http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/where-is-my-vote-dude/

Mr. Shirazi,

Thanks for your kind response and your comments are in fact pretty convincing, although I do have some more questions. What do you think of the argument in the Chatham House analysis that postulates it is highly unlikely people would vote outside their home province given the size of provinces (2 went above 100% and 4 were above 90 % turnout)? The video I provided of police vandalizing also concerns me. What did you think of it? Some sources in Iran like Press TV have said the Basij don't carry guns, but I've also seen videos that seem to invalidate that assertion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czvRYFLRjeE, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvBdZquwspY&feature=channel_page, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heWj1RAVnds&feature=related. Honestly I'm probably grasping at straws here because the domestic human rights abuses in Iran have long bothered me as do those of US allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In my view this uprising initially represented a real chance to turn the tide in favor of human rights. As I became acquainted with Mousavi's past I was discouraged, but hoped that he had changed like Grand Ayatollah Montazeri had apparently changed when he stood up to Khomeini during the mass executions in the late 80s. Mousavi does seem to lack the charisma to be an inspirational leader and I did some research on reformist Iranian politicians/leaders and found some that appeared to be better choices in terms of human rights at least. Perhaps, Iran needs a secular Khomeini (not saying he should follow in Khomeini's footsteps and become dictatorial) who won't be hesitant in his actions as Mousavi now appears to be. I know the US has a dark legacy of foreign coups and this concerns me, but I feel that at the moment the domestic abuses in the US pale in comparison to those in Iran. I would really like for the US to spread democracy through example and peaceful diplomacy as it was originally intended to (according to Jefferson at least). I don't have much experience with protests as I'm only in high school, but I do have a passion for human rights. I've written letters and signed petitions, but it doesn't seem to do much good. I hope to enter into a career relating to international relations to at least make a realistic attempt at changing things. First, I believe it is essential for nations like the US to stop using the UNDHR as a smokescreen to justify certain actions such as invasions or coups as has been done in the past. These rights also must be made universal. This means that we can't have governments like Iran and Saudi Arabia refusing to even acknowledge some of the rights enshrined in the UNDHR. It will be very difficult to make true progress if we can't even agree on the proper principles. Of course, this is all much easier said than done. Sorry if I'm going on a rant, but thanks again for your response. I hope we can continue this conversation.

Sincerely,

HRW177

Thank you for your close reading of this article and for your other comments, questions and concerns. I have read pretty much all of the articles you have posted to – both the pro-Mousavi ones and the anti-Ahmadinejad ones – and have yet to see anything resembling concrete evidence, or even a cursory understanding of how Iranian elections work.

Your citing of Juan Cole, Nate Silver, and the rest speaks to the rampant disinformation that has now spread far and wide. Yes, Juan Cole is a very thoughtful analyst with a lot of "experience" (oh, right, he also speaks Farsi) and Nate Silver has a calculator and likes to draw graphs. However, for days now, there has been the same effort by so-called "experts" to call into question an election result without any proof of fraud – speculations, assumptions, and allegations don't add up to proof.

The "more people voted in certain areas than were registered in those areas!" argument – usually voiced hysterically by the same people who actually had the nerve to refer to Geroge W. Bush as "President" for eight years without irony or shame – is not evidence of anything. Iran is not America, you do not have to vote in your home "district" or "precinct." Therefore, many Iranians who have subsequently moved in the past four years (or longer) would have voted in their new location. There are a great many people who fall into this category, as there has been increased migration of the lower and middle class worksforce in Iran from more rural settings to urban ones in an effort to find suitable work.

(Let me also add, that the problems of the Iranian economy are not generally blamed on Ahmadinejad and, in fact, he has helped the poorer elements of Iranian society so much in his presidential tenure that he has attracted the growing anger of the wealthier merchant and upper classes due to his welfare policies. A Tehrani bazaari, upon speaking with my father a week before the election told him that he was excited to vote for Mousavi because Mousavi was the "candidate of the rich" and that "Ahmadinejad gives too much money to the poor people.")

Furthermore, summer vacation has begun as schools begin to let out and many Iranians had traveled from Sourthern areas to the North, near the Caspian Sea, around the time fo the election. As such, many of these resort villages, surrounding areas and cities, were flooded with an increased, tourist population of Iranian citizens who subsequently voted in those areas (since all you need to vote is your Shenas-Nameh, or Iranian birth certificate/identification). Therefore, it is not at all a scandal that more people voted in certain areas than were "eligible." Also, please note, that in many of the areas in question, Mousavi got more votes than Ahmadinejad. A recount of those areas – which was offered by the Guardian Council and rejected by Mousavi – may very well have revealed that Ahmadinejad got even more votes than originally tabulated. Either way, this is no evidence of fraud.

