The recent presidential election turmoil in Iran, regardless of the ‘truth’ behind the events, will undoubtedly have serious ramifications for the Islamic Republic on several fronts.

Chief among these is an inevitable blow to the Islamic Regime’s legitimacy, and its regional and global standing in the eyes of Iranians, the region’s population, and the world at large.

Within Iran, it is clear that a major rift among the population has manifested itself both on the streets and within the political and religious elite. On the one hand, millions of Iranian women and men have confirmed their frustration with the Regime and Mr. Ahmadinejad’s presidency through street demonstrations and direct action.

On the other, the handpicked candidates who were actually allowed the privilege of participating in the presidential elections by the ‘Supreme Leader’ together with their more powerful backers behind the scenes have turned on each other in a surprisingly public and vitriolic manner.

What began as a positive and welcome show of openness in televised live debates among the candidates quickly turned into allegations of election fraud by the losing side almost as soon as the polls closed. This was swiftly followed by a fierce crackdown against public dissent – ironically, just over a week after the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen Square.

There was a campaign for the presidency not so long ago, when now-President Obama was constantly harassed by opponents for his commitment to dealing with the powers that are not friendly to us. Looming particularly large in his sites was the presidency of Iranian Ahmadinejad, who has been loony enough to declare he had a halo on when he spoke at the U.N., and who was ominously claiming the right of his country to own nuclear weapons.

The previous maladministration ‘dealt’ with Iran by declaring it a member of the Axis of Evil and cutting off the entire nation from any kind of statesmanship. Rightwingers during the campaign expressed indignation that President Obama entertained thoughts of upgrading from that diplomatic failure and acting like a functional adult.

The recent pretense of an election in Iran brought protesters out into the open by declaring a victory for the nutcase, with an obviously manipulated vote. Once again voices on the right shouted that the president should operate at the playground taunt level, and make a lot of noise - although even our wingnuts didn’t pretend that that would work out very well with the administration in power in Iran.

Last night on PBS’ Newshour, appearing for unknown reasons as the spokesperson of his party, the nutcase Lindsey Graham declared that President Obama was hoping that he would be working with the other nutcase, Ahmadinejad. Graham rather remarkably implied that tactics from the White House were intended to enable that worst case scenario. As usual, the media hostess, Judy
Woodruff, let that slide without any slight attempt to allow factual presentation.

The irresponsibility from the right is hardly unprecedented, and has made this into the disaster for this country that it continues to be. Where there might have been some ability to work with this other, inimical, government before, the previous maladministration isolated the U.S. from it and the rest of the Middle East. Now forces that linger on in D.C. fighting against any functional government want to pit the President against their fellow nutcase in Iran in continuation of the hostilities the previous maladministration felt comfortable with. Just the thing we need, more disastrous posturing.

Commenting at CNN.com this morning, Roland S. Martin makes the point that these seething critics are displaying their ignorance of history as well as inability to comprehend or to conduct diplomacy.

Critics of President Obama, mostly Republicans, have seethed that he has not been more forceful in ripping the theocratic leadership in Iran for their brutal handling of protesters angry with what they see as a stolen election.

In Tuesday’s press conference, the president toughened his talk, saying, “The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days.”

Still, Obama’s measured and calm approach has been right on target, while his critics have been totally off base.
(snip)
We are seeing a remarkable amount of courage in Iran. The people there are tired of being treated like children, and are putting their lives on the line to demand change in the country.

Instead of inflaming tensions, the United States should continue to issue tempered comments, and allow the people in the streets to drive this issue. This should not become a U.S. vs. Iran discussion.

If the focus remains on those demanding change in the streets of Iran, especially if the beatings and oppression continues — remember Selma, Alabama, and Bloody Sunday? — then those who are silent in Iran will be silent no more, and other countries will begin to weigh in on the brutality.

The change we desire in Iran will not happen with a press release or a comment by the president of the United States or even a congressional resolution. We must show support, but from a distance. The United States played a direct role in the mess we see in Iran today. It’s best that we shut up and allow Iran to determine Iran’s fate.

From what they are shouting, and the way they marshal forces against anything the president attempts to do for this country, once again the wingers are trying to damage the government they don’t control, in any way they can. Eight years in power showed what their intentions are, and those are not good.

It’s too bad the media will not speak out, too, against the right wing’s obvious ill intent toward the U.S. that has rejected their ideology. Such obvious mischief against our best interests should be treated like the hostility to the country that it is.

Maybe the entire rightwing could take a hike down or up the Appalachian Trail - the government would be much improved.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

(originally posted at MWC News)

“You must be celebrating,” the interviewer from a popular radio station told me after Netanyahu’s speech. “After all, he is accepting the plan which you proposed 42 years ago!” (Actually it was 60 years ago, but who is counting?)

