One should not be surprised to the current bombardment of Zionist Jingoism – publishing column after column by the so-called “Iran affair experts” and their “emded reporter” telling the duped westerners that Ahmadinejad’s land-slide victory in yesterday’s presidential election was due to rigged voting and that tens of thousands of Iranian supporters of the defeated “reformist (moderate)” Moussavi protested in the streets – calling the election as “fraud”. We would have been facing a similar West’s ‘free press Jingoism’ – had Hizb’Allah and its Christian allies had won majority in last week’s election. We read similar ‘reporting’ when Hamas won majority in 2006 election and how Iraqi WMDs were smuggled into Syria on mules!!
The Zionist propagandists expect that shallow reports on the election results and a sense of déjà vu with images of tyres and garbage being burnt on Tehran’s streets by followers of the “reformist” candidate would have the world believe that an electoral fraud of gigantic proportion has been committed by Ahmadinejad to “steal” victory.
It’s interesting to note how short memory these Zionist propagandist idiots have. When Mir-Hossein Moussavi was prime minister of Islamic Republic of Iran (1981-89) – these idiots used to call him “a radical Islamist”. Now, they insulted his intelligence by reporting that he “claimed victory” while only 50% of the vote counting was completed (IRI Constitution requires 50% of the total votes cast – for a candidate to be declared a winner). Now, since Moussavi has lost to provide USrael’s desired “regime change'” in Tehran – we would be hearing a lot of the so-called “Contra Connection” and his involvement as a Mossad operative! Iran-Contra, like 9/11 – was a Zionist false-flag operation to discredit the Islamic regime in the eyes of the Muslim world. Riyadh paid US$10 million to fund this operation – using Israel as stop-over for the shipment of military spare parts which were long paid for by the Reza Shah regime.
Personally, I feel the best joke came from Zionist entity itself. Daily Ha’aretz pundits called Ahmadinejad’s victory: actually preferable for Israel – claiming that it’s not his last four years good governance but his being a “holocaust denier” – which has endeared him among the Iranian majority.
However, I must say I was disappointed to see Abu Muqawama (a pen name for some Islamophobe), who runs a blog on Zionist think tank Center for New American Security (CNAS) and has just this to say on June 13 about Ahmadinejad’s re-election: “Abu Muqawama Has Nothing to Say About Iranian Elections” – which is then plastered with 14 comments supporting Zionist agenda towards Islamic regime in Tehran. Usually, his blog is full of crap about Iraq, Afghanistan, occupied Palestine, Pakistan, Islamic Iran and other parts of the Muslim world. CNAS was established in February 2007 with grant from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Justin Raimondo exposed CNAS in his May 13, 2009 column, The New Neocons, at AntiWar Com.
Has Ahmadinejad’s re-election by an overwhelming majority of Iran’s 40-odd million voters jeopardized the Islamic Revolution?
This seems to be the assessment of sectors of the western media intent on sowing confusion and doubt on the legitimacy of the recent presidential elections. For instance, Bill Schneider, CNN’s senior political analyst didn’t even stop there. He went as far as questioning the legitimacy of the entire Iranian government!
It appears that the collective shameful conduct by the European Union and the United States to reject Hamas’ legitimacy following its victory at the 2006 polls in the Occupied Territories is likely to be repeated in Iran.
A superficial media focus on Iran without any substantial insight into it’s history, culture and religious philosophy will not only distort and detract from the complexities of its political makeup; more particularly it will result in faulty analysis.
Having met Mousavi during his tenure as Prime Minister in the eighties, I am aware that his revolutionary credentials are solid and intact. His so-called “reformist” agenda thus does not imply that under his watch, Iran would abandon its nuclear programme or establish ties with Israel. It’s more to do with internal dynamics related to the economy rather than a reversal of the huge gains made following the ouster of the US-backed Shah during Iran’s Islamic Revolution thirty years ago.
In the politics of language, terms such as “reformer” give rise to romantic notions of change for a state regularly demonised as “medieval” or “conservative”. In Iran’s case especially since it is targeted by the Zionist regime as posing an “existential” threat and against the backdrop of hostility generated against it by former president George Bush as an “axis of evil” it is clear that people’s imagination in the west may run riot.
Iran’s democratic credentials have been tested many times over during the last three decades. Presidential and parliamentary elections are regularly held with huge turnouts and the expected disgruntlement of supporters of losing candidates. What is disconcerting this time around is the fact that pro-Mousavi supporters have embarked on a rampage and in doing so as acts of dissatisfaction with the electoral result have ignored Mousavi’s call for calm.
President Ahmadinejad has an inspiring corruption-free record in his first term and before when he was an effective mayor of Teheran. In addition, his modest lifestyle has endeared him to the ordinary people who in large numbers have given him an additional four years to build on his first term.
Iran’s traditional antagonists in the West cannot be so dumb as not to realize that the more they seek to undermine Ahmadinejad, they unfortunately, sabotage Mousavi’s reputation by unfairly casting him as their favoured puppet.