WORLD  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 2

Iran's Election Tension: Will the Losing Side Accept the Ballot Results?

There's no denying the political and social movement that is building against Ahmadinejad. Iran is deeply divided.
June 11, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

It's a quiet Thursday in Tehran. Campaigning and electioneering is forbidden on election eve, and the crowds are gone, but the tension is palpable. Here and there are still visible people wearing the ubiquitous green armbands that signal support for former Prime Minister Mousavi. Everyone, but everyone, has only one thing on their minds, and rumors are flying, gossip is exchanged, and the latest news -- true or not -- is passed from mouth to mouth and via cell phone and text messages. Outside the gigantic, concrete edifice of the Interior Ministry, which has responsibility for counting the votes, a pair of young women wearing green smiled as we passed each other. It's inside that building, overlooked by a huge portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini, where many Iranians worry that the vote will be stolen.

Though quiet now, over the past several days Iran has seen an outburst of political activity that far surpasses anything the gathering storm of the 1978-79 toppling of the Pahlavi dynasty. Last evening, I strolled across the campus of Tehran University, Iran's largest and most prestigious school. In the streets outside, thousands of green-clad students were laughing, cheering and carrying banners, and from the rooftops across the street people were throwing confetti that rained down on the streets below. Cars and vans, flying green flags, cruised the streets. A small group of supporters of President Ahmadinejad marched past, drawing jeers and mocking chants. A guard at the gate, an older man who lost a leg in the 1980s war with Iraq, smiled approvingly and said, of the Mousavi crowd, "It's a revolution."

A revolution. That's a phrase I've heard over and over again in the last few days, from students, office workers, taxi drivers, and passersby.

In fact, it may be something less than that, since all three challengers to Ahmadinejad, including Mousavi, are establishment figures. Yet there's no denying the political and social movement that is building against the president, mostly around Mousavi's brilliant campaign. And the contempt for Ahmadinejad is everywhere, from well-connected observers and analysts, government officials, and ordinary Iranians I've encountered. A few days ago, as I headed over to Ahmadinejad's campaign headquarters, I stopped a man to ask directions. "Ahmadinejad! Why do you want to go see him? He destroyed the country!" A few blocks later, a well-dressed man comes up to me, just outside the president's government office and down an alley from the campaign headquarters. He introduces himself as an employee in the office of the president. He says that Ahmadinejad is a fool. And he adds: "The mullahs [the Iranian clergy] are like idols. They must be broken!" He pulls down his shirt to show me a bullet wound from the war.

To counter the Mousavi green, the Ahmadinejad campaign has wrapped itself in the Iranian flag -- literally. Like proper ultranationalist extremists, or perhaps like Republicans, the president's campaign is using Iran's tricolor flag as its election symbol. At an Ahmadinejad rally, thousands of Iranian flags are handed out by campaign workers, and the crowd shakes the flags as if they were spears in combat. But at a competing Mousavi rally, 20,000 supporters chant: "Mousavi! Mousavi! Take back my flag!"


Robert Dreyfuss is the author of "Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam" (Henry Holt/Metropolitan Books).
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email


Comments are closed-

Another disappointment
Posted by: cahorton on Jun 12, 2009 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dreyfuss' article stands squarely in the hallowed tradition of American journalism: paint a canvass full of the little details that make you feel as though you were there, while saying nothing. Well, almost nothing.

What is this election about? What is at stake for the small landowners, the landless peasants, the national business people, and who is representing their interests? What is at stake for the "players" who set up the Iranian oil exchange, and who is their champion? What about the industrial and energy workers? The rug makers and other craftspeople? The scientists and engineers?

What are the real interests of Iranian women in this election, the working-class and middle-class women, the women on the land? Who best represents those interests and who is attacking them and why?

What is the class structure of Iran now? Who is the super-rich and who represents them, and just how super-rich are they anyway?

What were the real gains of the Iranian revolution, and who is trying to defend them, and how and why? What is its unfinished business? Who would build on these gains and carry them further? Who would abandon them?

What about the very-well-funded US campaign to destabilize Iran? Who is standing up against it strongly and who is weak on it and who thinks it will go away if the "moderates" win? What are Iranian perceptions for the reasons for this campaign? Is there a sense in which support for Ahmadinejad is the anti-imperialist vote?

