closed at 7 p.m. local time, but voting
hours were extended until 10 p.m. because of the number of voters in line.
By 11:45 p.m. about 20 percent of the vote had been counted. By 5:20 a.m.
the next day, with almost all votes counted, the election commission
declared Ahmadinejad the winner. The vote count thus took about seven
hours. (Remember there were no senators, congressmen, city council members
or school board members being counted -- just the presidential race.)
Intriguingly, this is about the same time in took in 2005, though
reformists that claimed fraud back then did not stress the counting time
in their allegations.

The counting mechanism is simple: Iran has 47,000 voting stations, plus
14,000 roaming stations that travel from tiny village to tiny village,
staying there for a short time before moving on. That creates 61,000
ballot boxes designed to receive roughly the same number of votes. That
would mean that each station would have been counting about 500 ballots,
or about 70 votes per hour. With counting beginning at 10 p.m., concluding
seven hours later does not necessarily indicate fraud or anything else.
The Iranian presidential election system is designed for simplicity: one
race to count in one time zone, and all counting beginning at the same
time in all regions, we would expect the numbers to come in a somewhat
linear fashion as rural and urban voting patterns would balance each other
out -- explaining why voting percentages didn't change much during the
night.

It has been pointed out that some of the candidates didn't even carry
their own provinces or districts. We remember that Al Gore didn't carry
Tennessee in 2000. We also remember Ralph Nader, who also didn't carry his
home precinct in part because people didn't want to spend their vote on
someone unlikely to win -- an effect probably felt by the two smaller
candidates in the Iranian election.

That Mousavi didn't carry his own province is more interesting. Flynt
Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett writing in Politico make some
interesting points on this. As an ethnic Azeri, it was assumed that
Mousavi would carry his Azeri-named and -dominated home province. But they
also point out that Ahmadinejad also speaks Azeri, and made multiple
campaign appearances in the district. They also point out that Khamenei is
Azeri. In sum, winning that district was by no means certain for Mousavi,
so losing it does not automatically signal fraud. It raised suspicions,
but by no means was a smoking gun.

We do not doubt that fraud occurred during Iranian election. For example,
99.4 percent of potential voters voted in Mazandaran province, a mostly
secular area home to the shah's family. Ahmadinejad carried the province
by a 2.2 to 1 ratio. That is one heck of a turnout and level of support
for a province that lost everything when the mullahs took over 30 years
ago. But even if you take all of the suspect cases and added them
together, it would not have changed the outcome. The fact is that
Ahmadinejad's vote in 2009 was extremely close to his victory percentage
in 2005. And while the Western media portrayed Ahmadinejad's performance
in the presidential debates ahead of the election as dismal, embarrassing
and indicative of an imminent electoral defeat, many Iranians who viewed
those debates -- including some of the most hardcore Mousavi supporters --
acknowledge that Ahmadinejad outperformed his opponents by a landslide.

Mousavi persuasively detailed his fraud claims Sunday, and they have yet
to be rebutted. But if his claims of the extent of fraud were true, the
protests should have spread rapidly by social segment and geography to the
millions of people who even the central government asserts voted for him.
Certainly, Mousavi supporters believed they would win the election based
in part on highly flawed polls, and when they didn't, they assumed they
were robbed and took to the streets.

But critically, the protesters were not joined by any of the millions
whose votes the protesters alleged were stolen. In a complete hijacking of
the election by some 13 million votes by an extremely unpopular candidate,
we would have expected to see the core of Mousavi's supporters joined by
others who had been disenfranchised. On last Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday, when the demonstrations were at their height, the millions of
Mousavi voters should have made their appearance. They didn't. We might
assume that the security apparatus intimidated some, but surely more than
just the Tehran professional and student classes posses civic courage.
While appearing large, the demonstrations actually comprised a small
fraction of society.

Tensions Among the Political Elite
All of this not to say there are not tremendous tensions within the
Iranian political elite. That no revolution broke out does not mean there
isn't a crisis in the political elite, particularly among the clerics. But
that crisis does not cut the way Western common sense would have it. Many
of Iran's religious leaders see Ahmadinejad as hostile to their interests,
as threatening their financial prerogatives, and as taking international
risks they don't want to take. Ahmadinejad's political popularity in fact
rests on his populist hostility to what he sees as the corruption of the
clerics and their families and his strong stand on Iranian national
security issues.

The clerics are divided among themselves, but many wanted to see
Ahmadinejad lose to protect their own interests. Khamenei, the supreme
leader, faced a difficult choice last Friday. He could demand a major
recount or even new elections, or he could validate what happened.
Khamenei speaks for a sizable chunk of the ruling elite, but also has had
to rule by consensus among both clerical and non-clerical forces. Many
powerful clerics like Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani wanted Khamenei to
reverse the election, and we suspect Khamenei wished he could have found a
way to do it. But as the defender of the regime, he was afraid to. Mousavi
supporters' demonstrations would have been nothing compared to the
firestorm among Ahmadinejad supporters -- both voters and the security
forces -- had their candidate been denied. Khamenei wasn't going to flirt
with disaster, so he endorsed the outcome.

