Senior U.S. official: Yes, the Iranian election was rigged; Update: 50-100 dead? Update: We’ll still work with Iran, says White House

posted at 3:47 pm on June 13, 2009 by Allahpundit

The White House is playing it cool lest U.S. support for Mousavi discredit his supporters but U.S. analysts have little doubt. The fix is indeed in:

U.S. analysts find it “not credible” that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results “final” and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections…

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama’s gestures of engagement.

Maybe. Or maybe popular unrest will force them to clamp down harder, become more recalcitrant about negotiations, and double down on nationalist propaganda about nukes to get the public back on their side. More from Time on what a shabby fraud this was:

By Saturday morning, the most often repeated exclamation in Tehran was: “It’s not possible!”…

A group of young men said they had talked to their families in the provinces, including Kurdish Kermanshah, Azeri Oroumiyeh and Ardeblil. Mohsen, 23, said, “Everyone in Tabriz [Mousavi's hometown] voted for Mousavi. The official count says a majority for Ahmadinejad. That’s not possible.” Mehdi, 27, chimed in, “Even if just Karroubi’s family in Lorestan had voted for him, he would have won more than 300,000 votes.”

More serious allegations came from officials involved in the various reformist candidates’ campaigns. Mohammad-Ali Abtahi, part of opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi’s campaign, pointed out that the government “announced a wholesale figure of 70% for Ahmadinejad last night, as opposed to breaking it down province by province as they usually do.” The first figures were announced shortly after voting closed, he added. A breakdown of how people in each city and province voted has not been released yet.

At the Mousavi headquarters, former Interior Minister Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour protested that Mousavi observers had not gained access to many of the polling centers. He also said that in Tabriz, Mousavi’s birthplace, many of the polling stations had run out of ballots only two hours after opening, even though about 59 million ballots had been printed by the government, about 13 million more than the number of eligible voters.

The regime shut down text messaging across the country yesterday too to hamper organization of the protests they knew would follow the results. Even so, the Beeb says street violence today is the worst Tehran has seen in 10 years, replete with Iranian cops beating women with nightsticks. The clip below will give you a taste but see Michael Totten for more vids, including one of a monster rally where protesters chanted “Death to the government.” There’s also a hot rumor going around that Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, current head of the powerful Assembly of Experts, and rival-in-chief to Ahmadinejad, has resigned from the Expediency Council in protest of the results, a move which should go a long way towards delegitimizing them. After 30 years, only a diehard optimist would bet on this clusterfark exploding into full-fledged counterrevolution, but the more discredited the regime is and the more alienated Iranians feel from it, the more leverage the west has to get tough with them over the nuclear impasse. Assuming, of course, that the political will to do so exists. Which it doesn’t.

As I write this, news is breaking that Mousavi’s been arrested, which would be the second big mistake the mullahs have made in the last 24 hours. Three questions now as things heat up. One: Why didn’t they rig the vote in a more convincing way? Everyone expected the margin to be close after such a nasty campaign; a close Ahmadinejad win, with Mousavi victorious in the urban areas he was supposed to carry, would have been credible. I guess they figured that a narrow defeat would be treated as even more suspect by Mousavi’s supporters, so they went in the opposite direction and made it a landslide — to an implausible degree, as it turned out. Two: With the regime more illegitimate than ever, where does this leave The One vis-a-vis nuke negotiations? He’s been careful in the past to distinguish Khamenei from the more toxic Ahmadinejad, but Khamenei blessed the results today as a “divine assessment.” His credibility’s shot now, too. If Obama meets with him anyway, it’ll put the U.S. on the side of a sham government against the Iranian people more starkly than ever before. Three: Did Khamenei order the election rigged on Ahmadinejad’s behalf or did Ahmadinejad order the election rigged on his own behalf? That is to say, who really controls the levers of power in Iran? If you read nothing else I’ve linked here, at least read this fascinating interview in the Nation with a former Iranian minister who argues that because Dinnerjacket is closely allied with the fantastically powerful Revolutionary Guard (and a former Guardsman himself) and oversees the ministries that keep Khamenei informed of what’s happening, he can effectively isolate and manipulate him. Maybe — maybe — the situation in Iran is now less a case of Khamenei using Ahmadinejad as a public mouthpiece than vice versa. Good luck, Barry.

