Ahmadinejad can’t hide Lyin’ Eyes - but does it really matter?

June 22, 6:38 PMGeopolitics ExaminerMichael Hughes

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Geopolitics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

You can’t hide your Lyin’ Eyes…
And your smile is just a thin disguise,
Thought by now you’d realize…
There ain’t no way to hide your Lyin’ Eyes
     -The Eagles (1975)

When Glenn Frey and Don Henley penned the country rock song “Lyin’ Eyes” about an adulterous woman who frequently snuck out of the house for midnight trysts, I am most confident that they never envisioned the subject of said verses being a bearded, squinting, maniacal-smiling fascist of a Persian Islamic “Republic” which was on the verge of a not-so-peaceful revolution. Then again, if the shoe fits… (Except if happening upon a Tehran mosque where all footwear, regardless how snug, should be removed to avoid extremity truncation).

However, although incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have benefitted from corruption in his supposed electoral rout of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, there is no guarantee that Mousavi would have won, a concept that has not taken root. And even if Mousavi did win, who cares? Reason being, it wouldn’t make much difference to the United States.

First of all, it WAS a sham of an election
Some people would tell you that there is not a shred of evidence that clearly exposes any wrongdoings or fraud in this election. Some people claim that there is no smoking gun. Some dare suggest that lacking definitive proof, we shouldn’t doubt the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s 62% to 33% thrashing of Mousavi. Missing such material substantiation some people would ask: How could it be rigged?

But I pose another question to anyone who seriously doubts that this election was anything but a banana republic canard: How could it not be rigged? Forgive the didactics, but here are just a few reasons it likely was:

• Before the election a Mousavi campaign office was torched (I am sure the Americans are at fault somehow).
• Mousavi strongholds suffered ballot shortfalls and polling stations closed earlier than they were supposed to (oops).
• Text messages were blocked, handcuffing the Mousavi campaign’s GOTV operation (bad luck).
• Secret Iranian government polls estimated that Mousavi would secure up to 18 million votes and Ahmadinejad just 8 million, while the final "official" figures had Ahmadinejad with 24.5 million votes and Mousavi with 13.2 million (they better check their polling methodology).
• In 70 municipalities that Ahmadinejad won by 80% to 90%, the number of votes counted exceeded the total number of eligible voters (new math).
• Mohsen Rezaei supposedly received only 700,000 votes but he had evidence that at least 900,000 Iranians voted for him (then have the 900,000 file a complaint and we’ll believe you).
• Ahmadinejad won 57% of Mousavi’s home province (that’s strange).
• TV screen captures show Rezaei’s numbers going down during the election – a most remarkable phenomenon (but I am sure there is a logical explanation for it all).

I know this is mere speculation and not a smoking gun, but I found it interesting that shortly after the election Mousavi was put under house arrest – as a precautionary measure according to Iranian government officials. If it truly were a free and fair election, why would they be so fearful of Mousavi? Then again, although it seemed to contrast with what was actually happening on the streets of Iran, we were all put at ease by the serene picture painted of post-election Iran by Ahmadinejad himself: “Iran is the most stable country in the world, and there's the rule of law in this country, and all the people are equal before the law.” (Sounds good to me).

Ahmadinejad still would have won
Flynt Leverett of the New America Foundation’s Iran Project and Hillary Mann Leverett, the CEO of STRATEGA, assert in a Politico article entitled Ahmadinejad won. Get over it, that Mousavi winning a re-vote is nothing but “wishful thinking”, and assert the fraud in this election was no worse than many U.S. elections:

Moreover, these irregularities do not, in themselves, amount to electoral fraud even by American legal standards. And, compared with the U.S. presidential election in Florida in 2000, the flaws in Iran’s electoral process seem less significant.

Their theory is buttressed by a telephone poll conducted May 11 - 20 by Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow, which found Ahmadinejad ahead by 20 points. They also say it’s not unreasonable that momentum went his way after crushing Mousavi in nationally televised debates. And the irregularities that have been documented only account for a smidgen of Mousavi’s electoral deficit.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss
Is there really a difference between Ahmadinejad, Mousavi or any of the other candidates? According to the Leveretts all four candidates in the election, including the “reformists”, would have continued the nuclear enrichment program. Some of the delusional continue to believe that a vote for Mousavi is a vote against the clerics. Yet, let us remember that this character served as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989, not to mention that he played a key role in the 1979 revolution that implemented the current theocratic despotism that he is supposedly running against. And although Mousavi appears more willing to engage the West and embrace change, his actions do not back his words. There was a sharp increase in the number of arrests during his time in office, and even worse, it is fair to call him the father of Iran’s secret nuclear program, according to ABC News:

In fact not only is Mousavi a supporter of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by Ha’aretz newspaper indicate that Iran began its secret nuclear program during Mousavi’s previous tenure as prime minister when “Tehran decided in 1987 to purchase the centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium,” which were purchased on the black market through Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s smuggling ring.

Plus, I think the world knows that the President of Iran does not have the final say in a theocratic dictatorship, because the final word on all things still rests in the hands of the Supreme Leader, who in this case is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. So, it is democracy that is the opium of the masses. But isn’t it comforting to know that these uneducated masses aren’t in charge and that Iran isn’t really ruled by the “consent of the governed”. Nay, it’s more comforting to know that all of the government’s power derives from the consent of the Ayatollah and the revealed truth that Allah whispers into his ears each night.

Thus, the U.S. should wait and see
It is natural for an American to instinctually feel outrage when individual freedoms and human rights are violated anywhere. Yet, the geopolitical reality and weight of the situation should give us pause. We may see a lot of squeamish tip-toeing by Obama and Clinton on the matter, but in the end it might best serve U.S. interests. We cannot be seen by the Iranian people, the Islamic World and the international community as meddling in another country’s affairs and trying to influence an internal election, because this might feed age-old perceptions that the Great Satan is desirous of nothing else but global hegemony. Thus, perhaps those advocating immediate action by the U.S. should just, as the Eagles have vociferated: ”Take it eeeeasy.”

Related Articles:

Chicago Iranians protest election results: "Where Is My Vote?"

Iran Democracy possible with help from The Great Satan