Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces defeat if election not rigged, say Iranian experts | World news | The Guardian Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces defeat if election not rigged, say Iranian experts Friday 12 June 2009 01.03 EDT First published on Friday 12 June 2009 01.03 EDT Close This article is 7 years old Iranians go to the polls today to elect a president after an acrimonious and volatile election campaign that has polarised the country and unleashed mass opposition to the hardline Mahmoud Ahmadinejad . In the absence of reliable independent opinion polls, experts predicted yesterday that Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate "green" candidate, would probably beat the controversial incumbent so long as the result was not rigged. Saeed Lalyaz, a respected political commentator, said he believed Mousavi now commanded the support of 55-60% across the country and warned of a possible crackdown on the opposition if Ahmadinejad were re-elected. "I worry about the impact of any announcement that Ahmadinejad wins in the first round," said Lalyaz. "Whoever wins, these people on the streets will not go home easily.

If Ahmadinejad is president for a second time I worry about another Tiananmen Square experience." Ominously, as three weeks of often passionate campaigning drew to a close, the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRG) warned that any attempt at a popular "revolution" would be crushed. Underlining the unprecedented scale of public interest in the election, it was reported that more than 10m text messages had been sent on Tuesday alone, apparently reflecting intense efforts to get the vote out and avoid the risk of mass abstentions. The regime is also encouraging mass participation. "The people of Iran will choose someone who will resist the bullying of those who are arrogant and defend Iran's interest in the world," said a statement from the Basij militia. The candidate who takes more than 50% becomes president automatically. If none does tomorrow, a second run-off round will be held next Friday. Two other candidates, reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi and Mohsen Rezaei, another conservative, would drop out if that happened. Ahmadinejad was reportedly losing support to Rezaei, a former IRG commander, and elements of the military were said to be backing Mousavi, who has pledged to increase personal freedoms.

A victory for the former prime minister could improve relations with the west, though big policy changes are unlikely. Timeline: 2009 Iran presidential elections - CNN.com Timeline: 2009 Iran presidential elections Story Highlights President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wins ballot with 62.63 percent of the vote Chief rival Mir Hossein Moussavi receives 33.75 percent Supporters of Moussavi dispute results and take to the streets of Tehran Iran's election authority agrees to recount some votes Next Article in World » (CNN) -- June 12 Presidential elections are held following a campaign that saw huge rallies held in support of both incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and main opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi, suggesting the race would be closely fought. Incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad casts his vote in Tehran last week. June 13 Moussavi calls for vote counting to stop, saying there are "blatant violations." The government says Ahmadinejad won the ballot with 62.63 percent of the vote, while Moussavi received 33.75 percent of the vote.

Following the announcement, angry crowds in Iran's capital break into shops, tear down signs and start fires as they protest the re-election of Ahmadinejad. June 14 Ahmadinejad gives victory speech, declines to guarantee the safety of Moussavi. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gives his blessing to the outcome of the election. Don't Miss Q & A: Was the Iranian election rigged? Authorities close Arabic network Al-Arabiya's Tehran bureau for a week without offering a reason. Protests continue by Moussavi supporters, triggering a counterreaction from supporters of Ahmadinejad, tens of thousands of whom rallied in central Tehran. Men on motorcycles -- reportedly Ahmadinejad backers -- chase demonstrators and beat them with clubs, metal batons and baseball bats. June 15 Khamenei agrees to an investigation into the disputed presidential election and asks opposition leader Moussavi to pursue his allegation of ballot fraud through legal means. Moussavi supporters take to the streets in the largest protest since the 1979 revolution. Moussavi makes his first public appearance since the vote.

At least 8 people are reported dead -- one at the end of the protest, the others after allegedly attacking a military post. Mohammad Ali Abtahi -- a former vice president who backed pro-reform presidential candidate, Mehdi Karrubi -- is arrested. Media rights group Reporters Without Borders urges nations not to recognize the results of the election, citing censorship and a crackdown on journalists. June 16 Iran's Guardian Council election authority, a body of senior clerics and judges, agrees to recount some votes. Ahmadinejad leaves for Russia to meet with President Dmitry Medvedev. He is welcomed as the "newly re-elected president of Iran." Ahmadinejad returns to Iran later the same day. Moussavi rejects the recount, saying it will be misused add more credence to a fraudulent ballot. He calls for fresh elections. With rival rallies planned by backers of both Moussavi and Ahmadinejad in the center of Tehran, Moussavi urges his supporters to stay away, fearing further violence. Iran's Ministry of Culture issues a ban on foreign media reporting from the streets of Tehran, meaning international news crews including CNN were not allowed to leave their hotels and offices.

