Iran Elections

[erpowers]

Earlier today I saw the cover of the local newspaper with a picture of the winnner of the Iranian election. My first thought was that the chance for negotiations had either ended or been given a bad blow. Than I thought what if Bush helped rig the election in favor of the more anti-American guy. I contend that since this guy was elected Bush can use the exuse that this guy is/was a person who could not be persuaded to work with the United States. If the other guy had been elected he may have been more willing to work things out with the United States. So does anyone think that Bush may have helped rig the election for the other guy. I just think that if the more moderate guy had been elected it could have dampen some of Bush's plans.

[SouthernDem2004]

1. So, you think we control Iran and the Ayatollah? /nt

[Goldmund]

2. No need to rig.

Every nation huddles around the biggest jingoist ass-kicker when they feel threatened from the outside.

[cornermouse]

3. Wouldn't have made any difference.

They wouldn't have approved of the more moderate guy either. They aren't going to let a little thing like an election make them change course.

[kitkat65]

4. Maybe this could shed some light

I don't know much about the International Strategic Studies Association or if this is accurate but it does give an interesting perspective"

Talk about taking a "Ba'ath" and still feeling dirty

ISSA Special Topical Studies
Iraq War 2003: Background, Lessons and Follow-On

http://www.strategicstudies.org/


September 2, 2004
The US “Intelligence Wars” and the War on Terrorism

Snip

Consequently, the core of the forces considered “loyal” by the CIA and the US Embassy was comprised of “recycled” and “rehabilitated” Ba’athist security and intelligence veterans. Rhetoric about the democratic character of the Administration, despite the draconian emergency regulations notwithstanding, already on the eve of the transfer of power from the US to his Government then designate-Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi made sure that both the Iraqi public and the Arab world had no illusions about the real nature of his Government.

As first reported by Paul McGeough of The Sydney Morning Herald, in late June 2004, a few days before he assumed power, Allawi visited the Al-Amariyah security center in south-western Baghdad in order to inspect the interrogation of terrorist suspects. There, Allawi drew a pistol and summarily executed six prisoners who were lined in the courtyard. He told the gathered security officials that these prisoners “deserved worse than death” in view of their past killing. Interior Minister-designate Falah al-Naqib was present and congratulated Allawi. The “proof” of Allawi’s resolve and ruthlessness immediately spread throughout the power-centers of Baghdad. Allawi’s and Naqib’s offices issued denials to the Western media only after McGeough broke the story. However, with all other components of the Iraqi power structure collapsing and with the revolt escalating out of control, Washington had no option but to accept this “denial” and  keep endorsing Allawi as the only strong-enough leader capable of keeping Iraq unified.

With the US behind him, Allawi continued to consolidate his power through what Arab and Iranian senior officials termed “a quasi-coup in Iraq...”

The Arabists of the CIA have both an explanation why the US has found itself in such a quagmire, and a “solution” — a way out of the Iraqi quagmire — both of which, they are convinced, will secure their triumph. The CIA argues that by securing their “strong man” — Allawi — in power, it would be possible to consolidate a stable enough regime in Baghdad, thus permitting an honorable withdrawal and continued access to the Iraqi oil and markets.

To ensure Allawi’s endurance in power, the CIA is now bribing a large number of Iraqi leaders and “wannabes” to manipulate and truncate the elections of January 2005.  The Arabists insist that they are saving the Administration’s posture by pursuing “realpolitique”, namely, the empowerment of an authoritarian administration led by CIA assets. The emergence of such a government in Baghdad, they argue, is neither a perfect solution, nor a defeat. Given the escalating guerilla warfare, this is the best exit strategy which the US can realistically hope for. (Although this Arabists’ approach sounds pragmatic and practical, it is factually wrong. The CIA does not really control Allawi. Determined to survive in power, Allawi has just completed his deal with Tehran fully cognizant that the mullahs are adamant on winning a decisive historic triumph in Iraq, Allawi or no Allawi.)"

[newsguyatl]

5. just about to post the same thing!!!!!!!

cia totally rigged this election...

[kitkat65]

6. International Strategic Studies Association-who are these people?

Do you know anything about them? Neo-cons? Impartial?

A lot of their articles seem to support the existence of WMD and al-Qaeda connection theories.

They also had an interesting analysis about how Saddam tried to make this war into a Muslim vs. Westerners thing. It said he actually had Abu Nidal assassinated in order to send a message to Arafat to start fighting Israel again.

"Highly-reliable, high-level sources close to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat confirmed to "Defense & Foreign Affairs" that the killing of high-profile terrorist leader Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna) in his Baghdad, Iraq, apartment was intended — and was taken very literally — as a direct warning from Iraqi Pres. Saddam Hussein to PA leader Arafat to resume the war against Israel with full vigor or face the same consequences as Abu Nidal."