Time for Change in Iran?

I'm usually not one to bash the "mainstream media". Perhaps it's because I agree with it's extreme left wing agenda. But over the past two days, it has been very challenging to get real, credible news of the recent Iranian election. In times like this, one has to resort to blogs, youtube, and other reports. Unfortunately, this means that most of the reports are anecdotal, but perhaps this is because it is impossible to get any official reports out of Iran right now.

There are a couple of big questions and interesting storylines here:
Protests in the streets of Iran don't necessarily indicate any fraud took place. They indicate a frustrated populace, but what if those people really are only 32% of the population, as the election results imply. In the United States, there are protests all the time, and more often than not, they are from fringe groups or younger citizens rather than a majority. It is possible that there is a silent majority in Iran that approves of their current president. Because of the lack of information coming out of Iran, we don't really know whether this is a major protest, or whether it's all in Tehran.

Are American feelings and hopes of ousting Ahmadinejad contributing to our reluctance to accept the results? Is this all just wishful thinking? It's difficult to tell. In the months leading up to the election, Ahmadenijad had strong leads in polls. For example, InTrade.com (a site that allows people to bet on outcomes of things like elections) has historically been one of the strongest predictors of election results. Through June 1, the odds were that he had a 60% chance of winning the election (not that he would win with more than 60% of the vote though). Since June 1, his odds plummeted, reaching lower than 20% just two days ago. With the gambling line so volatile, it's hard to know how trustworthy it is. Yet these odds mirror standard polling in Iran, which showed a similar crash for Ahmadinejad. Were the polls that we saw ones that were reported to Western media outlets? Or were they real? Few American journalists seem to know enough to have the answer.


Read Juan Cole's blog, which gives a thoughtful breakdown of the irregularites.
Read Andrew Sullivan, who has been posting regularly. 
Watch this report, which is one of the few quality pieces of real journalism coming out of the country.


It's certainly possible that Ahmadinejad won. It's even possible, I suppose, that he received nearly two-thirds of the vote. But given the data coming over the past few weeks, the people in the streets of Iran, the shutting down of all media outlets (including text messaging, cell phones, satellite television, and Facebook), and some reports are saying that the "runner-up" Mousavi has been arrested, it seems highly unlikely.

I was asked yesterday whether I thought there would be a civil war. I don't think so. But it is starting to look like there could be significant change, or a significant crackdown on reformers. One can hope that this will lead to a massive change. If this is fraud, it's not just Ahmadinejad that's part of it. Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, has backed the President and the election results. Will his stature greatly diminish if he is shown to be connected to this as well? I've heard for years that Iraq was never the Middle Eastern country with the greatest chances at democracy. It has always been Iran - with its young, highly-educated populace - that could be the leader in the region. It is not really part of an axis of evil - it is a dynamic place, powerful enough to fear, but smart enough to hope will turn out alright.