Thousands of people take to the streets in support of both sides in the disputed election. Iran's all-powerful leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appeals to the country's people to stand behind the Islamic republic. June 17 Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a powerful military force that enforces strict Islamic codes, threatens legal actions against Web sites it says are inciting violence. It also accuses U.S. and Canadian companies, including American intelligence agencies, for financially and technically supporting the Web sites. Moussavi's supporters take to streets of Tehran in a fifth day of demonstrations, staging what is billed as a "silent protest," with some marchers wearing tape over their mouths. Rally passes without violence. Rights group Amnesty International says other protests are staged in other cities across Iran. Iran's national football team wears green arm and wrist bands during a World Cup qualifying match in South Korea, a symbol taken by many to indicate solidarity with Moussavi's supporters. June 18 Thousands of supporters of Mir Hossein Moussavi protest for a sixth consecutive day, many trading their green clothes for black garments in honor of at least eight protesters killed Monday.

Meanwhile, in a televised speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims remarks he made on Sunday were taken out of context. After claiming victory in the elections, Ahmadinejad compared the putative losers to fans of a losing soccer team. "I was addressing those who started riots and set up fires and attacked people," he told the state-run news agency IRINN. Press TV reports that Iran's Intelligence Ministry said it had arrested a number of "main agents" behind vandalism during the daily demonstrations. June 19 In his first public appearance since the elections, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei endorses Ahmadinejad's win, insisting the margin of victory -- some 11 million votes -- was too large to have been manipulated. Khamenei expresses his support for Ahmadinejad and calls for an end to the protests, which he accused foreign powers including Britain, Israel and the United States of helping foment. He urged critics of the electoral process to seek redress through legal channels and warned that perpetrators of violent unrest would be punished.

Ahmadinejad Re-elected: Israel And Obama’s Iran Puzzle 22 June, 2009 Countercurrents.org The election victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to complicate US President Barack Obama’s new approach to his country’s conflict with Iran. The reason behind the foreseen obstacle is neither the US nor Iran’s refusal to engage in future dialogue but rather Israel’s insistence on a hard-line approach to the problem. Iran’s presidential elections on June 12 were positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern ‘moderates’ vs. ‘extremists’. That depiction, which conveniently divided the Middle East – according to the prevailing US foreign policy discourse - to pro-American and anti-American camps was hardly as clear in the Iranian case as it was in Palestine and most recently in Lebanon. Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister for 8-years (between 1981-1989) during one of Iran’s most challenging times, its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a ‘moderate’ then. More, Moussavi was equally adamant in his country’s right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means.

As far as US interests in the region are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country’s attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing or, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country. This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Moussavi during Iran’s lively election campaigns did indeed promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to present two convenient personalities to the outside world, a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on ‘wiping Israel off the map”, and a soft-spoken, learned ‘moderate’ ready to ‘engage’ the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor. Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image - tainted as such by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of Israel - won.

The election outcome in Iran presents the young Obama with a major challenge: if he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft overtures towards Iran, ruled by a supposed Holocaust-denier, he will certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to perceive Israel’s interests in the region as secondary; on the other hand, Obama cannot depart from his country’s new approach towards Iran, a key player in shaping the contending forces in the entire region. In some way, Ahmadinejad’s victory was the best news for Israel. Now, Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to ‘act’ against Iran, for the latter, under its current president is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, a claim that few in Washington question. “It is not like we rooted for Ahmadinejad,” an Israeli official told the New York Times on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that Ahmadinejad won another term in office. But considering Israel’s immediate attempt to capitalize on the outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran’s ‘moderate’ camp was not a best case scenario for Israel.

Iran will continue to be presented as the obstacle in future peace in the Middle East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid any accountability as far as the ‘peace process’ is concerned. In fact, with an ‘existential threat’ not too far away, few in Washington would dare challenge Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter seen as an ‘Iranian-backed militia.’ Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom was one of the first top officials in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran’s elections, he said, “blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its nuclear program.” Ostensibly, Shalom’s message was directed at a small audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target audience, was in fact Obama himself. Obama’s overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of Iran’s growing influence in the region, and the US’ desperate and failing fight in Iraq.

It was Obama’s pragmatism, not a moral-shift in US foreign policy that compelled such statements as that made on June 2 in a BBC interview: “What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations. On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.” For Israel, however, Obama’s rhetoric is a deviation from the past US hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East. Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute, John R. Bolton expressed the war-mongering mantra of the pro-Israel crowd in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: “What if Israel Strikes Iran?”: “Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and plunge the region into political chaos.

