name: Yuram Abdullah Weiler

Iran’s Election: Benford vs. Basij

08 July, 2009

“The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days.  I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.”--President Barack Obama, 23 June 2009.[i]

To those who suffered the loss of friends and loved ones as a result of the recent post-election unrest in Iran, please accept my deepest heartfelt condolences.

I, too, condemn the violence that has erupted following Iran’s 12 June 2009 Presidential election. As someone with friends and colleagues there, I grieve deeply for those who lost their lives in the violence, with a death toll of 17 by official figures but claimed by some witnesses to be higher.[ii]  It is my hope that reason will prevail and all perpetrators, whether members of the Basij or hired outside thugs, will be brought to justice.

I must, however, take exception with the Western media’s portrayal of Iran as a country on the brink of revolution triggered by a fraudulent election.[iii]^,[iv]  Post-election protests do not, by logical necessity, imply election fraud any more than the lack thereof demonstrates legitimacy.  Election forensics expert Walter Mebane points out, “In terms of legitimacy it is not clear whether the worse problem is that erroneous election outcomes may occur or that many may not believe that correct outcomes are valid.”[v]

It does appear that incumbent Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad has won decisively over challenger and former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi.  Polls conducted prior to the election showed Ahmadinejad favored 2 to 1 and even one reporter for McClatchy Newspapers admitted, “Of course, it's possible that Ahmadinejad won.”[vi]

Statistical tests alone cannot prove election fraud, nor can they detect every instance where it is known to have occurred in prior elections.  Regarding the 2^nd digit Benford’s Law[vii] (2BL)test, which shows great promise as a method of detecting election anomalies and is currently being applied to Iran’s election,[viii] Professor Mebane cautions, “Being based on so little information, the method cannot in itself diagnose whether an anomaly it may flag is a consequence of fraud or of some other kind of irregularity.”[ix]  In any event, the post-election protests fit well with the agenda of those pushing regime change, further sanctions and possible military action against Iran.

In what is being heralded as a historic speech given in Cairo on 4 June 2009, President Barack Obama said, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”[x]  Among the popular stereotypes promulgated in America is that Egypt is a democratic, moderate Islamic country.  In contrast to Egypt, Iran is negatively stereotyped as a theocracy bordering on dictatorship, ruled by an elite cadre of fanatical, extremist hard-line clerics. Let’s briefly examine if there is a factual basis for these stereotypes.

Historically connected to Islam, Egypt is second on the list of recipients of U.S. foreign military assistance, second only to Israel.  Some 18,000 political prisoners are held in indefinite detention by order of the Interior Ministry, and the use of torture by security forces is widespread and rarely investigated.[xi]  The most significant opposition to the U.S.-backed Egyptian government is the popular Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic political party founded in 1928 and outlawed to this day in “democratic” Egypt.[xii]^,[xiii]

Elections were last held in Egypt on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 after being postponed for two years, with candidates loyal to President Hosni Mubarak running unopposed in 90% of the races. The Egyptian government’s pre-election repression was swift and crushing, with over 1,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood arrested prior to elections.  Massive public protests ensued, but only turned violent when state-hired thugs began pelting protestors with stones.  State security police moved in to disperse demonstrators, firing tear gas grenades, rubber bullets and live rounds, causing 5 deaths and over 80 injuries.[xiv]

The inherent contradictions involved in U.S support of the Egyptian regime are painfully obvious. A recent Congressional Research Service report points out, “As Egyptian opposition figures have grown more vocal in recent years over issues such as succession, corruption, and economic inequality, and the regime has subsequently grown more repressive in its response to increased calls for reform, activists have demanded that the United States pressure Egypt into creating more breathing space for dissent.”[xv]  However, there is no talk of Egypt being on the brink of revolution, nor is there of regime change.

If the double standard being applied to Iran is still not clear, consider the following fact:  The IAEA reports that it has found traces of highly enriched uranium at Egypt’s Inshas Nuclear Research site.[xvi]  Imagine, “moderate” U.S. ally Egypt may actually be hiding a nuclear weapons program from its benefactor!  Peter Brookes, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation remarked “As if North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs weren't enough, now it seems Egypt may be pursuing the bomb as well.”[xvii]

Why is there no outcry by Washington over a potential nuclear-armed Egypt, but there is over a potential nuclear-armed Iran?  I found only one journalist from--of all places Missoula, Montana--courageous enough to ask this hard question.  In reply, former deputy ambassador to Egypt, Mark Johnson explains “There is a vast political difference between those two countries.”[xviii]  One difference, pointed out by Amnesty International, is that (for the U.S.) Egypt is “a key transit and destination country for the interrogation or indefinite detention and torture of terror suspects.“[xix]  Iran, of course, is not.

So why is there no outcry over repression and fraudulent elections in Egypt but there is over allegations of repression and fraudulent elections in Iran?  The same reason applies, “There is a vast political difference between the countries.”  In other words, Egypt is an obedient U.S.client state willing to bend to America’s will in exchange for a $2 billion annual payoff, whereas Iran is not. That pretty well sums it up.

Yuram Abdullah Weiler

2009-07-08

Endnotes

Posted by yuram 05:59 | Iran , Middle East , United States | Comment(1) | Permalink