Why was Mousavi allowed to run?

Link

I am coming back to one of the points I made yesterday - the issue of why a person like Mousavi was ever allowed to run.

In the comments section of my previous article on the elections in Iran, altigerrrr make a very good point that the Guardian Council could not prevent Mousavi from running because he is a reformist. I understand that, but that is not quite what I meant. In fact, I like the idea of giving the Iranian people as big a choice of candidates as possible - that is the basic goal of any democracy. So I don't see being a "reformist" or a "conservative" as either good or bad (as I mentioned yesterday - I find these concepts rather meaningless to begin with). But here is what puzzles me:

The Iranian Guardian Council is composed of 12 jurists who are highly respected and who are entrusted with a vital mission: to vet Presidential candidates. I therefore assume that they must have access to the very best information about these candidates available to the Iranian government.

One of the very basic activity for any intelligence or security agency is to maintain very detailed and carefully crafted psychological profiles of all key personalities in any important country or political movement. I assume that the Iranian intelligence and/or security agencies have exactly the same basic set of tasks as their colleagues in any other country.

The Iranian security services *must* have had a very detailed psychological of Musavi. If not, then they are not doing their job properly. Likewise, I assume that the members of the Guardian Council should have been given access to this profile. If not, then there is something fundamentally wrong in the structure of the Iranian government. Intelligence work is composed of three "A": Aquisition, Analysis and Acceptance. The latter means dissemination to the relevant decision making bodies.

Musavi's psychological analysis should not have to include such vague political categories as "reformer". What is should have contained is a clear warning that the guys is an ambitious politician who will place his personal ego over the welfare of his country and that should he be allowed to run, he would not accept a defeat without trying to create chaos.

The Iranian security services should have figured out what kind of guy Mousavi is, they should have passed on this information to the Guardian Council, and the Guardian Council should have either taken action directly or, at least, passed this information to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who should have stopped Mousavi. But none of that happened.

The question is why? (Considering the highly sensitive nature of this question, we will probably never get an answer to it).

Finally, Mousavi could have been nailed for his corruption and the way his wife used their political infuence to run. But other than having Ahmadinejad mention that once, nothing was done.

But what is the point of having a vetting system, a Guardian Council and a Supreme Leader if none of that can prevent the likes of Mousavi to run?

Another thought:

HAS ANYBODY SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF ELECTION RIGGING OTHER THEN THE RIOTS THEMSELVES?

Yep. Nothing. Nothing besides the riots and grand statements by politicians.

Which just makes me wonder how some, shall we say, "less than critical" minds can simply assume that the elections were rigged ONLY on the basis of riots (which, according to my info, were limited to one city and were not that big - not by Iranian standards for sure).

The Saker

Posted by VINEYARDSAKER: at 6:34 AM



Comment:

Uprooted Palestinian said...

Saker
I read your yesterday's post and I agree with you. This article brought to me by Lucia may help better understanding on what happenned.

"Since the revolution, academics and pundits have predicted the collapse of the Iranian regime. This week, they did no better"
Abbas Barzegar

"the failure to properly gauge Iran's affairs is hardly a new phenomenon. When the 1979 revolution shattered the military dictatorship of America's strongest ally in the region few experts outside of the country suspected that the Islamic current would emerge as the leading party.

I agree with Abbas, "Iran is a deeply religious society" why anybody would be surprised with common Shea (opressed for 1400 years)applying their ideals through the ballot box especially when they feel that their revolution is dangered by Usrael, Moderate Arabs, Ben-Ladens and fifth pillars?
Ahmedinejad, accused Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanji, "of betraying the nation....and compared his betrayal to the alleged deception (Hinting to Chosing Abu Bakr to be the first Lhalifa )against the Prophet Muhammad that led to the Sunni-Shia split 1,400 years ago"

That hint "unleashed a popular impulse that has held the imagination of the masses here for generations"

Why was Mousavi allowed to run?

I agree with Enrique Ferro "Musavi could not be banned by any electoral inquisition for the very simple reason that he" I would say (was instead of is) a man of the establishment, originally a fighter for the Islamic Revolution"
I repeat, like Fateh traitors,he was a foghter.
Therefore, the best cleanest way to expose and kill him politically is let him run for presidency.

His failure, and the victory of Ahmedinejad, is Iran's reply to Obama Cairo speech, especially after Lebanese election.

You want to take to Iran, talk to Ahmedinejad.

June 14, 2009 9:31 AM