Iran accuses U.S. of meddling after disputed vote

Thursday 18th June, 06:49 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 45 Total Comments Show All

SuperLib at 07:16 PM JST - 18th June

SezWho: However, I did not bring it up to defend the crackdown. I brought it up to dismiss the knee-jerk carping about the evil of the Iranian regime.

From my perspective it looks like you used it as an opportunity to bring up your usual knee-jerk carping about the evil of the US government.

my fundamental complaint here is with people who are completely invested in the US line on Iran.

Sorry, what's the US line on Iran? The comments I've read have mostly been "we're concerned" or "we don't want to meddle" or "we're waiting for more evidence to become available." The only accusations being made are your back door accusations "reminding" us that the US has meddled with Iran in the past.

I don't think that, given the type of government the Iranians have, it is inappropriate for them to dismiss the foreign press, to shut down web sites, to ask people not to make inflammatory statements. I don't approve of the government killing its own citizens, but I understand why it may have done so.

Pure propaganda. Given the type of government they have? Jeeze...heh. I suppose it's not inappropriate for a hardline theocracy to ban foriegn media, shut down websites, and kill protesters because that's what a hardline theocracy is supposed to do, right? I think you see criticism as evidence of intolerance (except when directed at the US), so you try to find any way to explain away even grave issues such as murder. Saying that you don't support it but you understand it is garbage.

In the "that's rich" department, however, I find it strange that anyone who insists that UN resolutions regarding Israel/Palestine be "balanced", objects when someone else "balances" Iranian issues. The US has been meddling in Iranian affairs since before 1950, if not longer. Can you deny that?

And here we go again... What kind of "balance" are you looking for, Sez? Do you feel threatened that Iran is being criticized, so you're rushing to add US misconduct to the other side of the scale to balance things out?
Triumvere at 07:59 PM JST - 18th June

Not. Fooling. Anyone.
RomeoRamenII at 08:41 PM JST - 18th June

There is no way that the current U.S. government administration is going to do a damn thing about Iran. Hell, Obama has even gone as far as to say it's OK for Iran to continue to pursue nuclear efforts.

This accusation is only for domestic consumption.
ca1ic0cat at 05:31 AM JST - 19th June

Exactly. Obama is keeping foreign policy away from meddling. That's good. The Europeans generally don't have the brass to meddle, so accusing them is a red herring too. The mullahs are trying to deflect criticism by redirecting anger to the great satan. It doesn't seem to be working this time.
SezWho2 at 06:55 AM JST - 19th June

SuperLib,

From my perspective it looks like you used it as an opportunity to bring up your usual knee-jerk carping about the evil of the US government.

Once again you lead with a comment that is your personal take on me rather than what I have said about the issue or about the comments of others on the issue. I'm flattered that you let me rub your fur the wrong way, but your little love bites do leave tooth marks on my hands. I hope they won't become infected.

You say that you don't know what the US line on Iran is and that all you have heard is our administration say "we're concerned", etc. You say that all I have uttered are "back-door" (note the pejorative) suggestions that we have meddled in the past and that no one else claims that we have meddled. Give me a break.

You would have us believe, once Obama gained the White House, that 60 years of meddling in the affairs of Iran, overthrowing its governments, propping up leaders, proxy war and subversion, hostility and sanctions--that all this suddenly stopped on a dime and became a mere expression of concern. You can believe that if you want. Not me.

And I haven't accused the US of meddling only in the past. It's actions with Twitter, while on a small scale, are direct evidence that our government will coopt private business to effect its own political ends. No matter how Secretary Clinton formulates it, this was not a compassionate act to bring communication to Iranians. It was a deliberate attempt to ennable the protesters. And I'm certainly not the only person who says that the US meddles.

Your understanding of my comments is that it is OK for Iran "to ban foriegn media, shut down websites, and kill protesters because that's what a hardline theocracy is supposed to do." Really? Is that your understanding or is that your intentional misunderstanding? If it's your understanding, then you have misunderstood.

It's not that the Iranian government is supposed to do this, it's that it can do these things more easily than a government that is more directly accountable to its people. There is not one single government on earth (OK, I can't prove that but can you give a counter-example) that does not seek these powers. That's the nature of governments. So, yes, I think I understand.

In my opinion, you are not arguing freedom. You are haggling over degrees of freedom. You seem to get your back up when challenged and you seem to want to make it personal rather than discussing the issues themselves.

You ask me what kind of "balance" I'm looking for. I'm looking to balance the blatant anti-Iranian (government) prejudice that we see here. Perhaps now you can tell me what kind of "balance" is permissible.
SuperLib at 03:39 PM JST - 19th June

Well Sez it's nice to know that whenever someone is criticizing Iran, you'll be there to "balance the scale" and add criticism of the US to the other side. I think your blatant anti-US (government) prejudice will more than equal the anti-Iranian (government) prejudice.
SezWho2 at 12:34 PM JST - 20th June

kinniku,

Twitter is a very awkward medium for having anything resembling intelligent discussion. It is an ideal medium for arranging times and meeting places.

