Iranian Elections Were Obviously Rigged

This conversation about whether the Iranian vote was fixed is nonsense. Of course it was! Yes, polls in Iran are unreliable but Mousavi was leading 54-39 in the one poll before the election. Heavy voter turnout favored him. And instead he loses 63% to 34%. That's an absolute joke. They might as well have gone all the way and called it 97-3%.

According to these "official" results Mousavi lost his own home district (which is inconceivable in Iranian politics) and got far less votes than previous reformist candidates. Look, these things are not even close to believable. No one should give these numbers a shred of credibility. What is only a hundred percent more likely is that the Iranian government decided ahead of time who was going to win and that was that.

You have to understand 63-34 is a gigantic blowout that is much larger than some of the biggest landslides in American history. When Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984 and carried 49 out of the 50 states, he only won 58.8% to 40.6%. To say Ahmedinejad won 63-34 is not only saying we fixed this thing, but we're rubbing it in your face.

And let's be clear this isn't a matter of some missing ballots or voting irregularities. This is simply making up a number and pretending it's the real vote. I doubt they even counted the actual votes. What would be the point? Remember, the Iranian state news agency declared Ahmedinejad the winner before a single vote had been counted. Gee, I wonder who they were pulling for? I've never seen an election so rigged in my life (at least one that was actually pretending to be a real election). Saddam Hussein would be proud of the way this election was conducted.

The internet, texting and other forms of communication also happened to be conveniently down during and after the election. These are the main ways Mousavi supporters were communicating with one another. Gee, I wonder which side the state was on? Who gave the order to jam these lines of communication and whose side were they on? How much more obvious can this be?

Most people think the Iranian government turned these devices off to lower the Mousavi vote. I think they didn't give damn about lowering the vote because they weren't going to count the ballots anyway. They turned off the communication so that a revolt would be harder to conduct while they announced the bogus results.

Before the elections the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced that if Mousavi's people complained about rigged elections, they would crush them. Whose side do you think they were on? And why do you think they might have been making such preparations?

But the clerics who run Iran and Ayatollah Khamenei better be careful what they wish for. This is how you start revolutions. Iran has a very young population that is yearning for more freedom and those younger voters were overwhelmingly on the side of Mousavi. These young Iranians made the mistake of believing that they had some say in their government and that they did not live under a dictatorship. And now they have found out the truth. My guess is that is not going to sit well with them.

It's one thing to bring in a new slightly moderate leader with only some powers as your next president. It's another thing to tell your people that they don't matter and that you rule their lives with an iron fist and that their government is a fraud. That's the kind of thing revolutions are made of.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Comments

[huntertristan]

Basically there is no proof of an absolute election fraud - even if fair/free, Ahmadinajad still would have won. The recent dispute was largely stage-managed and never gained any real traction outside of the educated elites (believe it or not but most Iranians don't use Twitter, Facebook, and camera phone uploads).

Ahmadinejad is a political outsider who has built his entire career on fighting the elites who control Iran's wealth and power. During the election, leading ayatollahs like Hashemi Rafsanjani (one of the richest men in the world) became embroiled in spats with the corruption-fighting Ahadinejad. Men like Rafsanjani have a vested interest in supporting the 'reformers' and know another Ahmadinejad administration would hang them out to dry - thus ending a long-standing culture of perks and privilege for clerics. Rafsanjani's ambtions also extend to his key role as head of the Assembly of Experts - a body of Islamic scholars which has the constitutional authority to revoke Ayatollah Khameni's position as Supreme Leader.

In fact, what has happened in Iran has been a power play between competing voices that speak within the framework of the 1979 Islamic Revolution - regardless of the intention of some Mousavi supporters we see depicted in the Western media. To suggest that what we have seen is a democratic uprising is pure fantasy. There is a major political crisis in Iran regarding the role of the clergy, and this will continue to play out - a struggle within the regime, not a struggle against.

[huntertristan]

Basically there is no proof of an absolute election fraud - even if fair/free, Ahmadinajad still would have won. The recent dispute was largely stage-managed and never gained any real traction outside of the educated elites (believe it or not but most Iranians don't use Twitter, Facebook, and camera phone uploads).

