Posted on 06/25/2005 5:30:40 PM PDT by freedom44
Tehran, Iran, Jun. 25 – Defeated presidential contender Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani today lashed out at state institutions for illegally aiding his rival Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to win the elections.
In a statement, the former two-term President said, “I do not intend to present a complaint to the arbiters [Guardian Council], who have shown that they cannot and do not want to resolve it”.
The Guardian Council, the highest vetting organ of the clerical establishment, which oversaw the election results has been accused by other defeated presidential hopefuls of mass vote-rigging.
Rafsanjani accused state institutions of “using all available means in an organised way and illegally interfering in the elections”.
Simon Bailey of the London-based Gulf Intelligence Monitor said in a telephone interview, “Rafsanjani’s feud with [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei is definitely getting fiercer. The two have been long-time rivals in certain respects. Khamenei never wanted Rafsanjani to stand for President. Unlike the one thousand disqualified candidates, Khamenei could not prevent Rafsanjani from standing on the grounds that he was not fit. Rafsanjani was himself one of the clerics who approved Khamenei as Supreme Leader”.
“Instead Khamenei’s strategy was to let him participate and then disgrace him in the polls, just as he did five years ago in Tehran’s municipal elections”, Bailey added.
Rafsanjani claimed in his statement that his opponents had spent “hundreds of millions” on trying to disrepute him.
The 70-year-old cleric also stated that polls had been rigged by his opponents, a charge which he faces as well.
Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's statement that the elections were rigged show that the Iranians themselves are deeply divided. And this division is deep not only among the people but also in the Iranian leadership. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has tried to accommodate the desires of radical Iranian clerics by supporting the government's nuclear weapons program, but unfortunately this gesture of accommodation has not satisfied the Iranian clerical hardliners.
One of the reasons why it was easy for the Americans to topple Saddam Hussein is because many Iraqi loathed their dictator, contrary to the assertion of the previous regime that Saddam enjoyed one hundred per cent support from the Iraqi populace. When Saddam was toppled, many Iraqis came forward to help the new government.
This division among the Iranian populace will be one factor that would make it easy for the Americans to effect a regime change -- should an invasion become necessary in the future. The Americans are just waiting for another September 11 incident to invade Iran. With the Iranians holding nuclear weapons in the bag, it would be difficult for them to resist the temptation of not using these weapons. If they use their nuclear weapons, that would be the end of the Iranian experiment in Islamic republicanism.
It has been shown that in order to silence the antiwar movement, there must be massive destruction. The antiwar movement would lose supporters this way. Should the Iranians use their nuclear weapons, there will be less opposition to an American occupation of Iran.
With an American occupation of Iran, it will be a repeat of what is happening to Iraq nowadays. They will try to kick off the American occupiers by using suicide bombers. But of course, with massive destruction wrought by the use of Iran of her nuclear weapons, the antiwar movement will be largely silenced. The opposition would be much less, you can be sure about that.
At this moment, it is hard to predict what the Israeli factor would play. Israel would definitely oppose Iran's nuclear weapons and the possibility of war if not invasion by Israel cannot be discounted. If the Americans are willing to aid Israel by giving her the latest weapons, Israel might just bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
There is a motive for the Americans to aid Israel in this case. It will give the Americans a chance to test her latest military technology. The Korean War and the Vietnam War where just arenas that enabled both parties in the ideological debate -- the USA and the communist world -- to test their respective military technologies as well as tactics. The Korean War and the Vietnam War proved that the Americans had the capability to supply their troops over long distances and extended supply lines. An invasion of Russia or the People's Republic of China would just mean that -- which Americans will be fighting battles with their supply lines highly overextended over long distances from home. One of the reasons why the former USSR was more than happy to supply the Arab armies with their weapons against Israel was because this was the opportunity for Russia to test her military hardware. Because of the poor performance of the Russian military hardware throughout the whole span of the Middle East conflict, Russia did not dare provoke a wholesale military confrontation with the United States during the cold war era. The possibility is very high that the Americans will assist Israel even giving that country her latest military technology.
The public's conception of war is just battles where there are victors and vanquished as an aftermath. During the Vietnam and Korean wars, there were battles indeed but there were no victors nor vanquished in the end. Modern wars aren't just as simple as that. You have to make sure that your weapons are of the highest quality because your freedom depends on it in all out battle. Hence the super powers prefer to manage small wars where the parties are sharply divided among each other and war is the only solution. War is the only solution to the Middle East conflict since it cannot be resolved in any peaceful way. North Vietnam and North Korea were determined to force a unification of their countries at any cost, and South Vietnam and South Korea were not willing to be dominated by any communist system. War was the only thing that would decide whether South Vietnam or South Korea would not fall under communist domination.
Super powers look for these instances of division among nations to give them an opportunity to test their military weapons and tactics. This is what brought the cold war -- nothing but a testing of military hardware by two super powers in severe ideological conflict.
Right among the free industrial nations, the United States has the largest army -- 1.6 million men and women under arms. Off course, the factor that caused the American government to maintain these large armed forces is the cold war. With Islamic radicalism, there was no cause for the Americans to reduce their armed forces.
The Vietnam and Korean War has proved that the Americans have the political will to do any fighting that is necessary to defend their freedom and the freedom of those allied with her. This political will shall be tested in the new era of Islamic militarism.
This is getting very interesting. The difference between the Iraqi and Iranian dictatorship is that Saddam Hussein did not trust anybody to air any contrary opinion to what he held, while the Iranian dictatorship allowed some measure of dissent in their society.
The clerics think that they hold such reign of power in Iran so as to dictate what they want there - even to the extent of ignoring the legitimate aspirations of their own people. Now that there is a serious rift in power in their leadership, let's just see how much these radical clerics could swing power into their side.
If Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani decides to fight back, that would be a headache on these radical clerics. It could mean the end of their regime.
Let us all hope and pray that the right would be in Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani's favor. Let the power of Allah be on his side in bringing justice and freedom to this great and righteous Muslim nation. Allahu Akbar!
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.