The Latest from Iran (22 April): This Isn't Over

1230 GMT: EA On the Move. Hopefully, we'll be relocating from the US to the UK today, so updates will be restricted until tomorrow afternoon. My thanks to all for their patience, and for keeping up going through news and comments while I'm heading home.

1215 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch (If You Know Someone in MKO, You're a Criminal). There seems to be a pattern in a number of recent sentences, including death penalties. As we reported yesterday, six people have been handed down orders for execution because they are related to or acquainted with members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, the political wing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq "terrorist" movement.

An Iranian activist now reports that Monireh Rabaei has received a five-year sentence, upheld on appeal, on the basis that she has an uncle in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, home to many PMOI members. The following sentences have also been passed on the basis of "connections with MKO": Zia Nabavi 15 years, Ozra Ghazi-Mirsaied three years, and Mahdiyeh Golro 28 months.

NEW Iran Document: Detained Nourizad’s Letter to Khamenei “We Have Lost Our People”
NEW Iran Document: Ayatollah Sane’i “Some Want Islam For Their Own Agendas”
Iran: The Latest Post-Election Death Sentences
NEW How Iran News is Made: Adultery, Earthquakes, and the BBC
The Latest from Iran (21 April): Waiting for News

1115 GMT: Economy Watch. Rooz Online's claims of layoffs are not quite as dramatic as those in the Human Rights Activists report (see 1100 GMT), but they are still striking:

Labor news sources report the laying off of at least 2,500 industrial and leather workers in Ilam and Mashad. Counting other laid-off workers in industrial and large cities such as Abadan, Ahwaz, Khorramshahr and Shiraz, during the last two weeks, more than 4,000 workers have lost their jobs just in the recent past.

...The crisis in Iran’s industrial sector has reached such a level that, in an interview yesterday, the head of Iran’s House of Labor predicted the closure of hundreds of large and medium industrial firms per year and the subsequent laying off of 200,000 workers every year after that.

1100 GMT: Firings and Abuses. Human Rights Activists in Iran has released a report claimed more than 38,000 cases of firings and human rights abuses in Iran in the past month.

Of the cases, more than 90% (37,519) are the layoffs of workers in Iran, as 166 production lines in the country have been shut down every month, according to a labour official. At least 11 protests and gatherings have been staged by workers in the country in the last month alone.

The group cites 537 cases of abuse of students’ rights, 255 cases of abuse against political and civil activists, 34 cases of capital punishment, 259 cases of torture and prisoner abuse, at least seven cases of citizens killed in frontier provinces, 124 arrests and abuse of national minority rights, and 68 cases of arrest and abuses against religious minorities.

Human Rights Activists says that, because of the scale of the abuses and the difficulties in documenting them in a rigid security atmosphere, the cases are only a fraction of the abuses that are occurring.

1055 GMT: Is Google A Regime Enemy? The Iranian Labor News Agency reports that a ban on Google Images has been lifted by Iranian authorities, 24 hours after it was imposed.

1045 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Women’s rights activist Dorsa Sobhani has been released after a detention of more than six weeks. Sobhani spent 25 days in solitary confinement.

The brother of Majid Tavakoli says that the student leader, detained on 7 December after a speech at a National Student Day rally, remains in solitary confinement.

Student activist Nader Ahsani has been re-arrested and taken to Evin Prison.

1040 GMT: "We Had to Save the System". A potentially explosive admission....

Aftab, from the weekly Panjareh, quotes an unnamed high-ranking intelligence official, who admits that post-election arrests, especially those of the first round of senior reformists, were planned ahead of the 12 June vote.

The detentions were a preventive measure because Iranian intelligence agencies anticipated major unrest which could get out of control. The official said, "Our law is not appropriate to fight against 'soft war', so we had to take these measures [to save the system]. The fifth statement of Mosharekat party [Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution] clearly speaks of establishing a secular system."

1030 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. On another front, Mehdi Hashemi, the son of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has warned the regime to "stop spreading lies" and to "beware of the time, when I speak out". Hashemi, who is currently in London, has been threatened by the Iranian authorities with prosecution for alleged corruption and misuse of funds during the Presidential election.

