Worldfocus producer Mohammad Al-Kassim blogs about Friday’s revelations on Iran.

The news that Iran was building a “semi-industrial enrichment fuel facility” dominated the international headlines today. Here is how the news was covered in some Middle Eastern media outlets.

Iran’s Press TV, a government-funded news channel, broke into its regularly scheduled programming to feature the press conference held by U.S. President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

The 24-hour channel, which is based in Tehran and broadcasts in English, targets viewers outside Iran.

As she was talking to a correspondent in Vienna, Press TV anchor Nargess Moballeghi noted British PM Gordon Brown’s comment that “the most urgent challenge in the world we face today is Iran.” Ms. Moballeghi told her colleague that this statement was completely opposite a statement made by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who said that it was “climate change.”

On Alalam Web site, a government-funded 24-hour news channel airing in Arabic from Tehran, the top story was same as its sister channel, Press TV. The news article on Alalam was short, quoting Iran’s top nuclear program official who said there is nothing secret about Iran’s nuclear site and that the IAEA is aware of its existence, adding that Iran has the right to have a peaceful nuclear program.

On Al Arabiya, the all-news channel based in Dubai, the news of Iran’s secret nuclear sites overshadowed the rest of the day’s news. Al Arabiya has been very critical in its coverage of Iran’s presidential election.

In general, the channel — which is funded by Saudi money — is critical of Iran’s influence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia feels that Iran is treading on its territory as the natural leader in the Muslim world.

Al Jazeera Arabic also joined in the coverage of the breaking news with the press conference from Pittsburg, PA. The headline of the story on its Web site read, “World powers pressure Iran,” and the story reported the views of both sides, adding the position of Russia and China. The news article also quoted the Iranian student’s news agency for Iran’s official statement.

Al Jazeera is funded by the government of Qatar and is generally viewed by the Iranian government as relatively biased against Iran.

People in the West assume that because Iran is a Muslim country, it must be friends with many counties in the region. On the contrary, Iran’s neighbors are equally opposed to it obtaining a nuclear program and weapons as the West is. The so-called moderate Arab states –Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan — are quietly calling to disarm Iran nuclear program. Watching these media outlets, one cannot help but notice that the coverage is a reflection of this position.

- Mohammad Al-Kassim

“I will repeat that I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations,” Obama said. “But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability…if they are oblivious to the dangers an escalating nuclear arms race in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable.”

In an interview with the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he expects next week’s discussions with the West about Iran’s nuclear program to be “free and open,” but called on the world’s nuclear powers to give up some of their weapons too.

Mansour Farhang is a professor of international relations at Bennington College and was revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the United Nations.  He joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how Ahmadinejad’s nuclear stance is influenced by domestic Iranian politics, Israel and other concerns.

But on Friday, at an annual political event known as Quds Day to show solidarity with the Palestinian cause, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made some harsh comments about Israel and the West, calling the Holocaust “a lie.”

The event brought out tens of thousands of demonstrators for — and against — the government.

Do you think the Obama administration is making a mistake by engaging Ahmadinejad?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the state of the protest movement in Iran and talks about the country’s nuclear program.

Venezuela has agreed to export 20,000 barrels of gasoline per day to Iran.

Here’s something from the Associated Press that needs some refining:

TEHRAN, Iran — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sealed an agreement to export 20,000 barrels per day of gasoline to Iran, state TV reported Monday. The deal would give Tehran a cushion if the West carries out threats of fuel sanctions over Iran’s nuclear program.

The two countries signed the agreement late Sunday during a visit by Chavez, who pledged to deepen ties with Iran and stand together against what he called the imperialist powers of the world.

Before we start fretting about Hugo Chavez giving aid and support to an enemy (it’s not helpful to talk about Venezuela or Iran that way), let’s take a look at the reality. Iran’s oil production of about 4 million barrels daily is twice as large as Venezuela’s. Its refineries have a capacity to produce more than 1.5 million barrels of gasoline daily — Chavez’s generous offer to Iran amounts to about 1.5 percent of Iran’s ability to produce refined products. Iran has been a gasoline importer, but is taking steps to halt imports within four years.

