How the regime can discredit the opposition virtually overnight


by FG

Most Iranians love the regime, including Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader. 

The opposition represents a small minority of foreign-inspired cranks. Regime spokesmen and online defenders (Perouz) assure us of this repeatedly. Unfortunately no one believes them. Assuming the regime is correct, imagine the advantages of boldly challenging the opposition to a head-on test of popularity--a “put up or shut up” deal.

Since an overwhelming regime victory is a foregone conclusion, the results will deeply discredit the opposition and thereby put an end to a crisis likely to continue indefinitely otherwise. Given the certainly of results, the regime must given the opposition no grounds to complain of rigging afterwards. To prevent that, I’d suggest five conditions.

CONDITION #1: Both pro-and anti-government demonstrations would hold their own demonstrations a week apart--each limited to a given but equal number of days by common agreement. Neither side would be allowed to hold counter-demonstrations so as to avoid clashes, intimidation or disruption that would taint any results.

CONDITION #2: So that no one can claim intimidation influenced turnouts, neither the basilj, undercover cops nor other security forces would be allowed to interfere with the opposition demonstrators or take photos of same. The police would have strong orders to arrest anyone who does so, whether plainclothes or uniformed. Such violators would be tried openly and publicly.

CONDITION #3: Government employees, both military or civilian, should have the same rights as all other citizen . They must be allowed to choose their own demonstration without advance pressure or threats of subsequent retaliation, such as job loss.

CONDITION #4: No government-provided buses and free giveaways for one side only and no outright bribes. Since the government is certain to win anyway, they are unnecessary and give the opposition a chance to make excuses for its massive defeat afterwards.

CONDITION #5: Encourage domestic and foreign journalists as well as international observers such as Amnesty International to closely monitor the demonstrations and see that all above conditions are met. Any restrictions on individual from both sides speaking freely to the media would be removed. Thus the regime won’t have to rely on a “We won because we say so” position, as is the present case.


--Turnout for the anti-government demonstration will vastly exceed the 3 million one-day peak in public demonstrations the day after the election day theft and could run as high as 10 million. Huge crowds will be seen in every major city and virtually ever town will have substantial demonstrations.

--Turnout at the pro-government demonstration will be meager and tiny. Even if pro-regime supporters decided to restrict themselves to one city (Tehran) I doubt they can turn out a million or even 500,000.


--The opposition would welcome such a contest.

--The regime will not.

--We will hear strange excuses for that refusal.



--Only a deeply unpopular government would FEAR such a contest.

--Only a deeply unpopular government would FEAR a free press, fair elections and allowing any candidate to run regardless of gender or political position.  If the latter were unpopular, he or she would get nowhere.

--Only a deeply unpopular governments would NEED technical tricks, such as requiring licenses it would then never allow then charging demonstrators with “breaking the law.“ It is identical to what South Africa’s apartheid government and the American South once did in enforcing segregation laws.

--Only a deeply unpopular would NEED to club, shoot, bomb, run over, arrest, torture or rape peaceful demonstrators, critical journalists and clerics, opposition politicians and human rights workers.


Such a refusal will confirm what the opposition claims: This government is massively unpopular, despite any claims to the contrary.


more from FG

Obama's election victory is not in question

by Hovakhshatare on

so that comment is totally irrelevant.


Told you Sarouz and regime would duck it!

by FG on

I expected this very excuse which has a big and obvious flaw:

Sarouz: :Should President Obama be subjected to this kind of thing? Of course not. The same applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran.


My answer: Bad analagy.  No comparison.  Yes Prsident Obama is subject to a test--it's called free and fair elections.  So are all presidents in a democracy. 

One of the issues in Iran is whether the election was fair.  That's one thing, but not the only thing anymore, prolonging this crisis which new elections would never solve now even if they were not rigged but everryone believes they would be.  

Since mistrust in elections is one of the problems that won't go away, the regime cannot prove its claims of popularity that way.   You can't disagree that what I've proposed, under the conditions I proposed, would leave no doubt about the regime's popularity.

Did a majority of the people want Ahmaninejad again on election day?  Hell no.  Most Iranains don't believe it for a minute.  That's your problem.  When they asked for more safeguards prior to election, Khamenei himself turned them down, saying "they aren't necessary." We saw otherwise.

No matter what promises the regime makes that "next time the election will be fair," why would a population firmly convinced otherwise simply take the regime's "you can trust us THIS time" assurances.  They know for certain what Khamenei, Yazdi, IRCG, Basilj and Co. will do exactly the same thing again?  Fool me once, fool me twice. 

What also tends to prove the rigging charges and assure it would happen again, is the government's extreme behavior since.  People ask, "Would a government capable of committing so many immense crimes (rape, murder dbeatings, torture, criminal arrests of journalists, politicians civil right workers) and that lies repeatedly with the most outrageous whoppers hesitate for a minute to rig elections?   The answer is so OBVIOUS to all.

Why should the people vote when the believe--when they KNOW so the core of their being, the vote will be stolen all over again? Hence a new election can't get Iran off the hook, which should be your goal.  I ask again, Why do you fear my proposal since, by your own claims, the government is popular and would win overwhelmingly.

And please, don't bring up a bad analogy under rare and one-of-akind circumstances that still aren't clear (Florida in 2001) and compare it to your own regime's behavior when it comes to electoral theft.  In America, it might be possible to rig an extremely close election (less than one percent margin) by stealing a few thousand votes in one state or possibly two, in which case it would usually have little effect nationally unless the margin elsewhere was darn close.

In Iran, we are talking about election theft carried out nationwide and on a massive scale with clear support from the very top (Khamenei, Yazdi, Ahmadinejad), assisted by security forces (imagine the US armed forces doing that!) and with votes counted by a "ministry of intelligence" of all things headed by a cabinet member appointed by the "winning" candidate, Ahmadinejad.  We've never seen anything like that here.


Sargord Pirouz

I've heard Far Right

by Sargord Pirouz on

I've heard Far Right American wingnuts propose similar arrangements to discredit or clip President Obama's powers.

Should President Obama be subjected to this kind of thing? Of course not. The same applies to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

What's next for you kind of folks? Weekly elections and government system alterations by telephone polls or numbered poll counts at demonstrations? Yeah, if your goal is chaos!

C'mon, FG. Get real for a change.