Feeding the Beast

What Ahmadinejad's win means for Iran, Israel and the United States.

By Christopher Dickey | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 13, 2009 | Updated: 10:11  a.m. ET Jun 13, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: dokhif @ 07/06/2009 4:20:29 PM

    What a shockingly inaccurate analysis of what is happening in Iran today. I suggest Mr. Dickey join planet Earth before spewing his uninformed and insulting view that "Actually, no. It appears that the working classes and the rural poor???the people who do not much look or act or talk like us???voted overwhelmingly for the scruffy, scrappy president who looks and acts and talks more or less like them." Really, Mr Dickey? You believe that Iran's rural poor are sruffy and scrappy and they voted Mr. Ahmadinejad because he looks like them and he gave them free potatoes? You know nothing about Iran or who its people are. What are you basing your simplistic "have"- "have nots" analysis on Iran? Were you in Iran to know this to be true? Were you in the Ministry of Interior when the votes were being counted? Did you look at any of the complaints and independent analysis of the irregularities in the election? How about the fact that the votes weren't even counted? How about the fact that a worker in the Ministry of Interior who released the real numbers is dead now. Do you know his name? I didn't think so. How about those who died under torture, or were shot on the streets or had chemicals dropped on them. If a government was elected by its people into office, why would it need to drop chemicals from the air on its people? I think a third grader would look at the situation in Iran and tell you that a military coup has taken place and that rights are being taken from the people.. The majority of rural and urban Iranians - 85 percen turn out - turned out to usher in political, social, and economic reform and a rejoin the world.. How can Newsweek's allow such garbage to be published on their webpage? At a time when one of Newsweek's own journalists - Maziar Bahari - has been arrested, and is currently being used as a main character in this staged coup by the Iranian regime, by being forced to make a Stalinist-type confession under serious duress and maybe even torture, one can imagine nothing more morally irresponsible than giving space to this type of uninformed propaganda. You're better off shutting down your operations, or better yet merging with Iran's state controlled media.

    • Posted By: obs57 @ 07/22/2009 4:52:34 PM

      1. Ahmadinejads government has been distributing surplus fruit and vegetables to the poor for over two years now, it has nothing to do with the elections. Its better policy than destroying them like they do in europe. To suggest peoples votes can be bought by a potatoes is insulting.

      2. The ballots were counted locally in the 47,000 election stations around the country. At least 14 officials from different agencies monitored each election booth, these included executive branch team, local governors rep, Guardian Council team, local police moniitor team, interior ministry inspector, and reps from each candidates team. Before the voting began the ballots boxes were sealed in their presence, then they witnesses the voting and then after the voting the counting was done in their presence. 5 "form 22" are filled in which includes number of ballots for each candidates, number of invalid ballots, and the number of unused ballots left at the polling station. All 14 officials sign the forms. One copy of form 22 is placed in the ballot box which is then resealed, others go to the governors office. After this a form 28 is filled and sent to the interior ministry for tallying. The ballot box and form 22 remain in case of any disputes. All ballot papers come as cheque books with stubs and have serial numbers and province indicator.

      With these checks in place how exactly is someone meant to cheat by 11 million votes? Are you saying all these people in 47,000 election stations were bribed and they are still silence after witnessing the resulting riots and the killing of innocent Neda?

      3. Bahari's arrest is down to channel4 news because they edited the video he supplied them, they deleted the the petrol bomb attack on the basij armoury but just showed the basij response to the attack. Thats why he attacked western media in the press conference he gave (all shown on presstv). 8 policemen were killed in the riots, what would happen to the rioters in the US if they killed 8 policemen?

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 06/15/2009 3:15:14 PM

    vigilance go to war with iran and decide who won the elections -that is all america has done in 250 yeaRS OF ITS BARBARIC PAST -LOLZ

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 3:57:29 PM

      My friend, did you miss the part where I said that we should NOT go to war with Iran?

      What I think is that I do not believe that the world community should recognize the validity of Mr. Ahmadinejad's regime. Ahmadinejad has (in my opinion) faked his election results and lost a clear mandate to govern. I do not support war with Iran - but it must be made very, very clear to Mr. Ahmadinejad that the Western world has very serious doubts about his election. It must also be made clear that any aggression out of that country will be dealt with.

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 4:22:08 PM

        Let's put it this way - my concern is for Moussavi's supporters and what happened to their votes.

        War with Iran would be a bad idea, because the moderate Iranians and Moussavi supporters would be harmed along with the hardliners. But something must be done in terms of the international community failing to recognize the legitimacy of this regime, as well as letting Ahmadinejad know how precarious his position is.