Update: At the Standard, Stephen Hayes says it’s time for a new Obama speech challenging the results on behalf of the Iranian people. If he does that, though, then nuke negotiations are well and truly dead; the regime’s not going to chat with a guy who’s basically calling for it to be overthrown, in which case the military option is the only solution left to stopping an Iranian bomb. Think The One’s going to leave himself with that hand?

Update: Another must-read at Foreign Policy’s blog The Cable rounding up reaction from Iranian experts. No one but no one is taking the election numbers seriously, which makes this a full-blown legitimacy crisis for a regime that’s never been very legitimate to begin with. I can’t believe they FUBAR’d the fix this badly.

Update: Tehran Bureau, a site for independent Iranian journalism, claims there are 50 to 100 people dead from Iranian cops’ thuggery at protests today. Plus thus tidbit, proving that this is in fact a coup:

Two interesting points on Iranian election:

1. After election results were announced, the election committee must wait for three days to accept any grievances for any irregularity before certify the results.

2. The results of election needs to be certified by the Council of Experts before it goes to the Leader for final approval

Today neither of these two rules were followed and the Leader in his speech approved the results of the election and asked all parties involved to work with Ahmadinejad.

Follow the link for videos galore. And see this post too for a graph that’s as much of a smoking gun as LGF’s famous Rathergate graphic was.

Update: Steve Hayes had better not hold his breath waiting for that Obama speech. The White House says it’s full speed ahead on “dialogue.”

The Obama administration is determined to press on with efforts to engage the Iranian government, senior officials said Saturday, despite misgivings about irregularities in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…

“This is the worst result,” said Thomas R. Pickering, a former under secretary of state. “The U.S. will have to worry about being perceived as pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question. It clearly makes the notion of providing incentives quite unappetizing.”

Presumably the thinking here is that public outrage in Iran will weaken the mullahs’ hand against the U.S. and force them to accept some grand bargain, in which case Obama’s basically offering them legitimacy in exchange for denuclearization. The more likely outcome, though, is that the regime will continue to jerk him around while it builds a bomb and then count on its announcement that Iran has become a nuclear state to stoke national pride and win over its disaffected public. In which case Obama will have given them legitimacy in exchange for nothing. Terrific.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sad thing is I read that Newsweek has an article out today that demands Obama get tough

with Israel.

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Well it’s the official print mouthpiece for the Obama administration so no surprise there.

Lance Murdock on June 13, 2009 at 5:41 PM

capejasmine on June 13, 2009 at 5:38 PM

Turn it around cape. for all my poison and vitriol against obama a little nagging voice is telling me they may be hoping the Israelis take the Iranian nuke crisis to the “next” level where they can then come in and play peacemaker after the initial strikes. Maybe at that point the Iranians will de nuke or be subject to more sanctions or more Israeli attacks. who knows…

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Sad thing is I read that Newsweek has an article out today that demands Obama get tough

with Israel.

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 5:39 PM

I have no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what the “gird your loins” babble was about. Crazy Joe was told that The Precedent planned to turn on Israel, in a serious way. Just wait, the problems in Iran will be blamed on Israeli settlements. No joke.

progressoverpeace on June 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM

I have no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what the “gird your loins” babble was about. Crazy Joe was told that The Precedent planned to turn on Israel, in a serious way. Just wait, the problems in Iran will be blamed on Israeli settlements. No joke.

progressoverpeace on June 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Already happening

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM

It just proves how trustworthy they are.

If they say they only want nukes for domestic energy, I’m sure they’re not lying.
Maobama believes them….it must be true.

Itchee Dryback on June 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Stinky and his boys stole the election? Maybe they were trained by ACORN! HA! HA! HA!

