by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman

The parallels between the stolen Iranian election of 2009 and the American of 2000 and 2004 are tempting. The histories---and futures---of the two nations are inseparable. Bound up in their tortured half-century of crime and manipulation are the few glimmers of hope for lasting peace in the Middle East.

In both countries, a right-wing fundamentalist authoritarian with open contempt for human rights and the Geneva Convention has come up a winner, with catastrophic consequences. In both countries, the blowback of two George Bushes loom large.

In the US, two "defeated" candidates---Al Gore and John Kerry---said and did nothing in the face of two stolen elections. But an unprecedented election protection movement arose from the ashes of those defeats to assure the 2008 victory of America's first African- American president.

In Iran, the "defeated" candidate---Mir Hussein Moussavi---is fighting back, along with massive grassroots resistance. How far they get will define the Iranian future---as well as that of the Middle East.

In a fluid and unpredictable situation, here are some indisputables:

1) A half-century ago, the people of Iran attempted a democratic revolution led by a moderate progressive, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, whose social-democratic inclinations have been revived by Moussavi.

2) Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown by the Eisenhower Administration and its Central Intelligence Agency, which wanted to wall in the Soviet Union and protect western oil interests.

3) Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. (father of the Gulf War general of the same name) used a suitcase full of US taxpayer dollars to bribe Iran's anti-democratic sympathizers and help overthrow Mossadegh.

4) They installed the pro-U.S. general Fazlollah Zahedi, who handed control of Iran to the brutal and vicious Shah. The Shah ruled through the infamous secret terror/torture police force Savak, which Schwartzkopf helped train.

4) A prototypical CIA asset, the Shah used his iron torturer's hand to "westernize" the country and make it more user-friendly to US oil interests.

5) Among other things, the U.S., France and other western powers were moving to provide the Shah with up to 36 atomic power plants designed to provide electricity and, ultimately, radioactive materials with which to build his own atomic bombs.

6) Despite his ostensible commitment to human rights, President Jimmy Carter made a point of spending a high-profile New Year's with the Shah, evoking the bitter hatred of millions of Iranians.

7) The Shah's overthrow by fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomeini led to the 1979-80 hostage crisis that finally sank Carter's presidency. Amidst indications of a secret deal involving past and future CIA Directors George H.W. Bush and William Casey, the release of the hostages was delayed long enough to guarantee Carter's defeat, thus inaugurating the Age of Ronald Reagan, with 12 of its 28 years under the two Bushes.

8) Secret dealings between Reagan/Bush and the Iranians led to the iran-Contra Affair, when covert operatives like Oliver North funneled arms to the Iranians and laundered cash and drugs through the reactionary Contra forces fighting revolution in Nicaragua.

9) The Contras in turn flooded the US with cocaine, feeding a horrific crack epidemic that has crippled the black and Hispanic communities here for two decades.

10) Those US-financed arms were used to fight the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein, whom the US also supported, and whom Donald Rumsfeld publicly embraced in the early 1980s. The American goal seems to have been to weaken both Iran and Iraq through a horrifying war that claimed at least a million casualties, ultimately infuriating both citizenries.

After a half-century of dictatorship under the Shah and the CIA, followed by the Ayatollah and the fundamentalists, the Iranian public appears desperate to return to the social-democratic vision of Mossadegh, denied so long ago.

In the US in 2000 and 2004, the corporate/religious right put George W. Bush in the White House---and then kept him there---with a sophisticated election theft machine built around elimination of voter registrations, manipulation of the vote count, and a wide array of supporting tactics. The US Supreme Court set it all in stone with its infamous Bush v. Gore decision, which prevented a true vote count in Florida 2000. History repeated itself in Ohio 2004.

In Iran 2009, the ruling fundamentalist elite has barely pretended to count the votes at all, merely rushing to announce a pre- determined outcome. The reigning Ayatollah has played the role of the US Supreme Court by certifying the outcome before a real ballot tally could possibly occur. Holes in the texts of Iranian newspapers and an electronic blackout created by official censors reflect the on-going vacuum in the US corporate media, which has yet to seriously face up to what happened to the American elections of 2000 and 2004.

What will happen next in Iran is anyone's guess. George W. Bush fueled its fundamentalist right by calling it a "terror state" whose nuclear weapons ambitions are fueled with materials produced by the "Peaceful Atom" Eisenhower inaugurated in 1953, around the time he was disposing of Mossadegh.

Bush's counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is now turning the state terror apparatus---reminiscent of the Shah's---against those who would mention the illegitimacy of his rule.