        As others have noted, if Ahmadinejad's regime continues to fly in the face of the international community and flaunt authority it hasn't earned, nobody will tie Israel's hands when the time of conflict comes. As anyone who's been reading these boards for a long time knows, I am no fan of Netanyahu's Israel - but Netanyahu's government is legitimate and he has received a genuine mandate to govern, in addition to being able to work with the opposition. If the chips fall down in terms of international support for these two nations, not many chips will fall on Ahmadinejad's side.

        • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 06/16/2009 12:35:25 PM

          I'm not sure I understand the criteria by which you have determined that Netanyahu's government in Israel is "legitimate", but Ahmadinejad's in Iran is not. It certainly appears that the Iranian vote was rigged, so I don't disagree with that part of your analysis, but what of Israel?

          Israel calls itself a democracy, and also a specifically "Jewish State"... but to achieve that, in 1947-48, advocates of the establishment of Israel executed a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Palestine, driving tens of thousands of people (the Arab majority) from their homes and villages by force and fear. Israeli elections conducted after driving out the Arab majority can hardly be called "democratic"...and nearly half the population of the territory Israel controls are still disenfranchised... even when they are finally permitted to hold elections (just among themselves in their israeli-controlled Bantustans, since they are not allowed to vote for who actually governs Israel), the results are rejected or ignored by the Israeli rulers.

          Seems to me, a valid claim of legitimacy as the government of a representative democracy requires, at least, free and fair elections of all the people who are to be governed, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. Iran's "democracy" doesn't pass this test. Neither does Israel's.

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 06/13/2009 3:48:33 PM

    Let's get history straight. In 1953, the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected regime of Mohammed Mossadegh, who may have been a leftist, but was also somewhat anti-clerical. We decided a regime of mullahs was preferable to a regime of "socialists." - And we got our wish.
    Let's also face up to the fact that Ahmadinejad is the equivalent of Sarah Palin and George Bush. The election may have been rigged, just as the election in 2000, but Ahmadinejad plays to the same core constitutency in Iran as Palin's of core supporters. The "reformers"are a bunch of effete elitists out of touch with the common man. (Sound familiar?)
    In terms of what to do. Let's take what not to do first. We will not solve our problems by bombing Iran. It's unlikely that we could destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities that way. What we need to do is to lauch the green tech revolution because the first economy that frees itself from fossil fuel will be the economic power of the 21st century. Like Sarah, Newt and the entire GOP, Ahmadinejad lives in the last century. The sooner we get rid of oil as a fuel source, the more economic problems we can cause on Iran. Currently Iran's economy is unsustainable. The more we can contribute to downfall of Iran's petro-based economy, the faster we can weaken Ahmadinejad's hypnotic hold in much of the Iranian populace. In this sense Obama's energy proposals are a vital part of our defense strategy and we must view them as such.

    • Posted By: Bdhawthorne @ 06/13/2009 5:19:18 PM

      You can't be serious? Irans economy is unsustainable but the multi trillions of debt by this Oboma bozo and the Democratis congress is? Our economy is failing. Everyday more and more are handed there pink slip. Whats the Oboma plan? Tax and restrict thee companies that hire the workers until they go belly up, take the company, and give it to the Union. Brilliant! I'm sure we can have all the laid off GM workers out building windmills in the next week or two. Maybe they can take their $300 a week unemployment and buy a new $45,000 hybrid. The reason this country is headed in the toilet is people like you who have no grasp on the reality of what it takes for a free market economy to survive. Yes I know in your wacked out little world, everything is all about the Oil. Thas why we took it all for ourselves when we liberated Iraq from Saddam. WITH BOMBS BY THE WAY, You just don't get it.

      • Posted By: Iconoblaster @ 06/16/2009 12:17:00 PM

        We don't have a free market. We didn't have one before Obama was elected, either. That was part of the problem. We have a "crony capitalist" economy, where the elites make decisions to benefit themselves, and the gap between rich and poor grows ever larger. The economic melt-down was a consequence of such decision makers being in a position to profit, personally, even while they were making egregiously risky blunders...thats not a free market, where people who make such mistakes have to suffer personal consequences for them. The situation is further illuminated by the government bail-out of the monied interests that made the biggest blunders...banks, insurance companies, credit card corporations and mortgage lenders...but not of the little guy struggling with his exploding mortgage or credit card debt.

        And we're looking at the wrong villain if we blame the President for this...it isn't foreign policy. Congress makes the rules (including those that shielded Wall Street financial elites from the consequences of their mistakes), and it is in Congress that the power of the corporatocracy is strongest. And to change this, fundamentally, would require the American people to wake up and pay attention. I won't be holding my breath for THAT to happen.