RMR on June 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Our news media has been telling us that Mousavi is as much of a puppet to the Supreme Leader as Ahmadinejad. If he is a puppet why didn’t the Khameini just let him win? I don’t get it?

terryannonline on June 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Presumably the thinking here is that public outrage in Iran will weaken the mullahs’ hand against the U.S. and force them to accept some grand bargain,

Oh yeah that will work, just about as well as the stimulus plan.

conservnut on June 13, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Stinky and his boys stole the election? Maybe they were trained by ACORN! HA! HA! HA!

RMR on June 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Or, here’s a thought. ACORN was trained by them.

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Now is the time to make the hardest push to destabilize that regime. Unfortunately for us, that fool won’t make the move to finally push Iran over. For years we heard about how the majority of Iranians are more moderate, and how they want out of the insanity in Iran.

If we had a President with human decency, he’d press hard and free these people from hell. But he’s too much of a bastard to care about other people.

John_Locke on June 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Already happening

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Oh that’s just freaking peachy! dip$hits!

conservnut on June 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM

terryannonline on June 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Exactly what I was wondering. It would have made people feel there was change and you know hope. Right now the Iranians are convinced the whole thing was a sham and fuels further outrage.

msmveritas on June 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM

The Obama administration is determined to press on with efforts to engage the Iranian government, senior officials said Saturday, despite misgivings about irregularities in the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…

Irregularities? Why does that not surprise me. Whenever the Democrats refer to a fixed/stolen election, it’s merely “irregularities”. I guess that they assume that the election should naturally be that way and that the “irregularities” are that anybody complains about it. Wow.

Theophile on June 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM

I think war is now a fait accompli. Its now just a matter of when the shooting starts and who pulls the trigger first.

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 5:46 PM

Yep. That’s going to be the line from now to the end. But it’s going to get much, much worse. I don’t even want to go into what I think this junta in Washington is going to do in trying to further demonize Israel. It just all disgusts me too much.

progressoverpeace on June 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Very nice job on tying a lot of strings together, AP. This post right here, with its links and updates, is a fantastic example of the information power of the web. The graph at the NYT updates page was hilarious. Did whoever was in charge of this Keystone Kops evolution in Iran really think it would be possible to hide what was going on from either the Iranians, or the rest of the world?

J.E. Dyer on June 13, 2009 at 5:56 PM

I imagine our presidential election in 2012 will look very similar to Iran’s.

Star20 on June 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM

Our news media has been telling us that Mousavi is as much of a puppet to the Supreme Leader as Ahmadinejad. If he is a puppet why didn’t the Khameini just let him win? I don’t get it?

terryannonline on June 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Maybe the lesson we should draw from this little exercise is that the Revolutionary Guard, not the Mullahs and not the President are the real power in Iran. Which means that no negotiation, election, sanction, or economic collapse will change Iran anymore. Only open revolt and or foreign military attack or outright invasion will change anything.

Don’t tell anyone but Barry’s policy is in deep shiite right about now.

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 6:01 PM

It is amazing how many people think you would have to rig a puppet show to get the results you want. What part of “supreme leader who must give his approval” do people not understand? Everyone is bamboozled by the empty miming of western electoral procedure. And the hordes of sophisticated urbane western leaning youths….always quaint, but worn to gossamer.

In the end they are Muslims.

BL@KBIRD on June 13, 2009 at 6:04 PM

Now is the time to make the hardest push to destabilize that regime. Unfortunately for us, that fool won’t make the move to finally push Iran over. For years we heard about how the majority of Iranians are more moderate, and how they want out of the insanity in Iran.

If we had a President with human decency, he’d press hard and free these people from hell. But he’s too much of a bastard to care about other people.

John_Locke on June 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Yep, where is George Bush when you need him?
Barry just wants to eat his waffle.

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Great….that means we’ll have to put up with the little twerp in 70′s leisure suit until the next election.

yoda on June 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM

At the Mousavi headquarters, former Interior Minister Ali Akbar Mohtashamipour protested that Mousavi observers had not gained access to many of the polling centers

Do they have the New Black Panther Party also there in Iran??

ted c on June 13, 2009 at 6:08 PM

What a mess. Good thing they don’t have nukes…er…

WisCon on June 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM

While Amedinejad is a fascist, he is also a socialist on economics. I doubt that Obama prefers Netanyahu to him.

