Iran Elections Thread

[Tanasinn]

It's about as likely as you not misusing the English language.

[Straha]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: You're a retard.

[Samuel]

Yeah, it is pretty hard to bribe the people who hate America's guts and think we are trying to manipulate them into rigging an election for us. We give funds to opposition groups in hostile states, not the government.

[Soldier of Entropy]

Nice updates but I`m going to ask could could this current fraud be perpretrated by an outside scource ie The US, Bush did ˝request˝ from congress 400 million to aid opposition groups in Iran.

Seriously?
Seriously?

1) Ahmadinejad's side is not an 'opposition group' in Iran; quite the opposite, actually, and the election fraud got him elected, so that particular action almost certainly had nothing to do with this.

2) Who in the US has the power and the motive at this point? Not Obama, certainly; Ahmadinejad in power will only hurt the chances of Middle East peace.

3) I see no reason to think that that may be the case, other than wild conspiracy theorizing.

[Force Lord]

Apparently some people think this election was legimate:

Link

Ahmadinejad won. Get over it

– Flynt Leverett directs The New America Foundation’s Iran Project and teaches international affairs at Pennsylvania State university. Hillary Mann Leverett is CEO of STRATEGA, a political risk consultancy. Both worked for many years on Middle East issues for the U.S. government, including as members of the National Security Council staff. The views expressed are their own. —

This article originally appeared on Politico.com.

Without any evidence, many U.S. politicians and “Iran experts” have dismissed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection Friday, with 62.6 percent of the vote, as fraud.
They ignore the fact that Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election, when he trounced former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The shock of the “Iran experts” over Friday’s results is entirely self-generated, based on their preferred assumptions and wishful thinking.

Although Iran’s elections are not free by Western standards, the Islamic Republic has a 30-year history of highly contested and competitive elections at the presidential, parliamentary and local levels. Manipulation has always been there, as it is in many other countries.
But upsets occur — as, most notably, with Mohammed Khatami’s surprise victory in the 1997 presidential election. Moreover, “blowouts” also occur — as in Khatami’s reelection in 2001,
Ahmadinejad’s first victory in 2005 and, we would argue, this year.

Like much of the Western media, most American “Iran experts” overstated Mirhossein Mousavi’s “surge” over the campaign’s final weeks. More important, they were oblivious — as in 2005 — to Ahmadinejad’s effectiveness as a populist politician and campaigner. American “Iran experts” missed how Ahmadinejad was perceived by most Iranians as having won the nationally televised debates with his three opponents — especially his debate with Mousavi.

Before the debates, both Mousavi and Ahmadinejad campaign aides indicated privately that they perceived a surge of support for Mousavi; after the debates, the same aides concluded that Ahmadinejad’s provocatively impressive performance and Mousavi’s desultory one had boosted the incumbent’s standing. Ahmadinejad’s charge that Mousavi was supported by Rafsanjani’s sons — widely perceived in Iranian society as corrupt figures — seemed to play well with voters.

Similarly, Ahmadinejad’s criticism that Mousavi’s reformist supporters, including Khatami, had been willing to suspend Iran’s uranium enrichment program and had won nothing from the West for doing so tapped into popular support for the program — and had the added advantage of being true.

More fundamentally, American “Iran experts” consistently underestimated Ahmadinejad’s base of support. Polling in Iran is notoriously difficult; most polls there are less than fully professional and, hence, produce results of questionable validity. But the one poll conducted before Friday’s election by a Western organization that was transparent about its methodology — a telephone poll carried out by the Washington-based Terror-Free Tomorrow from May 11 to 20 — found Ahmadinejad running 20 points ahead of Mousavi. This poll was conducted before the televised debates in which, as noted above, Ahmadinejad was perceived to have done well while Mousavi did poorly.

American “Iran experts” assumed that “disastrous” economic conditions in Iran would undermine Ahmadinejad’s reelection prospects. But the International Monetary Fund projects that Iran’s economy will actually grow modestly this year (when the economies of most Gulf Arab states are in recession).

A significant number of Iranians — including the religiously pious, lower-income groups, civil servants and pensioners — appear to believe that Ahmadinejad’s policies have benefited them.

