CHATHAM HOUSE ANALYSIS OF IRANIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS

CHATHAM HOUSE ANALYSIS OF IRANIAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS

Chatham House analyzed the Iranian election results this year relative to previous elections and the 2006 census, and Juan Cole picked out the following as salient:

In two Conservative provinces, Mazandaran and Yazd, a turnout of more than 100% was recorded.

At a provincial level, there is no correlation between the increased turnout, and the swing to Ahmadinejad. This challenges the notion that his victory was due to the massive participation of a previously silent Conservative majority.

In a third of all provinces, the official results would require that Ahmadinejad took not only all former conservative voters, and 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. (See: "Chatham House Study Definitively Shows Massive Ballot Fraud in Iran's Reported Results," by Juan Cole. Informed Comment. June 22, 2009.)

These are definitely worthy points, per se; however, they do not in and of themselves nullify the pre-election independent polling that showed Ahmadinejad ahead by two-to-one. After that, there was a reported potential shift by debate viewers and undecideds to Ahmadinejad. Before the TV debate, the undecideds were a large percentage (some 30% if memory serves).

The question of who stuffed the ballot boxes remains open. It could have been either side at this point. Also, the fact that this argument about a huge change in rural-voting patterns was made immediately by Cole and others and then rolled out days later by Chatham House is suspicious, not to suggest that Juan Cole necessarily had pre-knowledge. Why would the Ministry in charge of elections stuff ballot boxes in a way that would be so easily identified? Are they really that stupid? Perhaps they are. I'm certainly dis-impressed by their response. Also, the Bush administration certainly didn't hide the fact that they stole elections. Power can be arrogant enough to do that.

My main point though is that the CIA and others are definitely working up to overthrowing the regime one way or another and war is not the answer. How many people have to die, many of them young, in order to open up Iran to the rabid capitalists? To what lengths have they gone already to set up the regime to make it fumble? How many have already died so Chatham House is left in the position that it may wax eloquent to the exclusion of confronting head on the issue of deadly covert ops? This is all sleight of hand. It's all a distraction from the real issue that is evil attacking evil and taking innocents with it.

The clerics have so far chosen the wrong path of putting a stamp of approval on the election rather than continuing to dig for truth. At the very least, even if they weren't involved in election rigging, which hasn't been shown either way, their decisions so far certainly show errors in judgment. I don't trust them, but I don't trust their opponents either. I don't trust them because they came out from Ayatollah Khomeini who ordered secret mass-executions. Anyone or group that would do that wouldn't blink at stealing elections if their positions of authority were hanging in the balance. They'd certainly be capable of rationalizing election fraud if they can rationalize mass executions even of petty criminals who might have otherwise even repented.

So, I'm tired of this coercive-democracy conflict. Who wins the right to boss others around and to decide who will live or die is Satanic no matter who spins what or which way.

Juan Cole and Chatham House can buff their fingernails on their chests over this coup, but I'm still focused on keeping the peace and avoiding the slaughter of innocents.

I am still reserving judgment on who was the most popular choice of the Iranian people in general. The polling strongly suggested that Ahmadinejad might have won a clean election. Also, as I stated from the outset on Juan Cole's blog, these are such heady times in global and national politics in the U.S. and Iran that previous patterns or trends can swing. Most of the youth in America thought they were voting for huge change and swept Obama in, well over McCain. The two nations, Iran and the U.S. certainly aren't parallels of each other, but the point is not so easily dismissed.

I personally never assumed I knew more about the inner workings of Iran relative to Juan Cole. I haven't made a thorough study of it nor do I speak and read the languages of Iran. Still, I have a feel for other things that I know are escaping Juan Cole or that he's avoiding: CIA, NSA, light versus darkness.

Ahmadinejad's position on this whole thing could hurt his standing with supporters, some of whom may defect over it.

No side that I've seen is right in any of this. The U.S., et al., are certainly wrong. The clerics are certainly wrong. Mousavi is certainly wrong.

Honesty is not the best policy in any of their eyes that I can see.

There is no doubt that the Islamic theocracy must go, but replacing it with a CIA-state is not the right way. Sending in terrorists (See: "MEK TERRORISTS IN IRAN UNDER CIA, BARACK OBAMA, MI6, GORDON BROWN, MOSSAD, AND BENJAMIN NETANYAHU") and other operatives quite capable of stuffing ballot boxes or paying others to do it (at least $400 million in U.S. funding to stirrup trouble) is just wrong no matter how wrong the clerics are too.

That's the issue. If doing this stuff is okay over there, then it's okay here in the U.S. too; and that's exactly what Karl Rove thinks. Winning is everything even when they don't know what really winning means.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.