0945 GMT: After an extended break, we return today to a series of powerful responses to the regime, all of which make clear that the challenge to legitimacy will not be crushed.

In a separate entry, we have posted the latest statement of Grand Ayatollah Sane'i, criticising the Government for its misuse of Islam in its lies and detentions.

We also have a second feature: from inside Evin Prison, the detained journalist and filmmaker Mohammad Nourizad has written a letter to the Supreme Leader requesting that he "declare this year the year of national reconciliation and do not fear the reproach". In itself, that is not a direct challenge to the regime --- it acknowledges Khamenei's authority, after all --- however, the letter has special potency because Nourizad's detention was prompted by a previous appeal to the Supreme Leader to recognise the illegitimacies of the election.

Mohsen Armin, member of Parliament and former Vice Speaker, has also launched a spirited criticism of the Government. A senior member of the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution party, which is now under threat of suspension, Armin denounced lies and threats of prosecution and demanded that the regime address the basic issues of rights and equality.

MP Mohammad Reza Khabbaz has asserted that the inability of the Ahmadinejad Government to make appropriate use of $370 billion oil income is a "catastrophe".

Comments

[Scott Lucas]

On the less funny side of the story: I know some Mousavi campaign workers who were excluded and intimidated before and on Election Day. And, no, I won't name them or ask them to go public in this current environment.

S.

[Eric A. Brill]

M.Ali,

"If what Mousavi is saying is true, he could very easily say that look at these boxes that our observers were at, and look at these boxes that we weren’t at. See how the ones we were at, WE won, but the ones that we weren’t at, we lost?"

As I mentioned earlier, this is a good point. I suggested in my article that exactly this test should be conducted:

"Mousavi's unresolved "excluded observer" complaints provide him yet another opportunity to make his case. If Ahmadinejad's percentages were substantially higher at "unobserved" polling stations than at comparable "observed" polling stations, most neutral analysts would be suspicious. Such a comparison can be performed even today. Although no two polling stations served statistically identical populations, statisticians should be able to identify sets of roughly comparable "unobserved" and "observed" polling stations, and then compare the Ahmadinejad/Mousavi percentages. Any ambiguous results could be resolved in Mousavi's favor, and a more thorough investigation could be performed if any sign of fraud should appear."

We already know that at least 5,016 polling stations were not "observed" by Mousavi's observers, since he had only 40,676 observers and there were 45,692 polling stations. I wonder whether Mousavi's observers have taken a close look at the results reported for those 5,016 "unobserved" polling stations. I would have done so the moment the government released its ballot-box level reports. If the comparison looked suspicious, I'd have reported it immediately.

Even more important, if Scott is correct that there are 15,000 additional "unobserved" polling stations, one wonders what foul play may have occurred there that the government officials did not want Mousavi's observers to see. It would seem we'd be even more likely to find fraud at those 15,000 polling stations than at some polling station chosen at random.

Before such a comparison can be made, however, we need to know which 15,000 polling stations those were, or at least identify a few of them to get us started. Only Mousavi's organization knows that information, of course. One hopes they will release it.

http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/

[Eric A. Brill]

Scott,

It appears from what you say that we may never be able to identify any of the 15,000 polling stations you're referring to.

In an earlier comment you posted on the Race for Iran site, you insisted that the government "address" Mousavi's complaint about these "excluded observer" polling stations. I'm all out of ideas about how the government might do that.

Can you suggest something?

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

"Protesters, with uncovered faces, shout “Death to the Leader,” throw rocks through windows of government buildings and set police cars on fire. Have they used up all the courage the opposition has? Is there really not even an ounce of it left for one of these 15,000 observers to use now?"

Your beloved "Islamic" government has confirmed the death of 39 protesters on Ashura, the highest Shiite holiday, in the month of Muharram, when any form of violence is prohibited.
According to you they certainly had "thrown rocks and set police cars of fire", but we know they were peaceful protesters, who fell prey to the thugs of an inhumane regime.

