Hovedutfordreren i det iranske valget, Mir Hussein Mousavi, sier han ikke kan bøye seg for regimets valgfusk. Det vil være å rive grunnen vekk under prinsippene for revolusjonen.

Man må være klar over at de som får lov å stille til valg, er de som anerkjenner den teokratiske staten og revolusjonen. De ønsker å redde systemet, eller reformere det.

Det er det Mousavi sier: Han kan ikke anerkjenne valgfusket, for det vil være å innføre tyranni, dvs. et regime som mangler enhver legitimitet i folket.

«I’m warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny,» Mousavi said in a statement made available to Reuters.

Mousavi urged senior clerics in Iran’s Shi’ite religious center of Qom to speak out.

«Today all the ways to preserve our rights are closed. Silence of the ulema and grand ayatollahs may create more harm than fixing voting,» he said in a statement on his website.

Taushet fra mullahene og ayatollahene kan gjøre mer skade enn valgfusk, sier Mousavi, og mener at hele den teokratiske staten vil bli kompromittert.

Protests hit Tehran after Ahmadinejad wins

Reuters har intervjuet flere Iran-spesialister i Vesten, og de er knusende i sin dom: Dette er ikke valgfusk, dette er et kupp.


«I don’t think anyone anticipated this level of fraudulence. This was a selection, not an election. At least authoritarian regimes like Syria and Egypt have no democratic pretences. In retrospect it appears this entire campaign was a show: (Supreme Leader) Ayatollah (Ali) Khamenei wasn’t ever going to let Ahmadinejad lose.»


«The election results are incredible. It’s just nonsense … If it was a genuine election landslide, surely people should be out on the streets in euphoria.

«The potential for unrest is high. People will wake up today in Iran in a state of shock, not that Ahmadinejad has won, but that he has won on such a dramatic scale … The scale of the election victory that they have given Ahmadinejad means he must have won big in the cities. That is simply not borne out by what people were saying in the major cities (before the vote).»

Flere kommer inn på at kuppet vil gjøre det vanskeligere for Barack Obama å lykkes med sin invitasjon til vilkårsløs dialog. Ahmadinejad kritiserte i valgkampen sine motstandere for å undergrave den islamske republikken med deres utstrakte hånd til USA.

Det er utvilsomt en svekket Ahmadinejad og et svekket regime som eventuelt møter USA til forhandlinger. Hele verden vil ha sett valgfusket og lest det som et svakhetstegn. Regimet turde ikke ta sjansen på å la valget foregå som normalt, med grep inn umiddelbart med et forhåndsavtalt resultat.

Seieren er overbevisende på papiret, men er i realiteten det motsatte. Hvordan vil regimet opptre overfor USA? Svake regimer er som regel umedgjørlige, og utsiktene til en løsning om atomprogrammet er svakere enn på lenge. Elliot Abrams anbefaler strengere sanksjoner.


«Both the apparent victory and the apparent fraud greatly complicate the Obama strategy. My advice is that they had better be thinking about more sanctions. The one hope might be that if a new Ahmadinejad government is viewed as illegitimate by many Iranians, that government might be anxious to avoid further economic distress. In that context, sanctions that bite might be a powerful tool and might push the regime into a serious negotiation. But it is more likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.

«At this point one has to wonder about vote fraud. The two-to-one margin for Ahmadinejad may well appear to millions of Iranians as bizarre and unlikely, and meant to avoid a run-off he might lose. If that’s what millions of voters think, especially young voters in this very young country (70 percent of the population is under age 30), there could well be large demonstrations. And the legitimacy not only of an Ahmadinejad second term, but of the whole regime, would be in question in the eyes of many Iranians.»


«I’m in disbelief that this could be the case. It’s one thing if Ahmadinejad had won the first round with 51 or 55 percent. But this number … just sounds tremendously strange in a way that doesn’t add up … It is difficult to feel comfortable that this occurred without any cheating.

«If there is a fight in Iran and there are accusations of fraud and Mousavi declares himself a winner and you have numerous leading clerics and other figures recognizing Mousavi, you are going to have paralysis and significant infighting in Iran. That will complicate (U.S. President Barack) Obama’s engagement. It will be more difficult to deal with Ahmadinejad because he has been discredited at home. He may not be able to deal with anyone because there is paralysis in Iran. It will cause the Obama administration to lose very precious time. Obama is already trying to win time within Washington and from Washington’s allies. There are already pressures from Congress, from pro-Israeli corners, from Israel itself, from some of the Persian Gulf Arab states, for a strict timeline for these efforts. Their patience for how long Obama can pursue this is strictly limited.

«For this year, the Democrats in Congress will give him the benefit of the doubt, but that means he needs to get things started. Already under normal circumstances, you wouldn’t have the new president take power until August. He would need to get his cabinet approved by parliament. You are talking already early October before the Iranians are really ready to deal. That’s under normal circumstances, which gives Obama very little time. The last thing he needs is indecisiveness in the election result that will cause things to be delayed even further.»

Verden har nok rykket vesentlig nærmere en israelsk bombing med stilltiende samtykke fra araberverdenen og USA. Det spørs om omverdenen tør tillate presteregimet å få atomvåpen.

NSTANT VIEW: Iran’s election result staggers analysts