Iran Election Irregularities Update

As of this posting, still no reply back from MSNBC.com. Of course, I'm not surprised.

However, Diego Jimenez tweeted me this link to a BBC Q&A article on the election.

First off, here are the reasons for claims of voting irregularities:


"The way the result was announced was very unusual. It came out in blocks of millions of votes, in percentages, rather than being announced province-by-province as in past elections.

And as the blocks of votes came in, the percentages for each candidate changed very, very little. That suggested that Mr Ahmadinejad did equally well in rural and urban areas. Conversely, it suggested that the other three losing candidates did equally badly in their home regions and provinces.

This overturns all precedents in Iranian politics and there has been no explanation, despite repeated questions, from the authorities.

It is all very suspicious. But it does not necessarily mean there has been widespread electoral fraud. For example, a group of international pollsters did an independent telephone survey three weeks ago which suggested a two-to-one level of popular support for Mr Ahmadinejad over Mr Mousavi, with the other candidates on less than two percent each."

So, we have international pollsters predicting an Ahmadinejad win. We have suspicious circumstances with questions going unanswered. And we have the fact that there may not necessarily have been widespread electoral fraud.

We also have two powerful leaders with many followers vying for a top parliamentary position. As numerous commentators (and Pres. Obama) have said, Ahmadinejad and Mousavi's policy positions are, in effect, not much different from each other.

Could this be a case of a sore loser using the power of his popularity and multitude of followers to gain the upper hand? From the same BBC article:

"But there are two things happening at the moment. There are the street demonstrations and then there is a tense power struggle between leading figures in the ruling elite as well."

Two leading, elite rulers are struggling for power. What would make Mousavi not pull the "voting irregularity" and "fraud" cards out to use in his favor? Especially when he is well-aware of Ahmadinejad's global unpopularity and the effect global media will have on promoting his view of the election, however inaccurate it may be?

The fact that 99% of the coverage has been on protesters and virtually none on actual election statistics, pre and post polling, and vote-count evidence may signal that Mousavi's bluff has turned into a trump card.

Where is investigative journalism when you need it?

Iran Election, Iran Corruption, Iran Questions

I watched a video here, about Ahmadinejad's win over Mir Hossein Mousavi, and then read the article. I also read this one and can't help but think we're not getting the full story for some reason. Here's the analysis and what I mean:

Why is not the main focus of these articles on the actual, factual discrepancies Mousavi has in claiming that this election was a "charade?"

Why is Mousavi the only one slighted? The BBC article says: "Four candidates contested the election, with Mohsen Razai and Mehdi Karroubi only registering about 1% of the vote each."

So, what about Razai and Karroubi? Do they feel the election was tainted? Why are these two presidential candidates not questioned on this and given a voice; one or two sentences even?

Instead, it's about people protesting. "Thousands" according to the BBC article. And only in Tehran. Is no one protesting anywhere else? And exactly how many is "thousands?" Do they not have an accurate count? Why or why not? And who's doing the counting? In my opinion, these articles seem biased on the side of the protesters, something that does not happen when people protest in this country, but more on that later.

Ahmadinejad, in the aforementioned article, says that the foreign media has been helping to rile people up. Why is that angle not explored? Why not analyze the media coverage over this event and really investigate what he's saying? I mean, you can only prove him wrong, right? So, why isn't this done?

Next, according to the BBC's Iranian affairs analyst, the "margin of the win was so wide [for Mousavi] that it made a lot of people suspicious." OK, what does that mean? The margin of the win? What margin, how, and set forth by who? I don't know why these questions, many of which could be answered in a sentence or two, are missing from a major news organization's coverage of an election so interesting as this one.

The analyst goes on to say that, "Millions of people, especially the young, voted for change through the ballot box and by peaceful means and now there is shock and disappointment."

Again, what does this mean? How many millions? Why is this "news" article so vague? Where is the author getting this data from? Many millions in this country voted for change through the ballot box and by peaceful means in 2000 and 2004 and were similarly shocked and disappointed.

