Former Iranian president, Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami said prior to the general election: ”A massive turnout will lead to forming a parliament which will take wise measures that in turn would contribute to the nation’s progress.”

The Western media had predicted, or rather hoped, that the Iranian election would be marred by lower voter turnout; that was not to be: voter turnout exceeded all expectations. The average voter turnout in the world is 45-60 percent, and during the 2004 elections for the 7th Majlis voter turnout was 51 percent, whereas yesterday over 28 million of 43.8 million eligible voters participated in the 8th Majlis; a voter turnout of over 60 percent, and 9 percent increase from the last Majlis, even exceeding Iran’s average voter turnout of 62.5 percent.

Moreover, much to the consternation of the United States, the result is seen in Iran as demonstrative of the President Ahmadinejad’s popularity. The Secretary of the United Principalist Front Shahabeddin Sadr, told IRNA: “The names announced by the Interior Ministry show that 70 percent of the newly elected legislators are on our list of candidates,” as latest announcement showed by that after 141 constituencies out of 290 had been decided, the Principalist Front, won 108, whereas the Reformist camp only secured 33. 

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, when asked to explain the discrepancy between U.S. claims that the Iranian election was unfair and the high voter turnout, admitted he was bereft, “I don’t know anything about turnout.”

Iran’s former president Ayatullah Seyyed Mohammad Khatami, remarked prior to the election:

“The US officials have clearly shown their enmity with the Middle East people… Undoubtedly they will support those who would pave the ground for the US presence in the region and certainly these are not the reformists.”

Whilst the United States will no doubt wish to underplay the significance of the visit, the Iranian president will be feted Shiite and Sunnite politicians alike. The United States may accuse Iran of attacking U.S. troops and destabilising Iraq but this accusation does not find favour amongst those that matter in Iraq, the lever’s of power in Iraq now rest in the hands of Iran’s allies and co-religionists, whether the United States cares to admit it or not. Were this not the case the visit would not be taking place.    

Ahmadinejad, more so than any other Iranian president, holds enourmous popular support on the Arab Street. Thus it is hoped that this visit will be a show of unity, as much as a show of strength; the aim is to dispel fears that Sunnite Iraqis may have that Iran supports Shiite secession and to visibly endorse the Iranian brokered truce between Saadah al-Sadr and al-Hakim.

Constitutionally, the Khobregan is significant, since under article 107,  it elects the Velayat-e faqih, and in principle could remove him under Article 111, should he be derelict in his duties. Yet in practice the body meets twice yearly and does not involve itself in Iranian politics. Any decision requires a majority vote and this is where the election is significant. Hashemi was expected to win by a large margin; he did not. The vote was 41 for Hashemi, 34 Ayatullah Ahmad Janati, with 11 absentee votes. Ayatullah Momen was elected first deputy chairman, and Ayatullah Ahmad Khatami, second deputy chairman. Both are conservatives closer to Ayatullah al-Uzma Khamenei.  

The significance of this is that Hashemi lacks the support to extend his remit beyond his constitutional authority. If this was not Hashemi, I would suggest that such an appointment, is tantamount to retiring from politics. However, it seems an unlikely place upon which to make a bid for the presidency.

The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.

The comment not only earned rebuke from the beleaguered U.S. President, they also led to the following threat:  ”my message to him is, is that when we catch you playing a non-constructive role there will be a price to pay.” 

A rebuke that Prime Minister Nuri al-Malaki is not going to heed.  His response the U.S. President criticism of his administration was even more assertive. He said:    

“No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people. Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution, and can find friends elsewhere.” 

This statement represents a recognition in the Iraq government of the now irrelevance of the United States: the ignominious defeat of British forces in the South and the failure of the U.S. surge to quell the rise of factional violence or the insurgency has left al-Malaki government in no doubt that the U.S. forces have to all intents and purposes already been defeated and that there is no appetite in the United States to reverse that outcome:  troop withdrawal is inevitable.    

Thus al-Malaki is looking to the future; a future in which the United States’ role in Iraq will be limited; he is no doubt also aware that should Hillary Clinton win the U.S. presidency he would not be able to count on her support. She said this week that Iraq needs a “less divisive and more unifying figure.”

In fact whilst politicians in the United States make much of the Iraq’s sectarian divisions and urge a national unity government, this is fundamentally undemocratic and quite fraudulent, it is not for Iraq’s sake that they wish a pluralist government. An estimated 63% of the population are Shia. However, that is only if one includes Kurdistan, which is effectively a separate entity from Iraq. Certainly the main Kurdish parties are separatists. Thus if the Kurds are discounted, and properly they should be, since they do not consider themselves Iraqis; Shia constitute nearly 79% of the Iraqi population and Sunnis only 21%. Thus the sectarian divisions in Iraq are overplayed; in truth Iraq is a Shia country.

