Iran’s Election and the Western Media: Manufacturing a Revolution
Jun 16th, 2009 | By Wil Robinson | Read more in: InternationalWatching, reading, listening, and even trying to actually decipher the media’s coverage of Iran’s elections is becoming an exercise in blissful ignorance, simplistic dichotomies, and pure unadulterated stupidity.
One might be led to believe that Ahmedinejad is a long-entrenched, all-powerful dictator with a history of rigging elections, in the mold of Mugabe or Mubarak (oops, Mubarak isn’t a dictator…he’s a “moderate” and an ally).
Except that Ahmedinejad was only elected four years ago, and Iran’s presidents have never been more than a public face that does the clerical leadership’s bidding. Real power in Iran rests in the hands of the clerics – it always has. The clerics could care less who gets elected (of course, they choose all the candidates to begin with). Whether a reformer, moderate, or even liberal, the president doesn’t so much as spit without permission.
A consumer of western media could also rightfully assume that the challenger – Mir Hossein Mousavi – would radically “reform” Iran’s nuclear policy, opening up a new era of peace and subservience to American nuclear hegemony.
But that ignores Mousavi himself, when he explicitly and publicly states that he would continue nuclear development and that Iran will “not abandon our right to nuclear technology.” More to the point, we haven’t actually heard anything about what Mousavi stands for – only what his opponent, Ahmedinejad, stands against. (If Ahmedinejad = bad, then by virtue of simplistic dichotomy, Mousavi = good.)
The media repeatedly refers to Mousavi as a “reformer,” but analysts who have actually spent more than 10 days in Iran (which was the length of visas given to foreign correspondents covering the elections), say Mousavi is simply a “moderate.” “Moderate,” in the parlance of Washington D.C. politicians and lobbyists, means “free market” (read: will open up Iran’s oil to private, foreign investment).
The allegations of voter fraud and rigging, along with extraordinary coverage of public protests, might suggest to CNN viewers that Ahmedinejad could not have won by the 2-1 margin he claims.
But the only evidence put forward by critics is that “the results came out so quickly.” Not exactly indisputable proof. Even less is said about the fact that Mousavi’s primary supporters are the middle/upper class and students, which probably – at best – makes up about 30% of the country. That would help explain the 2-1 margin.
There are even those in the mainstream media (albeit, mostly on the right) who are trying to recreate history according to their distorted worldview. Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard said on FOX News Sunday: “Years ago, [Ahmedinejad] was part of the axis of evil.”
Except that in 2002 when Bush made his famous “axis of evil” quote, Ahmedinejad was not president (he wasn’t even a known political figure). The president of Iran in 2002 was Mohammad Khatami (a “reformer”).
Which brings me to my last point. Why does western media refuse to delve into the issue of why Ahmedinejad was elected in the first place? He wasn’t put there by the clerical leadership, he didn’t seize power in a coup – he was put there by the Iranian people.
Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Iran expressed their solidarity with America. The Ayatollah of Iran declared a “Jihad against this evil phenomenon” of terrorism, a soccer stadium of 60,000 Iranians observed a moment of silence, and thousands in Tehran held a candlelight vigil to honor the victims at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
At the time, Iran had a “reformer” president, and the U.S. had been moving toward a policy of engagement. Sounds like a recipe for reconciliation.
But then Bush lumped Iran together with Iraq and North Korea and declared global war.
And then one year later, Bush and Cheney lied their asses off and initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq. Of course, we already had troops in Afghanistan (and in Kuwait, and Qatar, and floating in the Persian Gulf, etc., etc., etc.).
So now a country that had expressed their solidarity with the U.S. after 9/11 was: 1) labeled as part of an axis of evil, 2) surrounded by hostile military forces, and 3) watched one part of that axis be invaded and torn apart.
In response, Iranians elected a hardliner that was willing to take a stand against the imperialism that was creeping into their midst. Someone who would push back before they became Part 2 of the Neo-cons’ plan to subdue the oil-rich Middle East.
Assuming that the election results this week were valid (not saying they were – but for hypothetical sake, let’s assume), why was Ahmedinejad re-elected?
In 2004, many people asked the same question about the U.S. How could Americans – having seen the mess that Bush and Co. had made – give Dubya another four years?
