$10,000 Reward: Show How the Iranian Election Was "Stolen"

I will pay $10,000 to the first person or organization that presents a coherent story for how the Iranian election was stolen that is consistent with knowable facts about the Iranian election process as it took place on June 12-13 and the information that has been published since, including the ballot box tallies that have been published on the web by the Iranian government.

In order to collect the reward, you don't have to prove your case beyond a shadow of a doubt. But your numbers have to add up. To collect your reward, it's not sufficient to cite press reports or anecdotal evidence of election irregularities, or to claim as authority Western commentators or NGOs who have not themselves put together a coherent story. To collect your reward, your story has to tell how on June 12, a majority of Iranian voters voted for other candidates besides Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, yet this was transformed by the Iranian election authorities into a majority for Ahmadinejad.

Here are the numbers you have to explain. According to the official tally, Ahmadinejad got about 24.5 million votes. Mir Hossein Mousavi got 13.2 million votes. That's a difference of more than 11 million votes.

So, when I say your numbers have to add up, I mean your story of stolen votes has to overcome that 11 million vote gap. [The number would differ somewhat if you only want to say that Ahmadinejad didn't get a first round majority, as opposed to merely beating Mousavi, but it would not differ by much, since the third and fourth place candidates took such a small share of the vote.]

To illustrate: much has been made of the Guardian Council's "admission" that in about 50 cities or towns, the number of votes exceeded the number of people eligible to vote in that area. Note, first of all, that unlike in the United States, where in general you can only vote where you are registered, in Iran you can vote wherever you happen to be that day. So the fact that more votes were recorded in a jurisdiction than there are eligible voters in that jurisdiction, in a high turnout election, in itself proves nothing. But put that to the side. The Guardian Council noted that the total number of votes in the 50 cities and towns was about 3 million, and that even if you threw away all 3 million votes from all the people voting in the 50 cities and towns, it wouldn't affect the election result. Note that 3 million wasn't the difference between votes and voters, still less an estimate of the impact on the total, it was the total number of votes. The Guardian Council was simply making the commonsense argument that even if you take a number which is clearly much bigger than the likely impact of any discrepancy in the 50 towns, and throw that number away, it still doesn't come close to affecting the overall result. If you've been getting your "information" from the TV, or some usually liberal commentators who shot from the hip with unsubstantiated "stolen election" claims in the days after the election and now can't back down, you may be surprised by this reward offer.

But remember: "everybody who was anybody" thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Why? Because that's what the TV said. There was no evidence, but that didn't matter.

Here we go again. Most people are not getting their information from print media, they're getting it from TV. And of course, even in the print media, you have to search for dissenting views from the TV narrative.

Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty had an op-ed in the Washington Post pointing out that Ahmadinejad's election victory was consistent with their pre-election polling data. (By the way, contrary to the claims of some analysts who cited their own unsubstantiated claim that Ahmadinejad could never have won the majority of Azeris as evidence of fraud, the Terror Free Tomorrow poll found Ahmadinejad had a strong lead among Azeris. And those who say Mousavi automatically had to win his home province should tell Al Gore.) Some folks who are lazy or bad at math have tried to discredit the TFT poll data, because it was taken three weeks before the election, there was a subsequent surge for the opposition and there were a high number of people who didn't state a candidate preference in the poll. But even if you allocate two-thirds of those not stating a preference to the opposition, you still get an election victory for Ahmadinejad in the first round. And some of the same folks who want to dismiss the Terror Free Tomorrow data because it was three weeks old want to cite election results from four years and even eight years earlier to claim the election was stolen. Of course, we don't predict elections in the U.S. like that.

Former NSC staffers Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett have had two pieces in the Politico pointing out how implausible the "stolen election" claim is. Iranian economist Djavad Salehi-Isfahani - professor at Virginia Tech and guest scholar at Brookings - noted in the New York Times online evidence that Ahmadinejad's programs to distribute income and wealth more evenly have begun to bear fruit, explaining his support in rural areas and small towns:

"Once these factors are taken into account, it is not so implausible that Mr. Ahmadinejad may have actually won a majority of the votes cast, though not those cast in Tehran. The well-to-do urbanite Iranians and their political leaders would do well to allow room for the possibility that a recount may reduce but not eliminate Mr. Ahmadinejad's lead, and, in that case, respect the voters will and prepare for a comeback in 2013. "

Of course, now that it's becoming increasingly clear that the "stolen election" story was a hoax, people are saying it doesn't matter if the election was stolen. This is predictable - it's hard for people to admit that they were wrong.

But it does matter. It matters a great deal.

