ForumGarden

Iran is at a crossroads.

The average age of the citizens in Iran is: 26.4 years

male: 26.2 years

female: 26.7 years (2008 est.)

The younger generation has grown up in a different world than the elders, they desire freedoms the current government doesnt allow their citizens. Woman want to be recognized and valued as equal members of society.

These causes are dramatic changes for a civilization embedded in old traditions.

Its impossible now to predict the outcome but there are many questions to be considered.



Do the protesters have the tenacity to effect change or will they flee if the military and police enact martial law ?



If the protesters are prevelant in effecting change will the changes be an appeasement that could be the beginning of even more instability in the region possibly causing a civil war ?



Are we hopeful that any change in the present government will be a step in a direction that will lead to relations with the west improving ?

I don't see it while you have one holy man calling the shots for the entire country. It is at his whim for the time being.

YZGI;1208281 wrote: I don't see it while you have one holy man calling the shots for the entire country. It is at his whim for the time being.




Part of Mir Hussein Moussavi's agenda is to dispel that kind of control.

I've seen worse rioting after a stupid ball game. Where are all the molotov cocktails? Cars burning? Government buildings burning? Get serious you guys. Surely some of you have a firearm or two.

Nomad;1208293 wrote: Part of Mir Hussein Moussavi's agenda is to dispel that kind of control.
Thats why he will do whatever it takes to keep the power.

hoppy;1208317 wrote: I've seen worse rioting after a stupid ball game. Where are all the molotov cocktails? Cars burning? Government buildings burning? Get serious you guys. Surely some of you have a firearm or two.




You really have to hand it to them for keeping it relatively peaceful and organized in such vast numbers. I believe a peaceful march has much more impact than rioters and looters.

Nomad;1208414 wrote: You really have to hand it to them for keeping it relatively peaceful and organized in such vast numbers. I believe a peaceful march has much more impact than rioters and looters.


Peaceful marches are quickly forgotten. Violent days or weeks long uprisings with destroyed government property and bodies littering the streets are remembered and sometimes create the change needed. Everyone remembers the Hungarian revolt of the '50's and others like it.

hoppy;1208546 wrote: Peaceful marches are quickly forgotten. Violent days or weeks long uprisings with destroyed government property and bodies littering the streets are remembered and sometimes create the change needed. Everyone remembers the Hungarian revolt of the '50's and others like it.


They didn't work though did they? On the other hand the civil rights marches in america worked, so did the anti-war marches of the vietnam era. It was a peaceful demonstration that finally brought down the berlin wall not violent insurrection. It was peaceful protest that changed Poland. It was peaceful protest and defiance that ended apartheid in south africa not violent insurrection, peaceful protest worked in india against the british empire. People remember the hungarian uprising and the czech one in 1968 precisely because they failed.

The sight of unarmed demonstrators being gunned down by armed militia is going to do more to get support for change than demonstrators chucking molotov cocktails.

When the clergy themselves are split, when so many of the youth of the country are so committed, when technology means that communication media cannot be totally managed - how can any reasonable person vote that change is not possible?

gmc;1208560 wrote: They didn't work though did they? On the other hand the civil rights marches in america worked, so did the anti-war marches of the vietnam era. It was a peaceful demonstration that finally brought down the berlin wall not violent insurrection. It was peaceful protest that changed Poland. It was peaceful protest and defiance that ended apartheid in south africa not violent insurrection, peaceful protest worked in india against the british empire. People remember the hungarian uprising and the czech one in 1968 precisely because they failed.

The sight of unarmed demonstrators being gunned down by armed militia is going to do more to get support for change than demonstrators chucking molotov cocktails.


I can think of some armed uprisings that worked. The American revolution, the Cuban revolution to name a few.

hoppy;1208665 wrote: I can think of some armed uprisings that worked. The American revolution, the Cuban revolution to name a few.


They eventually worked when there was mass support from the general population. If the British hadn't been so cackhanded in not being able to distinguish a friendly colonist from a hostile one and less indiscriminate in their dealings things might have worked out differently who knows. There wasn't initially universal support for independence was there? Besides the french and spanish helped a bit. (That's why you drive on the wrong side of the road you know- it was inspired by the french example:sneaky:)

Cuba was a mass protest movement that eventually became an armed uprising when all else failed. If the Iranian govt doesn't make some concessions then all they will be doing is sitting on a pressure cooker. There have been uprisings throughout history and the regimes that survive are the ones that concede else they get kicked out. I've seen a suggestion that the ayatollah has been advised that the shah was seen to be weak because he made concessions-in reality it was too little and too late and the ayatollah had mass support. If they keep a hard line then they will be going sooner rather than later-at least that's my opinion for what it's worth. IMO.

That was only two can you think of any that succeeded that didn't have mass support?

And nobody sees the hand of destabilization in any of these protests? Nobody is prepared to assume that a half century of interference in the internal affairs of Iran by the Western powers is an ongoing process?Late last year [2007], Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership [...] “The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.”

Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Or has that no relevance at all to the recent news headlines?

spot;1208767 wrote: And nobody sees the hand of destabilization in any of these protests? Nobody is prepared to assume that a half century of interference in the internal affairs of Iran by the Western powers is an ongoing process?Late last year [2007], Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership [...] “The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change, a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.

Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Or has that no relevance at all to the recent news headlines?


I wondered when someone would play the "It's all Bush's fault" card. :yh_rotfl

hoppy;1208791 wrote: I wondered when someone would play the "It's all Bush's fault" card. :yh_rotfl


In the light of the article I referenced, in what way would that differ from the truth?It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A., Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great Satan.’  In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.

spot;1208767 wrote: And nobody sees the hand of destabilization in any of these protests? Nobody is prepared to assume that a half century of interference in the internal affairs of Iran by the Western powers is an ongoing process?

Late last year [2007], Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership [...] “The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change, a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.



Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

Or has that no relevance at all to the recent news headlines?


Were on to a new chapter now spock. The pages are being re-written. Bush's blunders are not a part of this administrations agenda as evidenced by the tactic diplomacy he is now displaying. The Iranians should be left to their own vices and what unfolds unfolds.

Theyre planning a day of mourning which they take very seriously. I believe momentum is growing and if they have fortitude some changes will prevail.

Their history wont change over night but in increments.

I believe the key to their success will be that the overwhelming majority of the population is young and eager.

Nomad;1208845 wrote: Were on to a new chapter now spock. The pages are being re-written. Bush's blunders are not a part of this administrations agenda as evidenced by the tactic diplomacy he is now displaying. The Iranians should be left to their own vices and what unfolds unfolds.

Theyre planning a day of mourning which they take very seriously. I believe momentum is growing and if they have fortitude some changes will prevail.

Their history wont change over night but in increments.

I believe the key to their success will be that the overwhelming majority of the population is young and eager.


I haven't the slightest doubt that US interference in the internal affairs of Iran continues unabated, just as it has uninterruptedly since the early 1950s. Democrat or Republican, Obama or Bush, it makes not the slightest difference. It's not a party policy, it's a national one and nobody can even remember when it was any different. Iran's theocratic leadership isn't just going to stay in charge for as long it that continues, it's going to continue to receive the support of the majority of Iran's electorate too. If someone is obviously putting pressure on then there'll be a resistance to that pressure, I've no idea why your leaderships can't grasp something as fundamental as that.

Ask Daniel Ortega how it works, he's had more experience of it than most.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_U.S ... ge_actions goes into detail if you can stomach looking at the page.

spot;1208867 wrote: I haven't the slightest doubt that US interference in the internal affairs of Iran continues unabated, just as it has uninterruptedly since the early 1950s. Democrat or Republican, Obama or Bush, it makes not the slightest difference. It's not a party policy, it's a national one and nobody can even remember when it was any different. Iran's theocratic leadership isn't just going to stay in charge for as long it that continues, it's going to continue to receive the support of the majority of Iran's electorate too. If someone is obviously putting pressure on then there'll be a resistance to that pressure, I've no idea why your leaderships can't grasp something as fundamental as that.



Ask Daniel Ortega how it works, he's had more experience of it than most.



Covert U.S. regime change actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia goes into detail if you can stomach looking at the page.


I really dont think Irans events are a result of outside influence spock. This happened immediately after the election.

To say theyre not capable of thinking for themselves is kind of degrading dont you think ?

Nomad;1208879 wrote: I really dont think Irans events are a result of outside influence spock. This happened immediately after the election.

To say theyre not capable of thinking for themselves is kind of degrading dont you think ?


I wouldn't dream of saying it. The Iranian people voted convincingly to support the hard-line anti-Western stance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, how much more "thinking for themselves" could it get than that? And a good thing too if you ask me. The Iranian people have endorsed the President for repeatedly kicking the US in the teeth and who can blame them, it's exactly what was called for.

You don't think two years planning is enough to bribe a bunch of opposition leaders to contest the election result on the streets?

It would surprise me greatly if you were to actually address the articles I've introduced but who knows, maybe you might.

spot;1208885 wrote: I wouldn't dream of saying it. The Iranian people voted convincingly to support the hard-line anti-Western stance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, how much more "thinking for themselves" could it get than that? And a good thing too if you ask me. The Iranian people have endorsed the President for repeatedly kicking the US in the teeth and who can blame them, it's exactly what was called for.



You don't think two years planning is enough to bribe a bunch of opposition leaders to contest the election result on the streets?



It would surprise me greatly if you were to actually address the articles I've introduced but who knows, maybe you might.


I see so you completely dismiss the basis for the uprising which is that the election was a farce.

The elders in outlying areas of Iran supposedly are the hard liners that supported Ahmadinejad.

How do you explain the disproportionate numbers of anti Ahmadinejad population then ?





I have to go to work.

Nomad;1208899 wrote: I see so you completely dismiss the basis for the uprising which is that the election was a farce.


So the US media screamed. You've seen toddlers having tantrums?

You haven't the slightest factual basis for claiming the elections were fraudulent. You've every reason in the world to recognize that the US interferes in the internal affairs of Iran. Clean your stable nomad, it smells of death and opportunism.

Nomad;1208899 wrote: How do you explain the disproportionate numbers of anti Ahmadinejad population then ?





I have to go to work.


The minimum voting age in Iran is 18, perhaps? Though it seems pointlessly simplistic to think you can draw a line between ages and say each side votes as a block, these are 60 million individuals with minds of their own you're talking about. And pride - don't forget their pride.

Iran increases voting age from 15 to 18 in national elections - USATODAY.com

To which we might add "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) of the United States Constitution standardized the voting age to 18. It was adopted in response to student activism against the Vietnam War and to partially overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell. It was adopted on July 1, 1971".

spot;1208867 wrote: I haven't the slightest doubt that US interference in the internal affairs of Iran continues unabated, just as it has uninterruptedly since the early 1950s. Democrat or Republican, Obama or Bush, it makes not the slightest difference. It's not a party policy, it's a national one and nobody can even remember when it was any different. Iran's theocratic leadership isn't just going to stay in charge for as long it that continues, it's going to continue to receive the support of the majority of Iran's electorate too. If someone is obviously putting pressure on then there'll be a resistance to that pressure, I've no idea why your leaderships can't grasp something as fundamental as that.

Ask Daniel Ortega how it works, he's had more experience of it than most.

Covert U.S. regime change actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia goes into detail if you can stomach looking at the page.


The amercan practice and history is to de-stabilise democratic governments they perceive as being inimical to their interests and replace them with authoritarian regimes they think will be better for them. That's what they did in iraq and iran, chile etc etc. They're hardly likely to be capable of de-stabilising an authoritarian regime to replace it with a democratic one- they haven't had any practice.

The notion hat all these people are out on the streets as a result of foreign interference is, in this case, highly unlikely. Thankfully bush isn't around to open his big mouth and gain support for the theocracy. If the west keeps out of it there might be a chance for change. It's interesting that large numbers of women are protesting-maybe they just don't appreciate the freedom of being able to wear the burga and not get an education any more or are just generlly pissed off with religious nutters being in control. Authoritarian regimes-especially religious ones just don't last beyond the generation that brought them to power.

gmc;1208995 wrote: The amercan practice and history is to de-stabilise democratic governments they perceive as being inimical to their interests and replace them with authoritarian regimes they think will be better for them. That's what they did in iraq and iran, chile etc etc. They're hardly likely to be capable of de-stabilising an authoritarian regime to replace it with a democratic one- they haven't had any practice.



The notion hat all these people are out on the streets as a result of foreign interference is, in this case, highly unlikely. Thankfully bush isn't around to open his big mouth and gain support for the theocracy. If the west keeps out of it there might be a chance for change. It's interesting that large numbers of women are protesting-maybe they just don't appreciate the freedom of being able to wear the burga and not get an education any more or are just generlly pissed off with religious nutters being in control. Authoritarian regimes-especially religious ones just don't last beyond the generation that brought them to power.


Heck, If a butterfly farts in Africa, Spot blames the U.S. for shoving beans down its throat.

YZGI;1208997 wrote: Heck, If a butterfly farts in Africa, Spot blames the U.S. for shoving beans down its throat.


Authoritarian regimes, especially religious ones, just don't last beyond the generation that brought them to power - that's what gmc wrote and I agree with him entirely. For some reason your government keeps on resetting the clock and going back to square one. It's pretty stupid.

It's not just "Spot blames the U.S. for shoving beans down its throat", I'm quoting pretty high-powered commentators rather than just giving it as my personal opinion. My own opinion's fairly worthless but that of Seymour Hersh counts for a lot.

spot;1208905 wrote: The minimum voting age in Iran is 18, perhaps? Though it seems pointlessly simplistic to think you can draw a line between ages and say each side votes as a block, these are 60 million individuals with minds of their own you're talking about. And pride - don't forget their pride.



Iran increases voting age from 15 to 18 in national elections - USATODAY.com



To which we might add "The Twenty-sixth Amendment (Amendment XXVI) of the United States Constitution standardized the voting age to 18. It was adopted in response to student activism against the Vietnam War and to partially overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell. It was adopted on July 1, 1971".


My point is that the average age in Iran is 26 yrs old. Its fair to assume that a younger generation wants more freedoms, less restrictions. If the majority of the population is under 30 dont you find it suspicious that more of the same won the majority of votes ?

Dont you think its worthy of taking a look at the election as staged ?

Irans youth have been crying for freedom from tyranny for decades.

spot;1208903 wrote: So the US media screamed. You've seen toddlers having tantrums?



You haven't the slightest factual basis for claiming the elections were fraudulent. You've every reason in the world to recognize that the US interferes in the internal affairs of Iran. Clean your stable nomad, it smells of death and opportunism.




Im not saying it theyre saying it. The voters spock. Thats whats leaking out. Somehow you know different than they ?

And I will read the article you provided but Im having a bout of ADD at the moment.

Nomad;1209361 wrote: My point is that the average age in Iran is 26 yrs old. Its fair to assume that a younger generation wants more freedoms, less restrictions. If the majority of the population is under 30 dont you find it suspicious that more of the same won the majority of votes ?

Dont you think its worthy of taking a look at the election as staged ?

Irans youth have been crying for freedom from tyranny for decades.


Well no, *some* Iranians have been "crying for freedom from tyranny for decades".

Just as a small thing, since you posted the figures and I'm just headed for a rushed morning, could you work out the average age of the electorate (those 18 or older, by all means prorate the ones in the 16-19 bracket) excluding all the underage Iranians who couldn't vote?

spot;1209426 wrote: Well no, *some* Iranians have been "crying for freedom from tyranny for decades".

Just as a small thing, since you posted the figures and I'm just headed for a rushed morning, could you work out the average age of the electorate (those 18 or older, by all means prorate the ones in the 16-19 bracket) excluding all the underage Iranians who couldn't vote?


What would be the point? The average male in iran has less than two legs. That is statistically correct but are you actually any better informed about the market for pairs of sock in iran? If you can' put statistics in context they are meaningless. If you're that interested looking at the age distribution of those above voting age might tell you more

Seems to me we seem to be entering a post imperial age. Empires for generation have interfered in other countries for their own gain sometimes with the full backing of their populations most times what they thought didn't really matter it just went on anyway. but we're now in an era where global communications are the norm and what is happens in Africa or the middle east is in our living rooms and more and more people take an interest in it and are ready to try and take action. The anti globalisation/capitalism movement is just one manifestation of it so is the likes of band aid and all the efforts made by ordinary people to raise money for charity and foreign aid.

The days when political leaders could play power politics without anyone really knowing are coming to an end. We can look back at what went on in the vietnam era and see just how much of it went on, arguably to the long trem damage to western interests but you can't change the past just try and top it happening again. If you think about it, bush, thatcher, nixon were the last of a generation of leaders that came to power during a time when that was the norm and governments could plead national security and people trusted them. Now it's more a case of what are you trying to hide you bastard-look at the furore at the suggestion the iraq enquiry be held in private, brown still hasn't twigged things have changes.

similarly authoritarian regimes can' control things the way they once did, people are well aware of the outside world and are desperate to see it and let them know what is happening-not because they expect outside help but because they know people care and they want others to know what they are doing. That is what you are seeing in iran. We've never had an age where ordinary people can go on line and talk directly or discuss things so easily with people on the other side of the planet. Even twenty years ago the likes this forum would have been hard to imagine.

quite frankly your suggestion that the west is somehow manipulating things I iran and all those people on the streets ae simple dupes is incredibly patronising to ordinary iranians. It smacks of the notion that shadowy powerful people or organisations manipulate everything. Maybe they would like to but it's getting increasingly harder for them to do so there's too much information and contact with others flowing around-that's why occasionally see calls for greater regulation of the internet especially in America funnily enough. Governments cant control it and they don't like it. Reality is they are going to have to live with it. People aren't as stupid as politicians like to think they are-mind you when you look at brown and co maybe they're right.

Something got those demonstrators out on the streets, maybe they haven't yet rejected religious authority and the right of it's religious leaders to tell them how to live their lives but it looks like they're getting fed up with it. All it takes is enough to get annoyed. Not everyone is going to tolerate religious militia gunning down civilians, might work in the short term in quelling dissent but in the long term it always fails.

spot;1209426 wrote: Well no, *some* Iranians have been "crying for freedom from tyranny for decades".



Just as a small thing, since you posted the figures and I'm just headed for a rushed morning, could you work out the average age of the electorate (those 18 or older, by all means prorate the ones in the 16-19 bracket) excluding all the underage Iranians who couldn't vote?


The implication being some is a minority or a majority ?

If your such a conspirator why wouldnt the election raise concerns or are your theories narrow and specific to America ?

Looks like the dust has settled and Iran can continue with business as usual.

Too bad.

Nomad;1211558 wrote: Looks like the dust has settled and Iran can continue with business as usual.

Too bad.


The thread's still active though, and I still think you're awash with propaganda. It really would be interesting if you did a little work and answered my earlier question about the median age of Iranian voters, given that the figures are there to hand.

spot;1211751 wrote: The thread's still active though, and I still think you're awash with propaganda. It really would be interesting if you did a little work and answered my earlier question about the median age of Iranian voters, given that the figures are there to hand.


Ive read both of the articles you provided. I dont see anything provocatively surprising. Governments conduct spy and covert operations all over the world.

The tv and print are full of information about it every day.

Its no secret Irans pursuits make people nervous considering the source and some of the off the wall comments (I dont feel like looking up how to spell his name at the moment) has made concerning Israel, the US, the UK and others.

New Yorker Noteworthy: Obama There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid).


The median age in Iraq is about 27 yrs old. You made the statement it was the elders that voted Ami whatever in. It occurs to me that the younger generation being in the majority, also the ones demonstrating calling for transparency are the ones voting for the other one I dont feel like looking up his name for.

Your cynicism is cherry picked and selective and I quite honestly dont take your argument seriously because I believe your views are as skewed as everyone elses.

With respect,

Nomad

Nomad wrote:

The median age in Iraq is about 27 yrs old. You made the statement it was the elders that voted Ami whatever in. It occurs to me that the younger generation being in the majority, also the ones demonstrating calling for transparency are the ones voting for the other one I dont feel like looking up his name for.Digging around, the raw figures for Iranian age are on http://www.sci.org.ir/content/userfiles ... S_02_3.HTM

The median age of resident Iranians, with half the population younger and half older, is actually 24.

The median age of resident Iranians who can vote, with half the voting population younger and half older, is actually 33.

The only point I was trying to make is that if you need a majority, and if the younger voters all vote anti-hardliners and the the older ones all vote pro-hardliners (which was your suggestion, not mine) the split would need to be above the age of 33 for the anti party to win. You can't include the 0-17 aged Iranians because they can't vote.

Obviously it's more complicated than that, I was merely trying to point out a missing bit of logic in what you wrote. I hope what I've put here has clarified it.



Nomad;1212241 wrote: Ive read both of the articles you provided. I dont see anything provocatively surprising. Governments conduct spy and covert operations all over the world.


Again you're ignoring what I'm trying to get across. Obviously there really is an anti-hardliner movement in Iran, I'm not saying there isn't.

Equally real is the $400 million allocation requested by the Bush White House for destabilizing Iran's internal affairs with a view to regime change. My sole point is that the Iranian hardliners have a huge political benefit from being able to show an attempt at external interference by the Great Satan (that's the American-Supremacist advisers in the White House, who've existed without a break since the days of Truman through every administration).

Why give them the threat in the first place? Why not leave it to the home-grown disaffected electorate to grow to a majority without tarring them with the propaganda coup of external destabilization? Both your Democrat and Republican American-Supremacists shoot themselves in the foot by interfering. Any country faced with an external threat, in this case (as so often) from the US, binds together in self-defence.

Were the elections rigged? Quite possibly they were, who can tell. You've ended up with two blackened groups, the election-riggers who continue in power in Iran and the short-sighted fools in the USA who think they can run the world. Neither are acceptable but so long as Manifest Destiny continues to be US policy toward the world at large then the more enemies these successive White House administrations have, the better for all of us. If that includes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, rigged elections and all, then that's fine by me. Your damnable American-Supremacists are a far greater danger to world peace than his party is.

And no, I'm not cherry-picking anything. I'm trying to establish some accuracy of thinking, some accuracy of facts, and to make my views clear.

I suggest you do cherry pick and are extremely selective in the views you present.

Your bias is clearly geared towards anti Americanism but considering your own govt. is up to their eyeballs in manipulating a dozen countries that dont suit their needs or serve their purpose you choose to publish only your thoughts on what America has done to destroy the world.



This is the real point.



Please read.



This paper is published by Chatham House and

the Institute of Iranian Studies, University of St

Andrews

Preliminary Analysis of the Voting

Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential

Election

Editor:

Professor Ali Ansari, Director, Institute of Iranian Studies,

University of St Andrews; Associate Fellow, Middle East and

North Africa Programme, Chatham House; author, ‘Iran,

Islam and Democracy: The Politics of Managing Change’

Research and Analysis:

Daniel Berman and Thomas Rintoul, Institute of Iranian

Studies, University of St Andrews

21 June 2009

Chatham House is independent and owes no allegiance to government or

to any political body. It does not hold opinions of its own; the views

expressed in this text are the responsibility of the authors. This

document is issued on the understanding that if any extract is used, the

authors and Chatham House should be credited, preferably with the date

of the publication.

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 2

Executive Summary

Working from the province by province breakdowns of the 2009 and 2005

results, released by the Iranian Ministry of Interior on the Farsi pages of their

website shortly after the election, and from the 2006 census as published by

the official Statistical Centre of Iran, the following observations about the

official data and the debates surrounding it can be made.

· In two conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of

more than 100% was recorded.

· If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory was primarily caused by the

increase in voter turnout, one would expect the data to show that the

provinces with the greatest increase in voter turnout would also show

the greatest 'swing' in support towards Ahmadinejad. This is not the

case.

· In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that

Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, all former

centrist voters, and all new voters, but also up to 44% of former

reformist voters, despite a decade of conflict between these two

groups.

· In 2005, as in 2001 and 1997, conservative candidates, and

Ahmadinejad in particular, were markedly unpopular in rural areas.

That the countryside always votes conservative is a myth. The claim

that this year Ahmadinejad swept the board in more rural provinces

flies in the face of these trends.

-UPDATEThese

results are not significantly affected by the statement of the Guardian

Council that some voters may have voted outside their home district, thus

causing the irregularities highlighted by the defeated Mohsen Rezai.

Whilst it is possible for large numbers of voters to cast their ballots outside

their home district (one of 366), the proportion of people who would have cast

their votes outside their home province is much smaller, as the 30 provinces

are too large for effective commuting across borders. In Yazd, for example,

where turnout was above 100% at provincial level, there are no significant

population centres near provincial boundaries.

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 3

1. Irregularities in Voter Turnout

Two provinces show a turnout of over 100% and four more show a turnout of

over 90%. Regional variations in participation have disappeared. There is no

correlation between the increase in participation and the swing to Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad.

Firstly, across the board there is a massive increase in turnout with several

provinces increasing their participation rate by nearly 75%. This increase

results in substantially less variation in turnout between provinces, with the

standard deviation amongst provincial turnouts falling by just over 23% since

2005. The 2005 results show a substantial turnout gap, with seven provinces

recording turnout below 60%, and ten above 70%. In 2009, only two were

below 70% and 24 were above 80%. In fact, 21 out of 30 provinces had

turnouts within 5% of 83%. The data seems to suggest that regional variations

in participation have suddenly disappeared.

This makes the lack of a link between the provinces that saw an increase in

turnout and those that saw a swing to Ahmadinejad (Fig.1) all the more

unusual. There is no significant correlation between the increase in

participation for a given province and the swing to Ahmadinejad (Fig.1). The

lack of a direct relationship makes the argument that Ahmadinejad won the

election because of an increase in participation by a previously silent

conservative majority somewhat problematic.

Furthermore, there are concerns about the numbers themselves. Two

provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, have results which indicate that more votes

were cast on 12 June than there were eligible voters and that four more

provinces had turnouts of around 95%.

In a country where allegations of ‘tombstone voting’ – the practice of using the

identity documents of the deceased to cast additional ballots – are both longstanding

and widespread, this result is troubling but perhaps not unexpected.

This problem did not start with Ahmadinejad; according to official statistics

gathered by the International institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance

in Stockholm, there were 12.9% more registered voters at the time of

Mohammed Khatami’s 2001 victory than there were citizens of voting age1.

1 International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance ‘Voter Turnout

Database’, Country View: Iran

Available at http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm?CountryCode=IR

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 4

In conclusion, a number of aspects of the reported turnout figures are

problematic: the massive increases from 2005; the collapse of regional

variations; and the absence of any clear link between increases in turnout and

increased support for any one candidate.

Fig.1 There is no significant relationship between the increase in turnout in a

province, and the 'swing' of support to Ahmadinejad.

Source: Ministry of Interior Publications 2005 and 2009

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 5

2. Where did Ahmadinejad’s New Votes Come From?

According to the official Ministry of Interior voting data (see Appendix),

Mahmud Ahmadinejad has increased the conservative vote by 113%

compared to the 2005 election. There is little correlation in provincial-level

results between the increase in turnout and the swing to Ahmadinejad,

challenging the notion that a previously silent conservative majority came out

to support him. Interestingly, in 10 out of 30 provinces, mainly former Mehdi

Karrubi strongholds, the official data suggests that Ahmadinejad not only

received the votes of all former non-voters and former President, Ali Akbar

Hashemi Rafsanjani voters, but also took up to 44% of the vote from those

who had previously voted reformist.

According to the official data2, Ahmadinejad has received approximately 13m

more votes in this election than the combined conservative vote in the 2005

Presidential election3.

Assuming that Ahmadinejad retained all 11.5m conservative votes from 2005,

these additional 13m votes could have come from three sources, in

descending order of likelihood:

· The approximately 10.6m citizens who did not vote in 2005, but chose

to vote in this election

· The 6.2m citizens who voted for the centrist Rafsanjani in 2005

· The 10.4m citizens who voted for reformist candidates in 2005

In order to examine in detail where Ahmadinejad’s increased support came

from, the table below (Fig.3) shows the composition of the 2009 vote by

province, dividing it into those who voted conservative, Rafsanjani, and

reformist in 2005, and those who did not vote at all in 2005. It assumes that

2005 voters will vote again.

The table demonstrates that in the 10 of Iran’s 30 provinces highlighted, in

order for the official statistics to be correct, Ahmadinejad would have needed

2 Serious complaints have been raised about both the 2005 elections and the 2009

elections. Government data is not perfectly reliable.

3 In 2005 there were three conservative candidates in the first round. Ahmadinejad can

reasonably be expected to have received in 2009, all votes cast for conservatives in

2005. This paper compares Ahmadinejad’s 2009 performance to the combined

performance of all three conservatives in 2005.

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 6

to win over all new voters, all former Rafsanjani voters, and also up to 44% of

former reformist voters.

It is notable that many of these are provinces where the reformist cleric Mehdi

Karrubi polled highly in 2005. The government’s figures would appear to

suggest that Karrubi’s former supporters have not voted tactically for the likely

reformist challenger Mir Hussein Musavi, as many had expected, but rather

that they have defected to the hard-line conservative incumbent Ahmadinejad.

This interpretation is to some extent supported by the relationship between the

percentage of former Karrubi voters in a province and its swing to

Ahmadinejad (Fig.2).

To many reformists, this situation is extremely unlikely. Mehdi Karrubi is a

well-known reformist, whose views are diametrically opposed to

Ahmadinejad’s on issues of political and cultural freedoms, economic

management, and foreign policy. They allege fraud, and it is likely that the

provinces where Karrubi’s vote has collapsed will provide the bulk of the 600+

complaints which the defeated candidates are lodging against the conduct of

the election.

However, Karrubi, like Ahmadinejad, is seen as a ‘man of the people’, and

Ahmadinejad is as much a reincarnation of the Islamic Republic’s early hard

left as he is a leader of its current hard right. Ahmadinejad’s supporters thus

claim that rural voters voted for Ahmadinejad in 2009 for precisely the same

reasons that they voted for Karrubi in 2005.

The data offers no arbitration in this dispute, although Boudewijn Roukema’s

application of statistical fraud detection techniques to the ‘by district’ data has

turned up some anomalies with respect to the figures for Karrubi’s vote4 which

may suggest that they were created by a computer. These can be followed up

should the fully disaggregated ‘by polling station’ data be released during the

ongoing dispute.

4 B Roukena, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ‘Benford's Law Anomalies in the 200

Preliminary Analysis of Voting Figures in Iran’s 2009 Presidential Election

Chatham House - Home 7

Fig.2 If Ahmadinejad's victory was caused primarily by defections from

Karrubi, then it would be expected that Ahmadinejad would gain his greatest

swings in provinces where Karrubi had a lot of support in 2005. This could be

possible, however it is unlikely.

Source: Ministry of Interior Publications 2005 and 2009

Nomad;1212611 wrote: I suggest you do cherry pick and are extremely selective in the views you present.


Perhaps "cherry pick" has a different meaning in the US compared with the UK. Over here that would be a pretty vile insult. I most certainly don't go looking for figures which most support a position I've taken even though they're misleading, I try very hard to get as close to reliable data as I can manage. If you're suggesting my topics tend to have a similar theme that's true of all of us but it's not a reasonable use of "cherry-pick".

Dropping a deformatted 19-page report into the thread, less all its relevant tables and charts, and not giving the URL back to it, just induces a headache in anyone trying to read it. The original's at Chatham House - Publications - Reports and Papers - View Paper and I've gone through it. My first reaction is that unless they're sure that the electoral boundaries coincide with the demographic distributions (from, interestingly enough, the same table I quoted into the thread last night) their claim that some areas had an over-100% return would be hard to substantiate.

As to whether the urban-rural differentiation of previous elections would be expected to remain this year given the far larger turnout, I've no idea. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has disputed there was a larger turnout. Iran's just had four years of threats of bombing both from Israel and from the US, together with that incredibly foolish Presidential Finding authorising attempts at regime change and terrorist destabilization against Iran; the external threat has been a major plank of the hardliner campaign; why do you find it unlikely that the electorate considered those threats as the paramount driving force behind their selection? If they did then both the increased turnout and the flattening of the distribution would be expected. I'm not at all convinced the elections were systemically flawed. As I said, maybe they were too but it's not blindingly obvious or inevitably the case.

Cherry pick is not an insult. It simply means plucking. No offense was intended.

Well I dont know spock. I vote my conscience, I like puppies, I dont beat my wife, I try to be a good person and do the right thing, I work hard. I think that sums up my fellow Americans as well. I dont have any solutions for the worlds problems. I wish we could all have more tolerance for each other but that doesnt seem likely.

If you have a solution and enough of your peers agree with you you should run with it. Pursue the betterment of the world with everything youve got.

In the mean time I have to go to work and Ill play with the kitty when I get home.

It doesnt take much to make me happy.