      • Posted By: bitterblogger @ 06/15/2009 6:13:18 PM

        It's bad enough that you try to hijack the thread, but your puerile whining and outright dis- or misinformation is really too much.

      • Posted By: thinkTwice @ 06/15/2009 12:17:57 PM

        If Obama's a bozo ... what do you call Bush? Did Rush forget to tell you?

      • Posted By: madisonhack @ 06/13/2009 8:51:34 PM

        You are the one that doesn't understand the economics in play here. I'm not going to waste much time explaining it to you, but you should really get your facts straight before you enter the blogosphere fully unprepared to discuss what is going on.

  • Posted By: Uday Salizar @ 06/15/2009 12:33:55 PM

    Uncle Ahmadinejad is only holding election in America fashion, yes?

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 2:41:07 PM

      Actually, increasingly I doubt that either of the Bush elections was really "stolen" - at least, not in the way this one was. If anything happened in 2000 it happened in Florida, which is bad but nothing like this - Ahmadinejad is trying to claim a twelve-point victory when the polls showed Moussavi rising and a dead heat going into the election. He also claims that Moussavi lost in his own hometown, which is more or less unbelievable.

      It's not just the stolen election that's worrisome; it's also the blatancy of the way it was done. This is not a bright way or a subtle one to rig a vote count. If he'd claimed a razor-thin victory nobody would have questioned him, most likely - but he didn't, he tried to claim a ten to twelve point lead across the country. Either he doesn't give a *** anymore if anyone disbelieves him, or he feels the need to bluster and try to claim that he has a broad popular mandate to govern.

      Either way, it's foolish. The first would be a sign of arrogance and an unfounded superiority complex, and the second is just downright foolish. In this day and age of global connections and worldwide instant media both professional via cable news or populist-soapbox on the internet, it increasingly becomes clear when a regime in power is unpopular and governing without a true mandate.

      Here's a hint. If you have to suppress freedom of the press and criticsm of your regime, your regime is very probably not that popular!

      • Posted By: theredqueen2000 @ 06/16/2009 12:06:29 AM

        Either he doesn't give a *** anymore if anyone disbelieves him, or he feels the need to bluster and try to claim that he has a broad popular mandate to govern.

        Either way, it's foolish. The first would be a sign of arrogance and an unfounded superiority complex, and the second is just downright foolish. In this day and age of global connections and worldwide instant media both professional via cable news or populist-soapbox on the internet, it increasingly becomes clear when a regime in power is unpopular and governing without a true mandate.

        Sorry friend, sounds like the 2000 election to me. Bravo to the Iranian people for standing up to this faulty election. Perhaps had we done the same, we'd have 4800+ soldiers still alive today.

  • Posted By: Tan Boon Tee @ 06/14/2009 11:41:08 PM

    What???s wrong with the incumbent winning the presidency? Why all the jittery?

    If that is the choice of the majority of Iranians (never mind mainly the less-than-educated), let it be. Isn???t that democracy? Isn???t that what the world has been wanting?

    Do not intervene in other nation???s affair. As far as elections are concerned, let the people decide their own fate and sort out their own mess.

    One ought to mind one???s own business and put one???s house in order first.
    (Tan Boon Tee)

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 2:46:21 PM

      It's not the choice of the majority of Iranians. The election results are not believable.

      Ahmadinejad claims a twelve-point win over Moussavi when the polls showed a dead heat before the election (with Moussavi's popularity rising). He claims that just about every precinct homogenously voted for him to the tune of roughly 60-63%. Finally, and most unbelievably to me, he claims Moussavi lost his own hometown. I don't know how much question there can really be that the election results have been seriously subverted.

      • Posted By: bitterblogger @ 06/15/2009 5:09:54 PM

        I agree, but what's the remedy? The election results have already been certified by Khamenei, who's the real power anyway. Moussavi will be kept away from the levers of power, since it will be claimed that he originally stoked the unruly protests that are a threat to public safety.

    • Posted By: Greg the Third @ 06/15/2009 5:00:14 AM

      I am simply stating facts and leaving my personal opinions out for the most part. The Israeli war hawks will use this result to push for permission to begin the bombing campaign agasnst Iranian nuclear facilities. The clerics would have done better on the world stage by allowing a moderate to hold the presidency for a time. My own opinion on the matter is that usually it is the leader's responsibility to lead the masses to a new place even if they don't really want to go there. Bowing to populist sentiment might not always be the best thing to do for everyone in the long run. The Soviet Union was a great example of how even a great nation can fail by placing the concerns of the workers and masses above everything else. But perhaps I am just showing my western bias here and the Persians are perpetually consigned to an eastern mindset. To each their own, the clerics have chosen to go with populist sentiment over a liberal approach to the presidential position.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 4:31:57 PM

    One of the most important consequences of this election, I think, is that a line has clearly been drawn in the sand between the reformists and the hardliners, and that Iran's reform movement has been thrust into the spotlight for all to see.

