In the last week, two significant elections were held in the middle east. In both cases, high voter turnout was reported

Education Minister Bahiya al-Hariri and Prime Minister Siniora celebrate victory in the Lebanese election

The Lebanon went to the polls just over a week ago to elect a new Parliament. Interest centered on whether a Hizbollah-backed alliance (known as the 8th March Coalition) would win more seats than the ruling, more pro-western coalition of parties known as the 14th March Coalition. In the event, it failed to make the headway anticipated by some western observers.

The losing side immediately accepted the results of the election and pledged support for the next government. The western mainstream media, needless to say, gloated. It was smiles all round on the BBC, CNN and FOX.

Last Friday came the Presidential election in Iran. In this case, there was considerable anticipation within the western mass media that the current President might be defeated by a candidate perceived as more liberal and pro-western.

In this case, the west’s favoured candidate lost – rather decisively. Immediately the call went out protesting the election result. At the time of writing, it’s reported that the USA has yet to recognize the result; as usual, the Australian Government is following America’s ‘lead’. Vice President Biden is, however, quoted as saying that the USA will still negotiate with the Iranian Government. That’s patronizing, when you think about it – but it could be worse.

Protestors in Tehran, the day after the election

There’s been a lot of focus, in the western media, on ‘repression’ following the election. We hear that anti-Ahmadinejad protestors were quickly dispersed by police. Not good… Even so, reports also seem to indicate that some protestors hurled rocks. I invite anyone to try that in London or Washington these days and see how you get along.

Of course, the more transparency in elections, the better – whether they occur in America, Iran or anywhere else. Ideally, humanity would have evolved a sufficiently co-operative and harmonious world society by now so that observers from outside – representing the world community – would always be welcome to help monitor elections. But we’re not quite there yet.

There has been widespread concern about massive electoral fraud in the USA at successive elections – mainly due to widespread use of ‘black box’ electronic voting which left no paper trail or other means of auditing announced results. Suffice it to say that the USA, given its own recent history, is ill-placed to lecture anyone on bodgy elections – except perhaps to explain how elections can be rigged on a grand scale.

Mir Hussein Moussavi: declared victory on the basis of his own exit-polling; an old trick

Supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi,, the leading challenger in the Iranian election, took to wearing green sashes during the campaign. It lead some western observers to speculate about whether Iran was to experience a post-election ‘Green Revolution’, rather like the Soros-funded and inspired colour revolutions that had been so effective in bouncing official winners in the Ukraine and Georgia a few years back.

The Iranian Government – and the Iranian people as a whole – are not stupid. They have been noticing these CIA/Zionist sponsored shenanigans around the world for some considerable time. It was to be expected they’d ensure nothing similar happened in Iran. It has not.

What should be equally clear, however, to those who live in the real world as opposed to the bubble-reality of the western mainstream media, is that the objective basis for such a ‘revolution’ does not exist in Iran, c. 2009.

Most Iranians want change – including more civil and media freedom. But they do not want another western coup; their elders still remember the CIA/MI6 coup in the early 1950s that toppled Iran’s elected leader of the day. They have a deep distrust of Israel and certainly do not want pro-Zionist leadership or influence in their own country.

How do we know this? A month or so before the Iranian election, the Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, the New America Foundation and KA Europe SPRL conducted quite detailed telephone surveys of Iranian public opinion. These were published under the title: Results of a New Nationwide Public Opinion Survey of Iran before the June 12, 2009 Presidential Elections. It had two subtitles: Ahmadinejad Front Runner in Upcoming Presidential Elections and  Iranians Continue to Back Compromise and Better Relations with US and West.

Presidential Election Poll for Iran, May 2009

It is reasonable to be suspicious of the results; these are ‘insider’ organiations within the western power structure. But there’s no possibility, for that very reason, that the results were pro-Ahmadinejad propaganda.

The survey showed rather clearly that Ahmadinejad was way ahead of Moussavi, with two and a half times as much support. At that time, however, there were still a lot of undecided voters.

Presidents Ahmadinejad and Chavez embrace in 2008: both are grinning winners

Judging by the official final result, Moussavi did pick up some of these late-to-decide voters. But he didn’t get them all – and the incumbent was already well ahead.

Responses in the survey to questions on the economy and foreign affairs help explain President Ahmadinejad’s electoral success. His policies represent mainstream opinion. Ahmadinejad is widely perceived as the friend of the poor; Moussavi, by contrast, was regarded as the ally of the wealthy.

President Ahmadinejad could be decribed the ‘Hugo Chavez’ of his own, very different, society. He’s not an aberration. He represents the popular will of the majority in a society that’s sophisticated, but still poor by western standards.