In short, Iran won’t benefit much with gasoline from Venezuela, its fellow OPEC member. If the United States and Europe were to follow through with sanctions, Iran probably would still be importing all of the goods it needs and its refineries would still be running. (Not to get too technical: a barrel of oil is about 42 gallons, and that yields roughly 19 gallons of gasoline)

Chavez is actually making a small deal with Iran to thumb his nose at the United States, an exercise he and Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad practice whenever they can. Europe is part of the game in this case, because Chavez is supporting Ahmadinejad’s defiance of a deadline declared by U.S. and European officials, threatening sanctions by the end of September if no progress is made on reining in Iran’s nuclear program.

Whatever you want to call Chavez, whose country sells roughly 1 million barrels of crude to the United States daily, you’re not going to change his mind, or change the policies of the Iranian government by employing threats and boycotts. Ahmadinejad and Chavez share something -– they are both reactionaries in the true sense of the word: They do and say things to be provocative.

The Obama administration, in both cases, appears to understand that better than its predecessor, which railed and saber-rattled to no end. Meanwhile, boycotts and embargoes, state-sponsored, rarely if ever work. The United States imposed a boycott on Cuba 50 years ago, and that policy is widely considered a failure. The United States slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union in the 1980s after the Communist government invaded Afghanistan — international grain merchants kept the grain running through subsidiaries in places like Brazil and Argentina.

Sanctions usually paper over the lack of a policy. The problem with Iran and Venezuela is that the United States would do well to find ways to negotiate. Unlike George W. Bush, President Obama has said that you don’t only talk to friends; sometimes you have to negotiate with people you don’t necessarily like.

It is one of many challenges that will define U.S. foreign policy these years, and provocative acts and speeches have to be understood and kept in context.

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Magnera under a Creative Commons license.

Fernando Coronil, a professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how the export of oil to Iran undermines any new sanctions. They also talk about this weekend’s protests in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez’s suspension of radio stations.

Chavez pledged closer ties to Iran and inked a deal yesterday with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to supply the Middle Eastern nation with up to 20,000 barrels of oil per day.

Today, Chavez appeared at the Venice Film Festival premier of a new Oliver Stone film about the Venezuelan strongman.

Meanwhile, massive protests erupted in Caracas this weekend. Anti-Chavistas are furious about the government’s economic policies and media crackdown. The news report below is from RCTV, an anti-Chavez Venezuelan news network.

Blogger Daniel-Venezuela writes about the importance of recent demonstrations. Read the original post here.

You only need to look at the overreacting of many Chavistas to notice that no matter how big yesterday’s No Mas Chavez rally were, Chavista officialdom is really upset. They cannot hide it.

Be it Chavez who takes lots of time to explain to us he does not care, from Syria, from Iran.

Be it the Venezuelan ambassador in Bogota who says that Venezuela is insulted (correction, you might be insulted, I am not) and implying that the Bogota government should not allow such demonstrations.

In fact Chavismo is so upset that revenge must be exacted. Thus Globovison, the closest object at hand, once again is under attack by a particularly bitter Diosdado Cabello, the guy in charge while Chavez visits the planets collection of tyrants. Not only a new investigation against Globovision is undertaken for a single alleged SMS (whereas the VTV ticker spews constant violence that the regime supports by ignoring them), but 29 more radio stations are to be taken off the air waves (in addition to the 34 already killed). Globovison offers the video of Cabello threats and bitterness. But the world is noticing and Diosdado words hit the news wires fast, even in English. They sure will be a nice complement to Chavez words supporting Iran’s nuclear program today…

Meanwhile there will be more wounds to lick for Chavismo: BBCMundo reports that in Honduras the No Mas Chavez was big in 5 cities of the small country while the pro-Chavez Zelayista camp could only manage an activity in Tegucigalpa…A very bad P.R. week for Chavismo.

