Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Who Represents Iranians? According to the Right, Left, and Center Press, Anybody but Ahmadinejad

Posted by Jasmin Ramsey, PULSE at 5:10 AM on June 30, 2009.


Most stories show Mousavi supporters at their heart, but the question of who truly represents the majority has yet to be answered.
ahmadenijadcartoon

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Richard Silverstein has an interesting piece in The Guardian regarding the two-faced US-Iran foreign policy positions of certain neocons like Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Silverstein points out the blatant hypocrisy of figures like McCain, who prior to the Iranian election was pushing for more sanctions and  military strategies which would endanger millions of Iranian lives, but has recently been criticizing President Barack Obama for not taking a hardline approach to the country in solidarity with the “Iranian people.”

Referring to the tragic murder of Neda-Agha Soltani which was caught on videotape and has since repeatedly appeared almost everywhere from social networking sites to mainstream news outlets, McCain attempted to reinforce his new-found compassion for Iranians:

“I’m on the side of the people. I’m not on Ahmadinejad’s side or Mousavi. I’m on the side of the Iranian people and I’m on the right side of history. And I’m not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran.”

This is the same man who was jokingly singing about bombing Iran less than a year ago when he was running for president of the United States.

While Silverstein makes some interesting observations -- especially about a certain “Mohammad” who was allegedly interviewed by CNN about his experiences but used his time to reinforce Israel’s interests in the region -- he also seems to believe that the only positive outcome for Iran is tied to the success of Mousavi and his supporters’ goals.  This has been a common theme among the majority of reports we get out of the West on the situation on Iran.  Indeed, while the goal of the neocons may be to out the Islamic Republic in its entirety, the goal of the vast majority of the conservative, liberal and progressive news media seems to be focused on outing Ahmadinejad from the presidency.  Even asserting that Ahmadinejad could have won the election is next to unacceptable these days even though we still lack hard evidence (as opposed to what may be justified speculation) that he was defeated.  Further, many of the commentators that have actually dared to point this out have prefaced their statements with a declaration of non-support for Ahmadinejad, which should be irrelevant anyway if we are really talking about the importance of the presence of concrete evidence when making these kinds of assertions.

Let me put it another way.  During the campaign phase of the Iranian election the majority of Western coverage reports included images of young Iranians exhibiting green, their youthful faces bright and vibrant with sincere support for their candidate of choice: Mir-Hossein Mousavi.  After the election results were announced more images of more youth still clothed in green dominated the press, this time determined with defiance against a president who they did not want to accept from the beginning.  Then there was the bloodied, the bruised and the battered “revolutionaries” (according to some) who while still exhibiting green were actively resisting state authorities in the streets, destroying public property and voicing their right to protest.  Outside of Iran protests all over the world, attended by thousands of Iranian expatriates, where shown exhibiting green banners, green clothing, green face paint, green ribbons, balloons – all in solidarity with their people.  In other words, almost every report about Iran since the election process began has had Mousavi and his supporters at the heart of each story, as if they represent the majority of Iran, the best of Iran, the only worthy part of Iran.  But the question of who represents that majority has yet to be answered, or has already been answered if one accepts the election results -- so why does the press continue to sidestep this question?

In the end, regardless of what the outcome of this election ultimately boils down to, one result is at least guaranteed: Ahmadinejad will never be accepted as Iran’s legitimate president by the West no matter what new evidence emerges in his favor -- he was never the pick of the press anyway.

Digg!

Tagged as: iran, neocons, ahmadinejad, john mccain, Mousavi, richard silverstein, neda agha soltani


Conservatives Register Tea Party as Official Third Party In Florida
Die-hard right-wingers have announced that Florida Governor Charlie Crist is the next target in the GOP civil war.
Post by Matt Corley. November 9, 2009.
Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage?
I think so.
Post by Robin Marty. November 9, 2009.
Fred Phelps' Church Protesting Outside Sasha and Malia Obama's School
Scary.
Post by Tana Ganeva. November 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Unfair And Unbalanced
Posted by: QQOblivion on Jun 30, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As much as I dislike Ahmedinejad, I have noticed the nauseatingly overt pro-Iranian-opposition propaganda coming from US media outlets such as CNN.

And I do believe the Ahmedinejad won the election fair and square. Yes, there were election irregularities, but not enough of them, I am sure, to explain the huge landslide.
Certainly the Iranian election was more fair than the US 2000 presidential election, in any case!

Why doesn't the US press take notice at America's OWN opposition movement? No, not the Republicans. The US media already gives more than enough time to them. I mean the true American progressives, those who know that Obama and the Democrats are just as much corporate fascists as anybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

remember who most of those expatriates are
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Jun 30, 2009 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they're the people (or the descendents of) who had the $$$ to get out of Iran before the Islamic revolution. they should be regarded same as those 1st-generation Cuban exiles here: all motives suspect.

#@!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THE REASON CONSPIRACY THEORIES GET TRACTION IN IRAN IS THAT
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jul 1, 2009 12:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the not too distant past there was an element of truth in them. Obama averred to the actual truth. The truth is that no matter who wins the theocracy is still in power. Obama said that either way things went he still had to negotiate the same problems. He was very likely dead right.

Why do conspiracy theories get traction in Iran? Because the current theocracy was a product of the private machinations of Bill Casey, Ronald Reagan, and the Ayatollah Khomeni behind President Carter's back. The whole purpose of the cabal was to insure that Carter would lose the election and Reagan would win. When as a private citizen you conspire with a foreign government to unseat a sitting president, you have committed treason. Had Ronald Reagan been properly tried and found guilty, as he most surely was, he would have been shot at sunrise. Ronald Reagan wasn't a hero. He was a criminal.

The deal, agreement to take the U. S. Embassy in Tehran and hold the embassy personnel as hostages until after the election began in the exiled Ayatollah's villa outside of Paris. He was to return to Iran. He could be assured of the new presidents support after the election. The Iran contra swaps never got fully investigated. Congress stopped short. They decided that Reagan really had Alzheimers.

My guess is that our author is right about one thing. We don't know what the Iranian people want. I'm guessing they want loose from the theocracy. I even like to guess that they want a democracy. (So do we.)

As best anyone can tell the idea of an Iranian theocracy was born in the bowels of the Nixon CIA where Bill Casey worked before Jimmy Carter fired him. That made him mad. He sought revenge. He got it and Iran got a theocracy.

We got Ronald Reagan and his carefully designed Savings and Loan debacle. That too was not an accident. It worked. The banks took over the S & L business. The banks screwed the works up. We have a busted housing bubble created by their stupidity, greed, and a recession/depression of their manufacture.

Am I too quick to find conspiracies? Perhaps its not so hard when you are surrounded by conspirators. People do plan things. They don't always advertise their plans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]