KW64 on June 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM

I imagine our presidential election in 2012 will look very similar to Iran’s.

Star20 on June 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM

I beat you too it….

Heh, Heh, this is how America will look if Obama “wins” in 2012……….

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM

I think Barry is watching the YouTube and making notes about how to crack heads on Nov. 4, 2012

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM

“The U.S. will have to worry about being perceived as pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question. It clearly makes the notion of providing incentives quite unappetizing.”

Pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question….. does a birth certificate and ACORN involvement throw any other president’s legitimacy into question….just askin’

ted c on June 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Great….that means we’ll have to put up with the little twerp in 70’s leisure suit until the next election.

yoda on June 13, 2009 at 6:07 PM

You mean like the folks in Cuba, North Korea & China???

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Whats the Iranian version of ACORN called?

FontanaConservative on June 13, 2009 at 6:13 PM

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Someone by the name of “Silver” in reporting that 2008 looked like this. He breaks the US vote into waves alphabetically, and then charts them, and the correlation comes out about the same as the Iranian result, as far as divination from a strait line goes. I can’t help but thinking he must have picked his waves to give that result, but then, the US apparently isn’t as Balkenized as Iran is.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question….. does a birth certificate and ACORN involvement throw any other president’s legitimacy into question….just askin’

ted c on June 13, 2009 at 6:10 PM

+100

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:15 PM

Whats the Iranian version of ACORN called?

FontanaConservative on June 13, 2009 at 6:13 PM

The Republican Guard, I think.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2009 at 6:16 PM

The Republican Guard, I think.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2009 at 6:16 PM

Revolutionary Guard.

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Thugs on the march

The country’s powerful Revolutionary Guard has issued a sharp warning to the president’s chief rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, that it would crush any attempt at a popular “revolution” inspired by the huge rallies and street parties calling for more freedoms, the Associated Press reports.

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 6:19 PM

Revolutionary Guard.

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Ah, I stand corrected.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM

If we ever have another presidential election, consider this a peek into our future.

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM

What does Obama have to gain from a nuclear armed Iran governed by radical mullahs?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Christine Gregoire and Al Franken were quick to call and congratulate Achmadenijad on his honest victory.

viking01 on June 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM

What does Obama have to gain from a nuclear armed Iran governed by radical mullahs?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Scary thought. “Social Justice?”

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM

phew…

At least Iran is one of those Theocracies that embraces the Religion of Peas.

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM

What does Obama have to gain from a nuclear armed Iran governed by radical mullahs?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM

The destruction of Israel?

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM

If we ever have another presidential election, consider this a peek into our future.

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Exactly. But our State Run Media will have to become a little more objective for a realistic comparison to the State Run media in Iran.

Geochelone on June 13, 2009 at 6:29 PM

progressoverpeace on June 13, 2009 at 5:43 PM

“And here’s the point I want to make. Mark my words. Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough – I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen. I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you, not financially to help him, we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right. Because all these decisions, all these decisions, once they’re made if they work, then they weren’t viewed as a crisis. If they don’t work, it’s viewed as you didn’t make the right decision, a little bit like how we hesitated so long dealing with Bosnia and dealing with Kosovo, and consequently 200,000 people lost their lives that maybe didn’t have to lose lives. It’s how we made a mistake in Iraq. We made a mistake in Somalia. So there’s gonna be some tough decisions.
————————————-

I think you’re right. Joe is asking for support. He asks several times. I have no doubt because turning on Israel will be so insane, unprecedented and dangerous, Obama will need every person he can get to quell the protestations!

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM

William Amos on June 13, 2009 at 6:19 PM

I read that report very early around 4am eastern yesterday morning and that’s when I knew the “fix” was in.

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM

At the Standard, Stephen Hayes says it’s time for a new Obama speech challenging the results on behalf of the Iranian people.

