No! That is the last thing he should do. He should stay out of this as much as possible. This is not about us. It's about them. And any interference would only backfire to the regime's advantage.Obviously, he's going to have to say something. But I basically agree with Andrew, mostly because I'm not convinced that any kind of American endorsement of anything can help. I know Obama's more popular than Bush in Iran, but whatever he says needs to be nuanced. Frankly, I'd expect nothing less.
On another note, I was watching Meet The Press yesterday and saw David Gregory ask Joe Biden if the Obama administration would go down as allowing Iran to go nuclear. Then I saw Mitt Romney blame Obama for the apparent fraud in Iran.
I think this theory of infinite American reach is a little silly. If we could use some temperamental conservatism anywhere, its in our sense of ourselves. Here are your dangerous words for the day--America can do anything. It's a strange logic that says you can't cure poverty, but you can direct the fates of whole nation-states thousands of miles away.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
America can do anything - at zombo.com!
Romney's right, of course. I mean, the tough talk and confrontational stance of the Bush II regime was yielding fantastic results. Why, look at the W. imposed our will and got the Iranias to shut down their nuclear program, stop supporting Hezbollah, and recognize Israel's right to exist. Oh, wait...
I think he can continue his 'we believe in fair elections' deal. Say you know there's a controversy, you expect the Iranian government to deal with it in a fair way, and not talk about who you want to win or anything like that. It's a difficult needle to thread but I think it can be threaded.
The last thing we need to do is offer an implicit endorsement to what may be a very short, and easily quashed revolt. Still, I wonder whether Biden was given the okay to imply that the election was a fraud on Meet the Press. I wonder if it's an instance where the Administration wanted somebody of high profile on record questioning the legitimacy of the thing, but, at the same time, they didn't want it to be understood necessarily as the position of the president. In that sort of scenario, the VP is the obvious choice because, you know, the impression is that he is always going off message.
I wonder if they would send him on to intentionally go off message.
I don't think it'd be that hard!
I agree with Andrew: this is about Iran, not the US, and what happens is up to Iranians. They don't need a spokesman; they have spokespeople. They need good reporting to the world at large about what's happening there.
Who ever thought "The Revolution Will Be Twittered" would ever be used unironically?
The two things the US should not do: Validate the election results, which are obviously fraudulent. (No way did every region of the country, even the opponents' home towns, go 57%+ for Achmadinejad.) And declare that any side in the conflict is the US side: that's an excellent way to undercut ourselves. The Obama administration hasn't done either of these and Joe (who is tops on foreign policy) is making the right sounds about the election results.
But if two years from now Khamenei and Achmedinijad are still in power: they're the people in power. You deal with the regime you have, not the regime you wish you had.
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about when you say the candidates' hometowns. I assume you're talking about Azerbaijan, Tehran, Luristan, and Kurdistan - the regions Juan Cole was concerned about. There's no real precedent for guessing what the results should be since this is an unprecedented election (a contested election for an incumbent President). The best comparison would probably be the 2005 run-off between Rafsanjani and Achmedinijad, and I don't think that results for that election (by province) are available anywhere.
Otherwise, you're right. The upside to all of this is that it's a little easier for the States to credibly call Iran a police state without getting the (deserved, really) "but you torture people and wantonly invade countries" response. Pushing for the protesters at this moment would probably just strengthen the regime since they could frame it as a fight against Western interference instead of internal rebellion.
To quote a commentor at TNR, everything the US says right now is a promise or a threat. I remember after the first Gulf War, when Bush made noises about how we would certainly welcome a revolt that toppled Saddam, and Shia started one expecting military support Bush didn't send. Similar (though milder) issues in Georgia a year ago, when we had "You have to take a tough line!" vs "Threatening what, exactly? A shooting war? A very frowny face? WWIII nukes and all?"
538 is starting to run the numbers, and I trust them on math. Sample quote regarding home provinces:
"However, given the absolutely bizarre figures that have been given for several provinces, given qualitative knowledge - for example, that Mahdi Karroubi earned almost negligible vote totals in his native Lorestan and neighboring Khuzestan, which he won in 2005 with 55.5% and 36.7% respectively - there is room for a much closer look."
They aren't saying "by math, I prove this is fraud" but "by math, this looks shaky as hell."
The Iranians remember President Carter saying he would support human rights. Then they remember key leaders organizing to meet with him when he visited the Shah, being rebuffed by Carter, and and then being arrested and abused. They think it was a deliberate trap. The hostility to Carter was a major factor in the anti-Americanism.
I don't think it was a trap, but I do think President Carter threw words around not understanding how they would play out elsewhere.
That's why I want President Obama to say very little. The Iranians face terrible risks. If we seem to promise help we cannot really deliver, we will make those risks worse.
I'm curious whether there's been any discussion within the Atlantic at all as to whether the evidence unquestionably supports fraud. Obviously, the Iranian system isn't an environment where fair elections are possible. However, the evidence for outright fraud isn't convincing, at least to me. It's telling that Andrew Sullivan, who's been posting about this constantly, has started posting about alleged tampered ballot boxes after saying the numbers alone were proof enough yesterday; what little analysis that's possible based on the scant results released so far doesn't support this.