The US gains if the weight and momentum of the demonstrations sways people to believe that the vote was rigged, whether it was rigged or not.
SezWho2 at 01:02 PM JST - 20th June

SuperLib,

Again with the personal accusations. You ask questions, mock the answers and refuse to answer questions put to you.

I happen to think that the US government is one of the best on the planet. I do not think it is the best and I do not think it is as good as it can be. Our nation's history is written in war and foreign interference and I think that we are heading for disaster unless we wean ourselves of that habit.

What keeps that habit in place is the type of fear that Bush played so well upon. He didn't create it, only exploited what was already there. And what also keeps it in place is our reverence for war. We probably spend about as much for war (defense!) as all other nations put together. Our defense industries and arms industries are among our few viable exports.

We congratulate ourselves for having spent the Soviet Union into oblivion and fail to notice how much our own debt increased as we did so--or who we are in debt to. We are strong. But I question the wisdom of a policy that seeks to be permanently the strongest. I think that is the wrong tack for the US and the wrong tack for human beings. No country has been strongest forever and I think it is a very bad bet that the US can be strongest long enough to lead the world into halcyon democracy.

So, as in the discussion with Iran, I do not think we should be looking for enemies, I do not think we should be pretending that we have a clearly better system and I do not think we should be looking for evil. When you look for evil (or a witch) you find it. So, where is the evil if it can always be found?

Long before Hobbes Thucydides opined that the strong take what they can and the weak suffer as they must. This is true in democracies, in totalitarian regimes, within tribes, within countries and on the planet. And, once again, no one has yet been strongest forever. Where are the Mongols--or for that matter, the Persians?
kinniku at 02:28 AM JST - 21st June

SezWho,

Twitter is a very awkward medium for having anything resembling intelligent discussion.

Yes, that is probably true for the most part. However, as you know, the Iranian government has made it hard for Iranian citizens to communicate with each other with shutting down access to various site and even going so far as to limit or prevent cell-phone usage. So, one can then understand Iranians making due with whatever they found on the Internet that they could make use of.

It is an ideal medium for arranging times and meeting places.

Yes. It is also the perfect way to tell people what is on your mind at any given moment.

The US gains if the weight and momentum of the demonstrations sways people to believe that the vote was rigged, whether it was rigged or not.

I am not so sure if the US gains much of anything if the Supreme Leader and the Council of Experts had approved of all the the candidates anyway. After all, there are no giant foreign policy differences between any of the candidates and the president of Iran has not real power regarding foreign policy. None of these candidates was going to be the next 'Barak Obama' of Iran after all. This election centered on domestic affairs and the economy for the most part and that is where the biggest difference among the candidates was.
SezWho2 at 01:50 PM JST - 21st June

kinniku,

So, one can then understand Iranians making due with whatever they found on the Internet that they could make use of.

Absolutely. However, can't one also understand why the US government would have an interest in making sure Iranian citizens continued to have access to it?

It is also the perfect way to tell people what is on your mind at any given moment.

Absolutely, if you can tell people what's on your mind in 140 characters. That is a forum for passion, not reason. 140 characters is the language of a lynch mob.

I am not so sure if the US gains much of anything if the Supreme Leader and the Council of Experts had approved of all the the candidates anyway.

Any embarrassment to the government is a gain for the US. From little fissures, big rifts grow.
kinniku at 02:09 PM JST - 21st June

Absolutely. However, can't one also understand why the US government would have an interest in making sure Iranian citizens continued to have access to it?

Sure. However, as I said, Twitter is not an Iranian company and it has nothing to do with the Iranian government. The US government is perfectly within its rights to make requests of companies in its own country. BTW, if I have a choice between a government that wants more access to information and one that wants less, I would choose the government that decides for more information. I assume you would agree?

Absolutely, if you can tell people what's on your mind in 140 characters. That is a forum for passion, not reason. 140 characters is the language of a lynch mob.

Iranians also use blogs, Facebook and other internet portals for communication. As I mentioned earlier, those were blocked by the Iranian government. Twitter was not the first choice of communication by Iranian citizens. Cell-phones and other forms of communication were. However, they were cut off from these. Twitter is not only used for 'lynch mobs'. I think you are reading way too much into the situation with not enough evidence to yet lead you there.

Any embarrassment to the government is a gain for the US. From little fissures, big rifts grow.

