On Iran

A smattering of links about the biggest story going on since Friday ...

News Takes:
» NYT: Both Sides Claim Victory in Presidential Election in Iran
» NYT: Unrest Deepens as Critics Are Detained
» NYT: Reverberations as Door Slams on Hope of Change
» NYT: Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote

Opinion Takes:
» Gary Sick: Iran's political coup
» Juan Cole: Stealing the Iranian Election
» Juan Cole: Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy
» NYT: Iran's Day of Anguish (Roger Cohen)
» WaPo: The Iranian People Speak (Ken Ballen, Patrick Doherty)
» Juan Cole: Terror Free Tomorrow Poll Did not Predict Ahmadinejad Win
» WaPo: Some Good in a Bad Election (Anne Applebaum)
» NYT: Iran's Crossroads (Nick Kristof)

I happened to be with a friend from church who was more concerned about the apocalyptic implications of Iran's elections the week before, when I was asked whether I thought Ahmadinejad would win or not. As alluded to earlier here, I suspected he wouldn't, but that it wasn't quite a slam dunk. I could see him winning a marginal victory since much of the Western reaction to the pre-election news dwelled on the more urban population centers in Iran (and were likelier to overstate Mousavi's popularity). Juan Cole tries to rough that thesis up somewhat, but I think his arguments are enormously anecdotal (ie - he implemented a program that monitors women's clothing, so how could women support him?).

The one strand of thought that leads me to conclude that there was, indeed, significant fraud, is equally anecdotal. You have a global economy in the tank, which certainly seems to be impacting Iran very negatively in both rural and urban areas. Generally, that's a bad thing for incumbents. I mean, even if I could see Ahmadinejad winning, it wouldn't be at a level higher than his 2005 election. But if you're going to rig an election, you probably wouldn't want to do it in a way that signifies a drop in support. Adding even more questions to the outcome, it's worth remembering that the 2005 results came in a runoff, while this time it came in the first round with numerous candidates.

If there's any anecdotal evidence I'd want to pounce on, this would be the line of argument I'd do so over. I think there's a short list of elected leaders re-elected in situations comparable to this, I'd have to think it's a select group. The enormous turnout in this year's election (~85%) is debatable in terms of how to interpret against the outcome. But even there, I'd have to think that it would favor the challengers ... or at least dilute the incumbent's number.

What's particularly curious to read is the WaPo op-ed by Ballen & Doherty. Again, Cole punches back at it. This time, I think Cole's a bit more on the money. But even here, there's nothing definitive about the pushback against Ballen & Doherty to suggest that Ahmadinejad wouldn't win ... just whether a runoff was likely. This begins to put somewhat harder science into the question of whether Ahmadinejad flat-out stole an election or just juiced his numbers considerably. The case for the latter seems more-than-evident. The case for the former? ... slightly cloudy.

At best, it might be argued that there should be a runoff with Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. And who knows, maybe Mousavi would have had solid odds of winning it. That would be a plausible case for Mousavi to make. But, unfortunately, we're now treated to differing leaks of "woulda been official" results that show Mousavi with 57% and 45%.

It's worth keeping in mind that Mousavi is hardly a patron saint of Iranian democracy. This isn't an election between polar opposites. At best, it's an election between two ends of a slightly obtuse angle. At worst, it's one between the ends of a moderately acute angle.

All that said, there is nothing about the way Iran has conducted the election that suggests openness. Instead of the three-day wait to declare the results official, it happens the night of the election. Opposition candidates are placed under house arrest ... or so we're told. They show up offering a conflicting take on the election from their more immediate reaction. As is often the case, it's the coverup that trips you up.

It is a very American instinct - for better and worse - to fix any problem made visible, even if it's not really our own. We are - again, for better and worse - the world's sheriff.

UPDATE: In the midst of typing out this take, Iran's supreme leader has announced that there will be an investigation into the fraud claims by Mousavi. Given the relationship between those two, I can't help but think that it's a move designed to add a whiff of legitimacy to the fake vote count they've declared official. Mousavi's tweeting doesn't offer a good clue.