If Obama has a shred of decency in him, a shred of belief in democracy in him, a shred of belief in human rights in him, and particularly given the following two “tidbits”, that is exactly what he will do. If he does not then he is a tyrant who supports tyrants and is an abomination on America and is no longer a legitimate President of the United States, if he ever was.

news is breaking that Mousavi’s been arrested

Tehran Bureau, a site for independent Iranian journalism, claims there are 50 to 100 people dead from Iranian cops’ thuggery at protests today.

MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Wow. That magical “Hope and Change” is a real bitch, isn’t it? I thought that once the One was elected, all of these problems would melt away….

mjk on June 13, 2009 at 6:32 PM

What the heck?

mjk on June 13, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Lefties just care that an election was held. They don’t mind if it was rigged. As long an America friendly guy isn’t elected anyway.

Speedwagon82 on June 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM

What does Obama have to gain from a nuclear armed Iran governed by radical mullahs?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Oil price instability. Our strategic retreat from the middle east. Abandonment of Israel. Spread of Shiite Islam. Proliferation of the Sunni Nuke.

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Tehran Bureau, a site for independent Iranian journalism, claims there are 50 to 100 people dead from Iranian cops’ thuggery at protests today.

MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:31 PM

Dang, why didn’t Bush arrest Gore?

Oh, that’s right.

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:28 PM

So far, everything Obama does is either for himself, against his enemies, bungling errors, or something grand scheme to please his supporters.

So, sitting back and continuing to appease Iran must fit serve one of these functions. I don’t think it’s one of his gaffes. So, it must be something else.

While the destruction of Israel might seem to make sense, he can’t stop an Israeli first strike. However, he might be able to get sanctions against Israel if they did strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Could that be what he wants? To let Iran threaten Israel to the point that they strike, so Obama can then have an excuse to isolate and punish Israel?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM

I imagine our presidential election in 2012 will look very similar to Iran’s.

Star20 on June 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM

I beat you too it….

Heh, Heh, this is how America will look if Obama “wins” in 2012……….

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM

.

I call “First!” LOL:

Obama’s probably on the phone with ACORN right now saying, “See what happened in Iran? I hope you guys are taking notes…”

NightmareOnKStreet on June 13, 2009 at

.

But seriously- I’m sure we’re all praying for the Iranian people to have the strength to prevail.

NightmareOnKStreet on June 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM

John_Locke on June 13, 2009 at 5:52 PM

There are a lot of honked off people there and the harder the Irans thugocracy squeezes the crazier the people will become and they all have easy access to automatic weapons…

dogsoldier on June 13, 2009 at 6:37 PM

Tehran Bureau, a site for independent Iranian journalism, claims there are 50 to 100 people dead from Iranian cops’ thuggery at protests today.
MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:31 PM

To Obama this is robust debate. This man thrives on chaos and we will find ourselves in a similiar situtation of we don’t do something to stop this man’s agenda.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:39 PM

The country’s powerful Revolutionary Guard has issued a sharp warning to the president’s chief rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, that it would crush any attempt at a popular “revolution” inspired by the huge rallies and street parties calling for more freedoms, the Associated Press reports.

You think they will go “Cambodia” and kill millions of people? It is a different world now. I don’t think even the Revolutionary Guard could stop millions of people. What is Ahmadinejad going to do? He would have to have Hamas & Hezbollah help him? I guess Syria might send in some troops. What would Obama do if he saw the “peaceful” Muslims slaughtering each other. I guess the UN would meet and send a stern warning??

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM

So far, everything Obama does is either for himself, against his enemies, bungling errors, or something grand scheme to please his supporters.

So, sitting back and continuing to appease Iran must fit serve one of these functions. I don’t think it’s one of his gaffes. So, it must be something else.

Inductive reasoning I see… I tend to agree, mostly because I shudder at the thought of a 5th category. I’m still going to say that this has something to do with “Social Justice.”

While the destruction of Israel might seem to make sense, he can’t stop an Israeli first strike. However, he might be able to get sanctions against Israel if they did strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Could that be what he wants? To let Iran threaten Israel to the point that they strike, so Obama can then have an excuse to isolate and punish Israel?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Perhaps. I think he wants to punish them. That said, I think you’d see some Donks get upset over this. The NY senators, Lieberman, and Rahm come to mind.

