Iran election rivals both declare victory (possible coup d'etat in Iran)

[Darus Grey]

I was reading an assortment I found on this list The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

[Ezek]

So an Ayatollah gave his opinion on the election earlier today:

Grand Ayatollah Sanei in Iran has declared Ahmadinejad's presidency illegitimate

Not surprisingly, he's now under house arrest. I guess killing an Ayatollah would drive the riots to a whole new level.

[Vuitton]

So an Ayatollah gave his opinion on the election earlier today:

Grand Ayatollah Sanei in Iran has declared Ahmadinejad's presidency illegitimate

Not surprisingly, he's now under house arrest. I guess killing an Ayatollah would drive the riots to a whole new level.

Intense. I wasn't expecting it to go this direction.

Edit:

All I can find is the Ayatollah endorsing the election results, not their illegitimacy. Is this a recent development or is the source incorrect?

[Ezek]

There are quite a few Ayatollahs and only a handful of Grand Ayatollahs in Iran - I wouldn't be surprised if they're split on the issue.

[Vuitton]

There are quite a few Ayatollahs and only a handful of Grand Ayatollahs in Iran - I wouldn't be surprised if they're split on the issue.

It looks like the grandest of the Grand Ayatollahs has endorsed the election outcome. Its the lesser Grand Ayatollah that has said its illegitimate.

I can see this becoming more ugly.

[Darus Grey]

Did you guys even read the thread? lol

[Vuitton]

Did you guys even read the thread? lol

You mean the end of the last page? Yeah, I just did now.

[Kuya]

This is the kind of mentality that keeps me from calling for revolutionary justice and toppling of the "oppresive irani regime".

First, Iran has been a thorn in the side of the United States, both in Iraq and more broadly around the region, and as often as not it has meddled in our and others’ affairs without cost. There are few principles of international relations more critical than always giving the other guy a downside for making trouble. The disputed election makes the Iranian regime vulnerable; it is precisely at such moments of vulnerability that the regime can be made to suffer the downside of making us an enemy.

(Anyone who knows anything about US involvement in the Middle East will likely rage at the bolded)

Second, the Iranian regime is bad for the Iranian people. Anything we can do to improve the chances of eliminating that regime improves the odds of cracking open Iranian society for the better. Violence is, unfortunately, the rule rather than the exception in revolutions, but freedom often isn’t free - and as we have seen in recent decades, a surprising number of brutal but brittle regimes have crumpled in the face of popular uprising when they lost the will to stage their own Tianamen Square moment. There is only one way to find out; if the Iranian people are ready to take the chance, we should do whatever we can in our power to encourage them.

Third, a weak and inward-facing Iranian regime will be a lesser threat to continue pursuing its nuclear program and other forms of mischief, and may even provide opportunities for well-funded intelligence operations to take advantage of an unstable situation to further weaken Iranian capabilities.

I'm really weary of people like that.

[kuronosan]

Great, just when we thought things were looking up for the US after our stance with Israel... now people are going to be saying invading Iran and 'freeing' it should be our next goal.

[Conformity]

Well I don't think this is too terribly horrible of a situation. It would be nice to see revolution but If anything this might just start stirring things up a little to push towards revolution.

[Shojin]

I've been keeping track of this all day today on Twitter and various news sites. The media (mostly British) had all their cameras and equipment confiscated by the police, and have been filming the riots on the streets of Iran with their camera phones.

From the videos I saw, there is a lot of shit going down right now, and I would say there is definitely a revolution coming. Youtube started pulling the vids the reporters were uploading from their camera phones, and there was a huge outrage about that on Twitter.

The following weeks certainly will be interesting, and I really do hope this all gets resolved. The Iranian people in the videos I saw were protesting for "Freedom" and to be rid of oppression. Which really paints a different picture of them than the American government and media do, which is usually something along the lines of "They're ALL crazy, nuke-wanting, fear-mongering terrorists who's only goal is to destroy the entire western world."

[SamanosukeShiva]

Mahmud Ahmedinajed = Jake Gyllenhal<sp?>

Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Digital Short: Iran So Far

[Darus Grey]

They were always like that...cept UK and then the US kept putting down their democratic revolutions because dictators are easier to control...or provoking Iraq to attack them cause they didn't wanna play nice with us.

It's the little things like that, that put us at odds.

[Gregorio]

The following weeks certainly will be interesting, and I really do hope this all gets resolved. The Iranian people in the videos I saw were protesting for "Freedom" and to be rid of oppression. Which really paints a different picture of them than the American government and media do, which is usually something along the lines of "They're ALL crazy, nuke-wanting, fear-mongering terrorists who's only goal is to destroy the entire western world."

