US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad
By CAROLYN THOMPSON, AP
3 hours ago

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario — The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon's recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

Despite the challenge from reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi to incumbent Ahmadinejad, many officials and experts thought a Mousavi victory would result in only incremental shifts toward the U.S.

Because real power in Tehran is still wielded by religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, some say an Ahmadinejad re-election may make it easier to build an international consensus against Iran.

Click to expand...

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad | Comcast.net


While nice to think Obama cares.... the reality of the situation makes this a rather stupid move.
Knee-jerk actually.

Its not very likely there will be ether a coup or civil war in Iran. SO...

If he's illegitimate to the USA how the hell is Obama going to justify talking with him?
...what 3 months form now we'll say oh its ok now he's the real illegitimate leader we can deal with......what?

Going to be fun watching the left justify that hypocrisy. Because the one thing that will not change is any hope of Obama getting a brain and realizing negotiations have failed.

If the US does not recognize Ahmadinejad as the Iranian President then they will simply just do negotiations with his opponent. No hypocrisy required.

LOL

So Obama will have nuclear weapons talks with a guy who runs his 3 bedroom apartment?

Triad said:

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad | Comcast.net


While nice to think Obama cares.... the reality of the situation makes this a rather stupid move.
Knee-jerk actually.

Its not very likely there will be ether a coup or civil war in Iran. SO...

If he's illegitimate to the USA how the hell is Obama going to justify talking with him?
...what 3 months form now we'll say oh its ok now he's the real illegitimate leader we can deal with......what?

Going to be fun watching the left justify that hypocrisy. Because the one thing that will not change is any hope of Obama getting a brain and realizing negotiations have failed.

Click to expand...

Ahmedinejad has garnered support and votes off the back of America. He has used America's past of intefereing and manipulating Iranian politics under the Shah to spur up hate in the Iranian people claiming the Americans tried to sabotage there now much beloved Islamic Republic under the Ayatollah and they pose a threat to the Islamic Republic today, and only he can save Iran from American hatred for the state. He has used this knowledge of past American inteference in national affairs as anti-US propaganda which stirs well with a hardliner. Now he is making a nucleur programme knowing it will draw critisim from America and using that as anti-US propaganda too, showing the Americans are once again intefereing in Iranian affairs and pose a threat to the legitemacy of there Islamic republic. The diplomatic approaches of America have all helped secure the legitemacy of Ahmedinejads claims, with the added state propaganda. Now, America has taken it upon themselves to deny the legitemacy of the presidential win with hardly any grounds. This will work to Ahmedinejads favour once again and further isolate the negotiating process.


Obama needs to stop contradicting himself in his foriegn policy for Iran. He claims he wants a change in approach but he gave the thumbs up for an extended UN embargo. America's political tone has changed but there is no actions to back this up, and this has left the Ayatollah unconvinced. America needs to make sacrifices. End the embargo's, allow the activists in Iran to settle the voting dispute; i mean what did they expect, its a theocracy? Then, approach Ahmedinejad. If he is still unwilling to make comprimises despite the diplomatic changes made, the Iranians will see this, and the West will be satisfied because they did all that could be done for a potential settling of differences with Iran. Place even stronger embargo's, isolate there theocracy further, and do the only thing left. Wait Ahmedinejad out of his term.

Time to give Israel the go ahead.

American said:

Time to give Israel the go ahead.

Click to expand...

I think it's better to wait and see how would the Iranian people react to the rigged elections first.
Although, striking during the current riots could indeed prove to be a good idea.

American said:

Time to give Israel the go ahead.

Click to expand...

An Israeli strike will only unify the Iranians against Israel. Not exactly the thing you want to do.

Triad said:

While nice to think Obama cares.... the reality of the situation makes this a rather stupid move.

Click to expand...

There's really not much choice. If the Iranians do succeed in toppling the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, the US needs to be in a position to have positive relations with whatever government comes next.

If the Iranians do not topple Ahmadinejad, the US hasn't really lost much, since he was not exactly enthusiastic about talking with the US in the first place.

The fact that this came from Clinton tells me the careerists at Foggy Bottom are seeking to straddle the fence line for the time being.

Triad said:

If he's illegitimate to the USA how the hell is Obama going to justify talking with him?

Click to expand...

That's easy....legitimate or no, he's the man who's soon going to have nuclear weapons. Ignoring him means a nuclearized and largely unchecked Iran. If he's illegitimate it merely puts the characterization of Iran in the same cast as North Korea--a rogue pariah state with nuclear capacity--and that's not exactly a huge difference from the characterization of the Islamic Republic right now.

Triad said:

Going to be fun watching the left justify that hypocrisy. Because the one thing that will not change is any hope of Obama getting a brain and realizing negotiations have failed.

Click to expand...

There's no hypocrisy in realpolitik. In foreign relations you deal with the governments that are there. In Iran, that's the Islamic Republic; we can dislike them, but we can't disregard them.

What will be interesting is watching the left contend with the sobering reality that Iran has shown itself to have no compelling interest in negotiations, and the rioting and alleged election irregularities merely drive that point home.

American said:

Time to give Israel the go ahead.

Click to expand...

Not yet. That would play to Ahmadinejad and strengthen his position.

The thing to do would be to wait for full civil war to break out, then sneak a couple Stealth bombers in on a night bombing run to produce some "tragic" explosions around Natanz, and Arak.

