80% of Iranians see Ahmadinejad as 'legitimate president'
Johnny Asia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty
Monday, June 15, 2009
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian
people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of
incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or
manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians
three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than
2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in
Friday's election.
80% of Iranians see Ahmadinejad as 'legitimate president'
Approximately 80% of Iranians have accepted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
election as president of Iran, according to a World Public Opinion
poll. The poll also shows that 63% of Iranians favor restoring
diplomatic relations with the US.
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/study_only_0027_percent_of_ira.php
Study: Only 0.027 Percent of Iranians Use Twitter
November 09, 2009 05:19 PM
Study: Only 0.027 Percent of Iranians Use Twitter
By Megan Garber
Remember Iran�s �Twitter Revolution�? Seems it may have gone the way
of Moldova�s.
Per Valleywag�s Ravi Somaiya�per, in turn, a study of Iran�s access to
social media conducted by the British writer and analyst Charles
Leadbeater, and researcher Annika Wong: less than one percent of the
Iranian population is on Twitter.
The researchers, Somaiya notes,
have put together a report called Cloud Culture to be published by
the British Council next year. Their statistical study, provided to me
by Leadbeater, is based on figures from the social media analytics
company Sysomos. It shows that such a tiny proportion of Iranians are
on Twitter that any stories about a new movement based on the social
network are meaningless. The figure they provide, by they way,
includes the thousands of foreigners who changed their Twitter
location to Tehran when the �Iranian internet revolution� story struck
after the elections in June and Facebook and Twitter were afire with
Iran sentiment. So the likely figure is even lower.
If the study�s findings are true, that negates some of the sweeping
claim-making that we saw during the immediate aftermath of the
disputed election this summer: that social media are changing not only
the way we communicate, but the way we engage with our governments.
�This is it. The big one,� Clay Shirky said at the time. Maybe not.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06192009.html
June 19 - 21, 2009
Is This the Culmination of Two Years of Destabilization
Are the Iranian Protests Another US Orchestrated "Color Revolution?"
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the
purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The
CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has
somehow not contaminated unfolding events.
The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the
outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes
to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several
hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization
designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early
declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the
preemptive declaration of victory and the release of the vote tally,
the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities
are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don�t
see through this trick.
As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri�s charge that the election was
stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to
the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to
settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to
challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the
CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled
politicians.
There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned
against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus
playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the
ayatollahs' lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my
opinion, Ahmadinejad's attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic.
However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is
a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.
Commentators are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own
illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not
the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so
far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However,
there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years
to destabilize the Iranian government.
On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News:
�The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert
�black� operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and
former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.�
On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: �Mr.
Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a
propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and
eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.�
A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that
Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph
that a US military attack on Iran would �be a �last option� after
economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had
failed.�
On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: �Late last
year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major
escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and
former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These
operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million
dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and
are designed to destabilize the country�s religious leadership.�
The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The
protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in
Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.
Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. For example,
neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election
that �there�s talk of a �green revolution� in Tehran.� How would
Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would
there be a �green revolution� prepared prior to the vote, especially
if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they
claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in
the election protests.
Timmerman goes on to write that �the National Endowment for Democracy
has spent millions of dollars promoting �color� revolutions . . . Some
of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi
groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran
that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.� Timmerman�s own
neocon Foundation for Democracy is �a private, non-profit organization
established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized
standards of human rights in Iran.�
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the
Reagan administration.