How much are you paid for spreading such lies?

Arshama

[Eric A. Brill]

Arshama,

"How much are you paid for spreading such lies?"

I am spreading what I believe to be the truth. No one is paying me. I'm not affiliated with anyone. I have nothing against Mousavi, nor any particular affection for Ahmadinejad, Khamenei or anyone else on either side. I merely believe that it's inappropriate to challenge an election with nothing but unsubstantiated allegations.

Nor do I think it advances the opposition's cause to keep doing so. Quite frankly, I think it makes you all look a bit silly.

If you are upset about what happened after the election, by all means protest that. I support you on that. But the government very often challenges your claims about what happened after the election. Whether or not the government has any basis for doing so, you must notice that sometimes they support their challenges by citing your baseless claims about the election.

Many people who already support you pay no attention when the government does that. But many Iranians whose support you do not yet have but might like to have sometimes may wonder exactly what the government hopes they will wonder:

"If the opposition, after all this time, offers nothing but childish tantrums to support its "stolen election" claims, should I also be discounting what the opposition has to say about everything that has happened since then?"

Is it good for your cause that undecided Iranian people might think that way? Do you think it is unreasonable for me to suggest that many do?

[Scott Lucas]

Eric,

Thank you for your quick and engaging response.

From what I read in your report:

"The final count for each candidate is written on a government form – Form 22 – which also states how many blank ballots were supplied to the polling station and how many are left. Five originals of Form 22 are signed by election officials and each observer. If a candidate's observer disagrees with the count, he will refuse to sign. One signed original is placed inside the ballot box, which is then re-sealed in the observers' presence and handed over to a local election official to hold for a legally prescribed period of time....Signed originals of the Form 22 are delivered to the Interior Ministry in Tehran and three other officials. A copy is given to each observer."

Would these Form 22s not verify which observers were present on the day?

So, to the Iran Government: Produce the Originals.

S.

[Eric A. Brill]

SCOTT WROTE:

"Would these Form 22s not verify which observers were present on the day? So, to the Iran Government: Produce the Originals."

That would work. I gather the government claims to have over 40,000 of these Form 22s lying around in a warehouse somewhere, so why not just dig them all out, box them up, lay out the boxes on a long row of conference tables, and let Mousavi's people wade through them? Great idea - what a simple way to clear this up!

Then, I gather, Mousavi's people would work their way through all of those boxes of Form 22s and try to find at least one polling station where a Mousavi observer was NOT present.

And if you find one, what then? Would you trot out the observer who wasn't there and have him confront the government? If so, wouldn't that require the same bravery from some observer that you tell me none of them should be expected to exhibit? What about the risk to that poor observer's family? What if you have really bad luck and this observer happens to be one of the very most timid of the lot, and so he refuses to stand up for Mousavi?

Or are you suggesting that it would be sufficient simply to show a Form 22 that is missing a signature from a Mousavi observer? (Candidly, it seems likely to me that a few Form 22s ARE missing some signatures - out of 45,692 polling stations, I would be amazed if at least a few did not neglect to collect signatures from each of the dozen or more observers.)

Are you suggesting that would be good enough to make your case? What if the government representative (they're nothing but a pack of liars, after all) just shrugs and says: "I don't know why your guy's signature isn't there. You tell me. Maybe he forgot to sign it. Maybe he slept in that day and didn't show up. All I know is that we didn't turn him away that day, or anybody else who showed us his card. Is your guy claiming he wasn't there, or what?"

What will you say then? Will you say: "Yes, that's exactly what he's claiming, and here he is to tell you that himself!" Remember: you would need a brave observer for that.

Or will you instead say: "We aren't going to answer that question. It would be too dangerous for our observer and his family to take a position on whether he was there or not. We're merely pointing out that his signature is missing, and we believe it's fair to conclude from that that he wasn't there."

Is that really what you would say?

At some point, Scott, there's really no way around it: You've got to find yourself a Mousavi observer - just one, not 15,000 - who is brave enough to say: "Just a doggone minute here! I didn't sleep in. I was there. I showed them my card, but they wouldn't let me in!"