It is this reality that the United States government continues to supress:  were they ever serious about installing democracy, they would support Shia majority rule and an Iranian style Islamic democracy; instead of doing all they could to prevent it. Yet it is clear that the United States cares little for Iraqi democracy; preferring anarchy and civil war to another autonomous Shia state in the region. 

As ineffectual as al-Malaki has been as premier, the fact that he was willing to publicly chastise the U.S.A. and actively court Iranian and Syrian influence, despite incurring Washington’s displeasure, is significant since it reflects the mood on the street. 

However, what is being reported here is not new; it is that which was already known. Indeed, I reported the British surrender back in February 2007, which followed the provocative British assault on the Jamiat Police Station in December 2006, this was a pivotal event, yet was not treated as such in the Western media.

It is no exaggeration to say that the British media has hitherto been complicit in the wilfully misleading of the British public about the true extent of the British military demise in Iraq.  

“In war, truth is the first casualty.” (Aeschylus, 525 BC – 456 BC)

This comes at a time when the U.S. government has released a report that states that 45% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia, as are over half the foreign fighters in U.S. custody. Thus pouring scorn upon Bush’s claim that Iran is aiding the insurgency; in fact it is Saudi Arabia, with the implicit support of the United States government.  

However, this press conference was not reported by the Iranian media nor was it attended by the international media. In fact, as is clear from the  statement of Louise Arbour, the UN rapporteur on Human Rights, Iran is yet to confirm the execution of Jafar Kiani took place. 

Therefore, how is it that a Western based anti capital punishment NGO attended a press briefing that no one else appears to know about?

Surely, this is a pregnant question for any journalist reporting this story?  

This is not to say this execution did no take place: it may very well have done. However, until such time as the Iranian government provides a detailed account; all claims are mere conjecture and rumour.

It is noteworthy that previous reports of executions by U.S. sponsored groups have transpired to be factually inaccruate. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for instance, have never accruately reported an Iranian execution since 2005. Yet when the Western media quotes these organisations on Iran this is never stated.

Moreover, if the events are as reported in this case, far from the Iranian State executing this man; it is a local judge, in defiance of the order of the Head of the Judiciary. Thus the Iranian State is not culpable. Moreover, contrary to Louise Arbour’s suggestion and attempts made by Western lobby groups to make it so; stoning is not an offence against international law.

Quite. The decision is certainly the most courageous of his presidency and the most necessary, as Ayatollah Jannati Tehran’s Substitute Friday prayers leader suggested, “The huge oil asset should be used for reconstruction,” and should have been implemented long ago. Khatemi’s Government were grossly incompetent for failing so to do. Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline from 16 countries at an annual cost of $5 billion, due to a lack of refinery capacity. This is the one economic weakness that the West could have exploited.

However, the decision to do what no previous President has had the courage to do – ration gasoline – will dramatically cut national oil consumption and end Iranian dependency on foreign countries thus neutralising the threat of any UN Security Council sanctions. In effect, Iran has preempted the sanction. This is why the move has not seen widespread protest to date. The country has remained surprising unified in the face of an otherwise unpopular decision.

The widely anticipated riots and protests have not occured much to the consternation of Western powers. Instead there have been a few sporadic acts of vandalism, which were denounced by Majlis Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel thus:

“I think it is inappropriate to consider those who vandalize public property and buildings a part of the nation. Rather, they are a deceived minority who commit such shameful acts because of the promises of the enemies”.

This would clearly not have been so had Iran not faced external pressures: Iran after all, is on a war setting. Thus this a barometer of Iran’s national determination, as Ahmadinejad suggests.

Yet, this is no temporary measure nor indeed should it be. Raising prices at the pump does nothing to reduce oil consumption; it only hurts the poor. Thus the only effective way to reduce oil consumption is rationing. Every country, not just Iran, should be using rationing to reduce oil consumption. Those that do not will find themselves economically vulnerable.

This is not to say that Ahmadinejad will not suffer in the next election for such a policy, however it may also play to his advantage: he took decisive action and he will be judged against the progress of the nuclear programme too. Moreover, there is another consequence of this decision, which will play to his and Iran’s benefit: it will radically reduce foreign spending, which in turn will strengthen the economy.

The Monafiqeen-e-Khalq had sought to legitimise itself by insisting that the court rejected the decision, yet as EU officials noted, the court did not fault the decision itself, just the manner in which is was taken.

Any other decision would have fundamentally undermined the EU’s international credibility.