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Sounds a lot like what will happen here very soon.
I never thought it would… but we are there.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:43 PM

I things get really crazy I would imagine Israel has planned for this situation and would launch a strike while Ahmadinejad has his hands filled with his own people’s blood.

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:45 PM

Sounds a lot like what will happen here very soon.
I never thought it would… but we are there.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:43 PM

July 4th is coming…

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I things get really crazy I would imagine Israel has planned for this situation and would launch a strike while Ahmadinejad has his hands filled with his own people’s blood.

izoneguy on June 13, 2009 at 6:45 PM

More like Khameini…

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Sounds a lot like what will happen here very soon.
I never thought it would… but we are there.

No we’re not.

We’re so far from Iran vis-a-vis elections and self-government that the Hubble Telescope would be useless.

Geez….

SteveMG on June 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

If Obama has a shred of decency in him, a shred of belief in democracy in him, a shred of belief in human rights in him, and particularly if it is true that Mousavi’s been arrested and if it’s true that dozens of election rigging protesters have been killed by the Iranian regime, he will at the very least challenge the election results on behalf of the Iranian people.

If he does not then he is a tyrant who supports tyrants and is an abomination on America and is no longer a legitimate President of the United States, if he ever was, and the cry should go forth, “Mr. Obama, have you no shame?”.

MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

if obama won’t say the right thing,

then it’s time for the shah’s son to take the lead

and demand that iran be sanctioned a

nd denied all international access and relations;

they should be completely bottled up.

a sea and air blockade. no trade. no loans. no gasoline.

NADA.

and then bombed into submission.

from my blog on the election:

DOES ANY SANE PERSON BELIEVE THAT THE IRANIAN MULLAHCRACY WILL EVER STEP DOWN VOLUNTARILY AS THE RESULT OF AN ELECTION!?

Ahmadinejad was declared the winner.

The people know it’s a sham. They’re rioting. Scores have been killed.

Did anyone think it would end any other way!?

The islamo-tyrants who call the shots will never step down as the result of an election.

They will have to be annihilated by a democratic revolution – which might occur as a result of this sham election – or a revolt brought on by a massive preemptive attack.

OR BOTH.

Which means the best time to attack Iran’s nuke sites is RIGHT NOW!

reliapundit on June 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

While the destruction of Israel might seem to make sense, he can’t stop an Israeli first strike. However, he might be able to get sanctions against Israel if they did strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Could that be what he wants? To let Iran threaten Israel to the point that they strike, so Obama can then have an excuse to isolate and punish Israel?

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Yes, probably. Israel strikes Iran. The USA condemns Israel. With Obama in office, Israel’s enemies know that Israel cannot expect ANY support from the USA. They’re officially an easier, lone target surrounded by hostile forces.

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:48 PM

July 4th is coming…

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:45 PM

I was thinking more like a rigged 2010 election.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:48 PM

If he does not then he is a tyrant who supports tyrants and is an abomination on America and is no longer a legitimate President of the United States, if he ever was, and the cry should go forth, “Mr. Obama, have you no shame?”.

MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Yeah, remember what the left said when Bush DIDN’T negotiate with Hamas…

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Barry and friends appear to have forgotten who runs Iran, and it ain’t the people.

GarandFan on June 13, 2009 at 6:49 PM

To Obama this is robust debate. This man thrives on chaos and we will find ourselves in a similiar situtation of we don’t do something to stop this man’s agenda.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:39 PM

I’m glad you see it. Obama is a professional instigator. His goal is to throw the USA into massive crisis and chaos in order to grab power he could never get through legitimate means.

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:50 PM

Perhaps. I think he wants to punish them. That said, I think you’d see some Donks get upset over this. The NY senators, Lieberman, and Rahm come to mind.