Speaking of which, how are things with the Iranian Azeris, Kurds and Arabs, and the other minorities, who together make up half the population? Where are their loyalties now and how does this affect whom they support?

I know, I know, that's way too much for one article, but I'm tired of reading articles in the "alternative press" that don't even make a start on this job.

We need our own journalists!

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


Comments are closed-

Unpacking Iranian Politics
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Jun 13, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like "cahorton," I am disappointed that the best we get from The Nation is a mild "once-over-lightly" with no serious analysis of competing interests, underlying motives and opportunities, and realistic expectations for change and the nature of change.

Also, like "cahorton," I know, I know, that this is just a magazine article, and that we ought not to imagine the possibility of informed coverage, both wide and deep, in the "progressive" press any more than we expect it from the corporate media.

Disappointment, however, is not disgust and anger, which is what any attentive reader or viewer should experience when attending to the mainstream broadsheets, the weekly newsmagazines and television news and public affairs programs.

There are informative sources for anyone with the wit, the will and the resources to search them out. Most of us, however, are stick with a more modest choice:

(a) we can communicate openly and critically with the corporate communications giants in the futile hope of getting them to do their public duty properly, and not pander to party politicians and their private profits; or,

(b) we can complain in the futile attempt to have The Nation, Alternet and others stretch their scarce resources beyond the limit in order to go past the modest objective of providing minimal information and analysis to the 5% or less of the people who care about such matters, and go on to create ex nihilo an informed electorate.

As a confirmed Cynic, I say: "Hey! Let's do both!"

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

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Another disappointment
Posted by: cahorton on Jun 12, 2009 2:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dreyfuss' article stands squarely in the hallowed tradition of American journalism: paint a canvass full of the little details that make you feel as though you were there, while saying nothing. Well, almost nothing.

What is this election about? What is at stake for the small landowners, the landless peasants, the national business people, and who is representing their interests? What is at stake for the "players" who set up the Iranian oil exchange, and who is their champion? What about the industrial and energy workers? The rug makers and other craftspeople? The scientists and engineers?

What are the real interests of Iranian women in this election, the working-class and middle-class women, the women on the land? Who best represents those interests and who is attacking them and why?

What is the class structure of Iran now? Who is the super-rich and who represents them, and just how super-rich are they anyway?

What were the real gains of the Iranian revolution, and who is trying to defend them, and how and why? What is its unfinished business? Who would build on these gains and carry them further? Who would abandon them?

What about the very-well-funded US campaign to destabilize Iran? Who is standing up against it strongly and who is weak on it and who thinks it will go away if the "moderates" win? What are Iranian perceptions for the reasons for this campaign? Is there a sense in which support for Ahmadinejad is the anti-imperialist vote?

Speaking of which, how are things with the Iranian Azeris, Kurds and Arabs, and the other minorities, who together make up half the population? Where are their loyalties now and how does this affect whom they support?

I know, I know, that's way too much for one article, but I'm tired of reading articles in the "alternative press" that don't even make a start on this job.

We need our own journalists!

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


Comments are closed-

Unpacking Iranian Politics
Posted by: goodsensecynic on Jun 13, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like "cahorton," I am disappointed that the best we get from The Nation is a mild "once-over-lightly" with no serious analysis of competing interests, underlying motives and opportunities, and realistic expectations for change and the nature of change.

Also, like "cahorton," I know, I know, that this is just a magazine article, and that we ought not to imagine the possibility of informed coverage, both wide and deep, in the "progressive" press any more than we expect it from the corporate media.

Disappointment, however, is not disgust and anger, which is what any attentive reader or viewer should experience when attending to the mainstream broadsheets, the weekly newsmagazines and television news and public affairs programs.

There are informative sources for anyone with the wit, the will and the resources to search them out. Most of us, however, are stick with a more modest choice:

(a) we can communicate openly and critically with the corporate communications giants in the futile hope of getting them to do their public duty properly, and not pander to party politicians and their private profits; or,

(b) we can complain in the futile attempt to have The Nation, Alternet and others stretch their scarce resources beyond the limit in order to go past the modest objective of providing minimal information and analysis to the 5% or less of the people who care about such matters, and go on to create ex nihilo an informed electorate.

As a confirmed Cynic, I say: "Hey! Let's do both!"

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

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS