The authorities were faced with a credible challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had the potential to challenge the existing power structure on certain key issues. He ran a surprisingly effective campaign, and his “green wave” began to be seen as more than a wave. In fact, many began calling it a Green Revolution. For a regime that has been terrified about the possibility of a “velvet revolution,” this may have been too much.



On the basis of what we know so far, here is the sequence of events starting on the afternoon of election day, Friday, June 12.



• Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide



• Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers



• The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men



• National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner



• The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency



• But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad



• Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility



• The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility



• Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to constitutional requirements



• Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.



All of this had the appearance of a well orchestrated strike intended to take its opponents by surprise-- the classic definition of a coup. Curiously, this was not a coup of an outside group against the ruling elite; it was a coup of the ruling elite against its own people.



It is still too early for anything like a comprehensive analysis of implications, but here are some initial thoughts:



1. The willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran’s Islamic revolution. All previous leaders at least paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that Iran’s leaders are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of many (most?) of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power.



2. The Iranian opposition, which includes some very powerful individuals and institutions, has an agonizing decision to make. If they are intimidated and silenced by the show of force (as they have been in the past), they will lose all credibility in the future with even their most devoted followers. But if they choose to confront their ruthless colleagues forcefully, not only is it likely to be messy but it could risk running out of control and potentially bring down the entire existing power structure, of which they are participants and beneficiaries.



3. With regard to the United States and the West, nothing would prevent them in principle from dealing with an illegitimate authoritarian government. We do it every day, and have done so for years (the Soviet Union comes to mind). But this election is an extraordinary gift to those who have been most skeptical about President Obama’s plan to conduct negotiations with Iran. Former Bush official Elliott Abrams was quick off the mark, commenting that it is “likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.” Two senior Israeli officials quickly urged the world not to engage in negotiations with Iran. Neoconservatives who had already expressed their support for an Ahmadinejad victory now have every reason to be satisfied. Opposition forces, previously on the defensive, now have a perfect opportunity to mount a political attack that will make it even more difficult for President Obama to proceed with his plan.

Certainly, we are concerned about spontaneous reactions. Iran's youth has been engaged and mobilized. Around the country, there have already been some violent clashes.



We do not agree with violence, because violence will only give the Right an excuse to suppress the opposition.



Certainly, the gap inside Iran, politically, will be widened. Our main concern is how to keep the enthusiasm that was created for the election alive, in order to monitor and constrain the power of the government. The only way to counter it is the power of the people. We need to organize them.



In this we have an experience to guide us. During the era of the Shah, there was only one moment in which the power of the people was mobilized against the Shah and to support changes in the Constitution, and that was during the era of [Prime Minister] Mossadegh. [Mossadegh was ousted in the 1953 coup organized by the CIA and British intelligence.] In that era, there was a very powerful political movement inside the country that checked the power of the Shah. Today we have to do the same. We are nor after subversion. We do not want to change the Constitution. We do want to create a viable political force that can exert its influence.

engaged and mobilized

Although the United States is pursuing diplomacy with Iran in its own self-interest, electoral fraud (or the perception of fraud) complicates this strategy. And if political paralysis reigns in Iran, valuable time to address the nuclear issue through diplomacy will be lost. The White House's posture thus far is a constructive one -- while it cannot remain indifferent to irregularities in the elections, it must be careful never to get ahead of the Iranian people and the anti-Ahmadinejad candidates.

Rightists have already decided that the Iranian election was stolen; maybe it was; maybe it wasn't . But rightists want everyone to run out and buy the new book by compulsive liar and reactionary Iranian exile Amir Taheri, The Persian Night: Iran under the Khomeinist Revolution . Most Americans know Taheri because CNN and theuse him as a commentator whenever they want to slant a story against the Iranian government-- despite the fact that his hysterical pronouncements (like Jews being forced to wear special clothes) are consistently shown to have been pulled out of his ass. Despite Taheri and a gaggle of right-wing propagandists, it is possible that Ali Khamenei and Ahmadinejad pulled off in Iran just what the Bush family pulled off in Florida in 2000 and again in Ohio in 2004-- essentially, a coup against democracy. Gary Sick, an Iran expert, a professor at Columbia and a far more reliable source of analysis than the deranged Taheri, explains the ramifications of what may have been a coup Yesterday we thought the protests against the purported theft of the Irani presidential election would result in about the same level of protest as the result in 2000 at the theft of the U.S. presidential election. America yawned as they surrendered any claim to democracy. Iranians, however, didn't . Iranians are out in the streets demonstrating against not just Ahmadinejad but, unthinkably, Ali Khamenei. Everything I'm reading is telling me that the Islamic Republic regime is losing legitimacy -- at least in Tehran, maybe just North Tehran. Former Iranian Foreign Minister Ibrahim Yazdi, now an exile and a dissident:Will this get out of hand and turn into an actual civil war ? Look at this clip. Someone'smad as hell and doesn't want to take it any more:Trita Parsi, founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, writing persuasively at Passport , a blog set up by the editors of, warns that ever-truculent neo-cons, who openly rooted for Amadinejad for just this reason, want Obama to put the breaks on an outreach to Iran. Even if the election was rigged, as just about everyone believes, does this mean Obama needs to change his policy agenda?

Labels: Iran