There are plenty of other issues you raise, but I have actually addressed many of them (like the one above) in my original post. The Azeri issue, which Mr. Cole seems to be obsessed with for some reason, is less of an issue and more of an excuse to spread misinformation about ethnic groups in Iran. There is plenty of talk about how divided Iranians are across cultural and ethnic lines, however, many polls have shown that Iranians, by and large, consider themselves Iranian first and then whatever else second and so forth. Shi'as have great respect for Sunnis in Iran (by a margin of 9-1, by a recent poll), for example. What seems to be neglected in most post-election analyses is that Ahmadinejad traveled tirelessly across the country during his campaign, attracting the support of a hugely diverse swath of the Iranian population, whereas Mousavi concentrated his efforts heavily within a few cities. Mousavi's close association with Rafsanjani also hurt his campaign rather than helped it. The Iranian population is well aware of the Rafsanjani family's corruption, tremendous wealth, and neoliberal desires – in contrast, Ahmadinejad's efforts to provide subsidies, loans, insurance, and pensions to the underpriviledged worked very well in his favor. He has raised civil service workers' salaries three times over the past four years, for example.

Both the Chatham House and Mebane analyses fail to take many things into account – most importantly, four years of Ahmadinejad's presidency. The numbers they look at are supposed to resemble the numbers of 2005 and everyone gets up in arms when there are differences. Are we forgetting that time actually passed and that the voting public in Iran may consider didfferent important than they did four years ago? Granted, I'm not saying that I have gone out into the streets of every Iran village asking people's opinions, however, I do have a huge number of family members who live in Iran, I have traveled there, and I have heard from numerous sources how popular support for Ahmadinejad has soared recently. Also, whenever anyone alleges that Mousavi won the televised debates, please ask them if they actually watched them. There was absolutely no doubt that Ahmadinejad destroyed his challengers in this forum – though this would never be reported here in the US. The idea that the Ballen/Doherty poll would be made null and void after these debates reveals more about the people making the allegation that anything else. They simply didn't see them and took CNN's word for it that Mousavi came off well. He didn't. At all.

I must reiterate again, for the record, that I am not saying that there were not irregularities or even the possibility of fraud in this election. But, I also have not seen any evidence that I find convincing or even all that compelling. The idea that the Iranian government would go to such lengths to prevent a vetted and well-respected candidate from taking office simply doesn't make sense to me. The Iranian electoral system is not one that I would myself invent, or even support, but – as it is what it is for the time being – we must understand that candidates that do not meet the religious leaders' criteria for a suitable political official are not allowed to campaign. If Mousavi was so offensive to the ideology of the Islamic Republic (which, if you know anything about the man's personal, political, or social history, is a simply absurd concept to even consider) he wouldn't have been allowed to run for president. No, I personally don't agree with this kind of vetting system, but it speaks more clearly against the motives for fraud than anything else. (Also, let's please be aware that over half of Congress recently signed a loyalty pleghe at the annual AIPAC conference in DC – if this isn't vetting, then I don't know what is.) If the Guardian Council and Supreme Guide (the term "Leader" is a misleading and intentionally dictatorial-sounding English language construct in this case – it's a misnomer. The title "Supreme Leader" doesn't actually exist in the Iranian Constitution. But it sure does sound sinister!) had been so threatened by the "reformist" candidate, he wouldn't have been there to begin with.

Moving on to your concerns about human rights violations in Iran, let me first say this: I agree with you. I am often frustrated to varying degrees (ranging from dismayed to disappointed to disgusted) by the actions of the Iranian government. It is one that I would not have voted for thirty years ago – though a huge majority of the Iranian population following the Revolution did – and one that I would vote against now if there were a new referendum (and yes, I would be eligible to vote). At no point in my writing did I ever attempt to defend or support certain aspects or actions of the Islamic Republic security apparatus or even try to justify certain paradoxical elements of the Constitution. (Please note, though, that the "Right to Assemble" argument doesn't hold much weight when Mousavi supporters in the very first days of the post-election rallies were already throwing rocks at police, burning state and private property, setting city buses on fire, and smashing windows of government offices. The First Amendment of our own US Bill of Rights affirms that there should be no limitations on the right for people to peaceably assemble and yet I have myself been accosted by riot police during peaceful marches in both New York City and Washington DC. If you've ever tried to get a parade, rally, or march permit from the US government, you'd know that the situation in Iran is not unique. It's the symptom of any state apparatus that seeks to downplay the voices of a dissenting public. I do not agree with these government actions, whether they are taken by the US, Iran, or anywhere else, but they are not only unsurprising, they are actually pretty mundane in the grand scheme of things.