Anything the US or Israel might do against Iran's nuclear facilities needs to have complete plausible deniability. Better yet, find a way to make the Russians or the Chinese the bad guys.

I've read the entire article and just can't find the part where the "US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad."

In point of fact, our leaders have not "rejected" anything. Here, read it again:

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

...

Administration officials remained silent out of concern that any comments might influence the results.

...

Neither Clinton nor the White House mentioned Ahmadinejad or his chief rival Mousavi, by name, or acknowledged the incumbent's victory declaration.

...

In brief remarks in Canada, Clinton cited "the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue" in the run-up to the vote. "We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people," she said.

Click to expand...

Triad said:

Going to be fun watching the left justify that hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

No more entertaining than you trying to justify the article's specious claims. :roll:

Who cares? What's the difference between one person controlled by the mullahs, and another? The President of Iran is irrelevant since he doesn't call the shots. This is all just political theater, and the mullahs are the ones writing the script.

Moon said:

Who cares? What's the difference between one person controlled by the mullahs, and another? The President of Iran is irrelevant since he doesn't call the shots. This is all just political theater, and the mullahs are the ones writing the script.

Click to expand...

The Iranian people seem to care a great deal.

Of greater concern to the US is whether the mullahs continue to retain a veneer of political legitimacy, or if they will become merely yet another gang of authoritarian oligarchs--who just happen to be on the verge of nuclear weapons.

celticlord said:

The Iranian people seem to care a great deal.

Click to expand...

If the people controlled the military, that might mean something. Otherwise, it's just another Tienanmen Square.

celticlord said:

Of greater concern to the US is whether the mullahs continue to retain a veneer of political legitimacy, or if they will become merely yet another gang of authoritarian oligarchs--who just happen to be on the verge of nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

What do you mean "become"?

Moon said:

If the people controlled the military, that might mean something. Otherwise, it's just another Tienanmen Square.

Click to expand...

Tehran 1999 was another Tienanmen Square. This is looking more like Romania in 1989--something Ahmadinejad needs to consider (what started out as a few rights blossomed overnight into a complete rebellion).

Moon said:

What do you mean "become"?

Click to expand...

Exactly that.

One thing is certain: huge numbers of Iranians turned out to vote, in an election staged by the mullahs. Had Mousavi not been cleared to run, or if the results weren't so questionable (Ahmadinejad presumably won in Mousavi's home town--even Mayor Daley isn't that greedy for votes), the Iranian people likely would have accepted the result.

If the Iranian people were willing to accept the results of a mullah-staged election, that acceptance confers political legitimacy on the mullahs, just as the removal of that acceptance (which appears to be going on now) strips them of political legitimacy.

celticlord said:

Tehran 1999 was another Tienanmen Square. This is looking more like Romania in 1989--something Ahmadinejad needs to consider (what started out as a few rights blossomed overnight into a complete rebellion).


Exactly that.

One thing is certain: huge numbers of Iranians turned out to vote, in an election staged by the mullahs. Had Mousavi not been cleared to run, or if the results weren't so questionable (Ahmadinejad presumably won in Mousavi's home town--even Mayor Daley isn't that greedy for votes), the Iranian people likely would have accepted the result.

If the Iranian people were willing to accept the results of a mullah-staged election, that acceptance confers political legitimacy on the mullahs, just as the removal of that acceptance (which appears to be going on now) strips them of political legitimacy.

Click to expand...

Then the Iranians were the last ones to realize what the form of their government actually is.

Moon said:

Then the Iranians were the last ones to realize what the form of their government actually is.

Click to expand...

The people usually are. Which is one reason the realization usually leads to rebellion.

celticlord said:

The people usually are. Which is one reason the realization usually leads to rebellion.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. We will see.

celticlord said:

What will be interesting is watching the left contend with the sobering reality that Iran has shown itself to have no compelling interest in negotiations, and the rioting and alleged election irregularities merely drive that point home.

Click to expand...

They'll just blame the USA and everyone but Obama.

Triad said:

They'll just blame the USA and everyone but Obama.

Click to expand...

Most likely, and what few shreds of credibility they enjoy today will be gone.

"US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad"

The only quotes from the US gov't suggest "doubt" but they hardly reject it. Reserving judgement is very different from rejection. It is as different as atheism vs. agnosticism.

Although I also would have liked to have seen Mousavi win, given the scale of his victory, the hypothetical fraud would have had to have been on a massive scale, - something I would think very difficult to pull off given the diverse opinions in the population. According to news reports I have heard, pre-election polling showed most of Mousavi's support came from voters under the age of 30. Although I don't know the exact distribution of the Iranian population, I suspect its population distribution is similar to that of other developed countries. In the US the percentage of the population between age 18 and 30 is about 15%-20% of the population at most.

The voting age is 18 in Iran, so if one extrapolates from US demographics, even if you give Iran a youthful cast and say 20% of the population was 100% behind Mousavi, and 100% of them came out to vote, they still represent a minority. According to news reports, Iran had an all-time record turnout as well, close to 87%, so the value of that small-but-energized voting block would have been substantially reduced.

It would be useful though, to know how weak or strong Mousavi's support was among the rest of the population, since the youth vote certainly could have won the election for him if his numbers were high enough in other demographics.

Ahmadinejad certainly acts weasely and attracts plenty of controversy, but I suspect, given the demographics of Mousavi's support and the size of Ahmadinejad's victory, that he may not have had to resort to election fraud to win.