Ahmadinejad's 'Victory' a Disaster

By The Telegraph, The Telegraph - June 14, 2009

Accessibility links

Sign in or register

Sunday 14 June 2009 | Iran feed | All feeds

Published: 7:09PM BST 13 Jun 2009

Comments 39 | Comment on this article

Poor Iran. It suffers from being a pseudo-democracy in which voters' hopes are raised by a choice of candidates to parliament and the presidency, only to be thwarted by an unelected clerical source of power. This was painfully clear in elections to theMajlis in 2000, when reformists swept the board but were then shackled by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the revolutionary apparatus of the so-called "guardianship of the jurisprudent".

Expectations were even higher in the presidential poll on Friday, when, after a campaign marked by sharp television debates and huge rallies, Mir-Hossein Mousavi appeared to have good chance of beating the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or at least of forcing him into a second round. Results announced yesterday were a bitter disappointment: the electoral commission gave Mr Ahmadinejad nearly 63 per cent of the vote and his main challenger nearly 34 per cent. The surprisingly poor showing of Mr Mousavi in the capital, Tehran, and in his northwestern heartland of Tabriz suggests that the figures have been cooked. He called the result a "dangerous charade". However, Mr Ahmadinejad's re‑election was praised as a "real feast" by Ayatollah Khamenei. And it is there – backed, if necessary, by the brute force of the Revolutionary Guards – that ultimate power lies.

The extent of the protests in Tehran yesterday are a measure of popular frustration, at least among educated town-dwellers. Iran has been condemned to a further four years of a president who is economically innumerate, socially repressive and diplomatically crude. Take first the economy, the greatest failure of the Islamic Revolution whose instigator, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, described economics as "for donkeys". His disciple, Mr Ahmadinejad, once said that he prayed to God that he would never know anything about a subject that was a tool of Western imperialism. The result has been high inflation, unemployment, the subordination of private enterprise to the dead hand of the state, and the sidelining of experts by cronies. The president's gross mismanagement was epitomised in 2007 by the introduction of petrol rationing in a country that was the second largest producer among members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Now it is having to contend with a drastic drop in prices for its main source of revenue.

Socially, Iran under Mr Ahmadinejad has not returned to the level of repression that preceded the election of the reformist presidential candidate, Mohammed Khatami, in 1997. But expectations of freedom, particularly among educated women, have since risen, and the prospect of a second term for the former Revolutionary Guard is a cause for despair.

On the diplomatic front, it is idle to pretend that the election of Mr Mousavi would have made much difference to Iran's nuclear ambitions. These predate the Shah's fall in 1979 and were made a revolutionary priority in the 1980s during the long war of attrition with Iraq. However, a different presidency might have enabled the resumption of what Mr Khatami called a "dialogue among civilisations".

From the American side there is a willingness to deepen engagement with the Muslim world, as laid out by President Barack Obama in his speech at Cairo University on June 4. But there seems little chance of progress with an Iranian leader who glories in his country's nuclear programme and backs Hizbollah and Hamas as the means of destroying the state of Israel.

These are uncomfortable facts for the new Democratic administration to digest. It would, however, be denying the aspirations of millions of Iranians for greater freedom were it to pursue dialogue as if Mr Ahmadinejad's seemingly fraudulent victory were of no account.

After 30 years, poor Iran is lumbered with a corrupt, repressive regime that has squandered its economic potential and pushed it to the margins of civilised discourse. Four more years of the same? Its people deserve much better.

Comments: 39

to those who draw as parallels between elections in iran and western countries. sorry but no point to call it elections. i'v never been in iran n my life but no illusions regarding the fact of stolen results. the same happened in georgia last year. due to pro-western rhetorics the west acknowledged saakashvili's victory. as a result now we have infact illegitimate president trying his best to preserve fake power. i am sure in case of iran western countries reaction will be different. may be akhmadinejad in the office is even better than doubtful "reformist" that could help clerics to keep real power. t any rate human beings strive for freedom is unstoppable. my heart goes to all normal iranians wishing to establish some kind of control over government. main difference between democracies and authoritarian countries is possibility to change regime by means of elections. unchangeable power people plunge into marasmus - no exceptions. current situation will help to develop civil society in iran. the west should facilitate this process. it may take 5-15-25 years but finally freedom will succeed. my respect to iranian protesters. it seems to me that degree of freedom is higher there than in russia. its impossible to imagine post-elections riots in moscow street.