After ten minutes of public protest to the scale of what has been seen in Iran, we here in the US would be faced with tens of thousands of security forces, riot police, an army of privately contracted mercenaries, and possibly the National Guard. Protests here in New York City have been quelled by cops sweeping through crowds with nets, arresting everyone within their reach, regardless of what's actually happening or who's involved. It took over ten days of civil disobedience in Tehran (which I support, in general) for thousands of security forces to descend on the city and begin using tear gas and water cannons. I find this reaction terrible, as I would if it took place anywhere, but this would have happened on day one if an MTA bus were set on fire in Manhattan. Over six buses were set ablaze in Tehran before the tear gas came out. Let's have a little perspective here.

Additonally, I am not going to argue with you about defects of the structural, ideological, and Constitutional make-up of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As a devoted atheist, I have many problems (to say the least) with any political system that relies heavily on religious doctrine. I do believe that elements of the Iranian government are wholly representational and democractic, but I don't believe that it's a system that allows for the kind of universal human rights that I would like to see in every government, in every community, in every household, in every brain on this planet. (I would, however, caution you about taking anything said by Reporters Without Borders, or "Reporters sans frontières," all that seriously. French governmental aid to that organization accounts for over 10% of their annual budget and they are also funded by certain other groups that clearly have biased agendas – see, for example, the tens of thousands of dollars given to RSF by the unabashedly anti-Castro "Center for a Free Cuba" over the years…sometimes through former Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II senior official Otto Reich, who was heavily involved in the 2002 attempted overthrow of Hugo Chavez. You can learn mroe about RSF here: http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html)

There are plenty of arguments about press freedoms and the like concerning Iran and there is much about the evident hypocrisy that I find troubling. But, let us also be aware that, even though we hear incessantly that all the newspapers are "state-controlled," we then hear about anti-government newspapers being shut down whenever there is a controversy (or something we are told here in the US is a controversy). Government-controlled newspapers being shut down by the government for being anti-government? Something doesn't quite add up. Also, if you have been to Iran, you would see on nearly every bustling street city street corner kiosks bursting with news media. There are upwards of 55 daily publications in Iran, and this doesn't take into account any of the film and arts magazines, the sports pages, or other such papers. Not all of these are "pro-government." Not by a long shot. Numerous papers are very critical of the Iranian government to varying degrees and not all of them get "shut down" by the government. Many papers advocated heavily for Mousavi and have lambasted Ahmadinejad consistently. Would I say that Iran has as free a press as I would like to see in every country? No, certainly not. The television is still state-controlled for the most part and there is plenty of censorship, but please also consdier how much we really see on the news here in the US…how many dead Afghani, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Palestinian children do we see on Countdown with Keith Olbermann or in Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room? None. But we sure have seen the video of Neda Agha Soltani's death a whole lot. Clearly, there are some things that the US press "allows" and other things that it doesn't.

There is plenty more I can discuss regarding the constant misrepresentation of the Basij groups (are they ever referred to as anything other than "thugs"?) and other such media bias with regards to Iran, but I feel like I have said a lot already.

Thanks again for your comments. I hope this helped.

Best,
Nima Shirazi

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/roundup_analyses_of_fraud_in_i.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_update_ballot_box_data.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_moderately_strong_suppo.php
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.2789v3.pdf
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/another-iranian-oddity.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/worst-damage-control-ever.html
http://election.princeton.edu/2009/06/21/analyzing-iran-2009-part-2-the-official-returns/
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/polling-and-voting-in-irans-friday.html
http://election.princeton.edu/2009/06/18/analyzing-iran-2009-part-1-pre-election-polls/
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/lenski_lessons_from_irans_nort.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/wang_on_tehrans_preelection_po.php
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25656726-15084,00.html
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/ahmadinejads-rural-votes.html
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10385
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/chatham-house-study-definitively-shows.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6523563.ece
http://www.tampabay.com/news/world/article1011557.ece
http://www.truthout.org/061409Z

