But it seems to me that the Iranians are doing what they must do to save their nation. A retention of the current government means more deprivation and more risk due to the madmen in charge.

It's interesting that some critics of imperialism in this country can't get over how important they think that the US and its intelligence agencies are. Robert Parry, a great investigative reporter, Paul Craig Roberts, master of the anti-neocon invective both supported the notion that Ahmadinejad won or might of won.

Roberts wrote this, "The Waning Power of Truth," on OpEdNews recently. I replied very diplomatically here, "Agreed except on Iran's elections" (you just scroll down).

I was then was told by Roberts,

"Michael Collins expresses his idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, despite two years to do its dirty work, somehow had no effect on what clearly are orchestrated elements in the Terhan protests," Paul Craig Roerts.

I said no such thing. My reply was about the election history and numbers showing this election was a total anomaly. I punished;) him with facts and there was no reply:

"Mr. Roberts, I did not respond based on "delusions, illusions, and emotions," although I did accuse Ahmadinejad of being clinically delusional for his obsessive holocaust denial.

"In the article linked above, I provided facts that showed a trend in reformer majorities in the last four elections and an direct association between reformer wins and very high turnout. You offered no response above to those numeric and historical facts. Nevertheless, they're compelling." Michael Collins

At least he engaged in some debate, although his points are weak. There's a knee jerk reaction to characterize any event that would be favorable to the WH as controlled by us leaders and intel services.

Sometimes it's just not about us. This is one of those times.

...complete to simply characterize Grand Ayatollah Montazeri as losing out to Ali Khamenei. Montazeri was stripped of his designated successor status while the Imam was still alive and if there's any major player in the electoral issues that he could be considered to have crossed prior to being bladed, it would have to include Rafsanjani. Montazeri absolutely has huge axes to grind in all of this and he's bitterly opposed to Khamenei but IMHO it is in no way as simple as just settling personal scores. We see the competition among the senior clerical class in purely political terms at our peril - their relationship with God also matters.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

That's the type of information that is so valuable and rare in the US media. Despite that, it is increasingly possible to get a three dimensional view, in general, of the key players in Iran. As for the people, their bravery and energy for life is easier to access, at least from my limited perspective. Those who claim this is some intel operation fail to answer these questions: What amount of money does it take to get someone in the streets again and again at risk of injury, jail, and death? What kind of false leader can the intel folks set up who could induce this? Paid demonstrators don't risk life and limb. Fake leaders can't induce that.

This is incredibility important for citizens here. The stereotype of a monolithic "Iranian" is forever shattered, replaced by a real respect for the heroic efforts in behalf of self respect.

I was in total agreement of a comment you made in the thread on my previous diary on election fraud in Iran - about the complexity of Iran and it taking a lifetime to even integrate a portion of that. It's humbling approaching such a rich culture and history.

Nevertheless, this election and the resistance are accessible to enough of a degree to make a judgment regarding the legitimacy of the fraud argument and the human dignity pursued by those in the streets.

What Obama must do now on Iran
Condemn violence, without picking sides.
By Trita Parsi
from the June 22, 2009 edition
Christian Science Monitor

Washington - Tehran is being rocked. Convinced that the landslide victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad June 12 was a fraud, hundreds of thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets. Clashes with security forces have left at least 19 dead, according to the official count.

Meanwhile, some lawmakers have turned Iran's seemingly stolen election into a political football with little regard for the repercussions their rhetoric may have for protesters in Iran.

"The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday, echoing the sentiments of many senators and pundits. "He's been timid and passive more than I would like."

Accusing President Obama of weakness may generate some headlines, but it misses the point. A closer look reveals that the president's approach has paved the way for the current stand-off in Iran and that he is supported by those seeking their rights in Iran.

Many have argued that the president shouldn't side with any particular faction in Iran since doing so could backfire. Having the US on your side is not necessarily a good thing in Iran. Washington neither wants to make itself the issue in Iran, nor is it eager to help Mr. Ahmadinejad stage a comeback.

But two more salient points have been lost in the American debate. First, who makes the decision to help – the US, or the people America wishes to help?

Some neoconservatives and Republican lawmakers have called on Mr. Obama to side with Mir Hossein Mousavi, the centrist presidential candidate who ran on a reformist ticket. The recommendation was done, it appears, without consulting Mr. Mousavi to see if he believes that Obama's endorsement is needed or helpful. This kind of reckless arrogance partly explains why political groups in Iran view America's explicit support as a source of delegitimization.

America is viewed by many Iranians as only having its own interest in mind and as being incapable of providing genuine support.

With Obama, this pattern has changed. The wishes of Iranians are now suddenly center stage. On Monday, even as its election authority reportedly acknowledged that the number of ballots cast in dozens of cities exceeded the number of eligible voters in those areas, Iran accused the West of "meddling." Rather than listening to neoconservative critics or Republican lawmakers, White House staff say that they've been listening to signals from the Iranians themselves.

Those signals have been clear, and on most counts, the White House's position has been on mark.

"The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," Obama said in an interview broadcast Monday on CBS's "The Early Show."

The Iranians want to make sure that the world knows and sees what is happening on the streets of Tehran and other cities. And they want the US to stay out of the fight – at least for now.

But here is one legitimate criticism , the Iranians are missing two words from Obama: "I condemn." Protesters and political leaders I've spoken to in Iran want the US to speak out forcefully against the government's human rights abuses and condemn the violence. Philosophical formulations about respecting the wishes of the Iranian people aren't enough: The president should clearly condemn the Iranian government's violations and use of brutal force against its own people.

After all, condemning violence is different from taking sides in Iran's election dispute. Not only would it be compatible with American values, it would also reduce pressure on the president to entangle the US in Iranian politics. Clarity on the human rights front strengthens the president's ability to avoid siding with any political faction in Iran.

Second, few in the US debate have taken note that Obama's pro-engagement, anticonfrontation approach may have directly contributed to the developments in Iran. President George W. Bush sought to destabilize and bring about regime change in Iran for eight years through isolation, threats, and financial support for anti-Tehran groups. For all its labors, the Bush administration failed. The Iranian elite closed ranks, and hard-liners used the perceived threat from the US to clamp down on human rights defenders and pro-democracy activists.

Obama's diplomatic outreach and removal of this threat perception has not necessarily created fissures among the Iranian elite in and of itself, but it has weakened the glue that created unity among Iran's many political factions.

Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.

[a little more at link]

'The desire to be free is primal' -adrena

The crowd size estimates are "tens of thousands," enormous," etc. There was one large demonstration for the current rulers and there was coercion used to get many there. There's also a rumor that the pictures of the crowd for the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad demonstration were photoshopped ( http://tinyurl.com/lejbfq ).

The large demonstrations by the Reformists did look "enomrous" as Juan Cole said, maybe 100,000 comparing those shots I've seen to other large crowd estimates.

The last two days, the crowds have shrunk but are reported to be more active. Police are said to ask demonstrators not to fight with them because they'll have to fight back or face beatings by their superiors. Mullahs are reported to put on street clothes and join demonstrations in the country side (from the National Press Club speaker today).

Here's a good Iranian blog in English, amazing!
http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/

Iran’s crises must be solved domestically

Tehran-based Kourosh Ziabari provides the inside story to Iran’s political upheaval. He analyses the election result and comprehensively explores the reaction to Ahmadinejad’s surprise win – both at home and abroad. The protests he sees as evidence of Iran’s deepening political maturity – even if they have been exploited by groups aiming to destabilise the country.