And so, to return to the obvious question: if such a brave Mousavi observer exists, why not just ask him to come forward now? What is the big deal here?

[Barry]

Troll alert!!!!!!!!!

Barry

[Arshama]

Eric A. Brill,

Your stubborn refusal to discuss other opinions than your own mantra is sufficient proof to your dishonesty.
Perhaps other readers are impressed by your long "article", but no serious political analyst will accept this pseudo-analysis based on pseudo-data, written by a pseudo-lawyer.

As to the rest, I fully agree with Barry's post #7.

Arshama

[Arshama]

Barry,

Re your post #7

Thanks a lot for your comment!
I think it's high time to return to the discussion of what really matters, especially the forthcoming events of May 1 (International Workers Day) and the announced teacher's protests on May 2 (Iranian teacher's day) for the release of their detained colleagues.

Arshama

[Barry]

Arshama

Agreed! :)

I have been reading that the IRI has fired a number of new missiles at the Arabian Gulf - but I have not read anywhere as to whether they hit it or not -- anybody know???

Barry

[gunni]

To Mr. Brill,
Who obviously is in search for his glasses on EA? Part I

After you have put so many more than useless words on this page, now I am sure that you don’t know the difference between fair elections and election-fraud. Now I `am sure that never in your live you have witnessed fair elections – poor boy – but the question remains: If you never experienced freely and fair organized elections – because you didn’t mention even
the most easiest standards which are normally used – why did you try to write about the Iranian elections held at June 2009?

To make it clear: This is the only question which remains.

Okay Mr. Brilly – do what you want – I have no problems with your deeply failed experiments to catch rats and mice’s on EA.

But what really annoys me at first is the sad tantalizingness that the elections 2009 was the trigger for dark monsters to put peace and freedom loving people into dungeons – thousands of them – and at least 103 people were murdered – and you have the bress to conceal this brutality of the regime? Mr. Brilly – you slowly understand?
But never fear - Mr. Brilly – on EA readers are taking care for each other – and even you get a last chance:
As a nit-picking writer tell us something about the “Elections and the Measures of Oppression in Iran” – or Mr. Brilly – in your view reality doesn’t take place? No problem – ask at the bakery next to you – even inside the last house of the last village everybody could explain to you the deeper meaning of Kahrizak, Ward 209 and Solitary Confinement.
Why are you the last one who doesn’t know anything about this deeper meaning of the Iranian Elections of 2009?

[Megan]

Eric A. Brill,

Your analysis of IR 2009 election and your conclusion that “The election appears to have been fair” is flawed.

1. Your argument is based on statistics published by Islamic Republic; the same entity that has a history of fabricating statistics not supported by facts and hard data. I suggest you examine inflation, economic growth, and unemployment statistics published by IR against facts on the ground and against views of many competent economists and you will find IR statistics are best suited for the comedy hour.

2. You have not taken deposition from any individual directly involved in electoral process.

3. You personally have not examined any ballot, have not spoken with a single person inside any polling place, and do not have any exit poll data.

4. When one offers eye witness accounts of pre-election and Election Day events and sentiment of voters you brush them off and patronized the eye-witness.

5. You are dismissing all and every circumstantial evidence that do not favor your position and show prejudice in examining them.

6. You dismiss any witness that can poke holes in your conclusion. For example, you prefer to publish data on one polling place, IR embassy in Oslo, but have not made any attempt to interview Alireza Hydari, the diplomat who defected. If you interviewed Mr. Hydari, he would tell you (a) your vote count for that polling place is incorrect and (b) 70 to 80% of embassy staff in that embassy and other embassies are Greens, voted Green, participated in protest and some are currently in prison for it. Then you might begin to understand why immediately after election majority of ambassadors and high ranking diplomats were called back to Tehran and were replaced by new people. Is it possible that they knew something IR did not want to become public? This is a circumstantial evidence worth examining. Alireza Hydari is a political refuge and speaks freely but you did not bother to depose him and include his comments in your analysis.