Regarding the oft-cited Ballen and Doherty poll:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/did-polling-predict-ahmadinejad-victory.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-moore/five-reasons-why-the-iran_b_218009.html
http://tehranbureau.com/poll-indicating-legitimacy-of-ahmadinejads-victory-called-into-question/
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/posts_cohen_on_iran_polls.php
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/iran-election-fraud-moaddel-on-ballen.html
http://www.openleft.com/diary/13774/on-that-iranian-poll

That opinion poll from early may was conducted before campaigning even began as campaigning is only allowed for a period of 30 days prior to the election date. State-funded Press TV mentions that it was reported by a pro-administration website (Rajanews) and tellingly that, "the report did not include any further details about the organization that conducted the poll or the number of people who were surveyed. " Doesn't the lack of a polling organization and clear methodology along with the bias toward Ahmadinejad render the poll unreliable? I've heard these same issues plague most polls reported on by the media in Iran (i.e. bias either way with no clear method). Many polls giving Ahmadinejad huge leads were also biased such as those by the Pro-Ahmadinejad Fars News Agency and those conducted by the IRIB (IRIB sure seems biased: http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=97683&sectionid=351020101, http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=97710&sectionid=351020101, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/07/hundreds-protest-political-bias-in-state-run-media/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/30/iran-media). Talking about polling, "in 12 polls taken since May 1st, polled support for minor candidates was Karroubi 7+/-1% and Rezaee 8+/-4% (median and SEM). They showed at least 3% each in Iranian polls." They performed much worse then this as you know, so this may raise further doubts on the validity of pre-election polls in Iran.

Regarding the Azeri there were reports indicating Mousavi had strong support among his native Azeri:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1901667,00.html. "Tabriz is the heart of East Azerbaijan, and Azeris are among the tightest ethnic groups in the country, unfailingly voting along ethnic lines. In the 2005 presidential election, Mohsen Mehralizadeh was a largely unknown and wholly unsuccessful candidate. He came in seventh and last, and yet he still won the Azeri vote in the Azerbaijani provinces. Mir Hossein Mousavi is an Azeri from Tabriz." (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009613121740611636.html). Although, I do suspect that there was more to this result in 2005 than just ethnicity, but it is interesting nonetheless. Additionally, why didn't Ahmadinejad's eight years of service in Azeri-dominated provinces translate into votes in 2005 when he received 10% of the vote in East Azerbaijan? A 47% increase in support is very impressive if true.

In the US, the mass media unfortunately does play a major role in deciding who the next president will be, but it is even worse in Iran. As far as I know the incumbent (in this case Ahmadinejad) gets the full backing and support of the state media (as you acknowledged). This in itself can be said to make any election during which there is an incumbent invalid. There is also the issue of candidates having to pass clerical approval before they can even run. This prevents anyone but conservative muslims from running ( constitutionally only muslims are allowed to hold senior positions in the government) . In effect, one could argue every election in Iran is highly unfair, which has led Akbar Ganji (who I mention later on as well) , an Iranian journalist and human rights activist, to boycott all the elections.