Thus tragedy looms at the brink of opportunity. That democracy in Iran so clearly won at the polls is a sign of great courage and hope on the part of the Iranian people. They are fighting terrible odds, not of their making. Should they break free, the storm would re- shape the Middle East---and much more.

In the meantime, perhaps their American counterparts, instructed by the ghost of Mossadegh, might finally face up to the true price of sowing such cynical, lethal whirlwinds.

Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman have co-authored four books on election protection. Bob's FITRAKIS FILES are available via www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES is at www.harveywasserman.com.
_______


About author
Harvey Wasserman is co-author, with Bob Fitrakis and Steve Rosenfeld, of WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, just published by the New Press. He is author of SOLARTOPIA! and HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE U.S., available at www.harveywasserman.com.

People still haven't gotten over Kerry and Al Bore losing? Geezus.

*image deleted for page alignment*

If you love democracy you would hate the stolen elections, regardless this isnt what the thread is about. Geeesus

In both countries, a right-wing fundamentalist authoritarian with open contempt for human rights and the Geneva Convention has come up a winner, with catastrophic consequences. In both countries, the blowback of two George Bushes loom large.

In the US, two "defeated" candidates---Al Gore and John Kerry---said and did nothing in the face of two stolen elections. But an unprecedented election protection movement arose from the ashes of those defeats to assure the 2008 victory of America's first African- American president.

----------------------------------

That was a couple of the opening paragraphs, so again, set sail to fail.

What an intelligent reply. Out of all the article said, you pick out the one line you disagree with and label the whole story in the light of that one line, from which you have derived an out of context meaning. I hope you know how to sail.

Kinda missing the bigger picture, huh?

Not at all, but a biased report, is a biased report.


You can start off a report about racism with how the reporter thinks racism is a good thing, it doesn't matter what else is in the report. The big picture is people still have gotten over how the left wing nazis couldn't win, so they blame everything but themselves.

Did you even read the whole article or did you stop at that line? The situation our country is in is the direct result of the actions of Bush. His election was by many people thought to be shady at best. It is not so unthinkable that given the state of world affairs that people might wonder if how the world would be different if Bush hadn't been decided the victor. That though is only half the article. What are your thoughts on the situation in Iran or do believe they are sore losers also?

Yes I read the whole article, it had a "couple" valid points. But the whole problem is, the whole piece is premised on "Dems couldn't win, so everything is Republicans fault". Which at best, is asinine. Iran's elections were prolly rigged, but because some people in Florida couldn't figure out how to use a simple ballot, all of this points to Bush and the republicans, and wild conspiracies? Hack journalism is just that, biased, factually unsupported, and just a viewpoint, not reality.

from opening post



maybe not but gumbyvs was not the first to bring it up

actually the op is correlating it a lot with the bush administration

so why would someone not do the same thing the other way around

I did not see it that way at all.

There was some hanky panky going on during both Bush elections. We will never know whether it is really fraud or not but I have yet to see that happen during two elections in a row.

The similarities are there to be seen. Iran is a fledgling democracy and if there was voter fraud hopefully it will come out.

You know when your side "loses" the thought of fraud becomes foremost in your mind because you believe you are right and they are wrong. To be able to prove that it wasn't fraud ia a very important component to any election. Like we were not allowed with the Bush elections.

God damnit, at least I'm not the only person that can read something and realize its intent. Oy, the big picture is ONLY as good as the frame that holds it.

And the only hanky panky going on in both of Bush's elections were that Kerry and Gore were even close to winning.

And the only hanky panky going on in both of Bush's elections were that Kerry and Gore were even close to winning.

This statement is not true.

There was quite a bit of mess going on. Whether it would have changed the election or not who knows but it should still not be happening.

That bit of mess has been going on since the electoral college was put into use, and people only complain about it, when their candidate doesn't win. And the statement is true. Kerry and Gore lead horrible campaigns, just like McCain did.

You do realize the electoral college has been with us since Washington?

It was actually with us pre-washington's presidency, but what does that have to do with anything?

Madison, your posts are always good for a laugh. The spin just makes me dizzy.

Well then Andrew I suggest you take it point by point and realy try to prove it wrong. I enjoyed it for the honest history in the Iran mess and how we got were we are today. Do you even understand the article?

I'll argue against another who can argue the points. So how about this, when you put up an argument, I'll dispute it. This is just a copy 'n' paste job. if you can argue these points, then I'll join in. Until then...