7. You are unfamiliar with the culture of corruption and find the content of Islamic Republic character irrelevant to your analysis. You stated you were not taking any position on the corruption factor. Eric, Islamic Republic is corrupt to the core irrespective of your position or lack thereof on the matter. We do know that because we have touched it, seen it, smelled it and had to live with it for 31 years. For any person to analyze the health of electoral process in Islamic Republic without acknowledging the inherent corruption in the system defies logic.

8. You are dismissing the track record of Islamic Republic in electoral fraud; past practices is indicative of future tendencies. Do some research, locate members of Islamic Republic Parliament who now live in the US (I know of at least two) and educate yourself.

9. You cannot know pertinent facts more than those who live in Iran. We do. We have families there.

10. You cannot know more than millions who flooded streets of Iran (not just Tehran as your only EA supporter, M.Ali, suggested) last June. Incidentally, I wonder why the sole supporter of your analysis on this blog, M. Ali, is a person who is a staunch supporter of IR?!!!

11. You dismiss the fact that Islamic Republic sanctions use of White Lies and practices that widely to keep Islamic Republic alive. The health of 2009 election is one of those White Lies.

12. You ignore the fact that Valei-e-Faghih, per IR constitution, is the final arbitrator in all matters. The current Valei-e-Faghih publically asserted that right at the first Friday Prayer following June 12 election. He told everyone to shut-up and go home and that election was healthy because he said so and that the man who shared his ideological and political views was the right person for the job of president. The former Valei-e- Faghih, Khomeini, nullified 11 million votes (majority votes at that time) for another presidential candidate. He not only overruled people he ordered arrest of a candidate who had received 11 million votes.

13. You seem not to understand that there is no election in Islamic Republic, there is only a pretense of one. IR election is as healthy as Saddam Hossein election was in Iraq.

Participating in this debate with you is a useless exercise. You impeached yourself by your post of April 25, 2010 posted at 5:59. Up until that post I took you as lawyer trying to make a case with evidences that did not pass the smell test; a lawyer with a weak case who attempted to shift burden of proof to the opposing party. Your argument reminded me of “if it doesn’t fit you have to acquit”- the case in which murderer walked. Despite that I followed the discussion and read your comments trying to determine if you knew something I did not know. Then I read your jaw dropping post of April 25, 2010; thanks to Barry who smoked you out and allowed us to see the naked truth about who you really were and what you stood for.

Up to your 5:59 post of April 25 you had sanctimoniously admonished all of us on this thread not to dive into our emotions and become illogical. In every post you schooled us and asked us to read your article, breathe it and make it part of our DNAs. You admonished me and wrote at 16:42 on April 24; “There’s no point in attacking the messenger. Sometimes the temptation to do so can be nearly irresistible if one can think of no good responses to the facts or the arguments, but you should try to resist. Nobody worth convincing will place much weight on an ad hominem response.” Then you forgot your own advice and posted an incoherent rant at 5:59 on April 25 in which among others you claimed you knew us, the Greens, more than we did know ourselves. I simply loved it because we had the opportunity to see right through you and your hidden agenda. I am sure for Barry that was poetic justice. Scott was probably startled and had to politely and diplomatically (as he always does) remind you were taking a strange turn. I was glad because you had answered my simple question of “who are you?” so completely.

I hold you in contempt for your characterization of Greens in your post of 5:59 on April 25. You could not have been more wrong in decoding Greens. I am afraid, there is no “undo” mouse click in life, Eric. For me who also am an active participant in US politics no amount of apology will rehabilitate the image you painted of yourself in the mentioned post.

Prior to that post I believed your analysis and conclusion with regard to IR 2009 election lacked material facts. I believed your analysis and conclusion was not supported by sufficient independent data, e.g.examination of ballots, eye-witness account of campaign workers, candidates, poll workers, and voters who were able to testify without fear of persecution and prosecution. I, therefore, took your analysis as an academic exercise with hypothesize cast in stone and a researcher who only collected and processed data to prove a pre-determined conclusion. I, however, was open to listen and followed the discussion. Now that I know who you really are and where you stand, your analysis of 2009 IR election and your conclusion have zero credibility for me. I, therefore, find it a waste of time to engage in any further debate on this issue. Please no need to reply to my comments. I am not interested in what you have to say anymore.

