Iran: We'll Never Really Know

A huge round up of blogging on Iran at link.

Poling? Election results?

Either way, we know it's a brutal, repressive regime. I doubt we will ever really know for certain how the election turned out. That's why the regime represents the evil it does and remains a threat to stability in the Middle-east for now.

Comments

[JustOneMan]

Hey what happened?? Werent we told that once King Barry was president the world would live in perfect harmony? Didnt Iran, N. Korea, S. America and most of Europe get the message?

[Philip McDaniel]

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya...Oh for God's sake, kumbaya and just look at what 'ADinnerjacket' and the Mad Mullas are up to.

[mark l.]

always wondered how the Beer Hall Putsch would have changed history, had hitler been successful.

now I get to find out.

[mark l.]

one other small point to be made about a potential shift in the middle east...

iraq, now, is clearly more democratic and secular than Iran.

this breeds infinite posiblities:

we may find ourselves witnessing a flood of refugees fleeing iran, FOR iraq.
porous border? once the bane of us forces, potentially the downfall of the mullahs.
had saddam still been in power, the 'fervor' for democracy in Iran falters.
with the return to public power in iraq, the shia religion moves west, further diminishing the power of the mullahs.

the inescapable fact?
iraq now becomes the fulcrum of democracy for Iran, and changes the ME for the better.

[mark l.]

the wh still is rather mute on the election fraud.

a year from now?

opposition leaders will be forced to flee the country in the intervening time span. ahmadinejad cannot allow it to happen, otherwise, he will face an international quorum, that will now include the oppo leaders.

obama will have to 'place his bet' on the current regime, or those in exile. my guess is that he refuses/avoids ANY PUBLIC meeting with mousavi, where bush probably would have made an open call on election night.

every single plan that the WH had, if they had any, for dealing with Iran must change in accordance with "conditions on the ground". Remember the 'stubborn' tag hung on bush? thus far obama has survived the troop deployment to afghanistan, pre-conditioned on world support, and subsequently being flatly rejected, without being forced to discuss the changes that needed to be made.

I doubt they will be prepared for the "change" that must come in dealing with Iran. Failure to support a move to democracy will yiled consequnces far beyond obama's administration.

There was a Iranian public opinion poll, which showed falling support for the US, AFTER obama's cairo speech. It struck me at the time as nothing more than white noise- a decline in support from a minority of Iranians. Given the events and cirucmstnace of the past few days, it seems clear that the speech served as an endorsement of the existing iranian govt, at least to the minority support we once held, but obama isn't losing 'a' minority. He is losing 'the' minority. The minority that would have pushed for freedom and equality, at least in a very relative way.