Two more grinning elected Presidents

Juan Cole, an American academic generally considered on the left, takes an entirely different view. Cole clearly believes the Iranian election was rigged: see Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy.

It’s possible that ‘conspiracy theorists’ such as Professor Cole are right – although I don’t believe he makes a convincing case.

I’d like to know how Cole explains the ‘Terror Free Tomorrow’ polling data. Was it rigged in Ahmadinejad’s favour as well?

The 'had enough of Zionist-rule' shake?

People who believe in conspiracies as broad as that are usually ridiculed. Paranoia sometimes gets the better of them. They may end up reading too much, for example, into the grins of Obama and Chavez when they met at the recent Americas Summit.

They are especially prone to fret over innocent gestures such as a friendly handshake (even though it may, in fairness, have looked suspicous to an occultist…)

___________________

See also:

• More On The Iran Election (Moon of Alabama) – an article with similar thesis, followed by extensive debate
• Crowds join Ahmadinejad victory rally (BBC Website) – check the size of that crowd!
• Mir-Hossein Mousavi’s Iran/Contra Connection? (Uruknet) – some interesting connections going back a quarter century

This man advocates compulsory government censorship of the World Wide Web.

Do you want governments to decide what material YOU can view on the web, in the privacy of your home?

See the Opinion Poll to the right. It will be open until mid-March 2009.

Dr Clive Hamilton. Professor of Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University

Cyclones: more predictable than politics?

One of the most irritating things about a lot of websites dealing with the grim issues covered by this blog, is the bland certainty that many authors express in their writings.

It’s quite a widespread human trait to insist on being right (explicitly or implicitly), by no means confined to discussions about Zionism, global warming or any other topic. Some people are like that about the weather. I probably do it myself from time to time.

In any event, I’ll take this opportunity to admit that there are many things I don’t know with certainty. One of them is how Barak Obama’s Presidency will pan out. I tend towards the more optimistic side on that, but keep an open mind.

I installed an opinion poll module on this blog in mid-January, a few days before Obama’s memorable inauguration. At the time, the Gaza horror was at its height. I asked questions that tried to tease out whether people were more or less pessimistic about his ability to chart a fairer course in America’s middile east policy.

Convinced? Or not?

It’s an important topic and there’s been plenty of commentary about this, in the mainstream media as well as in the blogosphere.

I wanted to invite views about whether Obama will deliver real ‘change’ in this policy area – which essentially means less bias towards Israel. But I was also interested in views about whether Obama is really a Zionist blackhat (there’s a lot of commentary along those lines around, some of it apparently well-informed – such as James Petras’ recent essay Israel Asserting Middle East Supremacy: From Gaza to Tehran). Others see Obama as a fair-minded man who who’d like to do the right thing – yet appreciate the pressure he’s under from the Israel Lobby. Hence the three alternatives I eventually provided.

Roughly one in a hundred visitors actually voted, according to my web stats. That in itself I find interesting. Those who did vote, I assume, were limited to people agreeing with my underlying assessment that American policy is biased towards Israel (I provided no voting option for anyone who doesn’t share that view.)

SydWalker.info: favoured by depressives

Here are the results (also available via the Polls Archive):

Obama, America and Zionism: Which is closest to your opinion?

• Obama won’t try to change America’s Zionist bias and doesn’t want to (48.0%, 27 Votes)
• Obama won’t try to change America’s Zionist bias even though he’d like to (32.0%, 18 Votes)
• Obama will try to change America’s Zionist bias so US policy is less biased towards Israel (20.0%, 11 Votes)
  
  Total Voters: 56
  Start Date: Friday, January 16th 2009 @ 1:51 pm
  End Date: Saturday, January 31st 2009 @ 11:59 pm

So there it is. What a pessimistic lot!

I belong to a minority of one fifth who still entertain hopes Obama is a good guy who intends to have a go. But with this very small sample, take out my vote and we’re under 20%!

It’s true roughly half believed Obama would LIKE change away from America’s egregious Zionist bias. But most of them don’t believe he can pull it off. How depressing!

Depressing Humour

This level of pessimism makes me wonder whether I should start a counselling service for depressed anti-Zionists – but for now here’s a little good news from Australia, spotted at Antony Lowensteins’s website: How to dismantle Zionism in a few easy steps.

It’s an open letter to Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, whose nickname ‘Chairman’ is not going anywhere fast. Someone should tell Mr Rudd to lighten up and stop acting like a noxious Zionist creep. Now someone has – using much nicer language and some interesting historical arguments:

John Docker and regular Overland contributor Ned Curthoys are distributing the open letter below on behalf of their newly formed Committee for the Dismantling of Zionism:

See also ABC Radio’s Unleashed on January 9th 2009, about The Gaza Massacre featuring more of the views of John Docker and Ned Curthoys.