So Ahmadinejad has done a Mugabe and rigged the election results so he stays in power. Another unpopular leader clings on to power against the will of his people. At least Ahmadinejad and Mugabe held elections. Not so Mr Brown.

Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran. Long live Ahmadinejad.

Perhaps we can help the help the Iraninans and they can help us get rid of our own Dictator BROWN and his labour scum. brown is a bigger criminal, and more people detest him.

This is a detailed report by Telegraph View, regarding the result of the Iranian presidential election which has become extremely controversial, widely disputed by reformist supporters, and with potentials for militant escalation. When I finished writing my last commentary on Iran under Telegraph View's June 11 editorial opinion: "Iran election 2009: Iran's vigorous presidential election too close to call," (5:32 PM), later in the afternoon Friday, all reports coming from Iran, suggest an election where pro-reform voters came in droves to vvote for their candidate. Some envisioned prospects of victory for reform candiadte Hossein Mousavi. But, most experts were expecting a runoff election between incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and refornist challnger Hossein Mousavi. The same experts gave Mousavi the edge for victory if the election ever went to a rub-off This projection was made under the assumption that when the votes were counted and apportioned, nobody would get the 50 percent+ votes needed to avoid a run-off. But, this would been the case under a democracy, but in a stage-managed one. All signs were there for a strong reformist performance: The pre-election poll showing a tight race, the long lines in pro-reformost, electoral districts and constituencies, the exit poll, the general mood of despair and despondence about the devastated economy, leading to extremely high uemployment figures, the sense of resignation against Iranian government--a government that has receded to Islamic to despotism tand totalitarianism--too strict even for some conservative Islamists,and more. But, other signs were, also, pointing to a looming, electoral catastrophe of unfathomable,anti-democracy proportions. But, few expected this to reach this large-scale suppression and obsfucation so soon and so rapidly. First the phone lines, where disrupted by Wednesday, and the reform movement accused the governemnt of pre-election sabotage. Government promised to investgate, but never carried through. Then, the mobile phones went dead. These took away the basic mechanism for text-messaging widely used by the youthful reformists. Then, Bang! When the results came out barely few hours after the poll stations closed it was damning and unbelievable. Some of them when voters still lined up--most of them reformist supporters. Some remianed open, because of long lines even past the voting deadline. The result; stunning: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 62.6%; Mir-Hossein Mousavi, 33.75%; according to the reports from AP writers Anne Johnson and Brian Murphy published in the June 14 edition of Yahoo News. But, first question is: Where is the technology for Iran to count 46.2 million ballots in just few hours? Where are the reform votes overwhelmingly seen almost everywhere. The Guardian Council purged the 400 candidates list putting only one hard-line, conservative candidate: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 3 pro-Islamic reformers with sensibilities toward liberalization of restrictive Iranian, draconian Islamic laws. The strategy, ostensibly was so that the reformers will split the votes for change, living Ahamedinejad a clear winner. But, there aren't visible evidence to indicate that's what happened in this election. There are not up to 60 percent votes of Islamic hard-liners in this election. And, the government never envisioned or intended a run-off. This is because, besides reform, the biggest issue in this election is the economy now in shambles with a nationlike like Iran with the second-highest oil reserve in the world rationing it to motorists: That was an unsustainable and disappointing experience. So, many voters preferred bread and butter over does and rites of Islamic fundamentalism that ignores basic, sound, academic ideas and princples of economic, because of the despised western foundations; and instead imposed a strict ideology over a liberal system that boosts productivity, growth and standard of living many moderate, Islamic oil-rich nations have adopted and profitted and enriched from it. This what the reformers hoped for. Islam with economism; Jihadism with militant, Islamic fanaticism, and without kitchen- table, pocket-book, capitalistic components. Which is why the result of this Iranian election is a disaster as Telegraph View described it. Furthermore, large-scale fraud is implied, following the early signals, tangible, evidential, dubious manfestations and circumstanial, disruptive events and crack-downs that point toward crafty, predetermined designs and shutdowns; as opposed to accidental break-downs. Meanwhile, repercussions in the West may aggravate an already bad relations with a defiant and non-conformist regime. The United States government does noot believe in the legitimacy of the result yet. Canadian foreign minister Lawrence Cannon and joined his US secretary of state counterpart: Hillary Clinton in expressing concern over irregularities in the Iranian election. Western European reactions parallel similar concern. But, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has already blessed the election result which makes it official for Iranian government. But, the scale of militant demonstration by refomists who felt robbed (seen on TV news) seems unprecedented as Mousavi has called on supporters to reject violence but not to respect people (who goverment) who take by power through fraud. No one knows where all these lead to. The consequences look ominous in terms what measures a ruthless, Islamic government might take. This could be a whatershed moment. The conscience of Iranian may be moved for liberalization for the sake of the economy, or the government reverts to ruthless repression in the name of atavistic, Islamic religionism. Let's see which side prevails. Igonikon Jack, USA

