making the rounds this morning:

http://www.progressiverealist.org/blogpost/are-we-witnessing-military-coup-iran

this sure sounds plausible, IF the primary source is telling the truth. If the Interior Ministry told the Mousavi campaign that he had won, then subsequent events occured as reported, it seems pretty clear that the Revolutionary Guards staged a coup.

Because neither of those are worth the pixels on my screen.

The first one seems to assume that the rigging was pre election, through early poll closing or not having enough ballots. Nobody is claiming that happened. Exactly the opposite actually. The vote fix came after the vote, and he didn't address that at all.

The second one relied on a three week old poll. Which contradicts two other polls that are more recent. If you want to discount those two, how can you do so with just another poll, especially an older one?

Is the best pro result arguments out there? If so, I'd say the debate is over.

Another hearty thanks to George Bush for destroying another moral high ground America is forced to secede due to both of his elections.

This is an Iranian problem and they'll have to sort their way through it. I love the way that the US issues pronouncements about something we don't actually know enough about to have a valid opinion. Personally, I thought that the election results came in awfully quickly for an election where you have to hand count paper ballots. But you know, it's their country and their election and they can sort it out.

I mean it's not as if the US would have paid any attention to world complaints about an election where Shrub got anointed president after losing the election.

Isn't an important factor the relative youth of Iran as a country? Moussavi's base is the internet-savvy, under-35 set, and I've heard reported in several places that Iran's median age is 25. Just statistically speaking, if the turnout was 80%, and most young people were voting Moussavi, then he should have run away with it.

I find the arguments defending the validity of the election results unconvincing. The speed with which the results were announced after supposedly counting paper ballots following greatly extended voting hours is also very questionable. The case for fraud here seems pretty strong to me.

The official polling numbers released by the state-connected news service showed Ahmadinejad winning Iranian Kurds by a landslide, which would be an absolutely stunning turn of events, flying in the face of the entire history of Iranian Kurd voting patterns.

we would have done as much in 2000. Then we'd have the right to complain. As it is we have to just sit back and hope for the best.

It seems to me it's reasonable to conclude the election was rigged/stolen.

What on earth can I, you, Juan Cole, or Obama, do about it?

Unfortunately, absolutely nothing. We gotta stay out of this one completely.

And folks, please. Stop comparing Iran with us in 2000. Its immature navel gazing, and there is simply no comparison.

Found the argument that the election was valid presented here a little thin: Ahmadinejad won the debate. Is the Iranian election cumulative, like the Miss USA contest? Also, the foundation airily dismisses things such as allegations of early polling place closures and insufficient ballots, concrete factors that could actually affect vote totals.

Wondered what kind of foundation gave out such worthless commentary, so I went to the Web site. To give you a taste of exactly how valuable this foundation is.

Health CEOS for Health Reform" is a policy paper on health system reform: "We [presumably the CEOs] will not control health care costs until we create clear incentives for providers – the people who deliver care – to focus on quality and efficiency." So there.

The report has 10 pages of reform for physicians and the government. Just what does the health insurance industry have to do to so everyone gets quality health care? They see the insurance industry's responsibility coming down to just this: insurers shouldn't force providers to pay for the costs associated with the differences among insurers' billing systems.

I'll tell you what, I'm not sure if this paper is more worthless for the people it's supposed to be influencing, or for the CEOs who were conned into giving what I'm sure what a lot of money to pay it. Except that it wasn't their money, it came out of our premiums.

I have no idea who's paying for the New America Foundation to try and convince Americans that the Iranian election was valid, and that Ahmadinejad has been re-elected. That's what I want to know. Who in this country benefits from Ahmadinejad being re-elected? And Salon, I really don't want to criticize, but you should not have used this company as a source. It's a biased, corporate shill. It is not equivalent to Prof. Cole.

Let's see here ... country's a theocracy ... the real power is the clergy who control the media, the military, the spies and the government ... they run a belligerent goofus for the figurehead position of puppet, er, president, because that's the face they want to show the world ...

Oh yeah, I'm totally sure this was a legitimate victory in a legitimate election and ...

Damn it! Excuse me, but there go my eyes again. Gotta be careful with them eye rolls.

The speed with which Ahmadinejad had been declared the winner could be an indication that Mousavi actually won. On the other hand, the large majority of Iranians don't live in teheran but in rural villages and small towns, are quite religious and traditional, and are Ahmadinejad's core constituency. We really have no way of knowing, since there is very little transparency in the Iranian electoral system. Regardless, after our own 2000 outrage, no American is entitled to whine about stolen elections anywhere, end of story.

This is an Iranian problem and they'll have to sort their way through it. I love the way that the US issues pronouncements about something we don't actually know enough about to have a valid opinion.

"The US" very carefully hasn't made any pronouncements about this.

Some individuals have made pronouncements, in the US and elsewhere, sure. And yes, some folks express their opinions with more certainty than is warranted. That said, I've been mildly pleased by the number of people who have been measured in their "pronouncements" -- admitting that they're working with inadequate information and couching their opinions in appropriately tentative language.