To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran's diverse population against an oppressive regime.” Ahmadinejad’s victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with Iran is not an option, from the point of view of Israel and its supporters in the US. Whether Obama will proceed with his positive rhetoric towards Iran is to be seen. Failure to do so, however, will further undermine his country’s interests in the Middle East, and will prolong the cold war atmosphere of animosity, espoused by a clique of neoconservative hard-liners throughout the Bush administration of past years. - Ramzy Baroud ( is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers, journals and anthologies around the world.

His latest book is, "The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle" (Pluto Press, London), and his forthcoming book is, “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London) Leave A Comment Iranians flood to polls for pivotal election | World news | The Guardian Iranians flood to polls for pivotal election • High turnout points to Ahmadinejad losing presidency • Hardliners warn of crackdown on any popular 'revolution' Ian Black in Tehran, Peter Walker and agencies Friday 12 June 2009 08.24 EDT First published on Friday 12 June 2009 08.24 EDT Close This article is 7 years old Iranians have gone to the polls in large numbers today for a crucial presidential election that has polarised the country and unleashed mass opposition to the hardline incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. While there have been no official turnout figures, polling was extended for two hours, with voters at one polling station at a school in a wealthy suburb of north Tehran queueing around the block despite the blazing early afternoon sun – a scene repeated throughout the country.

Ominously, as three weeks of often passionate campaigning drew to a close, the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRG) warned that any attempt at a popular "revolution" would be crushed. In the holy city of Qom, a centre of Shia scholarship, hundreds of clerics and women dressed in long black robes waited to vote in a long line outside a mosque. One election official was quoted as predicting up to 80% of the country's 46 million voters could cast ballots. A high turnout would be expected to favour Mir Hossein Mousavi, the former prime minister and moderate "green" candidate who is particularly popular with younger voters. In the absence of reliable independent opinion polls, experts have predicted that Mousavi will probably beat Ahmadinejad as long as the result is not rigged. "I hope to defeat Ahmadinejad today," said Mahnaz Mottaghi, 23, after casting her ballot at a mosque in central Tehran. While the month-long campaign has been hard fought, even acrimonious, outside groups have complained that Ahmadinejad has enjoyed far more access to state TV and radio than Mousavi.

Saeed Lalyaz, a respected political commentator, said yesterday he believed Mousavi commanded the support of 55%-60% across the country and warned of a possible crackdown on the opposition if Ahmadinejad were re-elected. "I worry about the impact of any announcement that Ahmadinejad wins in the first round," said Lalyaz. "Whoever wins, these people on the streets will not go home easily. If Ahmadinejad is president for a second time I worry about another Tiananmen Square experience." After casting his vote, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, urged Iranians to remain calm. "As far as I see and hear, passion and motivation is very high among people," Khamenei told reporters. "If some intend to create tension, this will harm people." Ahmadinejad commented on the high turnout after voting at a mosque in eastern Tehran. "A strong and revolutionary decision by the people will mean a bright and progressive future for the nation," he told the IRNA news agency. Mousavi voted with his wife at a mosque in Tehran's southern outskirts.

Underlining the unprecedented scale of public interest in the election, it was reported that more than 10m text messages were sent on Tuesday alone, apparently reflecting intense efforts to get the vote out and avoid the risk of mass abstentions. The regime has been encouraging mass participation. "The people of Iran will choose someone who will resist the bullying of those who are arrogant and defend Iran's interest in the world," said a statement from the Basij militia. The candidate who takes more than 50% becomes president automatically – otherwise a run-off will be held next Friday. Two other candidates, the reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi and the conservative Mohsen Rezaei, would drop out if that happened. Ahmadinejad was reportedly losing support to Rezaei, a former IRG commander, and elements of the military were said to be backing Mousavi, who has pledged to increase personal freedoms. A victory for Mousavi could improve relations with the west, though big policy changes are unlikely. Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote - The New York Times The New York Times Middle East |Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote Search By ROBERT F.

WORTH and NAZILA FATHI JUNE 13, 2009 Continue reading the main story Photo After President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced as winner of Iran's election, protesters hurled stones. Credit Olivier Laban-Mattei/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images TEHRAN — The streets of Iran ’s capital erupted in the most intense protests in a decade on Saturday, with riot police officers using batons and tear gas against opposition demonstrators who claimed that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had stolen the presidential election. Witnesses reported that at least one person had been shot dead in clashes with the police in Vanak Square in Tehran. Smoke from burning vehicles and tires hung over the city late Saturday. The Interior Ministry said Saturday afternoon that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 percent of the vote , with Mir Hussein Moussavi , the top challenger, taking just under 34 percent. Turnout was a record 85 percent. Mr. Moussavi, a former prime minister who had promised to reverse Mr.