The front page of Haaretz carried an article by Gideon Levy, in which he wrote that “the courageous call of Uri Avnery and his friends four decades ago is now being echoed, though feebly, from end to end (of the Israeli political spectrum).”

I would be lying if I denied feeling a brief glow of satisfaction, but it faded quickly. This was no “historic” speech, not even a “great” speech. It was a clever speech.

It contained some sanctimonious verbiage to appease Barack Obama, followed right away by the opposite, to pacify the Israeli extreme right. Not much more.

NETANYAHU DECLARED that “our hand is extended for peace.”

In my ears, that rang a bell: in the 1956 Sinai war, a member of my editorial staff was attached to the brigade that conquered Sharm-al-Sheikh. Since he had grown up in Egypt, he interviewed the senior captured Egyptian officer, a colonel. “Every time David Ben-Gurion announced that his hand was stretched out for peace,” the Egyptian told him, “we were put on high alert.”

And indeed, that was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus an ideal situation (for him) was created: The world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers. Our secret weapon is the Arab refusal, it used to be joked in Jerusalem at the time.

This week, Netanyahu wheeled out the same old trick.

I do not underrate, of course, the significance of the chief of the Likud uttering the two words: “Palestinian state”.

Words carry political weight. Once released into the world, they have a life of their own. Unlike dogs, they cannot be called back.

In a popular Israeli love song, the boy asks the girl: “When you say no, what do you mean?” One could well ask: When Netanyahu says yes, what does he mean?

But even if the words “Palestinian state” passed his lips only under duress, and when Netanyahu has no intention at all of turning them into reality, it is still important that the head of the government and the chief of the Likud was compelled to utter them. The idea of the Palestinian state has now become a part of the national consensus, and only a handful of ultra-rightists reject it directly. But this is only the beginning. The main struggle will be about turning the idea into reality.

The entire speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.

He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.

We lost the supplemental vote. It narrowly passed.

While I’m disappointing and angry that we’ll continue to fund the war in Afghanistan (and bailout European banks), that isn’t the story here. As I noted in my first post about this issue, supplemental fights are extremely hard, and winning is damn near impossible. That’s what makes what was done by progressives on this fight all the more impressive.

Jane Hamsher, who’s deserves a huge amount of credit for this organizing, has the rundown of who voted no and why:

1. Tammy Baldwin — Citizen Whip on June 9.
2. Michael Capuano — June 12.
3. Yvette Clarke YEA — Citizen Whip on June 9, also on internal Hill list.
4. John Conyers — June 9.
5. Jerry Costello YEA internal Hill list.
6. Peter DeFazio YEA– Citizen Whip, June 11.
7. Lloyd Doggett — Committed on June 11.
8. Donna Edwards — internal Hill list.
9. Keith Ellison — Citizen Whip “no,” then Citizen Whip “yes.” Whips kept calling.
10. Sam Farr — committed on June 9, went wobbly at the last minute, but came back after an all-out push.
11. Bob Filner — Citizen whip on June 5, internal Hill list.
12. Raul Grijalva — committed on June 9, also went wobbly there but came back.
13. Alan Grayson– June 7.
14. Luis Gutierrez YEA — internal Hill list.
15. Jay Inslee YEA — Citizen Whip June 11.
    
16. Steve Kagen YEA — internal Hill list.
17. Marcy Kaptur — CQ Politics June 11.
18. Dennis Kucinich – June 11.
19. Barbara Lee — Citizen Whip on June 5.
20. John Lewis NV –Citizen Whip.
    
21. Eric Massa — June 5.
22. James McGovern — committed on June 9, caught #rahmflu at the last minute, but recovered.
23. Michael Michaud — Turn Maine Blue.
24. Richard Neal YEA — Citizen Whip.
25. Jim Oberstar YEA — internal Hill list.
26. Chellie Pingree — Turn Maine Blue.
27. Jose Serrano — internal Hill list.
28. Carol Shea-Porter — internal Hill list.
29. Brad Sherman — June 12.
30. Jackie Speier — Citizen Whip, June 15.
31. Pete Stark — Citizen Whip, June 11.
32. Niki Tsongas — internal Hill list.
33. Nydia Velasquez YEA — internal Hill list.
34. Maxine Waters — June 8.
35. Diane Watson — Citizen Whip on June 9.
36. Lynn Woolsey — Citizen Whip on June 9.

Pickups:

1. Mike Honda — Targeted on June 15.
2. Zoe Lofgren — Targeted on June 16.
3. Donald Payne — Targeted on June 16.
4. Jared Polis — Targeted on June 15.
5. John Tierney — Targeted on June 15.
6. Peter Welch — Was pretty much a certain “yes,” but then Green Mountain Daily got into the act. Go Odum.

Look at all those votes turned to no because of citizen pressure.