The widely-believed story of the "stolen election" is already being used to argue for a toughening of U.S. policy against Iran and the abandonment of President Obama's promised diplomatic engagement. Recall that prior to the Iranian election, the alternatives that had been put before the American people were diplomatic engagement and war - or "crippling economic sanctions" - like cutting off Iran's gas imports - that are tantamount to war and will very likely lead eventually to a shooting war. So, in the U.S. political context - the U.S. is almost certainly not going to just leave Iran alone - if you argue that the U.S. cannot engage diplomatically with Iran, you're effectively arguing for eventual war.

That's why I was shocked that Avaaz, for example, is demanding that governments "withhold recognition" from the Iranian government. Apart from being a fantastically unrealistic demand - China is going to withhold diplomatic recognition from Iran because of the stolen election claims of the Iranian opposition? - Avaaz's current position is totally at odds with its earlier advocacy of diplomatic engagement. You cannot simultaneously campaign for diplomatic isolation of the Iranian government and promote diplomacy with it. You have to choose. And the alternative to diplomacy is war.

Of course people will say it's not about the election now, it's about the violent repression of the protests afterwards.

But whether we believe the election was stolen has a great bearing on our understanding of what happened afterwards. If the election was not stolen, and the real fraud was the opposition's claim that it was, then much of the opposition was organized around a fraudulent claim. It should go without saying that that doesn't morally justify violent repression. In a democracy, people have the right to believe whatever they want and advocate for it, even if - like people who believe Bush blew up the World Trade Center - their beliefs are obviously false. But if the Iranian election was not stolen, it does make the protest and crackdown fundamentally different political events: it fundamentally undermines the claim of the protesters to be speaking for the majority of the Iranian population, who just voted for a different candidate than the one supported by the protesters. And when the powerful media institutions of the West - which are regarded in much of the world, not without significant justification, as creatures of their host governments - promote the false claim that the election was stolen, the claim of the Iranian government of foreign intervention in Iran's internal politics becomes quite plausible to Iranians - the majority - who support the policies of their government more than they support the policies that the U.S. would like to impose on them.

Some will say it doesn't matter, because Iran is not a true democracy, regardless of what happened on June 12. Debate is restricted, and candidates are limited. It's obviously true that democracy in Iran is restricted. But that doesn't justify lying about the election, especially with all the terrible consequences those lies will likely have.

Furthermore, those who want to "support the protesters" by affirming their unsubstantiated claims of a stolen election aren't doing the opposition any favors. If the opposition in Iran wants to win a fair national election in the future, it will likely have to deal with the reasons that it didn't have majority support on June 12. It has to engage the majority of the Iranian population who likely have more illiberal social views, and it has to engage the majority of the Iranian population who want the government to engage in redistributive economic policies, not "Washington Consensus" winner-take-all policies that might please the International Monetary Fund and some better-off Iranians. It has to give up on the fantasy of riding to power on the backs of foreign intervention, and instead dedicate itself to a "long march" through Iranian institutions and Iranian public opinion.

I empathize with the Iranian protesters. I also wanted Mousavi to win. It would have made the job of promoting diplomacy with Iran a lot easier. I strongly sympathize with the protesters' desire for more social freedom, and empathize with their outrage over the crackdown.

I also know what it's like to lose such a national election that seems to validate and empower the most reactionary currents in society. I remember well when Reagan clobbered Mondale. I had campaigned for Mondale - without illusion about Mondale's cold war liberalism - to defeat Reagan. When Reagan won, it meant four more years of Reagan's unionbusting and terrorist war in Central America, among many other brutal and cruel Reagan policies. Reagan's re-election was a terrible event for America and the world.

But when Reagan was re-elected, I did not dissociate from reality into a fantasyland in which the election had been "stolen" and the majority of the American electorate shared my views. Neither should the Iranian opposition, nor its foreign sympathizers, dissociate from reality into a fanstasyland in which the majority of Iranian electorate shares their views. Accepting that Ahmadinejad won doesn't mean you love Ahmadinejad. It means you want to deal with the world as it exists in reality, not the world as it exists in your fantasy.

Was Mousavi permitted to have his representatives at the polls to observe the balloting, custody of the ballots and counting of the ballots? No? Well, then, of course the election was stolen.

Mr. Naiman misses the real point. The election was 'stolen' during the four years prior to the election, during which an already very fragile and limited system of civil rights was almost completely decimated by the current regime. Having coercively marginalized the opposition and all organs of public expression, particularly the press, prior to the election, the regime assumed, perhaps correctly, that the likely results would 'validate' their rule.