Finally, I believe you failed Iranian people, people whom you do not know and who asked nothing of you. We have too much to do and paying attention to your fact (or is it fiction) finding mission isn’t one of them.

[gunni]

To Mr. Brill,
Who obviously is in search for his glasses on EA? Part II

The second point is just only a question of education and information – so –cool down – Mr. Brilly and listen.
Election – Reports are normally painting a description about the used standards at first.
If you are going to have a next try it is inevitable to say something about the organizing authority. Are they able to act independent? I am sure that you know that AN changed the had of this department just before the election. And Mr. Brilly – it’s your duty to describe why! Because they had serious differences to determine the absolute quantity of the voters. And this was the reason why they printed 12.000 more electoral documents than needed. So it is also necessary to give a answer to this interesting question: What happened with
this electoral documents during the elections?

You also didn’t mentioned the high amount of flexible ballot boxes – why? You also didn’t
say anything about why election observes didn`t found their election bureau to do their job:
Mr. Brilly – it wasn`t possible to talk with the observers – because somebody switched off the communication lines 3 days before the election day. And why didn`t you talk about the ransacking of the election bureau of the reformists ? You didn`t know why to tell anything about the boundary conditions of the elections?

That’s because it`s standard – this information is normally needed as an indicator how fair the elections are.

[gunni]

To Mr. Brill,
Who obviously is in search for his glasses on EA? Part III

My last point with you is about you nightmare dreaming of the election results.
Congratulations – as a nip picking writer but hopelessness lost in the space of
different occurrences you found out that there was election fraud in the case of Kharoubi.
But you keep it as a secret why this event had absolutely no influence to the election results?
I told you some days ago to compare your personal election results of AN 2009 with the results of 2005 to figure out the trend. This comparison makes it also possible to find indicators according to the assessment of the official results of the election.
You remember what you told me? You told me “read the article”.

For me it was the last prove that you are a bloody beginner without any knowledge what you are doing – you are at least a charlatan – but why ?
I really don`t know it.

Because just only bloody beginners are talking about shadowy professors when they are talking about contingency analyses. Mr. Brilly – it’s standard to say at first something about the basic parameters which you are going to put into the formula.
If you don’t - it smells – before you begin.

My friendly advice to you: Put all the data about the elections 2005 and 2009 into
your computer – make a comparison first and afterward a interpretation.
Mr. Brilly – don`t give up –no fear - try it – doing so its looking more serious.
And - please take care – because I don`t know how much fraud a computer will suffer – sometimes they are very human -
and they are going to explode with to much fraud – So - Mr. Brilly – Take care!

[Megan]

Gunni,

He is Leverett 3 looking for a free trip to Iran.

[gunni]

Yes, Megan - I think so. Now I`am very busy - because I`am booking a free non-stop-flight for them with the famous "Never-come-back-Airline" - 3 places aisle- or do we need more?

[Megan]

Gunni,

Make sure you book them rooms at hotel Marandi and a tour of kissing Khamenei's behind.

[Scott Lucas]

Eric,

No need for unnecessary complications --- the Government puts forth the Form 22s with their purported vote counts and signatures of observers. If there are the authentic signatures of more than 40,000 Mousavi observers who witnessed the count, with only a few missing, then this specific point in the Guardian Council report has been supported. If, however, the number is far less than 40,000, then the Guardian Council's claim is suspect and the allegation of key Mousavi advisors has merit.

S.

[gunni]

Don`t you think it`s a little bit to much Mmm - homosexu.... Pardon - to dangerous in this atmosphere?