Perhaps not all Americans were ready to believe that the world could be different. Maybe we needed a little more time and evidence to prove that aggression wasn’t the only option.
Similarly, Iranians might be in the same boat. Perhaps they need a little more time to truly believe Obama when he says a new era is upon us. Maybe not enough Iranians are convinced yet that things will change.
So give them another four years. It’s possible the Iranian elections of 2009 were just the beginning of a larger movement, and Mousavi, like John Kerry in 2004, just wasn’t a strong enough candidate to convince his people that the world can be different.
Ahmedinejad is not a dictator. He’s not even a particularly powerful leader. And Mousavi is not some second-coming of the Shah who is going to return Iran to the orbit of American influence. Power in Iran resides with the clerics, not the president.
In the end, Iran not only needs a leader that can convince the people that a new world is possible, but someone who can also convince the clerics.
That won’t happen in one election, so we can stop acting like this is the revolution we (and some Iranians) have been waiting for.
But it might be the tipping point.
UPDATE: NBC Nightly News on Wednesday evening had a one of its reporters (a dual British-Iranian citizen) on the phone as he interviewed a pro-Mousavi protester. The young man asked the journalist to “translate” the banner he was holding up because it was in English and he didn’t know what it said…
…Gee, I wonder which intelligence agency with a history of meddling in foreign countries could have been passing out English signs to Iranian students in order to create the appearance of a revolution…
Wil RobinsonAWOP contributing editor, international
Author of International Political Will
Subscribe by RSS feed
Follow on Twitter
Got Kindle?
Really enjoyed reading this article it was succinct and informative keep up the good work (great blog)
[Reply]
Greetings Geri,
Thanks so much for following us here in our new home on the net. We appreciate your reading and commenting very much.
kim g.
[Reply]
Thank you very much for providing some of the grays we never get from mainstream media.
[Reply]
Heya MM,
When you get Wil’s perspective and Michael’s historical background together on an event or issue it really is some serious brainfood…I mean seriously…just look at the size of the brains on these guys…awesome.
I think the joint is working out pretty well so far.
I had this crazy idea to bring a number my favorite bloggers together in one place…then they decided to get their favorites to join up too…and it just keeps getting better. That was what I envisioned and thanks again for being a part of it…even though Lori may have recruited you….you can sure nuff count me as one of your fans too.
great post as usual, Wil : )
kim g.
[Reply]
Thanks, Kim. I didn’t receive a notification of this comment, or I would have said thanks sooner.
Everyone here has done a fantasmagoric job! Really. The trick now will be for all of us to stay engaged and focused and not get distracted by numbers and commentary. I’ve been a regular contributor on one or two quite good sites that ended up folding under imaginary pressures exerted by readership numbers.
But I believe that here, there’s a real shot at keeping things interest driven. Let’s roll!!!
And, mmmmmm, brainfood.
[Reply]
I’ll stay as focused as I can, considering the ADHD. But that might be a help.
[Reply]
Velly interestink. Some thoughts… As I read MSM news, I watch how they label Mousavi – “defeated” or “leader of protests” – or how they label the protesters as followers of Mousavi. Slight nuances of rather larger untruths. Mousavi was one of 4 candidates running against Ahmedinejad. And the protesters include all people who think their vote was not counted, whether they voted for Mousavi or one of the other three. This is the main issue, not Mousavi. What’s interesting to watch on Twitter #IranElection is what is NOT on there. And what I have not seen is any arguments amongst the Iranians about their candidate of choice. I don’t see discussions of Mousavi vs. the other guys or vice versa. This indicates to me that the protest is about something bigger, or… they don’t have time for the luxury of such debates. When I see Mousavi standing on the roof of a minibus speaking to the protesters, I wish that the three other candidates were standing with him. This would be a more true reflection of the will of the people.
I haven’t done any research on Mousavi yet, but I’ve gleaned that he’s not the candidate who will come in and completely remake Iran (in the image of what we might want it to be). I’m ignoring him for now, because anything can happen. The people can be beaten down, he can be offed or imprisoned. But if he DOES become president, just a what-if scenario to ponder, will the newly emboldened people now hold his feet to the fire? I see a little of this in my own life – where I saw Obama enter the white house on a wave of emboldened voters who were demanding change. And though I love him, I am committed to holding his feet to the fire on critical issues where he has been extremely disappointing like FISA, DADT, Geithner/bankbuddy bailout, etc. I hesitate comparing my feeble feet-to-fire activism from my comfy airconditioned bedroom to the Iran protesters’ incredible bravery, but I want to be clear that I’m talking post-election and how powerful the Iranian people could feel about voicing their wishes to whomever they elect.