And, while many Iranians complain about inflation, the TFT poll found that most Iranian voters do not hold Ahmadinejad responsible. The “Iran experts” further argue that the high turnout on June 12 — 82 percent of the electorate — had to favor Mousavi. But this line of analysis reflects nothing more than assumptions.

Some “Iran experts” argue that Mousavi’s Azeri background and “Azeri accent” mean that he was guaranteed to win Iran’s Azeri-majority provinces; since Ahmadinejad did better than Mousavi in these areas, fraud is the only possible explanation.

But Ahmadinejad himself speaks Azeri quite fluently as a consequence of his eight years serving as a popular and successful official in two Azeri-majority provinces; during the campaign, he artfully quoted Azeri and Turkish poetry — in the original — in messages designed to appeal to Iran’s Azeri community. (And we should not forget that the supreme leader is Azeri.) The notion that Mousavi was somehow assured of victory in Azeri-majority provinces is simply not grounded in reality.

With regard to electoral irregularities, the specific criticisms made by Mousavi — such as running out of ballot paper in some precincts and not keeping polls open long enough (even though polls stayed open for at least three hours after the announced closing time) — could not, in themselves, have tipped the outcome so clearly in Ahmadinejad’s favor.

Moreover, these irregularities do not, in themselves, amount to electoral fraud even by American legal standards. And, compared with the U.S. presidential election in Florida in 2000, the flaws in Iran’s electoral process seem less significant.

In the wake of Friday’s election, some “Iran experts” — perhaps feeling burned by their misreading of contemporary political dynamics in the Islamic Republic — argue that we are witnessing a “conservative coup d’état,” aimed at a complete takeover of the Iranian state.

But one could more plausibly suggest that if a “coup” is being attempted, it has been mounted by the losers in Friday’s election. It was Mousavi, after all, who declared victory on Friday even before Iran’s polls closed. And three days before the election, Mousavi supporter Rafsanjani published a letter criticizing the leader’s failure to rein in Ahmadinejad’s resort to “such ugly and sin-infected phenomena as insults, lies and false allegations.” Many Iranians took this letter as an indication that the Mousavi camp was concerned their candidate had fallen behind in the campaign’s closing days.

In light of these developments, many politicians and “Iran experts” argue that the Obama administration cannot now engage the “illegitimate” Ahmadinejad regime. Certainly, the administration should not appear to be trying to “play” in the current controversy in Iran about the election. In this regard, President Barack Obama’s comments on Friday, a few hours before the polls closed in Iran, that “just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities” was extremely maladroit.

From Tehran’s perspective, this observation undercut the credibility of Obama’s acknowledgment, in his Cairo speech earlier this month, of U.S. complicity in overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian government and restoring the shah in 1953.

The Obama administration should vigorously rebut any argument against engaging Tehran following Friday’s vote. More broadly, Ahmadinejad’s victory may force Obama and his senior advisers to come to terms with the deficiencies and internal contradictions in their approach to Iran. Before the Iranian election, the Obama administration had fallen for the same illusion as many of its predecessors — the illusion that Iranian politics is primarily about personalities and finding the right personality to deal with. That is not how Iranian politics works.

The Islamic Republic is a system with multiple power centers; within that system, there is a strong and enduring consensus about core issues of national security and foreign policy, including Iran’s nuclear program and relations with the United States. Any of the four candidates in Friday’s election would have continued the nuclear program as Iran’s president; none would agree to its suspension.

Any of the four candidates would be interested in a diplomatic opening with the United States, but that opening would need to be comprehensive, respectful of Iran’s legitimate national security interests and regional importance, accepting of Iran’s right to develop and benefit from the full range of civil nuclear technology — including pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle — and aimed at genuine rapprochement.

Such an approach would also, in our judgment, be manifestly in the interests of the United States and its allies throughout the Middle East. It is time for the Obama administration to get serious about pursuing this approach — with an Iranian administration headed by the reelected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I've read from our left-wing newspaper Claridad, citing a Washington Post colummn from June 15, that Ken Ballen of the Center of Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the New American Foundation, with the financial help of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, found more or less the same thing. I could give you a link, but Claridad is in Spanish, so it might not help.