Upstater85 on June 13, 2009 at 6:40 PM

That one confuses me too. I can’t even begin to understand why this behavior, and loathing at Israel, is ok with the Jewish community here? I’m not Jewish, and it sure as hell upsets me.

capejasmine on June 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM

I think it is going to be difficult to blame this on Isreal, I don’t care how hard they try. The American people are very strong supporters of Israel and elections like this are one of the reasons why.

Just think the Iraqis did a better job of having a real election than the Iranians did.

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

One: Why didn’t they rig the vote in a more convincing way?

I don’t know if this was said before: Ahmadinajad had to get 60% in order to avoid a second round. Maybe he just didn’t want to risk it.

Phoenician on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

We sent Israel no arms in 1948. None again in 56. Zero in 72. Our good sister has the know-how of using what she has and getting what she needs. When the smoke clears will do just like we did in 49, 57, 73…..sell them replacements.

She is a beauty, that sister of ours. No way I’m gonna abandon her to the wolves, even if my government will.

Limerick on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

If Obama has a shred of decency in him, a shred of belief in democracy in him, a shred of belief in human rights in him…

MB4 on June 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Surely, you jest. And I apologize for calling you surley.

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Obama giving Iran nukes for nothing really isn’t a problem, as Obama was doing that anyway.

Hell, Obama is half on board with Iran using one of the things on Israel.

thgrant on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 6:50 PM

His first real job (/) was a communtiy agitator.
Now he simply has the entire globe to perfect his skills on.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 6:54 PM

John Podhoretz points out something I was thinking:

If this is Tienanmen II [and the supposed strength of the anti-regime youth has been overstated], and the regime crushes it, there will be no easy approach to regime change. And there will be no pretending any longer that Iran’s regime isn’t a unified, hardline, irridentist, and enormously dangerous one.

The next months, weeks?, will tell us that answer.

Tienamen II – a small easily suppressed uprising limited to a small group of young people – or something bigger?

SteveMG on June 13, 2009 at 6:55 PM

katy:

I don’t think so. In 2010 there will be a midterm, that means lots and lots of local elections. It is not that easy in this country to rig something like that. I mean I am sure that ACORN can come up with some bogus votes, but I also think that there is a good chance that local people at local polling places all over the country will do the right thing.

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM

We sent Israel no arms in 1948. None again in 56. Zero in 72. Our good sister has the know-how of using what she has and getting what she needs. When the smoke clears will do just like we did in 49, 57, 73…..sell them replacements.

She is a beauty, that sister of ours. No way I’m gonna abandon her to the wolves, even if my government will.

Limerick on June 13, 2009 at 6:53 PM

In 72, Nixon promised them resupply, which meant that they didn’t have to conserve fuel and ammo. Makes all the difference.

Count to 10 on June 13, 2009 at 6:57 PM

One thing is plain, these dictators in Iran and Syria and North Korea sure as hell are not afraid of Barack Obama.

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:57 PM

The US did not really intervene for the Israelis until the 70s and that was because there was some fear that the Israelis really would be obliterated. So many enemies.

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:59 PM

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM
‘dlove to believe this… but ACORN can do the same damage they did last year on the local scene.

They only have to target key states, not all 57 (in world anyway).
So they’ll be over staffed, over paid and over zealous to hold on to power.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 7:01 PM

That was not suppose to be a strike.

katy on June 13, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 6:56 PM
I’d love to believe this… but ACORN can do the same damage they did last year on the local scene.

They only have to target key states, not all 57 (in world anyway).
So they’ll be over staffed, over paid and over zealous to hold on to power.
katy on June 13, 2009 at 7:01 PM

katy on June 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM

( in Obama’s world anyway)

Sheesh. I quit!

katy on June 13, 2009 at 7:04 PM

That one confuses me too. I can’t even begin to understand why this behavior, and loathing at Israel, is ok with the Jewish community here? I’m not Jewish, and it sure as hell upsets me.

capejasmine on June 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM

Most Arabs distrust and dislike the Iranians. Most Muslims and Arabs are Sunni, while Iran is Shi’a, and there is a conflict between them, often as hot as the conflict between Muslims and Israel. So, as Obama’s Muslim roots seem more closely tied to the Arabs and Sunni, it seems most odd that he would be willing to appease and thereby bolster Iran as it is in the process of developing nuclear weapons and missile technology.