Lucia Newman of Al Jazeera English reports from Buenos Aires on the uproar that Iran’s appointment of a potential terror suspect is creating in Argentina.

A large trial began this weekend for those arrested in the violence and protests that followed the election. They included many prominent politicians and religious figures. Meanwhile,  the U.S. is considering cutting off gasoline supplies to Iran if the country rejects offers to negotiate its nuclear program.

Trita Parsi, the founder and president of the National Iranian American Council, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the possibility of gas sanctions, the trial of protesters and the Obama administration’s attempt to engage in negotiations with Iran.

At Friday prayers, one of the country’s top religious leaders – Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, himself a former president — voiced new doubts about the results of the recent presidential election, which returned Ahmadinejad to power. He said those doubts “are now consuming us.”

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the current situation in Iran and a shakeup in the country’s nuclear program.

It has been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran.

It’s been almost three weeks since the disputed presidential election in Iran. On Thursday, the government announced that seven more people had been arrested for provoking violence during the protests that followed.

While the demonstrations have ended, the voices of protest have not been silenced. In a statement, opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi said again that he considers the government illegitimate.

Sanaz Arjomand is an Iranian-American college student who has spent the summer in Iran with family. In the recent election, she voted for Mousavi. Some of her family members, though, are ardent Ahmadinejad supporters — leading to heated debates in this Iranian home.

What the other side sees

My cousin and my mom warned me before I came to this house. “They’re very religious…their father is very much a part of the regime…are you sure you’ll be comfortable?” With my American bravado, I promised to grin and bear it. They’re family, after all.

When asked who I voted for, I answered honestly that I voted for Moussavi, and did my best not to answer when asked why I didn’t (and don’t) like Ahmadinejad. Things started heating up when, in response to my hesitation, the oldest daughter answered for me that I didn’t like him because others told me not to. I listened to her mother tell me that there was no cheating in the election, that because Ahmadinejad really reached out to the poorer areas (i.e. handed out chickens and potatoes, I thought) he had legitimately won. I didn’t bring up the findings of the Guardian Council, that in their partial review 50 cities had more than 100 percent of the population vote.

The real blow came after a little discussion of my disapproval of Ahmadinejad’s foreign actions. I was absolutely floored when the lady of the house started badmouthing President Obama. I value his idealistic and innovative leadership, and I told her so. Although I could understand her suspiscion towards politicians, I tried to tell her that corruption here doesn’t necessarily mean that every politician in the world is corrupt. I was annoyed by her warnings that after 10 years word would come out about all of Obama’s shady dealings. What sent me over the edge, and unfortunatly and embarassingly made me raise my voice, was her accusation that Zionist lobbyists brought Obama to power!

I was furious. What made her think that? Did she read it somewhere? Was there a study published? No. She got her information from none other than the Iranian state media. This is where my volume went up. The state controls your media, I told her. They’re creating a common enemy so that you’re too scared to confront their dictatorial control.

I shouldn’t have said it. She knew to let matters cool down after that, saying that my view was one way to look at it, sure. I listened politely as her older daughter then calmly told me of Moussavi’s frailities, of his political spin and his revolution-era Islamic zeal. That’s fine, and I don’t doubt for a moment that Moussavi and even his wife got caught up as was explained. What I cared about when I voted was a new face for Iran, the hope that brought young people out into the streets because they thought their vote could make a difference, could change their country into something livable, something at least a tiny bit better than it is now.

- Sanaz Arjomand

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Poseyal Knight of the DESPOSYNI under a Creative Commons license.

Arang Keshavarzian, an associate professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at New York University and an editor of the Middle East Report Journal, joins Martin Savidge to discuss news coverage of Iran and what other forms of protests might emerge.

At a news conference, the president said what has happened in Iran is “profound,” and he was more critical than he has been of the election and the violence against demonstrators that followed.

Iran’s security forces have been intensifying their crackdown in recent days, sometimes brutally.

Richard Bulliet, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Columbia University, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what the future holds for Iran’s protesters and what role the U.S. will play.