Ahmadinejad’s hard-line policies, declared himself the winner by a wide margin Friday night, charged widespread election irregularities and called on Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, to intervene. The landslide victory for Mr. Ahmadinejad, an intensely divisive figure here and abroad, came as a powerful shock to opposition supporters, who had cited polls showing that Mr. Moussavi had a strong lead in the final days of the campaign. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Interior Minister Sadegh Mahsouli said Saturday that such a lead was a misimpression based on Mr. Moussavi’s higher levels of support in the capital, and that he had less backing elsewhere. Mr. Moussavi made clear in statements on Saturday that he rejected the results and called on supporters and fellow clerics to fight them. But there were no reports of any public appearances by him through the day, leading to rumors that he might have been arrested. In a statement posted on his campaign Web site, Mr. Moussavi said: “Today the people’s will has been faced with an amazing incident of lies, hypocrisy and fraud.

I call on my Iranian compatriots to remain calm and patient.” But Ayatollah Khamenei closed the door to any appeals for intervention in a statement issued on state television on Saturday afternoon, congratulating Mr. Ahmadinejad on his victory and pointedly urging the other candidates to support him. In a televised address to the nation Saturday night, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the public to respect the results, and he denounced foreign diplomatic and journalistic criticism. “All political and propaganda machines abroad and sections inside the country have been mobilized against the nation,” he said. Mr. Moussavi’s defiance seemed to fuel street resistance by his supporters — a coalition including women, young people, intellectuals and members of the moderate clerical establishment — who had united in opposition to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s erratic economic stewardship, confrontational foreign policy and crackdown on social freedoms. “Death to the coup d’état!” chanted a surging crowd of several thousand protesters, many of whom wore Mr. Moussavi’s signature bright green campaign colors, as they marched in central Tehran on Saturday afternoon.

“Death to the dictator!” Advertisement Farther down the street, clusters of young men hurled rocks at a phalanx of riot police officers, and the police used their batons to beat back protesters. There were reports of demonstrations in other major Iranian cities as well. Photo President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, left, and Mir Hussein Moussavi. Credit Ebrahim Norouzi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images, left; Newsha Tavakolian, via Polaris, for The New York Times The authorities closed universities in Tehran, blocked cellphone transmissions and access to Facebook and some other Web sites, and for a second day shut down text-messaging services. As night settled in, the streets in northern Tehran that recently had been the scene of pre-election euphoria were lit by the flames of trash fires and blocked by tipped trash bins and at least one charred bus. Young men ran through the streets throwing paving stones at shop windows, and the police pursued them. Earlier in the day, hurried meetings were reported among Iran’s leading political figures and clerics; some were said to be trying to influence Ayatollah Khamenei to intervene in a situation that could stain public confidence in the integrity of Iran’s elections.

But Saeed Leylaz, an economist and political analyst, said he believed that Ayatollah Khamenei’s statement would bring a resolution, even if demonstrations persisted for a few days. “This has put an end to political negotiations from above,” Mr. Leylaz said. For the moment, Ayatollah Khamenei’s admonition did nothing to calm the opposition’s rage. “The results of the 10th presidential election are so ridiculous and so unbelievable that one cannot write or talk about it in a statement,” said Mehdi Karroubi, a reformist cleric and candidate. Mr. Karroubi came in last with 300,000 votes — far fewer than analysts had predicted. “It is amazing that the people’s vote has turned into an instrument for the government to stabilize itself,” he said. The other candidate, Mohsen Rezai, got 680,000 votes, Interior Ministry officials said. In 2005, when Mr. Karroubi was also a candidate for president, he accused the government of rigging the vote in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s favor.

In that election, the government announced when polls closed that there would probably be a runoff between two of three candidates, a reform candidate and a former police chief. Advertisement Continue reading the main story But by 7 a.m. the next day, a spokesman for the Guardian Council, a clerical oversight panel that is not supposed to be involved in vote counting, announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad was in first place. Mr. Karroubi’s charges were never investigated. The turmoil on Saturday followed an extraordinary night in which the Iranian state news agency announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won by a vast margin just two hours after the polls closed. The timing alone provoked deep suspicion here, because the authorities have never before announced election results until the following morning. Mr. Moussavi also announced Friday night that he believed he had won by a wide margin. Mr. Moussavi also complained about irregularities and unfairness in the election, saying there had been a lack of ballots in many areas and that some of his campaign offices had been attacked and his Web sites shut down. The official results prompted further skepticism, in part because Mr. Ahmadinejad was said to have won by large margins even in his opponents’ hometowns. Mr.