[Straha]

I'm using my blackberry top make this post so please excuse any grammatical screwups and my brevity. The Ballen/Doherty poll has been widely discredited for a number of reasons. Here are just a few:

1. it polled people the week before candidates were officially announced and ended one day after the candidate list was finalized.

2. It showed Ahmadinejad having a two to one lead over Mousavi, with Ahmadinejad having 26 percent of the poll respondents and Mousavi 14. The rest were mostly undecided.

3. A grand majority of respondents put heavy emphasis on things like reconciling with America, political reform and economic stability. (Some of those got over 90 percent of respondents.) As you might imagine Ahmadinejad does not cater to those groups.

4. The poll was a telephone poll conducted by an American foundation in a country whose people distrust political openness and would be unfamiliar with this method of polling.


As for the editorial:

There have been a number of analyses, some of the most convincing of which were quoted in this very thread, showing rather large irregularities in vote results. To touch on points he made:

1. Ahmadinejad won by the same amount as the last election:
Half true. Ahmadinejad came in second (IIRC) in the initial vote last time around and only won by that large amount against Rafsanjani, a figure widely viewed as incredibly corrupt. Further the reformists boycotted the last election, while they came out in droves for this. Moreover, in the last election he polled very poorly compared to other candidates based on regional areas, like Karroubi (who was a candidate in this election) who handily crushed Ahmadinejad in his home province of Lars, and came away with 10% of the vote overall based on his performance there. This time round he came in with around 400,000 votes. Something fishy there I think.

2.The idea that voter turnout would help the reformers is an assumption:
Half true. The idea voter turnout would turn this into a crushing Mousavi victory is an assumption. But the idea that increased voter turnout would help Mousavi is based on solid political and historical trends. First, as said before, the voters who stayed away last time were reformists, for them to turn out automatically favors Mousavi/Karroubi. Second, increased voter turnout amongst women and ethnic minorities would favor the reformists because of their historical likeliness to vote against the regime and because Karroubi and Mousavi were both playing to those audiences. Third, Ahmadinejad is not popular in Iran as a whole. About a year and a half ago there were riots and people calling for his head due to economic privation and gasoline rationing.


3. The vote count was less crooked then the Florida count:
Outrageously absurd. For the final tally to have been accurate at the time they announced all votes counted (which was before the polls closed!) the authorities would have had to count over 5 million votes in an hour. The vote was certified without going through proper procedure, which says that the vote should be counted over three days and then be certified by the Guardian council before going to Khameni. This time the vote was 'counted', and then declared a miracle by Khameni, who certified the vote before the Guardian council could look at it. This is to say nothing about the irregularities brought up throughout the thread and the sheer uniformity of the supposed return across Iran.



In short, he's an idiot.

[Force Lord]

Pretty much what I suspected. I smelled bullshit on seeing the editorial and the Claridad colummn. The latter's POV is expected considering that they have some idiots in their ranks. The former, not so much. Then again, idiots are a very diverse group, with very different goals, but all of them share one important characteristic: they're full of shit.

[Samuel]

3. The vote count was less crooked then the Florida count:

I don't think that the count was legitimate in 2000, but Bush and Gore were almost 50-50. This is what; 60-20?

[CJvR]

I don't think that the count was legitimate in 2000, but Bush and Gore were almost 50-50. This is what; 60-20?

IIRC Bush won in every recount held and they were down to interpreting how voters might have intended to vote if they had been able to cast a correct vote when the count was halted.

For the US election to be as "democratic" as the Iranian elections would require a council of a dozen of the most rabid evangelical preachers to approve of all presidential candidates before they are even allowed to run for office. In Iran 4 were approved and 466 banned.

[Thanas]

I don't think that the count was legitimate in 2000, but Bush and Gore were almost 50-50. This is what; 60-20?

IIRC Bush won in every recount held and they were down to interpreting how voters might have intended to vote if they had been able to cast a correct vote when the count was halted.

Nope. The full recount which was made a few years later shows Gore winning the full state. Oops.

[MKSheppard]

Awww, what we should be doing is parachuting unmarked bags full of:

--AK-47s
--PKMs
--RPG-7s

over Iran, along with untraceable Iridium Satellite phones.