About the Supreme Leader – he does rule the roost, but I’ve picked up rumors that the council that appointed him is either in conflict, or wanting to replace him. I believe that Rafsanjani was/is on that council, and there are rumors that he has become a target of the current regime. This is something to keep track of. If the rumors are true, a replacement of Khomeini could be critical to a more sweeping change.
Also watch the neocons… I think that Bush and the neocons would have declared Iran in the axis of evil no matter who was at the helm in Iran. This is because the PNAC letter/study – signed by Kristol, Wolfowitz, Yoo, Cheney, etc. – either predated or happened during Bill Clinton’s administration. The neocon focus is on the geographic and strategic value of Iran in the neocon quest for domination of the Middle East, not who’s in charge. Most of the neocons voiced their desire that Ahmadj win, which I interpreted as their desire to have a true nutcase boogie man in charge so they can use him to justify another war through their proxies, Israeli hardliners. My only other proof I have to offer is the fact that during W’s admin, Iran requested diplomatic relations with the US through Switzerland and at first, Condi Rice denied such a request occurred and then reluctantly admitted she had heard of the Swiss memo but had decided not to engage.
The English signs… There’s been a lot of discussion of that on Twitter. I think the protesters know that the world is watching. I also know that English is on many commercial signs in Iran (you can see that in some of the videos on YouTube), as its a universal language and I read that it is also a requirement in Iran universities (unconfirmed). When I was in Israel, all the signs were in English too. I could be wrong (or perhaps naive), but I don’t get a vibe that the protesters are supported by or supplied by foreign rabblerousers. I feel like this movement grew on its own, organically, out of a complete realization by voters that the results couldn’t possibly be true, based on how many people they know personally who voted against Ahmadj.
Forgive misspellings of people’s names and keep in mind that I am not a guru in this area and my assumptions can be wrong.
[Reply]
Holy shit batman…
Lisa Wines… That is some for real serious knowledge base…whoa. Now….that was like a brainfood buffet…delicicioso!…now I’m stuffed and I gotta process all that. You go girl. thanks so much for being a part of our little party on the net.
MM…
I will take that advice under serious consideration. I have never done this kind of thing with a blog so anytime you have something to say about something that seems out of sorts to you please… hollar loud!
[Reply]
Shite. I just wrote a blog post in your comment box. Sorry.
[Reply]
LW…
you write it girl whenever and wherever it strikes you. This comment box is for you!
km g.
[Reply]
Lisa, your statements “…the protesters include all people who think their vote was not counted, whether they voted for Mousavi or one of the other three. This is the main issue, not Mousavi…” and “…This indicates to me that the protest is about something bigger…” were just echoed and partially answered in A letter from Tehran at 4:16 today (Friday) on Huff Post’s live blog. Here’s part of what this young woman said:
Many criticize us and wonder what does Mr. Mousavi have that is so special? They argue that after all he is one of the many in that corrupt system of the Islamic Republic and will never act against it. My argument is that this is not about Mousavi, but about people realizing that they are not followers like a herd of sheep that goes anywhere it is summoned to go. They will know that the individual will does matter and that their actions can be effective and can speak louder than any specific person; this to me is the most important aspect of these events. Now either Mousavi or anyone else who will end up in power, they will have the understanding of what people want and what they are capable of, and how they can voice their requests. This is the significant and important step and now that Mousavi has chosen to go ahead, we will support him.
Her letter is quite beautiful, and the whole thing can be found at the 4:16 pm mark here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html
They seem ready to enter the mouth of Hell tomorrow. I hope there’s a goddess to look after each and every one of them.
[Reply]
Progressive Girl, I’m no expert. But my answer to everything is simply to keep it FUN!
[Reply]
awesome… answer….
Mine is “am I at peace about _____?”
I think we might be saying the same thing : )
kim g.
[Reply]