Nomad;1212695 wrote: Well I dont know spock. I vote my conscience, I like puppies, I dont beat my wife, I try to be a good person and do the right thing, I work hard. I think that sums up my fellow Americans as well. I dont have any solutions for the worlds problems.
Try to work out how all those good Americans can vote in an administration which is neither Republican nor Democrat then, there's the answer in a nutshell. I don't think your political infrastructure makes it even slightly possible and given that both pursue the same supremacist foreign policy we're all permanently stuffed. It's in America's hands, nobody else's. If you can't collectively change your system and stop voting these killers in then you're all guilty.

spot;1212697 wrote: Try to work out how all those good Americans can vote in an administration which is neither Republican nor Democrat then, there's the answer in a nutshell. I don't think your political infrastructure makes it even slightly possible and given that both pursue the same supremacist foreign policy we're all permanently stuffed. It's in America's hands, nobody else's. If you can't collectively change your system and stop voting these killers in then you're all guilty.


And your own country is walking right along beside us. Were in bed together.

Thats not pertinent though is it ? Not in your mind.

Why is your own govt above scrutiny ?

I agree with you on the point that were guilty in some regards, however when you call all of the citizens of the US guilty because of governmental policies you degrade your own rationale as unbalanced and lacking principle.

I suspect you have an underlying reason for your sentiments that Im unclear about.

Its not reasonable to cluster the average citizen with actions of government.

Does your Prime Minister consult with you on current issues ?

Your bias is glaring and your too entwined in it to see that your not impartial.

I guess the thing that I find most striking about your conclusions is that you appear to think theres one solution. Yours.

I question your ability to understand the compexities and intricasies of our motives, intentions and actions. It would be impossible in my opinion for you to be a fair judge of humanity when your bitterness is so harshly obvious.

I would question anyones ability to reason the worlds suffering away with one pat answer.

The world isnt black and spock.

Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution that would serve not only your convictions but the majority of the people of the world.

A balanced view should provide a solution. An accurate examination would require fortitude, strength, hope and determination to appeal to all cultures. I believe my President is giving it his best shot.

So if you have an alternative solution dont hold back.

Nomad;1213009 wrote: I would question anyones ability to reason the worlds suffering away with one pat answer.

The world isnt black and spock.

Id really enjoy hearing in detail a viable solution that would serve not only your convictions but the majority of the people of the world.What a lot of questions. Perhaps if I break them into associated groups and answer each in turn? I'll start with this one because I can do it more easily than the others.

Just bear in mind I'm answering the question as set, and don't come back with a reply that changes the conditions you initially imposed.

A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right for those with no violent criminal record to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).

And since mere International Law has been inadequate to enforce the rule that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country, especially when engaged in Regime Change, without the guaranteed subsequent accountability of their political leadership at an International Court of Justice, we might get that firmed up by a second binding UN treaty signed by all countries at the same time since it's just as important and equally necessary in order for the first one to be effective. The only legitimate use of physical force within a given country is that of the country's government, other than to internationally enforce the Treaty against Genocide or within the legally defined confines of a Just War.

Now, I'd agree with you there will be an outcry from the greedier wealthier more selfish sectors of humanity but you did very carefully include the condition that the convictions of "the majority of the people of the world" should be served by the answer, and it's what I've done. The majority of the people of the world would be overjoyed. The redistribution of capital internationally would be accelerated dramatically and people could more easily establish themselves within a political environment they were most comfortable with. Families which actually want to feel safe and protected can go to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, which they currently can't, while families with a fixation on Disney and little concern for their personal safety can move to Florida.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why, as a solution, it's unviable. Not just personally unacceptable, just unviable, since viable was your word for what I was set to achieve. If you don't think I've included sufficient detail then say that too, though I can't see anything lacking just looking at it.

Countries can be as culturally diverse as they like under this scheme. Popular ones will attract more people, unpopular ones will lose them. People will move to where they feel most satisfied by their environment. And when Bangladesh disappears into the sea in sixty years there'll be no frantic begging for succour by refugees.

I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama.

Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOTuniting behind Obama!

I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge

his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him,

BUT that is it.

I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that

he is a one-term President!

Why am I doing this?

It is because I do not share Obama's vision or Value

System for America; I do not share his Abortion beliefs;

I do not share his radical Marxist's concept of

re-distributing wealth;

I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those

who make $150,000+ (the ceiling has been changed three

times since August);

I do not share his view that America is Arrogant;

I do not share his view that America is not a Christian

Nation; (THIS JUST SHOWS HE CERTAINLY ISN'T UP

ON HIS AMERICAN HISTORY!)

I do not share his view that the military should be reduced

by 25%;

I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals

than American Citizens who need help; (NO WAY, HOSEA!)

I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and

Israel is our enemy who should give up any land;

(GIMME A BREAK!)

I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has

made public);

I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the healthcare

system in America ;

I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East, and

certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist

regimes such as Iran .

Bottom line, my America is vastly different from Obama's,

and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my God

to do what is Right!

For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility

but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!

They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised

their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country! They

have portrayed my America as a land where everything is

tolerated except being intolerant!

They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years; they

have mocked and attacked the very core values so important

to the founding and growth of our Country!

They have made every effort to remove the name of God or

Jesus Christ from our Society! They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code; they have attacked one of the

most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!

Unite behind Obama? Never!

I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I

believe are the embodiment of Evil!

PRESIDENT BUSH made mistakes during his Presidency,

(EVERY PRESIDENT DOES) however; I believe that he weighed

his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!!!

Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept;

however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in

opposition to Obama and "his goals for America ."

I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left

unchecked, will destroy our Country!! Any more compromise

is more defeat!

I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who

have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist

anti-God crowd to slowly change so much of what has been

good in America !

"Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."- Ronald Reagan

spot;1213052 wrote: What a lot of questions. Perhaps if I break them into associated groups and answer each in turn? I'll start with this one because I can do it more easily than the others.



Just bear in mind I'm answering the question as set, and don't come back with a reply that changes the conditions you initially imposed.



A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).



And since mere International Law has been inadequate to enforce the rule that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country, especially when engaged in Regime Change, without the guaranteed subsequent accountability of their political leadership at an International Court of Justice, we might get that firmed up by a second binding UN treaty signed by all countries at the same time since it's just as important and equally necessary in order for the first one to be effective. The only legitimate use of physical force within a given country is that of the country's government, other than to internationally enforce the Treaty against Genocide or within the legally defined confines of a Just War.



Now, I'd agree with you there will be an outcry from the greedier wealthier more selfish sectors of humanity but you did very carefully include the condition that the convictions of "the majority of the people of the world" should be served by the answer, and it's what I've done. The majority of the people of the world would be overjoyed. The redistribution of capital internationally would be accelerated dramatically and people could more easily establish themselves within a political environment they were most comfortable with. Families which actually want to feel safe and protected can go to live in Saudi Arabia or Iran, for example, which they currently can't, while families with a fixation on Disney and little concern for their personal safety can move to Florida.



Perhaps you'd like to explain why, as a solution, it's unviable. Not just personally unacceptable, just unviable, since viable was your word for what I was set to achieve. If you don't think I've included sufficient detail then say that too, though I can't see anything lacking just looking at it.


You forgot one minor detail.

How do you make that happen ?

Nomad;1213055 wrote: You forgot one minor detail.

How do you make that happen ?


By posting the scheme on a public discussion forum. Was making it happen part of the requirement? I'd be far more interested to read your constructive criticism of my suggestion. I edited in a few extra qualifiers while you were replying, I apologise for the overlap. L'esprit de l'escalier bit me.

Hoppy, was your post really relevant to Iran's Quest For Freedom or are you just flinging posts where people are reading?

spot;1213057 wrote: By posting the scheme on a public discussion forum. Was making it happen part of the requirement? I'd be far more interested to read your constructive criticism of my suggestion.



Hoppy, was your post really relevant to Iran's Quest For Freedom or are you just flinging posts where people are reading?


Well a solution would include an effective plan of action otherwise its just one more idea amongst a billion others.

I asked him to post that.

The point being another problem that requires a solution with an effective plan.

That being how do you propose 300,000,000 of us agreeing on one leader that would suffice and alleviate your notion of our guilt ?

A binding UN treaty signed by all countries establishing a new permanent Human Right to enter and leave any country indefinitely without a visa for the purposes of recreation, residence and work, to be subject solely to local national taxation and with access to local social security (which means chiefly the health and pensions system, perhaps after a brief probationary period of local tax contributions).




Hurdle # 1

A great many of our citizens think the UN is a joke.

Nomad;1213059 wrote: how do you propose 300,000,000 of us agreeing on one leader that would suffice and alleviate your notion of our guilt ?


I don't think either your political infrastructure or your organs of law enforcement allow it. When it comes to establishing an effective political opposition the FBI has invariably lied and persecuted to bring down the movement concerned.

Nomad;1213061 wrote: Hurdle # 1

A great many of our citizens think the UN is a joke.


So? You asked for a solution acceptable to "the majority of the people of the world", not to Americans. I get 19 out of every 20 people alive, you're left with 1 out of every 20 people disgruntled.

spot;1213064 wrote: So? You asked for a solution acceptable to "the majority of the people of the world", not to Americans. I get 19 out of every 20 people alive, you're left with 1 out of every 20 people disgruntled.


Tell the truth now spock...did you not just cherry pick those equations or are you being silly on a Sat. morning ?











I don't think either your political infrastructure or your organs of law enforcement allow it. When it comes to establishing an effective political opposition the FBI has invariably lied and persecuted to bring down the movement concerned.




Thats nonsense. If you really believe the FBI has the ability or inclination to eradicate the Ron Pauls or Ralph Naders then you must be categorized as a conspiracy theorist. That falls into the paranoid field. (the less than 1% of the population realm) (the whackos)

Nomad;1213067 wrote: Tell the truth now spock...did you not just cherry pick those equations or are you being silly on a Sat. morning ?


5% of the world's population lives in the USA, surely. One in twenty. 300 million rednecks and 6 billion plus left over to practice real life.



Thats nonsense. If you really believe the FBI has the ability or inclination to eradicate the Ron Pauls or Ralph Naders then you must be categorized as a conspiracy theorist. That falls into the paranoid field. (the less than 1% of the population realm) (the whackos)


You seem not to have much of a grasp of the history of the Communist Party of America. The lying and violence involved in suppressing it was extreme. The same goes for holding down the union movements over the last 130 years, I'd call those political too.

[quote=spot;1213072]5% of the world's population lives in the USA, surely. One in twenty. 300 million rednecks and 6 billion plus left over to practice real life.

quote]



Speaking of Disneyland you should apply to be the Goofy character.

Ok lets be honest shall we ?

We all know that the UK is superior in all regards to all other life forms. Lets just get that out there and accept it.

I can live with that.

Can I have some oatmeal ?

Nomad wrote: Speaking of Disneyland you should apply to be the Goofy character.

Ok lets be honest shall we ?

We all know that the UK is superior in all regards to all other life forms. Lets just get that out there and accept it.

I can live with that.

Can I have some oatmeal ?


I'd be far more interested to read your constructive criticism of my suggestion. I edited in a few extra qualifiers while you were replying, I apologise for the overlap. L'esprit de l'escalier bit me.