I hope Moussavi's boast that he won a supermajority of votes before they'd begun to be counted was right. However, if you try to ignore appeals to emotion and focus only on the evidence at hand, it's hard to distinguish what's going on in Iran right now from what happened in Venezuela in 2004 (obviously this is ignoring the brutal, subsequent and unsurprising response from a police state). Where hard evidence is lacking, it's easy to manipulate the media into believing fraud when the result isn't desired -- how much of the inside-the-beltway "common wisdom" on the Georgia/Russia conflict was completely wrong thanks to preexisting sympathies for Saakashvili and disgust with Putin?
Yeah, I have to say that this occurs to me as well. I mean, circumstantially, almost every action taken by the goverment since the closing of the polls (and really for the week leading up to the polls being open) point toward a fraud of some kind. And we have a lot of anecdotal accounts that seem to point even more overtly to fraud, but there's something missing in all of it. Something, that's unlikely to ever surface: physical evidence of wrong doing.
All we have is the tyrannical actions of a dictatorial regime.
Cutting off communication networks, cracking down on opposition, putting politicians under house arrest, etc definitely qualifies as fraud of some kind; there's no doubt there. I'm just a little worried that this is a movement of a few hundred thousand people in a country of seventy million and not a genuine representation of the will of the country. Assumptions otherwise lead to the conclusion that we should go to bat for what might be a hopeless cause and sink what progress we've been able to make with Iran.
At best, I’d say that qualifies as circumstantial evidence of fraud. In the end, nothing that we know has happened necessarily reflects anything other than a government foreseeing a uprising and acting proactively to quash any demonstration or revolt. The one really overt action taken by anybody in authority that seems to point directly to fraud was the speed at which the results were “tabulated” and certified. Why didn’t Khamenei wait the constitutionally stipulated three days to certify the results?
Didn't a number of Interior Ministry employees come out and state publicly that there were shenanigans going on with the vote counting? Some not allowed inside the building, boxes arriving with seals broken, etc.
calexical,
You're right, they have. Until we have confirmation of their claims, however, I think that sort of thing has to be categorized as anecdotal and circumstantial. All of it's circumstantial, really. I have a feeling that most of the concrete evidence (assuming there ever was any) has been destroyed or is in the process of being destroyed.
No, there isn't--mostly because we almost never talk to each other before we write. I'm in New York. They're in D.C. But even down there, there isn't of a "Atlantic line." That said, I used the adjective "apparent" in front of fraud for a reason.
I'm not saying there's any company line to toe; I've seen people claim that and don't see why. Especially here. Just curious since you all do those various dialog pieces and whatnot.
I think Laura Secor of the New Yorker handles the question pretty well:
For further evidence, see Juan Cole.
In addition to Southpaw's post, something that struck me in Andrew's reporting was that there is supposed to be several days between the election and the Ayatollah's affirmation of the results, to allow for challenges and irregularities. Zipping right through all the middle steps to give religious sanction to the results before the results have been looked at is a red flag that the results don't bear scrutiny.
I'll happily discount various "these are the true numbers" rumors. Given the speed, the claim that election officials were given the numbers to announce before they finished counting seems most logical.
I'm going to be negative, and predict that little will really come of this - the riots will got an, but eventually run out of steam, Ahmadinejad will remain in power, and things will go back to some semblance of "normal" in Iran.
I think that's what basically everybody is anticipating. I think people should be pretty skeptical of Khamenei's call for an investigation into fraud allegations. This is going to end bloody or it's going to end quietly. Either way, I think we should all be preparing for it to end badly for the voices of freedom and peace.
I suspect in a week or so the 'investigation' will be over, they'll 'find' isolated incidents of fraud that didn't effect Ahmadinejad's victory, and the loudest people will be quietly locked up.
That's my best guess, too, but...
Eastern Europe is full of examples of unmovable tyranny crumbling. It happens when enough people trust one another enough to insist, and when enough people in the military and other key places decide not to back the regime.
I can't tell at all whether Iran is close to that.
If it is, Moussavi is right to push, and the crowds are brave, and their grandchildren will celebrate Friday as a day of great achievement.
If it isn't, the regime will meet every push with a harder push, and there will be many deaths and many more who remember giving up to stay alive--and as the mother of college students, I want Moussavi to let go if he isn't going to win, so all those brave young people can survive for a later struggle.
I say its 50/50 that prolonged strikes that start tomorrow brings significant change. We will see.
The best resolution, as far as I can tell, is for an internationally monitored do-over election. Pick whoever oversaw the Hamas victory in Palestine to assuage concerns of foreign meddling. If the election was the landslide that both candidates claim, the result won't change, and legitimacy will be restored as much as it can be in such a fundamentally flawed system. If the regime declines the opportunity to prove itself... that's a really good reason to be skeptical.