When has the American government or even the media said that "ALL" the people of Iran are crazy, nuke-wanting...etc? As far as I've seen/read, not even Fox News condemns the people of Iran for not being able to deal with the actual insane nuke-wanting, woman hating, gay-denying leadership.

[Gregorio]

They were always like that...cept UK and then the US kept putting down their democratic revolutions because dictators are easier to control...or provoking Iraq to attack them cause they didn't wanna play nice with us.

It's the little things like that, that put us at odds.

It's the little double-standards that put us at odds. Help a the neglected and oppressed people of a fraud election and we're impreialist pigs who only want to control a sovergn nation...or don't help that country and we don't give a shit because there's no oil there or we don't care about human rights violations or something of the sort.

Unless the US is handing out money and food there's really no military action that the international (or even US) community will approve of.

[Arvin]

My parents have been keeping me up to date via their dish that gets Iranian networks (Every Iranian knows that their parents have this lol) and I'm just not surprised by what's going on.. I was hoping for Mousavi but who even knows what's gonna happen. D:

[Plow]

Great, just when we thought things were looking up for the US after our stance with Israel... now people are going to be saying invading Iran and 'freeing' it should be our next goal.

I don't think that's the biggest threat here, I think the big problem is the likelyhood of Iran collapsing and leaving an Iraq-like quagmire with nobody to clean it up.

The whole world is going to have to be prepared to help them avoid becoming a literal wide open breeding ground for powerful terrorism if shit goes down, and the real issues with that are going to be in helping them reestablish a central regime, while not forcing it to be one they don't like, or putting in power someone that's not fit for it.

[Elvis]

An American invasion of Iran would be a huge catastrophe. It would destroy the country in the same way Iraq was destroyed.

And while we do not demonize the Iranian people - it's all implied. I mean, how often do people in the media talk about the Iraqi death toll as a moral travesty? We often hear about our troops which is fine but predictable.

I don't think the Iranian people are even relevant to our media. Neither were the Iraqi people. They are simply a stepping-stone for our foreign policy. Kind of like saying 'I'm doing it for the kids!'

It's more 'us' (fully explained concept within a narrow political spectrum and world-view) versus 'injustice' and 'oppression' (black and white characterization with no context and historical analysis provided). So we're always fighting these concepts and if we help 'the people' of whatever country we're liberating, that's good too.

Right now, I think our government is trying to block a referendum on the Iraq-America Status of Forces agreement:

Iraq Moves Ahead With Vote on U.S. Security Pact - NY Times

The Iraqi government is pressing ahead with plans to hold a national referendum on the Iraqi-American security agreement — a measure likely to lose if put to a popular vote with the outcome that American troops could be forced to leave as early as next summer, nearly a year and half ahead of schedule.

Under the security plan agreed to by the two governments last year, American combat troops must withdraw from the cities by the end of this month and all American troops must be out of Iraq by Dec. 31, 2011.

Passage of the agreement was contingent on the approval of several other measures, including legislation requiring a referendum on the agreement. If the Iraqi people vote down the security pact, the American military would have to withdraw all troops within a year from the date of the vote, which could be held as soon as this summer.

American diplomats are quietly lobbying the government not to hold the referendum, but so far Iraqi politicians have decided to go ahead with it to avoid appearing to be in the pocket of the Americans in an election year.

Kind of interesting how this relates to those torture pictures. I totally didn't see it before, but reporting done by the Wall Street Journal asserts that the referendum might not even go through. It's being delayed for 6 months until the national elections.

An analysis by World Socialist Web Site of the referendum with respect to the torture pictures concludes:

Indeed, President Barack Obama’s decision to fight the court-ordered release of sealed photographic evidence of US military personnel torturing Iraqi prisoners was based in part on its potential impact on the referendum, should it be held.

General David Petraeus, top commander of US troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, on May 28 made a filing with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals warning that should the photos be released, “pressure will mount on the prime minister to allow for a national referendum on the Security Agreement and the Strategic Framework Agreement.” General Raymond Odierno, US commander in Iraq, also submitted a filing, writing that “the release of the photos may incite the Iraqi public and cause the referendum to be defeated.”

Oh and this line from the Politico article about Petraeus and the torture pics is just pure comedy gold:

Petraeus warned that, in Iraq, release of the photos could bolster those arguing that Iraqi citizens should have the right to vote up or down on key agreements with the U.S.

[Elvis]

Holy crap double post ><

[Brill Weave]

Does anyone know which candidate the Iranian furries are backing?