Ahmadinejad is a political outsider who has built his entire career on fighting the elites who control Iran's wealth and power. During the election, leading ayatollahs like Hashemi Rafsanjani (one of the richest men in the world) became embroiled in spats with the corruption-fighting Ahadinejad. Men like Rafsanjani have a vested interest in supporting the 'reformers' and know another Ahmadinejad administration would hang them out to dry - thus ending a long-standing culture of perks and privilege for clerics. Rafsanjani's ambtions also extend to his key role as head of the Assembly of Experts - a body of Islamic scholars which has the constitutional authority to revoke Ayatollah Khameni's position as Supreme Leader.

In fact, what has happened in Iran has been a power play between competing voices that speak within the framework of the 1979 Islamic Revolution - regardless of the intention of some Mousavi supporters we see depicted in the Western media. To suggest that what we have seen is a democratic uprising is pure fantasy. There is a major political crisis in Iran regarding the role of the clergy, and this will continue to play out - a struggle within the regime, not a struggle against

[huntertristan]

Basically there is no proof of an absolute election fraud. The dispute we have seen since has been largely stage-managed, had no grassroots support and never gained any real traction outside of the educated elites (believe it or not but most Iranians don't use Twitter, Facebook, and camera phone uploads).

Ahmadinejad is a political outsider and has built his whole career on fighting the elites which control Iran's wealth and power. Leading ayatollahs like Hashemi Rafsanjani (one of the richest men in the world) became embroiled in spats with the corruption-fighting Ahmadinejad during the election. Men like Rafsanjani has a vested interest in supporting the 'reformers' and know another Ahmadinejad administration would hang them out to dry. Further ambitions lie with Rafsanjani's key role as head of the Assembly of Experts - a body of Islamic scholars which has the constitutional authority to revoke Ayatollah Khameni's position as Supreme Leader.

In fact, what has happened in Iran been a power play between competing voices that speak within the framework of the 1979 Islamic Revolution - regardless of the intention of some Mousavai supporters we see on western media. To suggest what we have seen as a democratic uprising is pure fantasy. There is a major political crisis in Iran regarding the role of the clergy, and this will continue to play out - a struggle within the regime, not a struggle against it.

[steelmagnolia1]

The problem is imposition of Westernized thought into non-Western civilizations, and how the typical Middle Easterner views American concepts as Freedom of Speech. Breach of these freedoms is invoked quite often by the US media against governments in the Middle East, but what do the citizens actually want when it comes to rights to protest?

I had once asked, " What is up with you people? Protest your oppressive government!" Like a cistern of ice water being thrown on me was the realization that "Freedom" was something laughed at by my friends from other countries. "What good is Freedom of Speech when there is poor quality of life? You Americans are all working like donkeys, and all you have is the freedom to say ''the president is a bastard' without going to jail."

Are the protesters the traditional people of Iran, or those of the new Westernized upper class elite? Yes, they are legitimate citizens too, but the US media is ignoring any other voice in Iran, and also in the entire Middle East, other than those we directly relate to by unison of Western thought. The voices of the more traditionalists are being ignored, almost completely.

I have not conclusively resigned myself to either side of the argument. Rare is the individual who does question the validity of claims of fraud in the Iranian elections. Can we not, for one second, consider that Iran has a different way of doing things? Is different necessarily wrong?

[wereeverywhere]

For those who want to participate in Amnesty International's action alert. There's a place to click to send an e.mail to IRI:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12454&ICID=E0906A01&tr=y&auid=4977954

"...Amnesty International is also concerned that the protests, which have already drawn massive crowds in Tehran and other cities in Iran, may be met with increased levels of violence by Iranian authorities. AI calls for the authorities to exercise restraint in response to further demonstrations and to release all those who have been detained for peacefully expressing their opinions about the results of the election. It also calls for an end to restrictions on the right to freedom of expression and association, including the freedom to receive and impart information and ides."

[Quen]

Thank God we live in a country where the elections aren't stolen.

[ikez78]

Awesome piece. Cenk's writing is really what brought me here to HuffPo.

[quentinm]

Not only did they supposedly count 40 million ballots in 2 hours, but most of them were paper ballots!