Theocracy, especially based on highly violent, aggressive and binary Islam, is bad! As long as these Ayatollahs call the shots, the election of Mousavi would not have made much difference! In the long run, these oppressive regimes degenerate to highly corrupt and feudal rules. These affect the poor, women and children most. Also the poor end up becoming poorer and more powerless/helpless. Rich and powerful become richer and more powerful! These rules badly disintegrate due to internal power struggles and contradictions. We saw this happening earlier theocracies and communism. Bad news in all these is that more and more people from these nations land in the West! Regards,

These foreign Johnnies just won't do what the wise Telegraph writers tell them.Of course they should be democratic and do what the West tells them.Otherwise we should bomb them.

The selection of Ahmadinejad is as much a disaster for Iranian people as for the people of the Middle East and the world. We expect the world not to recognize him as the legitimate president of Iran. He is an obstacle to achieving peace in the region. It was not the will of Iranians-neither in cities nor in the villages- to have him as president for 4 more years.

Young idealistic Iranians despite having been brought up in a supposedly conditioning environment these past 30 years rush to dethrone the dictatorial theocracy in the hope of opening up their country to western style democracy and engagement with the world. How swiftly the wheel turns from 30 years ago when the Shah - engaged in exactly that and modernising to boot was dethroned by the earnest and na�ve - and religious fundamentalism imposed. So far the saintly regime has ruthlessly crushed open demonstrations and arrested opposition political leaders - having produced their amazing election declaration in favour of their existing veneer president before hardly any of the votes had been counted. The top BBC correspondent has been briefly arrested and also warned off by secret policemen, and his crew have had their video tapes confiscated at least once. We stand idly by, as this horrid regime, which pretends to be popular, pretends to have the backing of the Iranian people crushes her citizens - and in the same breath wonder why Islamic Fundamentalist states are expanding? Hitler and Stalin (Kim, too)were the same - take control of everything and rule despite the people... It takes someone to say no, someone to stand up, someone to help. 140609-09:35

You cannot change what is going to take place only add to its course, To enents that have to be.

Some say they remember the president's name as 'I'm a dinner jacket' Personally, I think 'Imagine a Dudd' describes him quite well.

We also live in a pseudo democracy, if we were as brave as the Iranians we would be rioting now. Brown is our threat not Ahmedimijad - BROWN MUST ALSO GO NOW

felipeb What possible good can come from "crushing dissent" in Iran and threatening the peace of the Middle East? The repressive theocracy has not provided well for the people. The Iranian regime then remains a threat to many Iranians and world peace. Only China executes more people. Iran leads the world in executing children. The 1 million women protest was not a "neocon plot". It may come as a surprise to you but women do not like to be treated as second class citizens .

The Telegraph view on 11 June was that 'Iran's election is too close to call' Ahmedinejad won 62% of the votes (allegedly). Could we now please have the DT's forecast of the British General Election ? two days is a long time in politics !

What's the difference between Amahdinejad stealing the election in Iran, George Bush stealing two elections in the USA and MacBroon trying to steal the next election in the UK by way of constitutional reform. If it's not a vital UK interest, our policy should be to not interfere and just keep our distance. My guess is that everyone will now try to stir the pot in Iran now.

Except for Israel friendly, neocon infiltrated news media Ahmadinejad was expected to win. The plain attempts by outsiders in interfere likely boosted his margin. The hysteria from the usual Mossad assets, such as the ever hysterical Andrew Sullivan, give off the appearance of a preconceived plot to destabilize Iran, which, by the way, has been lavishly funded by the US Congress. These funds are a matter of public record. The whole post election "chaos" has all the markings of a CIA/Mossad/Zionist press operation.

So long as we are not dragged along on another USA/Israel war, let the rest of the world do what they want. Tory isolationism please and lots of it - kick out Labour, pull up the draw bridge securing the borders and let the barbarians outside of our sceptred isle do whatever they want to each other.

Read Full Article »

Latest On Twitter

Follow Real Clear Politics

Real Clear Politics Video

More RCP Video Highlights »