I just don't see any evidence how, exactly, the protesters have a legitimate grievance here. And I'm not saying there isn't one, I'm saying the media has not reported on what that might be. We have an official result: 64% for Ahmadinejad versus the 34% for Mr Mousavi, but that's it.


Fast forward two days. It's now Monday the 15th of June and here is the lead article from MSNBC.com on the situation in Iran. Again, no mention of what is actually corrupt in the election. All they mention is "voting irregularities." We had those here in 2000 and 2004 also. Why would you make no mention of what these voting irregularities are? Isn't the main thrust of this entire situation?

Maybe there is a media slant. Hardly any of the First World countries like Ahmadinejad. Continual focus on rioting and beating and one-liners and protest messages (which could be covered in another blog - so I'm not ignoring them as insignificant - it's just not the focus of the article here) could be used to let viewers think that those protesting have a legitimate cause they are fighting for. First and Third World countries can use propaganda. The BBC and CNN are no exceptions.

Of course the censorship is of grave concern and lends no credence to Ahmadinejad, but the censorship is not the cause of the protests - it's a reaction to it. So why not say what that cause is?

What are the voting irregularities? What is the evidence of fraud?

** Just called NBC news and was told that they would research the answer to these two questions and get back to me. I'll keep you posted.


One last thing: Check out this story on how there never was a significant ideological difference between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Who are We "Securing?"

At the end of last summer, I took a trip to Philadelphia's Old Town. Being a student of American politics, I was eager to look upon Independence Hall, the Liberty Bell, Ben Franklin's house and walk the cobbled streets where our founding fathers once tred.

Things always happen, whatever those "things" may be, when you least expect it. And sure enough, this happened during my visit. Before I get into that, however, let me set the context of my mental state. I was brought up being told (and believing) that this is the land of the free, that all men are created equal, that we should live free or die, and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights....

So here I am, in what some may call the birthplace of American constitutional and political thought, in line, to see the Liberty Bell but what I see first are armed Wackenhut security guards and signs that say I am not allowed to chew gum or bring inside water bottles. I'm not kidding. And the building you're going into is not some pristine, richly-decorated, top-of-the-line visitor center. It is a very nice, light-filled building, however, and the flooring is slate tile while along the east side are picture and storyboards behind plexiglass. At the end of this rectangular building, behind guideropes that the Park Service meticulously monitor for those trying to stick a camera under, is the Bell itself. So, why no gum? Why no water bottles allowed? Why armed Wackenhut guards standing beside Park Service employees?

I fully understand making sure people don't put any part of their body under or past the ropes - it's a national treasure we're protecting. However, no gum? no water bottles? It was over 90 degrees outside that day - and yes, they were also doing full searches of our backpacks and belongings. Sweet land of liberty and the free? Methinks not.


After this experience, which really upset me quite a bit, I ended up on the banks of the Delaware River at one of the riverside parks and there was a U.S. Naval vessel docked there, the name of which I do not remember. In any event, to the left here is a picture of it. What is not shown, to the left of the ship on land, is a barricaded perimeter set up with a, I'm guessing, 24-hour guard watch. The soldier paced the area armed with an M-16. However, notice what is, or what is not, on the right side of the ship - any type of defensive protection! I didn't get a picture of it, but there were two guys on jet skis going up and down the river. What would be to stop them from getting close to this ship? What is there to stop them from having explosives on their skis and driving right at it? I would hope the land guard wouldn't be responsible for that area as well. So, why this lack of security - in this era of a "Global War on Terror" now that "everything has changed" in our post-9/11 world?

Moreover, why is there this serious lack of security around a U.S. Naval vessel at the same time I have Wackenhut guards (with guns!) as well as the Park Service officials "guarding" me with requests to search my private person, take out my gum and trash my water bottle? All I'm trying to do is view a symbol of the "freedom and liberty" that this country tells the rest of the world it has.