[davidly]

Come on, Cenk. One, you just may be overestimating how moderately moderate he is. And like you said, his powers are limited. This is not lost on the ones with the power. Otherwise he wouldn't be in this position. Sound familiar? The parallels to American style democracy are more unseemly than our collective state of denial will allow. Two, you seem to be missing how much cred this "revolution" will have when he ends up president after all.

[lmodiano]

http://twitter.com/tehranelection

[JeZeus]

Ahmadinejad should have followed the subtle Bush approach. You only need to win by a little bit.

[NicoloM]

Right, I think the score was five to four.

[NevaforLeadership]

God works in wondrous ways. Had Bush not won by a little bit, we would most likely not have Obama now.

Time for Democrats to get over Bush. Live in the now. The now is Obama. Help Obama. Make a commitment to change: change from a chronic disease and syndrome inducing lifestyle to a healthy and fit lifestyle.

[leonel]

THE ONLY SURPRISE ABOUT ELECTION IS THAT IRANIANS HAVE NOT BEEN AWARE THAT THEY DON'T HOLD REAL ELECTIONS. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WILL THEY DO ABOUT IT.

It is obvious that Iran is not able to have elections that express the will of the people. They only allow a few hand picked candidates. They also rigged the previous election that allowed the present religious leadership to continue in power. The election before that was somewhat open but a reformer was not allowed to implement much needed reforms. The basic fact to admit is that Iran is just not able to run a government that allows pragmatic policies to be attempted.

They are truly stuck but realization will set in as it does with a lot of countries who try becoming democratic. The normal process is painful and takes even a generation for the most reactionary leaders and politicians to lose influence. Another harsh reality is that most Middle East countries have similar or worse situations. They will all have to undergo painful development as the rest of the world gets interconnected.

They are likely to develop a lot faster than South American countries, which had mostly military elitist governments and are now slowing improving and holding more realistic elections. Iran and other Islamic countries have some advantages and some disadvantages that did not exist in South America.

Iran's religious leaders will have to let go of political power like the old religious elites of pre-modern Europe.

[NevaforLeadership]

First the "supreme" leaders, clerics and clergy must go.

Then Iranians need to change their constitution to separate matters of religion and state.

[showtel]

People of Iran

We too are deeply troubled by this. It looks like the L.A. riots...!

Please do not harm each other. Please do not harm your homes

Remember the precious human birth.

Thank you,
Mamnoon am.

[toxicbrainpoison]

Thats the thing- Ahmedinajad has been treating an election like an uprising to be put down. It was an election. People shouldnt have to revolt for their ballots to be counted.

[AngerAndDetermination]

Question (and please do not attack me for asking!):

Does anyone here accept the possibility that Ahmadinejad simply won the election? Stop comparing this to Bush and Gore for a moment. The government shut down the wireless communication, Moussavi could not mobilize his people, and Ahmadinejad won the election: Is that so crazy? I am not saying that it is not crazy. I just want to know why?

[BMurph]

Um, no. There is no legitimacy to the Iranian governments claims that Ahmedinejad won the election by a landslide.

Millions of people have taken to the streets to protest the outcome, the state is cracking down on all such gatherings, police are assaulting and killing the citizenry, and journalists who are trying to report what's happening are being arrested. These are not the actions of a government that has the trust and support of its people.

[NicoloM]

AAD-- it is always appropriate to be aware of all possibilities. Cenk's post has several significant points which question the government's position and suspicious actions since the election. However a reporter on the Daily Show explained that Ahmadinejad just surprised everyone and broke down how it happened-- check here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/16/daily-show-on-iranian-ele_n_216057.html I personally think it was the Soccer Imam vote which brought in Florida for the crazy guy.

[OkieIntellectual]

You've asked a perfectly reasonable question, and honestly I've asked myself the same thing. This IS Iran we're talking about afterall. While I can appreciate Mr. Uygur passion, the entire article here is speculation. In the opening paragraph he states "Yes, polls in Iran are unreliable but Mousavi was leading 54-39 in the one poll before the election." He should have just stopped that statement at "Yes, polls in Iran are unreliable", because everything that comes after that is speculation based on polls that the author himself has already said cannot be trusted.

The truth is that we do not and may never know the truth.

[NevaforLeadership]

Not a chance. He could not possible have won by such a large majority, counted without electronics, in such a short time.