[Bill]

Eric,

"Here’s a perfect opportunity for the opposition to nail the government to the wall. We have two starkly conflicting claims, and a very easy way to disprove the government’s position:" Then on producing a witness you state "what is the big deal." I think your missing the main point of many of the arguments here that being it is not that easy but actually deadly to try. Its why so many here have asked you to look beyond the box you have placed yourself in and to broaden your view to include the context before, during, and after the events. The context provides a very compelling arguement the regime did in fact commit fraud. You can argue this is not scientific and I would agree. However I would also point out the regime has not allowed anyone beyond the regime to validate their results. If they won with such a huge margin they should have nothing to hide yet they are doing everything to bury anything related to the election. The "why" is the fundamental question behind this whole debate! The regime is simply not acting like the party that won legally!

Thx
Bill

[Catherine]

Megan
RE your post 12 (on *this* page of comments!), thanks for putting a word in for us brushed-off, patronised eye-witnesses. :-)

Further to your remark directed at Eric, "Participating in this debate with you is a useless exercise", I would like to confirm that even someone who demonstrated great willingness spend their time engaging with Eric during the gestation of his article came, alas, to the very same conclusion. This is what Tehran Bureau's contributor professor Muhammad Sahimi had to say about his experience:

"Regarding the article by Eric Brills [sic]: he communicated his article with me for at least two months. I gave him many reasons and much evidence as to why the elections were rigged. In many cases his response was, "Oh, I did not know that," but at the end he posted the same nonsense that he had sent me at the very beginning. Typical of an arrogant American that knows it all and lectures everyone about what is right or what is not.

And, after he posted his nonsense, he had the nerve to ask me to read it, because "it is interesting!' Some nerves!"

Comment by Muhammad Sahimi / April 3, 2010 3:27 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/03/ahmadinejad-and-his-men-embodiments-of-fraud-and-corruption.html

[Eric A. Brill]

Gunni (and others):

It appears to me I've not made one point clear (among many others, it would seem, in the view of some):

When I point out that the Greens support the neo-cons, I do not mean at all to suggest that the Greens knowingly work with the neo-cons who would like the US to attack Iran. I fully understand that most (perhaps all) Greens would find that abhorrent.

I do suspect that some Greens are working, unknowingly, with people who work for the US government whose mission is to help overthrow the Iranian regime, but I don't think any of the Greens who may be doing that even know they're doing it, and I believe that most or all Greens would stop the moment they suspect that is what is happening. The principal reason I believe this is that (1) the US Congress has set aside $400 million a year to fund covert operations aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government; and (2) if I were assigned that mission, I'd certainly try to enlist the support of the Greens, without them knowing I was doing so since I would know that the hearts of most or all Greens are entirely pure and so they would never knowingly help me; and (3) I'd like to think the American taxpayers are at least getting something for the $400 million a year of their money that is reportedly being spent on the effort.

That doesn't make any Greens bad people. It just means that both groups aim for the same result, working entirely independently: the overthrow of the Iranian government. The neo-cons have their reasons (they believe Iran is a threat to the US and its allies), and the Greens have theirs (they believe the current government is illegitimate and should be overthrown, and that, since elections in Iran are not fair, it should be overthrown in some other way - through some expression of the popular will other than elections). They are allies of convenience, and one of the allies (the Greens) doesn't even know it's an ally.

The Greens' hearts may be in the right place, but what they press for plays right into the hands of those who would like to bomb their country. Some day they may figure that out (the hard way), but then it will be too late.

[gunni]

Maybe wrong number ?
Mr. Brill - I`m Gunni - #11 #13 #14 with Megan in the center #12. :)
Could you please confirm if #22 is your apposite answer?

[Eric A. Brill]

SCOTT:

I can see I'll never persuade you to look for that one brave observer. And after all, as I pointed out in my article, the government offered to do exactly what you propose when it released its election report:

"The Guardian Council claims to have "written evidence" of these approvals which "if necessary can be given to the media to inform the public."

One last suggestion, though. I suspect Mousavi read the Guardian Council report and is already well aware of its standing offer to release its "written evidence." Mousavi could have called the Guardian Council's bluff at any time. And yet he hasn't.

So, if I were you, Scott, I'd make sure you clear this with Mousavi before you go running off to the Guardian Council. There just may be some other reason that Mousavi prefers that this information not "be given to the media to inform the public."

Just a hunch.