Rezai’s hometown, for example, gave him less than a tenth of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s total there, the Interior Ministry said. The issue of vote-rigging has often been raised in Iranian elections, but analysts have generally said the authorities can manipulate the results by only a few percentage points, leaving room for genuine democratic movements. Iran’s clerical leaders often point to past reformist victories as proof of the Islamic Republic’s democratic legitimacy. Many reformists have boycotted votes in the past to avoid giving the clerics that satisfaction. Those reformists voted in large numbers this time, inspired by a vast popular movement that rose up to support Mr. Moussavi. Their bitterness on Saturday at the unexpected results was correspondingly severe. “We are not disposable things to be thrown away,” said Mahshid, 20, a student who declined to give her last name because she feared repercussions from the authorities. “From now on, we won’t vote. They have insulted our feelings of patriotism.” Meanwhile, the working-class areas of southern Tehran where Mr. Ahmadinejad is popular were largely quiet, despite rumors of wild victory celebrations.

“There might be some manipulation in what the government has done,” said Maliheh Afrouz, 55, a supporter of Mr. Ahmadinejad clad in a black chador. “But the other side is exaggerating, making it seem worse than it really is.” A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Iran Opposition Protests Hard-Liner’s Re-election. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe Ahmadinejad's Uncertain Future: Assessing Iran's Presidential Elections - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carnegie Endowment for International Peace June 02, 2009 Washington, D.C. Summary: On June 12 Iranians will vote in the country’s tenth presidential election since 1979. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be challenged in his bid for re-election by three well-known Iranian political figures. Related Topics Print Page On June 12 Iranians will vote in the country’s tenth presidential election since 1979. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be challenged in his bid for re-election by three well-known Iranian political figures.

The powerful advantages of incumbency and the ostensible support of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei bode well for Ahmadinejad’s re-election, according to Karim Sadjadpour, an Associate at the Carnegie Endowment, and Robin Wright, public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Iranian elections are unfree, unfair, but also unpredictable. Ahmadinejad’s mismanagement of the economy, confrontational foreign policy, and clampdown on civil liberties, however, have generated a sense of malaise in the country that may be enough to make him the first Iranian president to fail to win a second term. Regardless of who wins the election, Sadjadpour and Wright stressed that its outcome has important consequences for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement. In a discussion moderated by Haleh Esfandiari, director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Sadjadpour and Wright gave an overview of the four candidates, the major issues in the elections, whether the elections are democratic, and their significance.

The Candidates: Former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi: The leading opposition candidate whose campaign slogan is “return to stability, return to rationality.” He appeals to the urban middle classes, professional elites, women and young voters. While he has promised to follow former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami’s commitment to reform, Wright cautioned that he is really a conservative moderate. Sadjadpour added that he lacks Khatami’s charisma, and has yet to inspire wide-scale political mobilization. Mehdi Karroubi: Former speaker of the parliament and the only cleric running in the election. He is the “dark horse” candidate. With the most expansive political platform – calling for the release of all political prisoners, free speech for all, easing of social restrictions and reform of the Guardian Council – he is the only true reformer. Mohsein Rezaii: Former commander of the Revolutionary Guards, he is best described as a pragmatic conservative. The least popular challenger, Rezaii is unlikely to win but may help reformists by stealing some conservative votes from Ahmadinejad, according to Sadjadpour.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The most hardline candidate, his base is the rural, lower-middle class and traditionalist or religious groups. Lower voter turnout will help him, since his political base votes in much higher numbers than other sectors of Iranian society. Ahmadinejad enjoys substantial advantages of incumbency, including the control of official state television, access to state funds, and ties to two bodies charged with administering the elections, the Interior Ministry and the Guardian Council. Major Issues in the Election: Ahmadinejad’s record is the major issue in the election. The other candidates have defined their agendas in terms of his failures. Three issues are most important: The economy – inflation is 28%, the cost of housing and food is sky-rocketing, and unemployment is officially 13% but could be as high as 20%. The oil stabilization fund has been severely depleted by Ahmadinejad. The three challengers all promise better economic management. Karroubi also proposes offering shares of the petroleum industry to the public, while Rezaii vows to squander less of the oil revenues. The role of women – for the first time in an Iranian election, all candidates have a position on this issue.