Former two-term president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who currently heads the Assembly of Experts — which has the authority to oversee the supreme leader — and Ayatollah Khamenei are thought to have a strained relationship.

Throughout the campaign, Rafsanjani was very critical of President Ahmedinejad. Recently, his daughter, Faezed Hashemi, was arrested while speaking to a crowd of hundreds at a rally in support of Ahmedinejad’s main rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

Geneive Abdo of The Century Foundation joins Martin Savidge to discus the power structure in the Islamic Republic and how important the clerical struggle really is.

President Obama’s response to the turmoil in Iran has thus far been measured.

I’m annoyed to feel compelled to write about this, but there have been a number of attacks on Obama’s policy toward Iran lately, which, to my mind, makes a lot of sense and is a big improvement over what came before. President Obama is being very careful not to say anything that President Ahmadinejad can use to show that America is meddling in Iran’s affairs — a sure-fire crowd-pleaser.

ThinkProgress notes that Henry Kissinger, the “smartest guy in the world” according to John McCain, and a McCain supporter, said yesterday of the Iran situation that Obama has “handled this well.”

In contrast, McCain himself said on CNN yesterday: “I do not believe that the president is taking the leadership that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom, and free elections are one of those fundamentals.”

Fortunately, it doesn’t matter much what McCain says now. But I shudder to think what the man who advocated the pleasant-sounding but totally unworkable “League of Democracies” would be doing now if he were the president.

In support of Obama’s approach, NSN had this list of quotes from various experts last week:

• Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns: “President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see aggressive statements, a series of statements, from the United States which try to put the US at the center of this.” [Former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns, 6/16/09]
• National Iranian American Council President and Iran Expert Trita Parsi: “I think it’s quite reckless to turn this into a political football here in the United States. In reality, this can have severe repercussions on the streets of Tehran, if the protests are being casted as being orchestrated from the United States.” [Trita Parsi, 6/16/09]
• Iran Expert and Former NSC Official Gary Sick: “Anything we do or say is going to be interpreted in Iran as interference in their domestic affairs and it will tarnish anyone who is in anyway seen as being supported by the United States.” [Gary Sick, 6/15/09]
• Carnegie Endowment Iran Expert Karim Sadjadpour: “[W]e don’t want to denounce these elections and insert ourselves into that political process which is playing out in Tehran. Historically, we have unwittingly hurt those whom we’ve tried to help in the past.” [Carnegie Endowment Iran Expert Karim Sadjadpour, 6/15/09]
• Spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran Hadi Ghaemi: “It is better for the U.S. not to comment and make itself part of the equation… By supporting one faction versus another, the U.S. would not be helpful at all.” [Spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran Hadi Ghaemi, 6/15/09]
• Iranian Expatriate via Andrew Sullivan: “I’m an Iranian living in Canada. A few hours ago I talked to my brother who is a student at Sharif University, he was at the big rally yesterday and they were only feet away from Karoubi when they marched from the university entrance to Azadi square. He asked what had Obama had said and I started reading the transcript. When I got to ‘the United States can be a handy political football, or discussions with the United States [can be]’ my brother sighed and said thank God this guy gets it.” [Iranian expatriate reported by Andrew Sullivan, 6/16/09]

Enough said.

- Nina Hachigian

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Shahram Sharif under a Creative Commons license.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi — the challenging reformist candidate who many claim to be the true winner — will meet with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Guardian Council on Saturday, along with two other losing candidates.

Numerous demonstrators have reportedly been physically abused by the Revolutionary Guard since the start of the street protests.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss what the future may hold for this post-election tumult.

A journalist with Tehran Bureau who wishes to remain anonymous sends a description of recent happenings to Worldfocus:

On Wednesday, another huge throng (several tens of thousands of protesters) marched peacefully from Haft-e-Tir Square to Enqelab Square in central Tehran — in silence (no slogan-chanting), dressed in black (for mourning) and green (for Mousavi), carrying flowers and the following types of placards:

- blown-up photos of the dead & wounded in past days (from photos circulating on the Internet)

- the text of a constitutional article that states “all peaceful demonstrations are allowed” under the law

- caricatures of Ahmadinejad with a Hitler-like moustache

- sympathy messages for the families of the fallen

- slogans printed on banners, such as: (phrases rhyme in Farsi)

• “Election, not selection”
• “Coup d’etat state, step down!”
• “Liar! Where’s your 63 percent?” (i.e., of votes)
• “Cheating — 1 or 2 percent, not 53 percent!”
• “Wretched Mahmoud — you still call it football?” (in reference to his answer to Christiane Amanpour, comparing protesters to dissapointed soccer fans)

Today’s march is slated for Toopkhaneh Square to the Grand Bazaar (South Tehran). It appears that a different route & different district is chosen everyday, so to increase visibility among Tehran’s 15 million residents. Of course, all routes chosen so far are large and busy thoroughfares, which is causing heavy traffic.

A protest in front of the U.N. mission is also planned for earlier in the day.

Energy for protests seems to be gaining momentum, because every day more people learn about the peaceful nature of the marches and their massive attendance and join in for the next day’s. More importantly, fear of police intervention in these marches has subsided, as police simply stand by and watch.

Interestingly, info is now spreading by word-of-mouth on the street. Strangers literally tell each other about the next day’s march location, from car to car and passerby to passerby. Some are printing & distributing infosheets on the streets as well (the type of info found on chain e-mails, to give to those who may not have Internet access).

There are increasing reports of raids on private homes to take away satellite dishes. People are increasingly turning to radio as a source of news.

There have been protests worldwide against the results of the Iranian election — including in France.

After election results in Iran declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner, many in and out of the country were quick to call foul. Protests ensued in the streets of Tehran and around the world.

President Obama has voiced ”deep concerns” over accusations of election fraud, but has refused to denounce the election, saying “It is not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling [...] in Iranian elections.”

In an open letter to President Obama, Worldfocus contributing blogger Nader Uskowi – a Washington-based Iran analyst and consultant – critiques the president’s approach to Iran.

Dear Mr. President,

I was an early supporter of your presidential campaign throughout the primaries and the general election. Along with hundreds of other supporters in Virginia, I worked tirelessly to deliver the state to you after more than 40 years of Republican presidential victories. I supported your vision of change on domestic and foreign policies, including your call to directly engage the Iranian government to abide by its obligations on the nuclear issue and to halt its support of terrorism.

Sir,

When confronted with the realities on the ground, any good policy or plan needs and must be revised. Your, and our, Iran policy is being challenged by the current realities in the country. In the past four days, the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad government has disregarded the aspirations of the citizens and their basic rights. The students and the youths of the country are being killed, injured and imprisoned. Iranian citizens are calling for change, inspired to a large degree by the message of hope that you, Mr. President, gave them in your Cairo speech.

Mr. President,

There is now a compelling new factor that needs to be added to process of normalization of relations with Iran: the government’s handling of the largest social and political movement in the history of the Islamic Republic. Our government must demand the government in Tehran to guarantee the safety and security of its citizens during their peaceful demonstrations against the outcome of the election.

Normalization of relations with Iran needs to recognize the realities on the ground, which have changed radically in the past few days by a social movement with historic proportions. The normalization process should proceed in a way that will not alienate millions of young citizens whose call for change was inspired by your message of hope. We cannot and should not limit the process to nuclear and terrorism issues. The Iranian people are crying out for change, reminiscent of our days of campaigning here in this country. We must take a moment to remember the broader principles of our democratic society, and support the millions of Iranian citizens that seek to acquire them.

Respectfully Yours,

Nader Uskowi

To read more, see the original post.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user h de c under a Creative Commons license.

The demonstrations by supporters of pro-reform leader Mir Hossein Mousavi were described as the largest since the results were announced, and they were largely peaceful. The election dispute gained another dimension after Iran’s supreme leader ordered an investigation of Mousavi’s claims that the election had been stolen.

Ervand Abrahamian, a distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the election results, allegations of fraud and how this complicates U.S. President Barack Obama’s desire to start a dialogue with Iran.

Iranian police have cracked down on foreign media covering the protests,and some protesters even shooed away secret police from foreign reporters. But as governments try to curtail the flow of information, citizen journalists have used new Internet technology to bypass restrictions.

Blogger Sanaz Arjomand observes the situation from northern Iran:

The rest of my family lament the “democracy” in Iran and get angry about the obvious taqqalob, or cheating. What I’ve heard most often is that the Rahbar (Supreme Leader) hand-picked Ahmadinejad anyway, that it was obvious that they would cheat and that they themselves would have to suffer for four more years.

In the teeny little town of Maragheh, in northeastern Iran, Ahmadinejad supporters are out in the street. But in Tehran and other bigger towns, it’s chaos. BBC Persia was showing beatings in the street and huge protests (like a river, my cousin said, they kept flowing). What I found interesting is that unlike the campaigning I wanted to post about earlier, these protests are taking place on foot. People are not hiding behind their steering wheels or zooming around on motorcycles. Instead of the “Ahmadi bye-bye!” chants (and many, many more clever ones that I’ll remember to post soon), the young crowd was shouting: Moussavi, Moussavi, ray-e ma ra pass bedee! (Moussavi, Moussavi, return our votes!)

Mousavi postponed rally plans, and the government continues its crackdown. A young Iranian student reports:

A friend of mine emailed me these lines from the University of Tehran campus where there have been wide protests: “We are in the campus my friend, tear gas is being thrown at us like a heavy snow fall, the entire building I am in right now is filled with gas. Two of my friends were wounded thirty minutes ago. There is fire everywhere. I thought I came here to study but there is nothing here but war. I can only tell you this so you’d share it on Facebook. I tried using a proxy to access Facebook but its still not possible. Thanks so much. And by the way, please don’t mention my name because there have been wide arrests everywhere.

[...] I have been numb, speechless and in tears for the past few days. These kids are Iran’s brightest students. I went to school with them. We ate lunch together and shared our sandwiches. What is happening to them?

Gary Sick, a former member of the National Security Council, writes on his Tumblr blog:

If the reports coming out of Tehran about an electoral coup are sustained, then Iran has entered an entirely new phase of its post-revolution history. One characteristic that has always distinguished Iran from the crude dictators in much of the rest of the Middle East was its respect for the voice of the people, even when that voice was saying things that much of the leadership did not want to hear…The current election appears to repudiate both of those rules. The authorities were faced with a credible challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who had the potential to challenge the existing power structure on certain key issues. He ran a surprisingly effective campaign, and his “green wave” began to be seen as more than a wave. In fact, many began calling it a Green Revolution. For a regime that has been terrified about the possibility of a “velvet revolution,” this may have been too much.

Allahpundit wonders if Obama’s administration might just “accept” the Iranian election results:

What if Obama did walk away, though? There’s actually another possibility here: Western leaders protest the result by ending negotiations and refusing to recognize Ahmadinejad as president, which in turn encourages protesters to keep up their agitation for several more months. Paralyzed and afraid of being overthrown, the regime becomes so desperate that it agrees to give up the nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of all sanctions and renewed diplomatic ties with the U.S. in hopes that the economic turnaround produced by the influx of foreign capital will placate the people. The dilemma for The One here is that he campaigned on the moronic assumption that Iran might conceivably be willing to make a deal on nukes if we just talked nice to them or sweetened our offer a bit. Now comes the moment of truth: Does he really believe that? Does he honestly believe, after years of stonewalling, with the country maybe a year away from being able to build a bomb, that they’re going to throw in the towel now? If not, then walk away. There’s no downside and potentially a tremendous upside if the regime falls or a grateful Mousavi ends up being installed as president. And needless to say, from a moral standpoint, he’d be on the side of the angels. Conflict with the regime is inevitable; if the Iranian public’s willing to fight our battle for us, let’s support them with all we’ve got.