In this sense, and in this sense only, Mr. Naiman's position about the actual vote count is plausible. Not surprisingly, both Khamenei and Ahmadijenad expected to win, and choose to characterize that 'victory' as a public (and even divine) validation of their rule.

However, despite their purported overwhelming margins in the polls, the actual position of the government remains so weak that they can still only rule by repression. The recent post-election reaction, and resulting government-sponsored violence, is no accident, but a direct extension of the avowed policies of the fundamentally anti-democratic regime put into place in 2005.

If the current regime were truly confident that the latest vote represented an honest referendum on the popularly of their regime, they could easily have let the minority protests peter out of their own accord. But the protests, had they been allowed, would have further exposed the implicit and explicit lies they told the electorate about the economy and other social issues. As it is, to justify their brutal suppression of an apparently 'minority' position, they need to brand their opponents as 'foreign agents', also a continuation of the last four years.

Mr. Naiman speciously compares this situation to the Reagan and Bush years in the US, when liberals were marginalized. However, in neither the Reagan nor Bush years, at their darkest moments, was the press totally muzzled, or 'dissidents' routinely arrested, beaten or assassinated. In 2004, Bush clearly won and open election by 3M+ votes, votes he surely would not have won had he been telling the truth about the war, the economy, etc. Yet, nobody who protested either the election or his policies was arrested, beaten or shot in the streets.

Interestingly, neither Mr. Mousavi or the other losing candidates have claimed to have 'won' the election. Neither have they limited themselves to challenging the vote. They have instead expressed the idea that the election was fundamentally fraudulent, in some sense the same position that dissidents took in 2005 when they boycotted the elections.

Now, you could honestly ask why the opposition participated in a fundamentally flawed election. The answer is simple - for much the same reason as the government held the election: to establish their legitimacy. After years of marginalization, the elections offered the opposition the only forum available to mount a coherent challenge to the authorities. At the beginning of the election, they scarcely expected to win.

That's because the Ahmadinejad regime, elected under a fundamentally undemocratic, fraudelent system in 2005, took that opportunity to further extend their illegitimate and incompetant rule over the last four years by dismantling whatever was left of the rather weak democratic system that existed before. They replaced it with what Mousavi characterizes as an 'alms' economy - spending government money to buy votes, influence, and an apparently very tenuous civil peace, rather than addressing the people's legitimate needs and concerns.

Therefore, whether their resulting 'victory' this year is technically due to vote-miscounting or not is clearly not particularly relevant. It is certainly not relevant to those who recognize the fundamental fraud of the current system, whether they are inside or outside of Iran.

Now, let's more directly examine the logic of Mr. Naiman's $10K challenge. Let's leave aside that it is his money, and his sole judgment (no impartial panel of judges, apparently). So, let's suppose someone is able to convince Mr. Naiman that the vote-count was rigged and wins the $10K. Does he believe that the results would be accepted by the current regime, who would then resign in disgrace?!

Similarly, suppose that nobody comes forward, or that, even more interestingly, someone is able to 'prove' that vote count was totally accurate. Would that undo the results of the undemocratic nature of the current regime over the last four years, or the built-in inequities of the current electoral system?

Mr. Naiman's believes that if the government's vote totals are true, the opposition will just have to work harder to convince the Iranian people. But whether the vote totals are true or not, the opposition will have to work equally hard, because the totals are not the result of a truly open, democratic process, and the opposition will in any case never have access to such a process while the existing regime remains in power. Sadly, it is now very unlikely that anything will be improved by the now-compromised election process.

In 1933, Hitler felt strong enough to virtually eliminate the electoral system and become dictator. However, had he decided, four years later, to hold elections, he certainly would have won, even with a 'honest' vote count. That's because he had spent the previous four years gagging the opposition, manipulating the social and economic system, and lying to the public. So, would those elections have really made any difference?

Finally, does Mr. Naiman really believe that, if someone had the proof his is requesting, they would withhold it awaiting his offer? If Mr. Naiman has $10K to blow, I strongly suggest he consider calling off his absurd and pointless challenge, and instead donate it to one or more organizations supporting civil rights and truly free elections in Iran.

cheap auto ins 27070 buy car insurance online fsdbzu life insurance quotes 5160 car insurance lzoxq

life insurance quotes oiodl low car insurance 094 affordable car insurance =-DDD propecia 739037

car insurence :-OO life insurance policy jhukj life insurance uzdla nj car insurance dihybx

cheap car insurance sowwk auto insurance quotes 8-O buy viagra tuo buy auto insurance online =-OOO car insurance quotes 7442 new york car insurance 8((( car insurance quotes 164099

cheapest cialis xyvtv where to buy viagra >:DDD levitra %P carinsurance twls online colleges 47091 Ventes de cialis >:-(((

buy cialis online =DDD cheap car insurance 82377 auto insurance quotes =-O levitra viagra vs 01746 degrees online 606

car insurance quote ovcanf prednisone online dtu auto insurance quotes >:-((( car insurance quotes oavwy auto insurance quotes South Dakota 44466 auto insurance quotes Indianapolis 8PPP infinity auto insurance %-DDD

auto insurance quotes 13718 sildenafil citrate 100 mg 51731 auto insurance quotes 9008 buy cialis coi discount cialis flxec cialis xvlz discount auto insurance 8-DDD

how does viagra work niz life insurance quotes 000 auto insurance quotes HI 751088 buy cialis >:-(( levitra =-[

insurance life tvrdsh buy viagra %-DDD car insurance quotes Ohio 8))) new york car insurance 225936 purchase cialis 0723 viagra for woman 8-[[[ viagra without a prescription uzhj

online viagra 554 order cialis tgqve order cialis online 5704 auto insurance quotes %) viagra =-O

viagra 964 online college kfas insurance quotes online free ky =O eastwood auto insurance =]] cialis 8[[[ online colleges omosx where to buy cialis 0659

florida auto insurance 7662 Delaware auto insurance quotes 7251 levitra buy %DD cialis online clodjb buy viagra 8-] viagra online %DD Indiana auto insurance quotes :-((

cheap auto insurance elvmw buy viagra dfc auto insurance quotes >:PPP cheap car insurance CA sbk gaico insurance >:]]]

car insurance quotes Houston zht online physicians cialis %-[[ florida auto insurance 677639 insurance quotes on line auto ydd auto insurance quotes uzxnx free auto insurance quotes online ayr

best car insurance for teens in texas 215 accutane =-O Ohio car insurance quotes %-[[[ discount auto insurance new york =-] cheap auto insurance bxig omaha 666 viagra online =]

auto insurance quotes =) get car insurance quotes iqygo car insurance rate 386 auto insurance quotes =OOO infinity auto insurance ocibxe

educators professional liability insurance szl auto insurance online quote owezi levitra gamecube online games 03904 auto insurance quotes free >:PP viagra prices =[ car insureance 02314

buy viagra without prescription 06782 car insurance quotes uzdv buy viagra vqf auto insurance quotes %-) viagra online 384732 cheap viagra without prescription 036 online viagra sales 8-))

Hi! ALL order viagra viagra viagra online natural viagra cheap viagra viagra viagra price free viagra generic viagra buy viagra,generic cialis,cialis,cialis,cialis,cheap cialis,buy cialis,cialis 20mg,cialis,cialis price,cialis reviews rtybtybtybu64

generic cialis 914 cialis >:DDD generic cialis vvcwz best online site for cialis qlv cheap car insiuranc >:-)))

brand cialis cheap 268 cialis generic lvzrcr generic cialis No Prescription 8] career in insurance =-DD cheap viagra and cialis 8DDD viagra order on line nosubscription =-(( cost of viagra or cialis zgf

best viagra site cgwjso vintage vehicle insurance hpr sildenafil 25mg esjigp car insurance quotes 8-))) cheap cialis generic online kzxvc sildenafil 130651 cialis online order >:-]

accredited online college degrees 79495 auto insurance quotes 3809 car insurance quotes mhxdrx cycle insurance auto 89938 car insurance quotes 177234 car insurance quaotes tlrvph car insurance quotes >:-O

liability insurance home owners 3008 auto insurance quiote Florida 109522 a -z auto insurence acgjy car insurance quotes free :P auto insurance no >:))

California compare car insurance quotes online :-O tricare prime health insurance CA qxzzhm auto insurance michigan 1623 cheap 36 hour cialis online =OOO teen auto insurance rates 61595

masters degrees online 253850 car insurance quotes free %[[[ purchase on line cialis ubmgep atlanta accutane attorney fqg cheap car insurance nmkx CHEAP AUTO INSURANCE IN NJ wpsnrn

Baltimore car insurance quotes online state auto %-]] Columbus cheap car insurance quotes =OOO online mexico pharmacy accutane :-) auto insurance quotes online syegq audi a3 car insurance wlnjz

car insurance quotes zby car insurance quotes qfl OH car insurance qoutes hhjg loan insurance cheap 4276 liability insurance commercial tfl Indianapolis car insurance quotes pa =-) cialis for free rylta

cheap car insurance new york 871526 viagra without prescrip ycdie buy tadafil 3113 start working accutane %PP buy viagra online cheap 242 auto insurance reserve 495261

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I truly appreciate your efforts and I am waiting for your next write ups thanks once again.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.