Freedom Rider: Ahmadinejad Wins
by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley
“The American corporate media went into overdrive accepting that fraud was a fact.”
The sorry state of American journalism has been on full display in its coverage of the recent Iranian presidential election. Rarely do media tell us much of anything about Iran beyond using Bush era terms such as “axis of evil” to define this country. Iran’s development of a nuclear capability is used to frighten us and to make the case for more war. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is vilified because he very publicly excoriates the United States and Israel for their violations of international and human rights law and for their very public threats against his nation.
Good journalism would require an at least cursory lesson in the history of America’s relations with Iran. Instead it is so rarely discussed that it is impossible for all but the most determined to learn anything that might be useful in analyzing election results or any other issues pertaining to Iran.
The most important thing to know about Iran is that it had a thriving secular democracy in the early 1950s until the United States and Great Britain overthrew the government of President Mohammed Mossadegh. In the 1980s, America used its then ally Saddam Hussein to wage a nearly ten year long war against Iran that resulted in the deaths of one million people. When Saddam used his weapons of mass destruction it was under the auspices of American support and Iranians were his primary victims.
For the past thirty years since the Islamic revolution, Iran has been under theocratic rule. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei decides who can and cannot be a candidate for high office. Neither Ahmadinejad nor his main rival Mir Hossein Mousavi would have waged their fierce electoral battle unless the mullahs had decided to allow both men into the contest.
“It is wise to be skeptical of the analysis which is said to prove fraud.”
Yet few Americans were aware that Iran has even a limited democracy. The media usually don’t bother to cover Iran’s presidential elections at all. It was quite different this year, however. Suddenly there was hours of footage of a “green” revolution waged by Mousavi’s supporters. News stories about opinion polls and debates made headlines.
When Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, Mousavi and his supporters claimed the election was stolen, and the American corporate media went into overdrive accepting that fraud was a fact. The Obama administration, which like those before it loves unelected hereditary dictators in the Middle East, jumped on the band wagon and used the fraud charge as a weapon against Ahmadinejad, as if democracy is really a criteria for American financial and military support.
It is difficult for anyone in this country to know who Iranian voters support or why, or to acknowledge that their political preferences may have nothing to do with the United States. Perhaps they act just like Americans and determine who has the best educational, health care, or economic policies before they cast their ballots. The opinions of Americans may not have entered the mind of the average Iranian voter at all. Perhaps the constant attack from the American media and politicians make Ahmadinejad even more popular in his country than he would be otherwise.
“Americans do not have the right to butt in yet again and create even more disasters .”
Because Ahmadinejad has been declared an enemy of America, it is wise to be skeptical of the analysis which is said to prove fraud. The arguments are so specious as to be laughable. We are told that it is impossible for Mousavi to have lost the vote in his home region. Al Gore lost his home state in 2000, why could the same thing not happen in Iran? The media in this country declare winners moments after polls close when not one vote has been counted. Yet the Iranian government early declaration of a winner is presented as proof of a stolen election.
Americans should be commended for being interested in Iran, but they should also be viewed with suspicion. We are propagandized to believe that our country is good and right and can and ought to interfere with people all over the world. Liberal bloggers crying foul for Mousavi’s sake will likely be the first to defend the Obama administration if it makes real its threats against Iran. Iran has a right to decide its own destiny, it has the right to develop a nuclear capability that may some day include nuclear weapons. Americans do not have the right to butt in yet again and create even more disasters for this nation than it has in the past.
So instead of claiming to be experts on subjects about which they know little, Americans should work to keep their own government in check, and prevent any further invasions, occupations, or drone attacks in that part of the world. Iranians will determine who their presidents ought to be and what kind of political system they should have. Americans claiming good intent always bring nothing but disaster.
Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.Com.
For all the policy failures of COP26 it may actually be an inflection point in history -- a point where social and political conditions force a transformation of consciousness and politics that
What are the environmental and ecological impacts of large-scale military occupations by the United Nations “peacekeeping” missions?
The late Brazilian intellectual, artist, and activist Abdias do Nascimento argues that racial democracy is premised on an idea of racial mixing that not only valorizes whiteness, but is predica
In this series, we ask acclaimed authors to answer five questions about their book.
It is the liberal class which is determined to censor as much of public discourse as possible.