Mousavi and Karroubi both support equal rights for women and Karroubi promises to appoint women to his cabinet. Rezaii and Ahmadeinjad, in contrast, advocate maintaining the status quo in gender relations. Iran-U.S. relations – each candidate favors negotiations, but they differ in how they should be structured and what their ultimate goal should be. Mousavi, for example, advocates negotiations as long as Iran is not required to “pay a heavy cost.” Rezaii calls for negotiations, but with the qualification that Iran must do so from a position of strength. Wright added that two issues are not in play – the nuclear program, which all of the candidates support as Iran’s sovereign right – and commitment to the Islamic revolution and system of government, a stance that reflects the attitudes of Iranians. Are the Elections Democratic? While Iranian elections are more democratic than elections in much of the Middle East, Sadjadpour emphasized that they are fundamentally unfree and unfair for two reasons: The unelected Guardian Council determines who can run.

If the Supreme Leader decides to support one candidate, he has powerful tools at his disposal – the ability to mobilize the bassij and elements of the Revolutionary Guard, grant access to additional campaign funds, and provide preferential treatment from official state television – that can influence the outcome of the election. Wright cautioned, however, that in two instances Khamenei’s support was not enough to propel his preferred candidate to victory. Recent statements by Khamenei, Sadjadpour said, indicate that he has decided to support Ahmadinejad. Moreover, the other three candidates have all clashed with Khamanei in the past. The urban sophisticates in Tehran recognize the undemocratic aspects of Iranian elections, and in the past have refrained from voting. There are indications, however, that more will vote in this election. Rural Iranians largely see the elections as legitimate, or at least believe that voting is necessary to keep jobs directly or indirectly provided by the government. Significance of the Elections: The Supreme Leader is the most important official in Iran, but seeks input on policy decision from a small circle of elite advisors. The President’s influence is dwarfed by that of the Supreme Leader, but it is by no means negligible.

Sadjadpour warned that if Ahmadinejad is re-elected, his history of diatribes toward Israel and Holocaust denial may make his continued presence as the public face of Iran an insurmountable obstacle to U.S.-Iran confidence building. Profile: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - BBC News BBC News Close share panel Image caption Mr Ahmadinejad calls himself a friend of the people A populist hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often courted controversy since becoming the sixth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2005. His strong rhetoric against the United States and Israel and unbending stance on Iran's nuclear programme has proved popular at home but has enraged the West. In 2009, international criticism intensified when his re-election caused his country's worst political unrest since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The results, disputed by defeated reformists and moderates who demanded a rerun, led to violent anti-government protests. They were crushed but a deep rift was left within Iran's political and clerical elite. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in matters of state, declared the vote valid so that Mr Ahmadinejad could be sworn in for a second term.

The president is among a younger generation of lay politicians who are fiercely loyal to him. Rising from obscurity The son of a blacksmith, Mr Ahmadinejad was born in 1956 in Garmsar, near Tehran, and holds a PhD in traffic and transport from Tehran's University of Science and Technology, where he was a lecturer. He was not well-known when he was appointed mayor of Tehran in 2003. While running the city he reduced social freedoms and curtailed many of the reforms introduced by more moderate figures who ran the city before him. His rise to power and landslide victory in 2005 surprised the international community, which anticipated a win for the incumbent president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Revolutionary credentials There has been confusion about Mr Ahmadinejad's role in the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Several of the 52 Americans who were held hostage in the US embassy in the months after the revolution say they are certain Mr Ahmadinejad was among those who captured them. He insists he was not there, and several known hostage-takers - now his strong political opponents - deny he was with them.

His website says he joined the Revolutionary Guards voluntarily after the revolution, and he is also reported to have served in covert operations during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Hard-line campaign Image caption Ahmadinejad has been a strong backer of Iran's nuclear programme Mr Ahmadinejad reportedly spent no money on his first presidential campaign in 2005 - but he was backed by powerful conservatives who used their network of mosques to mobilise support for him. He also had the support of a group of younger, second-generation revolutionaries known as the Abadgaran, or Developers, who are strong in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis. The campaign focused on poverty, social justice and the distribution of wealth inside Iran. He also repeatedly defended his country's nuclear programme, which worried the US and European Union. Confrontational Once in power, Mr Ahmadinejad made a defiant speech at the UN on the nuclear issue and refused to back down on Tehran's decision to resume uranium conversion. He continues to defend what he says is his country's right to civilian nuclear energy and its missile development programme.