    It is no longer possible for the saber-rattling crowd in America to claim that moderate Iran, or moderate Islam, does not exist, and the international community can show support for the Iranian moderates and reformists without being accused of supporting a terrorist state.

    That's huge, I think.

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 06/15/2009 3:17:29 PM

    THIS VIGILANCE WAS MEASURING THE HEATS WITH HIS VIGILANCE -WAS THAT MIAMI HEAT OR THE TROPICAL HEAT -WHATEVER THE HEAT HAS ONLY TURNED INTO ICE CREAM SO PLEASE EAT IT BEFORE IT MELTS -ENJOY -VIG ICE LAND

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 8:44:19 AM

    This article is far too simplistic in its portrayal of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as 'beastly' and implying the rural people are likewise by voting for him. Keeping in mind that though Newsweek magazine is based in the United States, it is an international magazine with a worldwide readership, I feel it rather supercilious in its emphasis on the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

    'those charming, articulate young men and women' who like and are more westernised are believed to be 'right' and possibly more educated in their decisions than 'the working classes and the rural poor'. I believe that this is a semblance of the very arrogance and self-believe in the American ideal as the one and only way of governance that has led to such anti-US sentiments, and thus indirectly fuelling and propelling such radicals like Mr Ahmedinehad.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 2:11:37 PM

      The problem is that almost nobody believes he was actually elected. The polls showed a dead heat coming up to the election, but he claimed a 62% win. More unbelievably, he claims Moussavi lost in his own hometown.

      If Ahmadinejad's regime had been fairly elected - or, if I believed it had - I would support the legitimacy of his regime. In this case, however, I don't believe he was fairly elected. That means that his police state has begun taking the steps to become a true fascist state, and that is not something the world community can condone anymore.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/15/2009 1:56:26 PM

    Well, now Ahmadinejad has pissed off conservatives and liberals too. The conservatives have always hated Iran, period, and every American liberal I know supported Moussavi. Given how blatant the fraud was, that makes more or less everyone in the free world absolutely disgusted with Ahmadinejad.

    I don't support going to war - but it may be time soon for the threat of force to be on the table, as Obama has suggested he is not completely opposed to. Iran is a much more powerful nation than Iraq was, and for once the Munich comparison constantly made of Germany is not completely inaccurate - this is now a right-wing nearly-fascist regime that has seized power in an illegal coup and is beating and killing supporters of the opposition. It's getting clearer and clearer that Ahmadinejad's power must be severly curtailed.

    Tips for Ahmadinejad for rigging the election next time: A five-point win is far more believable than a thirteen-point win when the polls show a dead heat, and you might want to at least allow the very popular reformist challenger to win in his own hometown...

    Anyway, what the U.S. cannot afford to do, both figuratively and literally, is to be drawn into another occupation. The Iranian military would pose more of a challenge than the Iraqi military did, but they'd still be relatively quickly defeated by the American forces - but any OCCUPATION of Iran would make Iraq's occupation look like a sunny day in a sandbox by comparison. We couldn't do it. The cost of occupation would likely end America's world power almost permanently.

    So we have to move quickly and decisively to craft a dual diplomatic/military set of objectives for Iranian policy in the light of this development. These objectives, unlike the Bush plan for Iraq, must be completely MEASURABLE and must contain an exit strategy as well, but we cannot be afraid to use force against the Iranians if Ahmadinejad's regime and supporters continue this level of violence against their own countrymen who are politically opposed to them. We will practice diplomacy, but we will not appease and look the other way while a hardline fascist ideology hardens and bristles in the most powerful nation in the region outside of Israel.