There’s another way to measure success, too. Rahm had to wade in and personally push for this supplemental. But our pressure was so great, Rahm couldn’t get the job done. Obama had to start making calls personally. Citizen power was so great the most popular president in a generation had to personally whip votes.

It’s been a well fought fight, and a fight we’d been hoping progressive Members of Congress would pick for years. We didn’t win, but we made a mark. Here’s to (hopefully) the beginning of a real progressive voting bloc in the House.

A quick note to the right-wingers, especially right-wing lawmakers, on Iran’s elections.

It’s not about us. President Obama is doing the right thing by largely staying out of the conflict. The elections were probably stolen, but so were ours in 2000 and likely 2004. I don’t think we were looking for opinions from foreigners at those points in our history, and had they been offered, I’m sure they would have been most unwelcome.

Obama has pledged to engage with Iran, and he will keep that promise. But he should not weigh in on this internal conflict. Democracy comes from the people, not by outsiders, no matter how well-intentioned they say they are.

So says Jane Hamsher.

This move just goes to show how much power a small, dedicated group of people can have, and how toxic the war in Afghanistan (as well as bailouts for European banks) is becoming.

I think that’s worth noting again. Afghanistan is playing a big role here. More and more people are questioning the rational for escalation, and more and more Members of Congress are listening. And they’re right to do it. It’s expensive, it lacks a strategy, and it lacks and endgame. In this economic climate, we shouldn’t be spending so much blood and treasure on a war without a way out.

The netroots is moving this debate, and the war funding supplemental just might get defeated. Keep up the pressure with calls and letters to the editor, so we can get those last five votes.

My great sorrow goes to the people of Iran, who deserve much better. When the war criminals in this country stole an election, it resulted in the horrible war on Iraq, the end of the rule of law that made torture a policy of this formerly decent country, and worldwide disaster economically.

The will of the public has proved to be a very good indicator of th4eir best interests, and defeat of that will has proved tragic.

A few snippets of news acknowledge that this is rank theft.

Hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated moderate challenger Mirhossein Mousavi by a surprisingly wide margin in Iran’s presidential election, official results showed on Saturday. Mousavi derided the tally as a “dangerous charade.”

Here are some analysts’ views on the outcome of Friday’s vote:

KARIM SADJAPOUR, ANALYST AT CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR

INTERNATIONAL PEACE:

“I don’t think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence. This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretences. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: (Supreme Leader) Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei wasn’t ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose.”

ALIREZA NADER, RAND CORPORATION:

“Ahmadinejad has of course won the election. What is surprising is his share of the vote — 64 percent according to some estimates. The opposition in Iran may protest this election as being fraudulent. Mousavi’s supporters were hopeful that he had a great chance of winning and that his presidency would lead to much needed reforms. Their enthusiasm may turn into frustration, and perhaps even active opposition against the government. Although the president is not the chief decision-maker, Ahmadinejad’s win is a sign that Iranian politics is in stage of flux.
(snip)
MARK FITZPATRICK, SENIOR FELLOW FOR NON-PROLIFERATION AT

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES IN LONDON:

“I’m surprised at the regime’s audacity in declaring such a large margin for Ahmadinejad, given that in the run-up, the momentum seemed to be in the other direction. The hardliners in the regime seem to have exercised all their levers of power to keep Ahmadinejad in place. Undoubtedly, one of the key reasons was their concern about losing control of the country through policies such as willingness to engage with the United States.

There is no possibility of the continuation of the right wing’s being good for that country, and it brought disastrous results for this one, and for the world.

Sadly, it was the disasters of the right wing’s maladministration that brought it down here. That such a result should be necessary for Iran is sad, and regretted. We who have watched the ruin of our own country under right wing rule are sympathetic with, and hopeful for, the Iranian people who deserved better.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/ )

Jane Hamsher explains why:

Since the phone on Capitol Hill are closed for the weekend, why not write a letter to the editor of your local paper, so your Representatives can read about it this weekend?

To help end the war in Afghanistan.

We only need 38 to vote no to win this thing, and Jane Hamsher thinks we might get there. She’s got the call to action, the details of the bill, and where Members stand right now:

Please call members who are committed to “oppose” the bill and thank them for having the courage of their convictions, and say that you hope they’ll continue to stand by them.

Tell those who are “leaning no” that you hope they have enough information now to commit to voting “no.”

Tell those who are “undecided” that Cash for Clunkers isn’t adequate reason to turn their backs on the promises they made.

And for those who have decided to abandon their principles — well, now we know how to measure  the depth of their convictions.

Your calls count more today than ever.  We’re hearing from everyone who calls that these offices are aware that feelings are running strong on this vote, and they’re taking your calls very seriously.  They’ll be looking for cues from you about which way they should lean.

Please let them know how you feel today — your call is important.

Please call today!

Crossposted at Mideast by MIdwest.