In June 2010 when the UN Security Council voted in favour of fresh sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme, he said they should be thrown in the dustbin like a "used handkerchief". Iran blames political pressure from the US and its allies for Security Council decisions. It insists it will not break its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and will not use its technology to make a nuclear bomb. Holocaust denial Mr Ahmadinejad has also angered Western powers with his views on Israel. He has called for an end to the Israeli state and has described the Holocaust as a myth. In October 2005, Mr Ahmadinejad made a statement in which he envisaged the replacement of Israel with a Palestinian state. He was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, and his words were widely translated as a call for Israel to be "wiped off the map", though this translation is disputed. That was quickly interpreted by Western news agencies as an oblique threat to Israel. Mr Ahmadinejad has since stated that his speech was exaggerated and misinterpreted. He denied that he meant military intervention and said instead that Israel's "Zionist regime" would eventually collapse on its own.

During a speech at the UN in April 2009, he commented that Israel was a state founded on racist principles, an outburst that prompted a walk-out by delegates from at least 30 countries but earned him a hero's welcome on his return home. 'People's friend' Mr Ahmadinejad has made some small-scale concessions to moderates since 2005. He often speaks of women as being at the heart of Iranian society. He talks of empowering them and makes much of his plan to provide insurance for housewives and share Iran's oil wealth with poorer families. He said he would not be confrontational in enforcing a campaign in Tehran to insist women obeyed Iran's strict Islamic dress codes and has also allowed women into major sporting events for the first time since 1979. Mr Ahmadinejad maintains a populist streak, calling his personal website Mardomyar, or the People's Friend. He also has a reputation for living a simple life and has campaigned against corruption.

Ahmadinejad reelected, or maybe not « Hot Air Ahmadinejad reelected, or maybe not posted at 9:02 pm on June 12, 2009 by Allahpundit Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Reuters says it’s a landslide — 66/31 with 61 percent of the ballots counted — but his opponent, Mousavi, is claiming he was cheated, an excuse he’s been pushing since before the polls opened . The White House spin is set for either outcome: If Mousavi pulls the upset, it’s a hugely significant Change that proves the Iranian public wants detente, and if Ahmadinejad holds on, it’s a meaningless exercise in faux democracy given that all ultimate power derives to the Supreme Leader. Complicating all this, of course, is the fact that only the Mahdi (and the Iranian powers that be) know what the actual vote totals are. If there really was some secret groundswell for Mousavi as a protest vote against Ahmadinejad, we might see Iranian diplomacy tack — gently — towards “wider liberties at home and a gentler face for Iran abroad,” per Mousavi’s platform .

But what if the numbers are accurate? Turnout was reportedly enormous, which makes lots of sense given public dissatisfaction with how Ahmadinejad’s managed the economy but zero sense in terms of producing a runaway win for the incumbent. To blow out Mousavi by 35 points with the opposition energized and headed to the polls in droves means either (a) the vote totals are cooked or (b) frighteningly, Iranians have embraced his belligerence towards the west and endorsed the regime’s rejectionism on nuclear negotiations. The poll of Iranian public opinion that I linked Monday actually suggested the opposite , that Iranians would be willing to tolerate inspections for nukes in exchange for an economic thaw with the west. So again, how to explain these results? Regardless of who wins, I don’t mean to oversell Mousavi as some sort of radically liberal alternative to Ahmadinejad. As with all mainstream Iranian pols, the differences here are a matter of slight degree. As Iranian PM in the 80s, he condoned the killing of Salman Rushdie and there’s an argument to be made that him winning the election would actually make Iranian nukes more likely , not less.

(“A Mousavi victory’s likely effect would be to make it easier for the West to trust the Iranian regime without making the regime more worthy of trust.”) To the extent the outcome’s significant, it’s significant purely as a barometer of Iranian popular opinion, not for any tidal shift in how the country will be run. Looks pretty grim right now. Update: Given how quick some in the media were to credit Obama’s Cairo speech with the happy outcome in Lebanon’s election, will they be equally quick to call it a failure if Ahmadinejad wins? Expect them to blame it on Iran’s media censors not having let the spirit of Hopenchange penetrate deeply enough. Ahmadinejad Re-elected: Israel and Obama’s Iran Puzzle | Dissident Voice Ahmadinejad Re-elected: Israel and Obama’s Iran Puzzle by Ramzy Baroud / June 22nd, 2009 The election victory of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to complicate US President Barack Obama’s new approach to his country’s conflict with Iran. The reason behind the foreseen obstacle is neither the US nor Iran’s refusal to engage in future dialogue but rather Israel’s insistence on a hard-line approach to the problem.