While at the same time, we turn over the locations of at least 1 out of every 100 Iridums to the Iranian Regime.

Simply put, I want to see Iran ablaze from end to end as they both kill each other -- they tried to set Iraq ablaze years ago with similar methods, but failed; despite killing a lot of iraqis and US Troops in the process.

It's time for some payback.

And screw the protestors. They don't want any real substantiative reform; they're just upset that their candidate lost a election -- they don't want to change anything about Iran's political system, e.g. they do not want to challenge the status of Iran being an Islamic Republic -- despite this same Islamic republic sending kids into minefields with plastic keys to paradise during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s.

So yeah, screw them.

Plus, we owe them for 1979.

[Guardsman Bass]

I don't think that the count was legitimate in 2000, but Bush and Gore were almost 50-50. This is what; 60-20?

IIRC Bush won in every recount held and they were down to interpreting how voters might have intended to vote if they had been able to cast a correct vote when the count was halted.

Nope. The full recount which was made a few years later shows Gore winning the full state. Oops.

Not to get too side-tracked on to this, but this was one of the Gore campaign's greatest mistakes - instead of calling for a state-wide recount, they only called for a recount in certain areas that were trending democratic, which ended up killing them, and leaving them open to Republican attacks claiming that they were trying to manipulate the vote and weren't actually in favor of a fair vote.

[Samuel]

Awww, what we should be doing is parachuting unmarked bags full of:

--AK-47s
--PKMs
--RPG-7s

over Iran, along with untraceable Iridium Satellite phones.

While at the same time, we turn over the locations of at least 1 out of every 100 Iridums to the Iranian Regime.

Simply put, I want to see Iran ablaze from end to end as they both kill each other -- they tried to set Iraq ablaze years ago with similar methods, but failed; despite killing a lot of iraqis and US Troops in the process.

It's time for some payback.

And screw the protestors. They don't want any real substantiative reform; they're just upset that their candidate lost a election -- they don't want to change anything about Iran's political system, e.g. they do not want to challenge the status of Iran being an Islamic Republic -- despite this same Islamic republic sending kids into minefields with plastic keys to paradise during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s.

So yeah, screw them.

Plus, we owe them for 1979.

First rule of subtlety- never announce you intentions publicly. Not to mention they might notice American planes flying over the country- I'm sure that would go real well when they shoot them down.

[CJvR]

Wasn't Iridium shut down years ago?

[erik_t]

Wasn't Iridium shut down years ago?

No

[CJvR]

Photoshop to the front!

Hey, if it worked with missiles why not crowds?
Oh right! It DIDNT work with the missiles...

Photoshopping ?

[Pelranius]

Awww, what we should be doing is parachuting unmarked bags full of:

--AK-47s
--PKMs
--RPG-7s

over Iran, along with untraceable Iridium Satellite phones.

While at the same time, we turn over the locations of at least 1 out of every 100 Iridums to the Iranian Regime.

Simply put, I want to see Iran ablaze from end to end as they both kill each other -- they tried to set Iraq ablaze years ago with similar methods, but failed; despite killing a lot of iraqis and US Troops in the process.

It's time for some payback.

And screw the protestors. They don't want any real substantiative reform; they're just upset that their candidate lost a election -- they don't want to change anything about Iran's political system, e.g. they do not want to challenge the status of Iran being an Islamic Republic -- despite this same Islamic republic sending kids into minefields with plastic keys to paradise during the Iran-Iraq War in the 80s.

So yeah, screw them.

Plus, we owe them for 1979.

So the violence will magically stay away from Iraq and Afghanistan by the power of Q?

[Samuel]

So the violence will magically stay away from Iraq and Afghanistan by the power of Q?

Obvious we drop them in central Iran! Of course, if the Iranians aren't idiots, they will collect them and sell them on the world arms market. And we will have directly aided them, continuing the stereotype of stupid Americans.

[Morilore]

Awww, what we should be doing is parachuting unmarked bags full of:

--AK-47s
--PKMs
--RPG-7s

over Iran, along with untraceable Iridium Satellite phones.

While at the same time, we turn over the locations of at least 1 out of every 100 Iridums to the Iranian Regime.

