Iran – fraud still not proven

The pre-election Terror Free Poll, cited by the Washington Post, showed Ahmadinejad clearly leading among Iranians indicating a presidential preference.

But Juan Cole tut-tuts the poll, claiming many Iranians were too afraid to speak out.

Tosh, per the pollsters. Four of five people surveyed — not just four of five respondents — said they wanted to get rid of the Council of Guardians, the group of clerics headed by Grand Ayatollah Khamenei.

I’m with Ken Ballen of TFT; it’s likely Iranians wanted Ahmadinejad as best defender of Iran against the West. That’s kind of in line with my previous thought that many Iranians may have seen an Ahmadinejad vote as a chance to say Eff You to the West.

That said, Cole, in a later post, has more ammunition for the linearity of returns being questionable.

And, speaking of that, Sully lamely claims The One is right in uttering not a word of support for the opposition, on the grounds Ahmadinejad would use this to show Mousavi et al as Western pawns. His idea? Barry should wear a green tie.

Strange, Sully’s worries didn’t seem to be given a second thought in Berlin; Chancellor Angela Merkel called Basij thuggery “completely unacceptable.”

The Telegraph, in part of its op-ed comparing Obama in silence to a Trappist Monk, reminds us that Germany is Europe’s largest exporter to Iran, and yet Merkel still said what she did.

(And, that all said, Sully’s been about as much a post-election disappointment as his love buddy.)

Finally, as Allahpundit notes, in a very good “big picture” rundown, the real winner in this could be Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who, if the chips fall right, could replace Khamenei. That said “moderate seeing” Americans of today, no less than the Bud McFarlane’s of nearly 25 years ago, should recognize Rafsanjani is no bargain.

So, is Rafsanjani playing both ends against the middle?

Note: When I talk about "fraud," I'm talking as instigated by Khamenei, not by Ahmadinejad, as part of a larger coup effort.