Iran’s presidential elections on June 12 were positioned to represent another fight between Middle Eastern ‘moderates’ vs. ‘extremists’. That depiction, which conveniently divided the Middle East — according to the prevailing US foreign policy discourse — to pro-American and anti-American camps was hardly as clear in the Iranian case as it was in Palestine and most recently in Lebanon. Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir Hussein Moussavi served as Iran’s Prime Minister for 8-years (between 1981-1989) during one of Iran’s most challenging times, its war with Iraq. He was hardly seen as a ‘moderate’ then. More, Moussavi was equally adamant in his country’s right to produce atomic energy for peaceful means. As far as US interests in the region are concerned, both Ahmadinejad and Moussavi are interested in dialogue with the US, and are unlikely to alter their country’s attitudes towards the occupation of Iraq, their support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine. Neither is ready, willing or, frankly, capable of removing Iran from the regional power play at work in the Middle East, considering that Iranian policies are shaped by other internal forces beside the president of the country.

This is not to suggest that both leaders are one and the same. For the average Iranian, statements made by Ahmadinejad and Moussavi during Iran’s lively election campaigns did indeed promise major changes in their lives, daily struggles and future. But yet again, the two men were caricatured to present two convenient personalities to the outside world, a raging nuclear-obsessed man, hell-bent on ‘wiping Israel off the map”, and a soft-spoken, learned ‘moderate’ ready to ‘engage’ the West and redeem the sins of his predecessor. Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the first negative image — tainted as such by mainstream media, and years of image manipulation by forces dedicated to the interest of Israel – won. The election outcome in Iran presents the young Obama with a major challenge: if he carries on with his diplomatic approach and soft overtures towards Iran, ruled by a supposed Holocaust-denier, he will certainly be seen as a failed president, who dared to perceive Israel’s interests in the region as secondary; on the other hand, Obama cannot depart from his country’s new approach towards Iran, a key player in shaping the contending forces in the entire region.

In some way, Ahmadinejad’s victory was the best news for Israel. Now, Tel Aviv will continue to pressure Obama to ‘act’ against Iran, for the latter, under its current president is an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, a claim that few in Washington question. “It is not like we rooted for Ahmadinejad,” an Israeli official told the New York Times on the condition of anonymity a day after it was clear that Ahmadinejad won another term in office. But considering Israel’s immediate attempt to capitalize on the outcome of the elections makes one wonder if the defeat of Iran’s ‘moderate’ camp was not a best-case scenario for Israel. Iran will continue to be presented as the obstacle in future peace in the Middle East, allowing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid any accountability as far as the ‘peace process’ is concerned.

In fact, with an ‘existential threat’ not too far away, few in Washington would dare challenge Israel’s settlement policies in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, or its deadly siege on Gaza, or in fact its confrontational approach to Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, the latter seen as an ‘Iranian-backed militia.’ Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom was one of the first top officials in Israel to exploit the moment on June 13. The results of Iran’s elections, he said, “blow up in the faces of those who thought Iran was built for a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its nuclear program.” Ostensibly, Shalom’s message was directed at a small audience in Tel Aviv, but his true target audience, was in fact Obama himself. Obama’s overtures towards Iran were not necessarily an indication of a fundamental shift in US foreign policy, but a realistic recognition of Iran’s growing influence in the region, and the US’ desperate and failing fight in Iraq. It was Obama’s pragmatism, not a moral-shift in US foreign policy that compelled such statements as that made on June 2 in a BBC interview: “What I do believe is that Iran has legitimate energy concerns, legitimate aspirations.

On the other hand, the international community has a very real interest in preventing a nuclear arms race in the region.” For Israel, however, Obama’s rhetoric is a deviation from the past US hard-line approach towards Iran. What Israel wants to keep alive is a discussion of war as a viable option to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and to eliminate a major military rival in the Middle East. Senior fellow at the pro-Israeli American Enterprise Institute, John R. Bolton expressed the war-mongering mantra of the pro-Israel crowd in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled: “What if Israel Strikes Iran?”: “Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs’ regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppressive regime.” Ahmadinejad’s victory will serve as further proof that diplomacy with Iran is not an option, from the point of view of Israel and its supporters in the US. Whether Obama will proceed with his positive rhetoric towards Iran is to be seen.

Failure to do so, however, will further undermine his country’s interests in the Middle East, and will prolong the cold war atmosphere of animosity, espoused by a clique of neoconservative hard-liners throughout the Bush administration of past years.

Question: On 12 June 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected as president of which country?
Answer: Iran