Simply put, I want to see Iran ablaze from end to end as they both kill each other -- they tried to set Iraq ablaze years ago with similar methods, but failed; despite killing a lot of iraqis and US Troops in the process.

It's time for some payback.

Cuz such blatant manipulation won't be completely transparent to everyone and inspire the Iranians to rally behind their government in a wave of anti-Americanism, thus accomplishing the complete opposite of the intentions of this retarded enterprise.

[Pu-239]

http://blog.austinheap.com/2009/06/17/b ... an-update/ - if anyone wants to set up a proxy limited to Iranian netblocks and has a server. I got myself a cheap VPS and set one up (I'm using it for other unimportant stuff anyway). Possibly risky from a liability perspective though.

[Elfdart]

So the violence will magically stay away from Iraq and Afghanistan by the power of Q?

Obvious we drop them in central Iran! Of course, if the Iranians aren't idiots, they will collect them and sell them on the world arms market. And we will have directly aided them, continuing the stereotype of stupid Americans.

Remember, these are the same fucktards who idolize Von Reagan, the president who for all his tough talk about the Iranians, ended up being Khomeini's bitch. Clearly, they want to follow in their leader's footsteps of preening and acting the tough guy while giving Tehran weapons on a silver platter -all the while hoping that after sucking so much Iranian fundie cock, the mullahs being serviced will leave something for them on the nightstand.

Awww, what we should be doing is parachuting unmarked bags full of:

--AK-47s
--PKMs
--RPG-7s

over Iran, along with untraceable Iridium Satellite phones.

While at the same time, we turn over the locations of at least 1 out of every 100 Iridums to the Iranian Regime.

Simply put, I want to see Iran ablaze from end to end as they both kill each other -- <Because I, MKSheppard, will never ever kiss a girl and therefore must settle for playing with my dick while thinking of dead brown people.>

That pretty much covers it.

they tried to set Iraq ablaze years ago with similar methods, but failed; despite killing a lot of iraqis and US Troops in the process.

What horseshit. The country was ablaze because the Crawford Caligula and his merry band of war whores set it on fire. I guess massacring Ay-rabs is a job only Americans and the IDF are cut out for. How dare those damned dirty Iranians get in on the action!

It's time for some payback.

It certainly is. Iran owes the US for the overthrow of Mossadegh, for all the people tortured and "disappeared" by Savak, for the US Navy blasting a passenger jet and killing hundreds of civilians while giving the crew medals for their heroic actions, among other things.

Plus, we owe them for 1979.

Just as they owe us for 1953, 1980 and 1988. If only suicide bombers had shrapnel that exclusively tore the flesh of war whores and other assholes.

[Guardsman Bass]

Iran owes the US for the overthrow of Mossadegh,

Albright actually apologized for the US involvement in the 1953 coup back in the 1990s under the Clinton Administration. The US government also paid out compensation for Flight 655.

Has the Iranian government apologized for taking the entire embassy hostage in 1980, in violation of anything resembling international law regarding diplomats, or for the Khobar Towers bombing they were involved in (but which the US government let go because they didn't want to undermine Khatami)?

[Samuel]

It certainly is. Iran owes the US for the overthrow of Mossadegh, for all the people tortured and "disappeared" by Savak, for the US Navy blasting a passenger jet and killing hundreds of civilians while giving the crew medals for their heroic actions, among other things.

Someone pointed out in the "religious conservatives versus libertarian" thread that the Shah managed to make a modern country. He was brutal and vicious, but without the country has dropped like a stone under the theocratic grip of its current rulers.

Shep is wrong for assuming that the Iranians will tear their own country apart in an orgy of violence and the fact he is upset the populance doesn't want civil war.

[Lord of the Abyss]

It certainly is. Iran owes the US for the overthrow of Mossadegh, for all the people tortured and "disappeared" by Savak, for the US Navy blasting a passenger jet and killing hundreds of civilians while giving the crew medals for their heroic actions, among other things.

Someone pointed out in the "religious conservatives versus libertarian" thread that the Shah managed to make a modern country. He was brutal and vicious, but without the country has dropped like a stone under the theocratic grip of its current rulers.