One conservative (not Republican/Christianist) principle that I agree with is that things tend to be much more complex than we can easily understand and that there will always be unexpected consequences to our actions/choices so there should be an element of humility in both our feelings of certainty and our actions, so I welcome Obama's pragmatism on these matters and hope that this way of being cautious/patient, open-minded, and a willingness to experiment/change course is the start of a wider trend in our political conversations. A good book on this topic is Mark C. Taylor's The Moment of Complexity.
i've said next to nothing to my friends and loved ones. Just listened...frankly, there's just to much information out there, if you're in it for the gory details. I've heard much about fraud, the fact that the election was called 2 hours after the ballots were closed. Frankly, it's hard to call fraud, when no relevant data is presentable, it's also equally hard to call a victor, when no precinct data is openly available. Ahmedinejad controls the Ministry of the Interior...hence the election.
This isn't about the election itself right now, it's about the reactions. The Basij (islamic-iranian volunteer milita) is out, the Ansar-e Hezbollah are at it again (paramilitairy group of pro-hezballah supporters). The Supreme Leader, twice announced the winner, only to go back on his statements and ask for inquiry. Rafsanjhani is in almost open conflict with Khamenei and Ahmedinejad (???), Mousavi/Kahroubi is pushing the fraud-line, as hard as ever. If you voted for change in the US, this is the time for it in iran...atleast as far as my relatives eyes and ears are concerned. I'm with TNC and Andrew, as shrewed as Obama may be, this isn't the time for speeches, or diplomacy, or the contrary - it's not a time for war...it's not even a time for the US. This is about Iran, this is about decades of pent up anger and disgust. I've got my own hopes of course, but i know that Iran isn't Europe, or the US. But i'll take the change, because i know it hasn't come without bloodshed and sacrifice.
I don't know of any credible evidence of seals being broken. Frankly, it sounds a lot like anecdotes about black garbage bags of votes in Ohio in 2004. Given the plethora of images and video being transmitted from Iran, it seems wise to take anecdotes with a grain of salt absent documentary evidence.
That's true enough, though I'd at least think when government employees are willing to put themselves out there publicly and risk retaliation, there's probably some truth to what they say. No one has put their name on the broken seals rumor as far as I know, though.
The theory of infinite American reach is silly, but it's one widely held in the US and other parts of the world, and so the administration has been put in the absolute worst position it could be in. I agree that the last thing we need is to look like we're sticking our noses in — again. Iran could not possibly be a worse place, for historical and pragmatic reasons.
However, people in the Middle East believe the CIA is capable of anything up to and including shooting a rocket from an aircraft carrier in Guam, banking it off the moon and striking a village in Swat. In its more moderate form, that sentiment will lead to demonstrators and reformers coming to us and wondering just why the hell we couldn't stand up and support them. The administration is going to have to be prepared to answer those allegations, even as it weighs the benefit of rapproachement with a regime that looks laughably illegitimate.
I have been critical of Obama before in these comments, but in my opinion he's played this thing perfectly. Coming out in support of the reformers is like, the opposite of what he should do. The second he does that he makes them look like American puppets. That's also why I was glad Bibi didn't mention the protests in his speech yesterday (although his reasons for neglecting them are much more sinister). His doing so would've made them look like American/Israeli stooges--just like they did whenever Bush would laud them--and could rob them of vitally important legitimacy.
What's happening in that country now has less to do with America, and so much more to do with internal, secular division inside Iran. Iran is a well-educated country with vast natural resources, and a young population that aspires to increasingly liberalized gov't, but has been hobbled by a economic mismanagment, skyrocketing inflation, and a slew of painful international sanctions. There are also some reasons to think that what was once viewed as an Islamic theocracy has now been completley co-opted and directed by hardline military players. Whatever it is, it's way too knotty and complex for the US to be wading in half-cocked talking shit which is what Bush did too many times. Obama has proven too smart to be caught up in that, to his credit.
For more awesome coverage check out talkingpointsmemo.com. Those guys, Juan Cole, Sullivan have been doing a fucking righteous job on this. Josh Marshall's latest post seems particularly astute to me: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/tide_turning.php?ref=fpblg
hear hear! dragnet! you're doing a fucking righteous job yourself! that's EXACTLY it!
I haven't been following what the pundits have been saying on this. For one thing, it's just too fascinating to see the events unfolding almost in real time on Andrew's site, among other places. Oh, and I don't give a rat's ass what the pundits say anyway.
But... I have seen that the usual suspects are calling for us to insert our powerful selves into yet another fight that isn't ours. What I haven't seen (and maybe I just haven't seen it) is an acknowledgement that even a non-nuclear Iran has a pretty strong military, and blundering in on an internal fight might have some consequences for the couple hundred thousand American troops just across the border. Rushing to make the wrong move could have some pretty horrific outcomes.
We don't know what's really happening there. Hell, THEY don't know what's happening there yet. In those circumstances, refer to Poor Richard: "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."