Bloggers around the world are expressing surprise at the vitality of the Iranian public. For weeks, the campaign has featured painted activists and heated debates. The pivotal issues in this election include diplomacy with the U.S. and economic reforms. Due to heavy turnout, voting has been extended, and the tallies will begin coming in throughout the night.

Sanaz Arjomand writes from Maragheh in northern Iran:

The general trend seems to be that Mousavi is the best of the bad choices (which reminds me of Bush vs. Kerry), especially in large cities. Because Ahmadinejad has been handing out chickens and potatoes in the rural areas, though, his backing is still fairly strong. The outcome depends mostly on whether the population of youth (about 70%) or the population of poorer Iranians makes a stronger showing at the polls. The thing that I’ve noticed the most, however, is that nobody has any hope that the election will turn out the way they hope (i.e. Mousavi supporters are sure Ahmadinejad will cheat and win, and Ahmadinejad supporters are dismayed by the fanfare surrounding Mousavi’s campaign), nor any hope that this election will really change anything.

Either way, my Iranian birth certificate is in my purse and I’m ready to cast my vote. As they were singing on the streets of Tehran, “Ahmadi bye-bye!”

The media buzz suggests that women and young people are largely casting votes against Ahmadinejad. Mousavi’s wife has attracted huge crowds at campaign rallies. Marzieh Ghiasi, an Iranian in Canada, enthusiastically comments on a historic vote:

While cynicism remains strong and every candidate can be criticized and rightfully so, I can’t help but admire those who go to the polls to make a sincere effort towards a better tomorrow. They go with optimism and the hope that promises that have been made will be delivered. Whatever the outcome of this election, with a vote-turnout that is expected to reach into 80% (pretty incredible!), I am most glad that Iranians are so passionate about the opportunity to vote and take their fate into their own hands. I hope the same kind of fervor and call to responsibility is carried on in the post-election era because as it goes… any day without apathy is a good day.

A Turkish blogger, Sinan Kolat, describes the symbolism of this election from his vantage point in Istanbul.

It seems as the tables have turned as the color green, the symbol of Islam, is now the color of reform. Mousavi’s campaign uses it well and the youth in the streets of Tehran have been demonstrating fiercely under their new symbol. The photos coming from the country shows the change and hope, with women['s] hair clearly visible. Just like wearing a turban is a political, rather than religious, symbol in Turkey; not wearing a turban is a political symbol in Iran.

Hamid Taqvaee, the current leader of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran, is seen as one of the most vocal and radical figures opposed to the Islamic Republic:

Only the factions closest to the state and only those given the go ahead by Khamenei, the supreme spiritual leader, can participate. The rest are excluded. Only the closest insiders can run and that is why the final few candidates are always pillars of the regime…Look at this election – from Ahmadinejad, Karoubi, Mousavi to Rezai – all have been instrumental in the repression and executions that have taken place.

Even many in their own ‘second Khordad’ or ‘reformist’ faction are not allowed to participate in the election. If in Turkey or Pakistan a Council of Guardians decided on who could run, the election would be canceled! In other elections, if a candidate gets less television airtime than another, complaints are made to rectify the situation. Now if you compare the situation in Iran with that of Sweden or Denmark or France, you will see that even in the first instance what happens in Iran is anything but an election!

Campaigners and voters have shown tremendous passion for the political process and debates. Mahaan, an Iranian-American blogger, suggests:

It has been an unbelievable 2 weeks in Iran. Hot series of TV debates and constant party mode on the streets which was the best sample of tolerance and respect among the citizens, gave all of us a surprising image of our society. Independent of it, this election has given a new shape to the Iranian political and civil discourse.

The sucky part was the low key coverage that the western media gave to these events. Until last Wednesday, the coverage was minimal and even after that, it never reached the level that many smaller Iranian events (small student protest, or Roxana Saberi’s court) were covered. Maybe this relates to a higher level western policy of silence and respect that exist these days with respect to this election.

Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discusses the election and what it may mean for the United States.