Current rulers who are in power in part because we replaced Mossadegh with the Shah. And a rejection of modernity we helped create by associating it with foreign imposed tyranny.

[TimothyC]

NightWatch Update:

Iran: Update. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is scheduled to lead Friday prayers on 19 June in Tehran, with members of the Basij volunteer militia present, Agence France-Presse reported today. The militia issued a statement urging members to attend, and warning defeated presidential candidates who have protested election results that they must “explicitly disassociate themselves from the rioters” in Tehran, the Mehr news agency reported.

Supporters of failed presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi are planning to attend the Friday prayers also; the Basij have called for all sides to avoid “provocative actions.”

Several commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have been arrested because of their opposition to plans scheduled for tomorrow to provoke a government crackdown, Iranian Web site Tehran Bureau reported. Tehran Bureau added that "the plan is to create chaos and bloody confrontations." Other news services claimed the deaths among the protestors have been the result of provocations by Revolutionary Guardsmen in mufti among the demonstrators.

Iran's election headquarters has rejected a request by defeated presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei to release details from the 12 June presidential election returns, Press TV reported today. Iranian Electoral Commission chief Kamran Daneshju said "The law does not reserve such a right for candidates," and that the department will work within the framework of the law.

Comment: A brilliant and discerning Reader reported in Feedback that Rezaie requested all Iranians who voted for him to register on his web site on the Internet. In 24 hours, he registered 900,000 votes, compared to the official count of 300,000, according to NPR.

All the new data points to monumental voter fraud by Ahmadi-Nejad’s official supporters in every voting district that has found a way to report.

Guardian Council speaker, Abasali Kadkhodai, said on Tuesday that "the possibility of a vote annulment is not outside the realm of possibility, ISN Security Watch reported. He is the first official to make such a statement in public. His sincerity is not at all clear.

ISN also is reporting that former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is preparing to call an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts, to investigate the crisis. Rafsanjani’s real purpose is to examine the role that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may have played in the crisis. This would include examination of charges that Khamenei might have violated the Constitution by approving Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad’s victory before the three-day waiting period required by law for the Guardian Council to investigate all the outstanding complaints.

In Tehran, a “silent sea” of black-clad mourners made its way through the streets, commemorating the lives of those slain in six straight days of protests since the announcement of President Ahmedi-Nejad’s election victory. The scenes recalled the mass mourning protests of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when hundreds of thousands took to the streets to play their part in the overthrow of the Shah.

The funeral symbology plays on the imagery of the 1979 revolution in which Ayatollah Khomeini called Iranians to mourn those who died overthrowing the Shah. This is dangerous imagery that evokes powerful memories which implicitly equate Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadi-Nejad with the Shah. Mousavi and his cohorts have the upper hand in perception management, at least.

Outlook. The volatility of the next steps will depend on the public reaction to Khamenei’s sermon on Friday; on Monday's march along Vali Asr Street in Tehran and in 19 other cities; plus the national strike on Tuesday, called by Mousavi. The critical variable is whether the paramilitary forces and police respond to their chains of command to defend the regime and suppress the demonstrations. If security personnel side with the demonstrators and unit integrity fragments, the Khamenei/Ahmadi-Nejad regime ultimately will fall.

Comment: The anecdotal news snippets cited above are typical of an authoritarian government that is in disarray. The Supreme leader seems to not know how to react. Mousavi’s tactics have shown Ahmadi-Nejad to be the buffoon that most suspected and has exposed the Supreme Leader as his puppet master.

The stakes are no longer about the outcome of the election but about the integrity of the Supreme Leader, the eminence grise behind Ahmadi-Nejad. Mousavi has pierced the veil. If the opposition is to succeed it must impeach Khamenei, whose ouster will bring down Ahmadi-Nejad as well.

The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has become the target of the demonstration leaders and a growing number of Grand Ayatollahs who are angered by what they now know is Khamenei’s campaign of voter fraud.

Another indicator to watch is whether the chain of command for the security forces remains responsive to political direction. The arrest of security personnel is a powerful sign that the government fears that some security forces cannot be relied on to follow directions to suppress demonstrations -- they might join the protests.

So the longer this goes on, the higher the stakes.