That is my point. The embarrassment to the Iranian government had very little or nothing to do with the US government in this case. The Iranian government has held the cards all along. It was there slow and poor reaction to events on the ground that led to unrest. The US government asking Twitter to stay online is a minor point at best. The Supreme Leader and the Council of Elders decided who would run and who could be elected. This means they were all pre-approved. In other words, any result was a result in the making by the real leaders of Iran and it was theirs to mess up.

I don't disagree that what you insinuate is possible. However, the fact remains that this election was pretty much completely Iranian leadership controlled from start to finish. That is the way it has always been. That is why I think it is safe to say that there is certainly more fault with the Iranian government in this regard than any possible outside influence.
SezWho2 at 10:02 PM JST - 22nd June

kinniku,

The US government is perfectly within its rights to make requests of companies in its own country.

Absolutely. In fact, the US government is perfectly within its rights to make requests of any company in any country. Whether the US has a right to make a request of Twitter has never been in question. What was in question was the reason for the request.

Twitter is not only used for 'lynch mobs'.

Nor was that the contention. The contention was that communicating in 140 characters or less requires that the discussion be on rails, in other words, not really a discussion. If you really think that the intervention in Twitter was not undertaken to further the protests, OK. But it seems to me that you are ignoring the obvious.

The embarrassment to the Iranian government had very little or nothing to do with the US government in this case.... The US government asking Twitter to stay online is a minor point at best.

The first sentence above is not necessarily true. And the second is not minor when the charge is "meddling". I think the first statement is one that you make on faith and I don't think you have "enough evidence to lead you there". The second statement is proof of meddling and the extent of the meddling and its impact on the protests is unknown.

I don't think I've "insinuated" anything here. If so, perhaps you would be so good to state what I have insinuated and where I did so.
teleprompter at 10:12 PM JST - 22nd June

The contention was that communicating in 140 characters or less requires that the discussion be on rails, in other words, not really a discussion.

Relax, ol' chum. You manage to say even less using many times that number of characters.
inkjet at 10:20 PM JST - 22nd June

it's sad to see the left are still on their crying jag. you would think after winning congress and the white house they might find a way to pull themselves together. sadly no. the hysterical hissy fits continue unchecked.

i'm really concerned what will happen once the moderates fully wake up to their mistake and turn their back on the messiah.

we can already see the tide turning. the pendulum is swinging. you better duck.

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama"
kinniku at 11:14 AM JST - 23rd June

SezWho2,

What was in question was the reason for the request.

Yes, I understand that is your question. However, as yet, we do not have a clear answer. Unless, you have some evidence that points to one.

Nor was that the contention.

You wrote:

140 characters is the language of a lynch mob.

So, it seems that is your contention. Unless I am missing something.

The contention was that communicating in 140 characters or less requires that the discussion be on rails, in other words, not really a discussion.

Again, I am not disagreeing with this as a whole. As I mentioned a couple of times already (and you for some reason have not commented on), Iranians also use blogs, Facebook and other internet portals for communication. As I mentioned earlier, those were blocked by the Iranian government. Twitter was not the first choice of communication by Iranian citizens. Cell-phones and other forms of communication were. However, they were cut off from these. Twitter is not only used for 'lynch mobs'. I think you are reading way too much into the situation with not enough evidence to yet lead you there.

Twitter was one of the more difficult to block for the Iranian government. That is the reason it was being used by Iranians citizens. Personally, I am interested in reading what they have to say. I assume you are too.

If you really think that the intervention in Twitter was not undertaken to further the protests, OK. But it seems to me that you are ignoring the obvious.

What specifically am I ignoring? It seems you are merely making conjecture at this point. Do you have any specific evidence of what you are claiming is 'obvious'?

The first sentence above is not necessarily true. And the second is not minor when the charge is "meddling".

Of course my first sentence is true. As I mentioned, The Iranian government has held the cards all along. It was there slow and poor reaction to events on the ground that led to unrest. The Supreme Leader and the Council of Elders decided who would run and who could be elected. This means they were all pre-approved. In other words, any result was a result in the making by the real leaders of Iran and it was theirs to mess up. You seem to be ignoring this very obvious set of points.

I don't think I've "insinuated" anything here. If so, perhaps you would be so good to state what I have insinuated and where I did so.

You seem to be insinuating that the US government is involved in this Iranian election more than they are letting on.

I use this quotes of yours to illustrate my point:

With the administration request to Twitter that it not perform its regularly scheduled maintenance, I don't think there is any question that the US is meddling. The question would be "how much?"

It has interceded with the regular operations of a private business in order to further US aims and goals in another country.

Now, on the one hand, we have the reality that the Iranian leadership completely control who will run for office and who is qualified to run and, more importantly, who is not qualified to run. These are the people the Iranian leadership approve of and support, or at least claimed to up to this election. On the other, we have the US government requesting Twitter not do maintainance on their site, with no evidence of anything more than the US government wanting to continue to be able to monitor communication. At this point, that is all the information we have.