Iran, in Today's News 06.17.09

Iran. It is difficult to say something meaningful and accurate about the post-election demonstrations in Iran because sources of actual fact are lost in the media frenzy. Michael Hoffman has an article today on the media's hypocrisy in relation to Iran.  It may be read here.  

Here are some random comments on the situation:

First, demonstrations like this don't just occur. Even if there is popular support for a cause, it takes organization by someone(s) to bring off and sustain the demonstrations. The media doesn't report who these someone's are. The media confines itself to reporting that the supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the defeated candidate, are attending. But who brought them out demonstrating? Was it Mousavi? Not likely because if he were so capable of mobilizing people, it would have been seen earlier.

Second, the media is so biased that it is impossible to determine how much genuine popular support there is. As far as the media is concerned these demonstrations are the biggest 'uprising' since Tiananmen Square. Of course, that event also had some question marks. Heretofore President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has enjoyed wide popular support.

Third, it now becomes a little clearer why the United States was anxious to hold off Israel on an attack on Iran. If the American leaders had some inkling that such demonstrations were going to occur, it is far wiser to promote the demonstrations than to cut them off by military attack.

Fourth, there is always the consideration of who benefits. Mousavi probably will benefit, although there is a lot of water to flow under that bridge yet. The biggest benefactors so far are those who want to cause trouble or overthrow the regime in Iran. Those benefactors, of course, are the United States and Israel.

Fifth, the demonstrations have a remarkable similarity to such events in the Ukraine and Georgia. It is now recognized that the CIA and George Soros-funded forces were quite active in those countries at the time. It will take time to see if the same is true in the Iranian events.

Sixth, the charge of election fraud seems a little weak. After all Ahmadinejad won the election by a 2-1 margin, an enormous amount. Even if there were fraud it would take a giant effort, easily discernible, to create such a winning margin. No such fraud seems evident, and the accusers are remarkably short on details of the supposed fraud. Every election has some fraud, even in the United States (sarcasm). But a little fraud is not going to change a 2-1 margin very much.

The post-election demonstrations in Iran are one of those events where it will take time to determine what really occurred and what it represents. We have to wait for the sources that the media ignores to find their voice to the public.