However, if such appeasement led to a devastating Israel strike against Iran and the US was then “forced” to take extreme punitive measures against Israel which could improve chances for their collapse or capitulation in a “peace” treaty, Obama’s friend, King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, might get two birds killed with one stone.

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 7:05 PM

If we had a President with human decency, he’d press hard and free these people from hell. But he’s too much of a bastard to care about other people.

No no no no no. We can no longer “free” anybody. That would be forcing the notion of democracy on them, see. And all other forms of government are every bit just as good as ours, see.

This is the new enlightened way.

Alana on June 13, 2009 at 7:08 PM

Next up…Obama will win re-election and Romney’s family would not have voted for him.

orlandocajun on June 13, 2009 at 7:11 PM

Israeli FM urges uncompromising action on Iran

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371084436&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

elduende on June 13, 2009 at 7:18 PM

Barry and friends appear to have forgotten who runs Iran, and it ain’t the people.

GarandFan on June 13, 2009 at 6:49 PM

He prefers things that way, regardless which country it is.

Alana on June 13, 2009 at 7:19 PM

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama’s gestures of engagement.

Bwahahahahahahahaha….

What the f#ck are those morons smoking?!?!?!?

100:1 odds dinnerjacket tells Dear Leader to stuff it.

CPT. Charles on June 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM

At the Standard, Stephen Hayes says it’s time for a new Obama speech challenging the results on behalf of the Iranian people. If he does that, though, then nuke negotiations are well and truly dead;

WTF!! Their dead NOW, they’ve been DEAD since day one!

GarandFan on June 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM

katy:

I don’t think so. For one thing, I think Obama would have won even without ACORN. For another there are literally thousands of polling places in this country. In small towns like the one I live near here, I actually know the people who do the elections.

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM

What the f#ck are those morons smoking?!?!?!?

100:1 odds dinnerjacket tells Dear Leader to stuff it.

CPT. Charles on June 13, 2009 at 7:22 PM

I swear – I bet Obama and his closest cronies come up with these things and then laugh about them in private. “People will believe ANYTHING.”

Felonious Monk on June 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Loxodonta:

I don’t think the US would take punitive steps against Israel. Just what is punitive anyway?

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 7:28 PM

Chairman Obama prefers to deal with dictators anyway, Carter school. Watch for messages of “hope and change” from Tehran and DC.

Reality Check on June 13, 2009 at 7:36 PM

Somebody has probably already pointed this out, but the other day Obama and his surrogates in the government run media were claiming that if Ahmadinejad loses that we have Obama’s speech to thank.

It seems this means Obama’s speech was a dismal failure.

FloatingRock on June 13, 2009 at 7:38 PM

It seems this means Obama’s speech was a dismal failure.

That’s assuming that Ahmadinejad really didn’t lose. I.e., the election was stolen.

I think the coming few weeks or months will answer that. If there are systematic and sustained protests, then there really is an anti-clerical movement in the nation and this election was indeed stolen.

If things peter out quickly, one has to assume the worse. That is, Ahmadinejad is more popular than we hoped.

SteveMG on June 13, 2009 at 7:42 PM

I don’t think the US would take punitive steps against Israel. Just what is punitive anyway?

Terrye on June 13, 2009 at 7:28 PM

An arms embargo or restrictions? Other trade or economic restrictions? Anything to squeeze them into submitting to a “land for peace” plan? An Israeli strike against Iran might provide just the cover they want.

Loxodonta on June 13, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Guys, Israel is on its own. Obama loves the Palestinians. I posted as much tonight at my blog. I agree that this is only the beginning.

When you hear us talking about an ‘existential threat’ these days, it is not just from Iran shockingly..

As always – thx for the strong words of support for Israel, especially amongst the usual hotair crew who know who they are.. If only Obama felt the same way about Israelis, & many regular Iranians for that matter!

saus on June 13, 2009 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6