Iran Loses Election

The presidential election in Iran is not going well. The New Zealand Herald reports that the mayor of Tehran's last minute come-back may have been rigged (big surprise). The Standard is running a similar story about a recount going on before the run-off to try to find those rigged votes. Neither candidate is likely to have won his votes legally or freely in a country whose politics are really all decided by one Grand Ayatollah. Even if the 'reformist' candidate, Rafsanjani, wins, there will probably be limited or no changes in Iran. The Supreme Leader -- that aforementioned Ayatollah -- has final say on everything that happens politically or religiously. So, as long as that system is in place is not very likely that any pro-democracy reforms will take place. The Ayatollah, as far as I know, has no French blood in his veins and therefore will probably not vote to take away his own power("In 1802 Napoleon became Consul for life by popular vote, and in 1804 he became emperor by another popular vote"). A notable fact is that Rafsanjani was already president of Iran from 1989-1997, at which time he was not considered a liberal or reformist. He claims that times have changed and "the time is right to open a new chapter in the Iran-United States relationship and indicating he will increase social and political freedoms" - the Standard. I am dubious as to whether his next term in office, assuming he wins, will be much different than the last. Never the less, a win for a candidate seen as a 'liberal' and a 'reformer' is a step in the right direction for Iran. But the world needs to continue to put pressure on this repressive regime to reform and give basic democratic rights to its citizens. If it does, many similar regimes will do the same.

Another development in the Durbin torture issue: FoggyRuminations alleges that Durbin may have embellished some of the report read into the record on the floor of the senate (thanks, Hugh Hewitt). Foggy may be going a bit extreme partisan, but if the allegations are true then Dick Durbin is that much more of a slime bag, especially for not apologizing. However, after reading the original documents it doesn't appear to me that he made anything up, although he did play up one sentence quite a bit. It doesn't seem to me that he actually claimed anything happened that didn't, although he may have implied such.

In other news, the EU may have finally gotten too big for its own politics. The history of the Western world has been defined by conflict between European countries. To think they could be so tightly united so easily was a foolish conception to begin with. More trouble ahead.