Events are unfolding in Iran rapidly and chaotically, with no clear indication yet where they may lead. (In the short term, that is. One is always mindful of Zhou Enlai's response when he was asked for his opinion on the historical impact of the French Revolution: "It's too early to tell.") Solid information is still scanty and piecemeal, so it is difficult to offer any telling insights on the developments and their possible implications. So the following are just a few tentative observations.

It does seem clear, by all the evidence so far -- particularly studies of past voting patterns -- that the final vote totals were rigged and padded rather clumsily (much as they are in Russia, for example), although that doesn't necessarily mean that Ahmadinajad actually lost. Again, we just don't have enough information on this point yet. It would be good if he did lose and had to step down -- but I think it's highly unlikely that the powerful elites who back him will allow this to happen.

Then again, the Iranians are in general a braver, bolder people than some other peoples we might mention, who in recent memory sat slack-jawed and supine when their franchise was stripped from them in broad daylight by powerful elites. The Iranian people have already overthrown one seemingly powerful and permanently entrenched regime in the last 30 years, and could well do so again -- or at least force the current regime to become more open and humane. In any case, the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iranians who have taken to the streets, risking -- and in some cases, losing -- life and limb to demand their rights shame the bloated, bored, distracted masses of the American empire (and its British satrapy), who have watched numbly and dumbly as their liberties have been systematically dismantled, their public treasuries looted by plutocrats and war profiteers, and their own children thrown into murderous wars of aggression and occupation.

But while the Iranians continue to work out their own destiny, coverage of the events in the Western press has largely fallen into the expected -- indeed, predestined -- patterns. Western media have swiftly fitted the Iranian unrest into the now-standard "color revolution" template -- seen in Serbia, Georgia, Lebanon, and other -- where plucky, pro-Western (i.e., reliably pliable to American interests) forces rise up against their oppressors. The leaders of these forces are invariably depicted as "moderates" committed to installing Western-style governments and liberal, Western-style social orders, etc. For example, the recent election in Lebanon was presented as a great triumph for the "pro-Western March 14 Faction" led by the son of slain tycoon Rafik Hariri -- even though this "pro-Western" faction includes Sunni extremists aligned with Osama bin Laden.

Similarly, the Iranian opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi is universally depicted as a "moderate." Yet, as Professor As'ad AbuKhalil points out, when Moussavi was Iran's prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini, he "presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's." AbuKhalil's take on the hypocrisy of the Western media coverage on Iran is worth quoting more fully:

...there is so much hypocrisy in the Western coverage and official reactions to the developments. Most glaring for me was the statement by the secretary-general of the UN who insisted on the respect of the will of the Iranian people. Would that US designate utter such words, say, about Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco and other dictatorships that are approved by the US? ...I am in no way sympathetic to Moussavi. He is a man who suddenly discovered the virtues of democracy. When he was prime minister back in the 1980s, he presided over a regime far more oppressive than Ahmadinajad's. And why has no Western media really commented on his rhetoric during his own campaign: the man kept saying that he wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini. I in no way support a man who wants a "return" to the teachings of Khomeini.

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Idrees said:

... It does seem clear, by all the evidence so far -- particularly studies of past voting patterns -- that the final vote totals were rigged and padded rather clumsily It may seem clear by some studies that the vote was rigged or padded, but not by the rather tendentious and silly one you site. Cole's speculations are particularly asinine since in his own book he relies unquestionably on TFT polls for the rest of the region so long as they confirm his preconceived notions. In a follow up he also achieved the remarkable feat of diminishing Ahmadinejad's support by half by counting into the results even the number of the non-respondents (leaving aside the minor inconvenience that it also reduced Mousavi's support to single digits). Using Cole's logic Ralph Nader could never have lost his home state to Gore or Bush since the natives couldn't possibly have considered voting otherwise. Also, it diminishes your credibility when you cite As'ad AbuKhalil on a serious matter. Iranians were voting to elect someone to represent them, not to represent Abukhalil so I am not sure what is the relevance of who he finds worthy of his 'support'. If Mousavi's claims of a stolen election were genuine, it shouldn't matter if he was Beelzebub himself. Angels usually don't run for office. (Provided the argument here is about a stolen election, otherwise why cite Cole.) The problem with fly-by-night punditry is that everyone seems to turn to the same 'experts' to interpret things rather than taking the time to investigate themselves. So if Cole or Abukhalil got things wrong, that means the ripples of inanity only grow wider. The simple matter in this case is to separate the election from the protests. The election may have triggered the protests, but don't explain their resilience. It is a civil rights struggle, and it needs to be supported as such. The fact-free speculations about the election, especially based on dubious and partisan sources, are pointless, and get more than a little tedious.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

Idrees said:

... P.s. Lest my previous comment convey the wrong impression, I always find your analysis insightful and I also like your writing style. I am just surprised to see you quote Juan Cole on Iran when the guy has completely destroyed his credibility with his partisan and inane hackery during this whole crisis. (His credibility should already be called into question by anyone who has read his lame last book, particularly his Freudian explanation for the Iraq war which traced its causes, not the neoconservatives or the aggressive nationalists, but to American male genitalia [see page. 9]).

report abuse vote down vote up

July 11, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

ed hardy said:

	fe It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 02, 2009 | url
Votes: +0

links of london said:

	links of london Thank you!
	report abuse vote down vote up

August 13, 2009 | url
Votes: +0