Regardless of whether there was fraud or not the protesters still have a right and reason to protest. First of all, under Ahmadinejad, the Iranian regime's human rights abuses against its own people has gotten worse (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/iran0908web_0.pdf and http://www.realite-eu.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=9dJBLLNkGiF&b=2315291&ct=6447799) . That being said let's start with the main problem, which is the constitutional framework. Article 4 states, "All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally
to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the wise persons of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter." This is problematic because there are various interpretations of Islamic doctrine just as there are various interpretations of other religions (I guess Guardian Council gets to choose what the "right" interpretation is). It also sets the precedent for favoring Muslim Iranians over Iranians of differing faiths (I know vast majority of Iranians are muslim, but that doesn't mean it is fair). Article 12 reads, "The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja'fari school, and this principle will remain eternally immutable." The implications of this are obvious (sets the basis for practices like requiring all students including religious minorities to pass a test in Islamic theology to get into universities, which as a result limits learning opportunities for minorities in some cases). Now going on to the problematic Article 13, "Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Christian Iranians are the only recognized religious minorities, who, within the limits of the law, are free to perform their religious rites and ceremonies, and to act according to their own canon in matters of personal affairs and religious education." Even the religious expression of these protected minorities appears to be restricted by the phrase "within the limits of the law." Also, what about the Bahai (Iran's largest non-muslim minority faith) and other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. (I know they didn't have much a presence, but everyone should have options)? This article leaves the Bahai open to persecution, which the government seems to have taken advantage of over the years. Article 14, "…the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and all Muslims are duty-bound to treat non-Muslims in conformity with ethical norms and the principles of Islamic justice and equity, and to respect their human rights. This principle applies to all who refrain from engaging in conspiracy or activity against Islam and the Islamic Republic of Iran." How are they respecting the human rights of the Bahai and other excluded religious minorities by not allowing them full freedom of expression? Also, this principle applies only to those not conspiring against Islam and the Islamic Republic, so this doesn't bode well for those who want to convert others peacefully to their faith because this can be seen as going against Islam. Now to Article 20, "All citizens of the country, both men and women, equally enjoy the protection of the law and enjoy all human, political, economic, social, and cultural rights, in conformity with Islamic criteria." This seems to guarantee equality between everyone (minorities, genders, etc.), but it does it under "conformity with Islamic criteria" so for example only muslims will be able to hold senior positions within the government and women will face restrictions in what they can wear or where they can move freely as they will need their husband's permission to obtain things like passports or have procedures like surgery. Article 21, "The government must ensure the rights of women in all respects, in conformity with Islamic criteria…" Again, with the Islamic criteria. It seems to restrict rather than ensure women's rights and equality. Article 23 seems to contradict Article 13, "The investigation of individuals' beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief." Is the logic that somebody may hold Bahai or Buddhist beliefs, but they just aren't allowed to express them? Article 167 also seems to contradict with Article 23 because it states, "The judge is bound to endeavor to judge each case on the basis of the codified law. In case of the absence of any such law, he has to deliver his judgement on the basis of authoritative Islamic sources and authentic fatawa." Ayatollah Khomeini used this to rule that the penalty for apostasy was death, which goes against the freedom of belief seemingly guaranteed by Article 23. Article 24, "Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law." So freedom of press isn't really protected, which would explain why Iran was ranked 166 out of 169 in the Reporters without Borders press freedom rankings (some more detail on press restrictions: http://www.rsf.org/Iran,25431.html). We can go on and on here, but all these "within the precepts of Islam" phrases serve as qualifiers to what look like guarantees of fundamental freedoms for every Iranian rendering them muddled and basically meaningless. Why in Diyya is the life of a woman worth half that of a man? Why are the Bahai excluded from Diyya? Why is a woman's testimony worth half that of a man's? Why do inheritance laws favor men? Why are irreligious people given no rights? Why are homosexuals severely persecuted and in some cases executed? These questions can go on and on as well. Why have brave Iranians like Shirin Ebadi, Akbar Ganji, and Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (he was going to be SL before he did) spoken out against the regime's many human rights abuses at great risk to their livelihoods, statuses, and personal safety (all have been imprisoned before I believe) if the human rights abuses weren't real? Are all the reports from human rights groups from around the world lying as well? Here are some links focusing just/primarily on the religious human rights abuses in Iran (I can give you more if you'd like, but I don't want to overwhelm you): http://www.aa.psu.edu/journals/war-crimes/articles/V1/v1n1a3.pdf, http://iranhrdc.org/httpdocs/English/pdfs/Reports/Crimes-against-Humanity_Nov08.pdf,
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/068/2008/en/25f1bbd2-2339-11dd-89c0-51e35dab761d/mde130682008eng.html, http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/ir0108a.pdf, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html, http://www.iheu.org/node/1540,
http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7409288.stm, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1997/iran/Iran-04.htm, http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1997/iran/Iran-05.htm. Even now we see videos of police and Basij beating protesters on youtube (I've seen protesters beating some police as well), but this video of police vandalizing is quite telling imo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AFTYdVizks. I apologize if my tone has been too harsh, but I'd greatly appreciate a response.

I do have one question which wasn't addressed in the article. Mr. Mousavi or people in his party claimed that during this election there were many "traveling booths", voting booths that moved from place to place taking votes, and said that there was virtually no way to monitor them. Do you have any comment on this?

These Iranian oppositionists, like those who opposed Hugo Chavez and carried English signs and blogged in English too may be under a delusion that the yanks are coming. Obama, though he did bend to this pressure, seemingly reluctantly, is in no position to send any flotilla or combat divisions to Iran. These oppositionists ought to return to reality. Mr. Ahmadinejad won and the yanks are not coming.