The Western media misunderstood this because they didn't understand that
Ahmadinejad does not speak for the clerics but against them, that many of
the clerics were working for his defeat, and that Ahmadinejad has enormous
pull in the country's security apparatus. The reason Western media missed
this is because they bought into the concept of the stolen election,
therefore failing to see Ahmadinejad's support and the widespread
dissatisfaction with the old clerical elite. The Western media simply
didn't understand that the most traditional and pious segments of Iranian
society support Ahmadinejad because he opposes the old ruling elite.
Instead, they assumed this was like Prague or Budapest in 1989, with a
broad-based uprising in favor of liberalism against an unpopular regime.

Tehran in 2009, however, was a struggle between two main factions, both of
which supported the Islamic republic as it was. There were the clerics,
who have dominated the regime since 1979 and had grown wealthy in the
process. And there was Ahmadinejad, who felt the ruling clerical elite had
betrayed the revolution with their personal excesses. And there also was
the small faction the BBC and CNN kept focusing on -- the demonstrators in
the streets who want to dramatically liberalize the Islamic republic. This
faction never stood a chance of taking power, whether by election or
revolution. The two main factions used the third smaller faction in
various ways, however. Ahmadinejad used it to make his case that the
clerics who supported them, like Rafsanjani, would risk the revolution and
play into the hands of the Americans and British to protect their own
wealth. Meanwhile, Rafsanjani argued behind the scenes that the unrest was
the tip of the iceberg, and that Ahmadinejad had to be replaced. Khamenei,
an astute politician, examined the data and supported Ahmadinejad.

Now, as we saw after Tiananmen Square, we will see a reshuffling among the
elite. Those who backed Mousavi will be on the defensive. By contrast,
those who supported Ahmadinejad are in a powerful position. There is a
massive crisis in the elite, but this crisis has nothing to do with
liberalization: It has to do with power and prerogatives among the elite.
Having been forced by the election and Khamenei to live with Ahmadinejad,
some will make deals while some will fight -- but Ahmadinejad is
well-positioned to win this battle.


This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with
attribution to www.stratfor.com.

Copyright 2009 Stratfor.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, there has been talk of regime change for the last couple of years..there was talk of an all out attack on iran also..by the states first, then when it became apparent they wouldn't be up to it, an attack by proxy on their nuclear sites..

Which would be swiftly followed by attacks in the Straits of Hormuz, causing oil prices to sky rocket.

Iranian revolutionary guards could even attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at the very least send money and weapon to the people fighting the US there.

The US is in no position to attack Iran, especially after Iraq. The people in the US are in no mood for a war of aggression and the US would lose even more standing in the world.

Deleted User wrote: »

have both the states and israel been doing this for the last 3-4 years while ahmadinejad was clearly representing his people and their lgitimate right to nuclear technology?

Ahmadinejad, is a loud mouth, who has a talent for making himself and his country look insane. He has a habit of making incendiary comments and what not.

Now, Mousavi who assuming he got his way, would be a hero, who a lot of people in the West supported and it would be very hard to try and demonize Iran, with him in charge.

wes

wes wrote: »

Which would be swiftly followed by attacks in the Straits of Hormuz, causing oil prices to sky rocket.

Iranian revolutionary guards could even attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at the very least send money and weapon to the people fighting the US there.

The US is in no position to attack Iran, especially after Iraq. The people in the US are in no mood for a war of aggression and the US would lose even more standing in the world.

Which is why they're trying to destabilise it internally now..

Ahmadinejad, is a loud mouth, who has a talent for making himself and his country look insane. He has a habit of making incendiary comments and what not.

Yeah, as I said earlier...I cant help liking the guy...wasn't that holocaust denial was a misquote?..Ive seen him being interviewed and he just speaks a lot of truth..

Now, Mousavi who assuming he got his way, would be a hero, who a lot of people in the West supported and it would be very hard to try and demonize Iran, with him in charge.

But shur Iran would still be a fundamentalist islamic theocracy..

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is why they're trying to destabilise it internally now..

Again, I wouldn't put it by them, but there is little proof that this is actually the case.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, as I said earlier...I cant help liking the guy...wasn't that holocaust denial was a misquote?..Ive seen him being interviewed and he just speaks a lot of truth..

Either way it doesn't matter, he has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth and the Iran's enemies, would have a hard time pulling the same crap with Mousavi.

Deleted User wrote: »

But shur Iran would still be a fundamentalist islamic theocracy..

Sure, but one with a popularly elected leader who is not a puppet. Kind of hard for other people to tell the Iranian how to run there affairs, especially with a President that has such over whelming support.

Either way it doesn't matter, he has a habit of sticking his foot in his mouth and the Iran's enemies, would have a hard time pulling the same crap with Mousavi.

They'd manage it if they could misquote him..

Sure, but one with a popularly elected leader who is not a puppet. Kind of hard for other people to tell the Iranian how to run there affairs, especially with a President that has such over whelming support.

Not to repeat myself but it didn't stop them for the last few years..