When Is an Election Not an Election? -Iranian farce.

It's symptomatic of the failure of strategic vision from which our chatterers and leaders currently suffer, that so many words and so much energy are being wasted on the immense charade that goes under the name of Iranian "elections." Any normal person familiar with the Islamic republic knows that these are not elections at all, and for extras have nothing to do with the future of the Iranian nation. They are a mise en scene, an entertainment, a comic opera staged for our benefit. The purpose of the charade, pure and simple, is to deter us from supporting the forces of democratic revolution in Iran.

Ask yourself two simple questions. Does the president of Iran hold any real power? Has any "candidate" (of which there are eight) been chosen by anyone other than the supreme leader and his cronies?

No, and no. Whoever is "elected" (and you can be sure that the outcome is already known, millions of "officially cast" ballots having been manufactured weeks ago, to ensure the right guy wins and that enough votes will have been cast) will be an instrument of the mullahcracy. The sole "issue" in the farce is how best to convince George W. Bush that it would be wrong for the United States to press on with support for the forces of freedom in Iran, because that would "force" the mullahs to crack down (which they are doing already). The slogan for the post-electoral period will be "give reform a chance." And you can be sure that the useful idiots among us, from the Amanpour woman at CNN to the Haass man at the Council on Foreign Relations, have already prepared their sermons and their slogans, ranging from "hopes for a new relationship" to "a rare opportunity for an historic dialogue," and other such slogans.

We have heard these slogans before, applied to other tyrannies shortly before they attacked democratic societies. When Stalin ruled the Soviet empire, great attention was paid to elections to the Politburo, as if the Molotovs and the Berias were independent actors, capable of moderating or liberalizing or reforming the Soviet Union. When the Fuhrer ruled the Third Reich, even British diplomats confidently announced that Hitler had "no further territorial ambitions," and was, after all, surrounded by reasonable industrialist types like Goehring. And who can forget — actually, who can remember — the surge of empathy when it was announced that comrade Chernenko — until yesterday the boss of the KGB and now the new Soviet dictator — liked jazz?

Sensible folks have learned that it isn't about personality, it's about freedom and tyranny. All the totalitarian regimes of the last century staged elections, and they were all meaningless, because the structure of the state concentrated power in the two hands of the dictator, and exercised through the single party.

The president has had this right for a long time, and I'm delighted to report that, three days ago, the State Department spokesman delivered an eloquent condemnation of the fraudulent exercise about to take place in Tehran. And I am also pleased that Human Rights Watch has started to pay attention to the grave condition of dissident journalist Akbar Ganji. Perhaps the editorialists at the New York Times and the Washington Post could tear themselves away from the imagined horrors of Guantanamo and denounce the systematic oppression of nearly 70 million Iranians.

It is unlikely this will happen, both because any journalist in Iran who reports fully on the nature of the regime risks expulsion or — as in the celebrated case of the female Canadian journalist who got too close to the truth — death. And because anything that makes the Iranian regime "look bad" automatically makes W "look good," and most journalists don't want that.

Who's going to win, you ask? I don't know. For months I have assumed that Rafsanjani would walk away with it. But when Supreme Leader Khamenei ostentatiously overruled his henchmen, permitting a nasty pseudo reformer by the name of Moin to run, I have wondered if Khamenei knew something I didn't. Rafsanjani's sins — from gross corruption to mass murder — are fairly well known, and there are probably limits beyond which even a British foreign secretary or a French foreign minister will not go to make nice to the mullahs. President Rafsanjani would test those limits. Moin, on the other hand, isn't so well known, he's got that lean and hungry look instead of Rafsanjani's portliness, and he might be more convincing as he plays that most difficult role: the moderate face of islamofascism.

I haven't checked the morning line recently, and I certainly wouldn't bet the family oil well on it, but a small bet on Moin might be a good hedge. On the nose, of course (have you seen the pictures?).

Michael Ledeen:

....We have heard these slogans before, applied to other tyrannies shortly before they attacked democratic societies. When Stalin ruled the Soviet empire, great attention was paid to elections to the Politburo, as if the Molotovs and the Berias were independent actors, capable of moderating or liberalizing or reforming the Soviet Union. When the Fuhrer ruled the Third Reich, even British diplomats confidently announced that Hitler had "no further territorial ambitions," and was, after all, surrounded by reasonable industrialist types like Goehring. And who can forget — actually, who can remember — the surge of empathy when it was announced that comrade Chernenko — until yesterday the boss of the KGB and now the new Soviet dictator — liked jazz?
Sensible folks have learned that it isn't about personality, it's about freedom and tyranny. All the totalitarian regimes of the last century staged elections, and they were all meaningless, because the structure of the state concentrated power in the two hands of the dictator, and exercised through the single party.
The president has had this right for a long time, and I'm delighted to report that, three days ago, the State Department spokesman delivered an eloquent condemnation of the fraudulent exercise about to take place in Tehran. And I am also pleased that Human Rights Watch has started to pay attention to the grave condition of dissident journalist Akbar Ganji. Perhaps the editorialists at the New York Times and the Washington Post could tear themselves away from the imagined horrors of Guantanamo and denounce the systematic oppression of nearly 70 million Iranians.
It is unlikely this will happen, both because any journalist in Iran who reports fully on the nature of the regime risks expulsion or — as in the celebrated case of the female Canadian journalist who got too close to the truth — death. And because anything that makes the Iranian regime "look bad" automatically makes W "look good," and most journalists don't want that....

Nailed It!
Moral Clarity BUMP !

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.

Besides this one, I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Orson Scott Card, David Warren and Lee Harris (sometimes). You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

Behind the Scenes in Iran (Hume interviews Ledeen)
Fox News ^ | June 10, 2005 | Brit Hume & Michael Ledeen

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1423780/posts
Posted on 06/15/2005 10:05:29 PM CDT by Ooh-Ah

HUME: Now, in one recent such soccer match ... women were present. What's that all about? That's not permitted, correct?

LEDEEN: Well, it hasn't been permitted, but they're now pretending to have elections. And they will pretend to have elected some kind of reformer. And so in the midst of this great pretense of elections — it's not an election at all. It's a beauty contest and a charade.

HUME: Why is that so?

LEDEEN: Because they pick the candidates. The supreme leader — over 1,000 people wanted to run for president. They picked six.

HUME: And this is all done by the government?

LEDEEN: Yes, by the regime. So if anybody wants to run against the regime, they won't run at all. The only people who are permitted to run are people that the regime likes, obviously.

And then in the last case — I mean, there are still people who believe in reform, the possibility of reform in Iran, even though it's been obvious for 10 years they've had a reformist, so-called, president, Khatami, and the country is more repressive now than it was 10 years ago. So why anybody can believe in this is beyond me.

So they're pretending to hold elections. And while pretending to hold elections, they are pretending to be more reformist. So they are letting selected numbers of women in to restricted sections of the stands to watch soccer games.

But of course, the Iranians really do want to be free. And so even more women showed up at the stadium and demanded to go in. And they weren't let in during the game. But after the game, in the midst of the general confusion, demonstration, lots of them poured in, and then they got beaten up and arrested.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.