(Updated) Iran Vote: Fraud or Journos' Wishful Thinking?

Update: Stephen Zunes says the election was indeed stolen. He makes some important points, so give it a read.

****

Most of what I'm reading on the Iranian elections today is so thoroughly filtered through a Western prism that it offers little in the way of context to help understand Iran's domestic political culture. 

News reports acknowledge that the economy and charges of corruption were crucially important issues, but only as an afterthought -- in the final graphs. References to Israel, relations with the U.S. and comparisons between Mousavi and Obama's calls for "change" are front and center.

I don't want to add to the cacophony of ill-informed analysis. But I'm skeptical -- pending more evidence -- of claims that the election was rigged. I agree with Abbas Barzegar, reporting from Tehran:

Of course, the rather real possibility of voter fraud exists and one must wait in the coming weeks to see how these allegations unfold. But one should recall that in three decades of presidential elections, the accusations of rigging have rarely been levied against the vote count. Elections here are typically controlled by banning candidates from the start or closing opposition newspapers in advance.

In this election moreover, there were two separate governmental election monitors in addition to observers from each camp to prevent mass voter fraud. The sentimental implausibility of Ahmadinejad's victory that Mousavi's supporters set forth as the evidence of state corruption must be met by the equal implausibility that such widespread corruption could take place under clear daylight. So, until hard evidence emerges that can substantiate the claims of the opposition camp we need to look to other reasons to explain why so many are stunned by the day's events.

Mousavi obviously represents the hopes and aspirations of millions of Iranians, and there are numerous reports of riots and police crack-downs. But conflicting claims of victory are not uncommon in elections (although typically when the results are tighter than this 63-34 outcome). Yet, the media seem quite eager to push the Mousavi camp's claims of massive fraud.

I think, in large part, that's due to the fact that the results were so far from reporters' expectations -- it was supposed to be tight, and turned out to be a blow-out. But why did they think it would be such a close result in the first place (Iranian polling is notoriously unreliable)?