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 06/15/2009 11:54:01 AM

    some young iranians cannot force their opinion on majority and if they can merely speak english in sophistication in the deluded opinion of a bigoted american journalist that does not make them better than other iranians -
    they need to learn to live like equal human beings and not arrogant pests who thrive off the worst vices of western capitalism

  • Posted By: Dredd @ 06/15/2009 11:53:39 AM

    The election is in as much doubt as the Minnesota senatorial election. What is strange is that the Iranian neoCons fooled more US election integrity progressives than it did Iranians.

    http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/neocons-of-iran.html

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 06/15/2009 11:42:48 AM

    well even uno has said the vote was fair -the whole world cannot be run by what some american bulldogs think is right -as usa is no longer the whole world -they need to eat humble pie and live like other world citizens -
    we europeans made more protests against obama and his tour of g-20
    did he care about that -
    more demonstrators came out in london alone than whole of iran to protest g 20 than some american made voting irregularity in iran -
    and the police in england even killed a protestor -...
    didnt happen in iran

  • Posted By: kkhan @ 06/15/2009 10:29:19 AM

    Iran needs an adamant leader who will fruitfually thrust them into the inevitable nuclear age technology & Ahmedinejad is just that ''lion of the dessert'' to ensure that the Iranian nation enjoys this fundamental right, amidst the constant opposition and accusations by Israel and other proponents of the West. Mousavi is nothing more than a power hungry infidel who will do anything to regain the helms of authority. The election is over & the winner is known. Let Mr. Biden think about what went down in his own country with the ptresidential race between Goerge Bush & Al Gore.
    Kabil Azad Khan.

  • Posted By: suhaila @ 06/15/2009 10:14:25 AM

    Another "international expert" who thinks he knows the iranian people. If there where just a few people who voted for Mousavi there wouldn't be riots now in all the big cities of Iran.how can the number of votes for an opponent diminue hour to hour.Use your one and a half braincell you have mr. Dickey

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 9:07:52 AM

    So sorry for the multiple post! Must have been the repeated pressing after my browser lagged.

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 8:43:46 AM

    This article is far too simplistic in its portrayal of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as 'beastly' and implying the rural people are likewise by voting for him. Keeping in mind that though Newsweek magazine is based in the United States, it is an international magazine with a worldwide readership, I feel it rather supercilious in its emphasis on the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

    'those charming, articulate young men and women' who like and are more westernised are believed to be 'right' and possibly more educated in their decisions than 'the working classes and the rural poor'. I believe that this is a semblance of the very arrogance and self-believe in the American ideal as the one and only way of governance that has led to such anti-US sentiments, and thus indirectly fuelling and propelling such radicals like Mr Ahmedinehad.

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 8:43:00 AM

    This article is far too simplistic in its portrayal of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as 'beastly' and implying the rural people are likewise by voting for him. Keeping in mind that though Newsweek magazine is based in the United States, it is an international magazine with a worldwide readership, I feel it rather supercilious in its emphasis on the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

    'those charming, articulate young men and women' who like and are more westernised are believed to be 'right' and possibly more educated in their decisions than 'the working classes and the rural poor'. I believe that this is a semblance of the very arrogance and self-believe in the American ideal as the one and only way of governance that has led to such anti-US sentiments, and thus indirectly fuelling and propelling such radicals like Mr Ahmedinehad.

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 8:42:08 AM

    This article is far too simplistic in its portrayal of Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as 'beastly' and implying the rural people are likewise by voting for him. Keeping in mind that though Newsweek magazine is based in the United States, it is an international magazine with a worldwide readership, I feel it rather supercilious in its emphasis on the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

    'those charming, articulate young men and women' who like and are more westernised are believed to be 'right' and possibly more educated in their decisions than 'the working classes and the rural poor'. I believe that this is a semblance of the very arrogance and self-believe in the American ideal as the one and only way of governance that has led to such anti-US sentiments, and thus indirectly fuelling and propelling such radicals like Mr Ahmedinehad.

  • Posted By: WLYN @ 06/15/2009 8:41:54 AM

    This article is far too simplistic in its portrayal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as 'beastly' and implying the rural people are likewise by voting for him. Keeping in mind that though Newsweek magazine is based in the United States, it is an international magazine with a worldwide readership, I feel it rather supercilious in its emphasis on the difference between 'us' and 'them'.

    'those charming, articulate young men and women' who like and are more westernised are believed to be 'right' and possibly more educated in their decisions than 'the working classes and the rural poor'. I believe that this is a semblance of the very arrogance and self-believe in the American ideal as the one and only way of governance that has led to such anti-US sentiments, and thus indirectly fuelling and propelling such radicals like Mr Ahmadinejad.

  • Posted By: jbz7879 @ 06/15/2009 6:25:18 AM

    the common iranian is getting food free medical aid and education and nejad wears a gaberdine jacket and an open shirt
    and western MEDIA DARES CALL THIS SIMPLE SOUL WHO PUTS HIS PPL BEFORE HIM SCRUFFY AND PEASANT LIKE -
    I FIND THEM despicable anti christian and contemptible -
    they were the ppl who mocked christ because he was born a carpenter and wore a hand woven flaxen robe
    shame on this media -and their non existent intellect and morality
    Write another comment...

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse