A Few Rational Moments

So, I do have a blog designated for political topics, but I didn't really want to put this one there because, well, it's not going to be as organized/harpish as my other posts. This might sound odd, but for all the press I've heard and all the tweets I've read, I still can't feel outright rage at the Iranian regime. I know, I'm sorry, but I can't. I've been trying to maintain a non-partisan outlook on the results of the election and subsequent fallout.

Maybe I've just read too many books about Iran. Maybe after the past few years of reading up about the theocracy, I want to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not that I'm saying I think the results of the election were completely legitimate, but still. I have a few things I've been trying to keep in mind as I watch the news/read Mir Hossien Mousavi's tweets (mousavi1388 if anyone is interested in following.) They are as follows:

• In terms of the election results themselves, polling was close throughout the campaign, and especially so right before the election. Mousavi had the most strength in the cities (like Tehran) whereas Ahmadinejad was strong in the rural and poor areas (where he has focused his attention while president.) No one had a clear idea who was coming out on top. Mousavi is/was arguing that he had individuals monitoring polls, and he felt he got 2/3 of the vote. Meanwhile, the authorities ended up giving around 2/3 of the vote to Ahmadinejad.
  
• With that in mind, the idea of Ahmadinejad coming out on top isn't exactly crazy. I'm not sure if I buy that he was 11 million votes ahead, but any exaggeration may well have been aimed at avoiding a run-off election. To win the election without a run-off, a candidate must win over 50% of the vote (not easy with so many candidates.) Authorities claim he won 63% of the vote, which seems like a little too large a margin. But it's not entirely clear that Ahmadinejad didn't beat Mousavi by, say, a few points or so. This is the first election where it seems results were rigged (at least by such a huge margin.) Typically the most popular candidate (even if the Supreme Leader doesn't support him) has won the election.
  
• Which brings me to the rioting and protests. When you look at where the riots are taking place (cities, particularly Tehran) and where Mousavi had support (cities, like Tehran) it makes it all look a little different. These aren't protests across the country. These are protests in places Mousavi was supported the strongest. I haven't heard anything about protests in smaller towns. This election and the turmoil following it has drawn such a distinct line down the center of the country. But, since it is the capital where the protests are going on, that is the main focus of reporting.
• And the main focus within the focus has been the violence. The clashes with police and what have you. Yes, it's horrible and yes, it's wrong. But let's look at the response of the Supreme Leader and actually think this through. So, in the capital of the city there have been riots and protests for over a week. Little squirmishes with police here and there, and more pictures of burning cars than you can shake a stick at. After over a week of this, as things begin taking on a life of their own, Ayatollah Khamenei comes and says, "Seriously. This needs to stop. The election was legit, and if you don't start calming down, we're going to get serious about stopping this behavior." Then comes yesterday, with all eyes on Iran as the government delivers its promised crackdown.
  
• So, point one: The Supreme Leader let these protests continue for over a week. He kept assuring people that the election wasn't rigged, but for the most part let people do their thang. Had he wanted to, he could have arrested all opposition leaders and put the kabash on all protesting by force. But he didn't. Point two: What would the government of the United States have done had, following the disputed 2000 election, there been riots in the streets of Washington DC? Do you really think they would have been like "Oh, let the kids have their fun!" Yesterday the military in Iran was turning people away from protests, using tear gas and water cannons to quell the crowd. Do you really think our own government would have done something different?
• Speaking of which, are people really so stupid they think Obama should speak out against the election? Seriously, do you have any idea what kind of history we have with Iran? It's none of our government's business to get involved with what's going on. All Obama should say is, "We will respect whichever candidate is chosen by the people and leaders of Iran." Bam. Done. Anything else is just going to start problems, I guarantee it. Iran doesn't want "The Great Satan" involved.

That is basically what I've been trying to keep in mind while watching the news. Trying to keep a level head, while remembering the history between Iran and the US, as well as the electoral history of Iran. All in all, it is horrible that people are being killed over there, but I just can't get as angry as I thought I would be.