June 25, 2009

Iran 2009 v. Mexico 2006

I haven't been paying much attention to Iran, so don't take my word for it, but it seems to be playing out a lot like the disputed election in Mexico in 2006: the party in power says they won the election, the party out of power says they cheated and that they're going to demonstrate until they turn blue, and eventually they turn blue and give up and go home, and the party in power stays in power.

At least, the Washington Post headlines suggest such a scenario:
Hope Fades for Iranian Protesters
Numbers dwindle after government crackdown against demonstrators, but their anger remains.
- Thomas Erdbrink

Keep in mind that I haven't actually read these articles and probably won't get around to reading them, so I don't know what I'm talking about, but it all sounds a lot like the PRD's months of mass demonstrations in Mexico City's Zocalo from early July 2006 into September, along with mass acts of civil disobedience, before they eventually gave up.

The question that interests me is why almost nobody who is anybody in America cared about Mexico in 2006, but everybody was supposed to care about Iran in 2009.

Indeed, how many elections in that general part of the world, centered around the old Byzantine Empire, have we Americans been told to get excited about in this decade? There was the Ukraine Orange thing, and the purple finger whoop-tee-doo in Iraq, and the whiskey sexy election in Lebanon, and the Rose Revolution in Georgia, and the mob violence in Serbia where the nonviolent democrats burnt down the Parliament building and seized power. And now Iran.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

40 comments:

Acilius said...

I think a caught a proofreading error. You say "the old Byzantine Empire" when you must have been thinking "the old Ottoman Empire."

noseworm said...

Ahmani-whatshisname suggested that the CIA and Mossad had a hand in it. I'm sure it sucks to live under the Mullahs, and being someone worried about the Muslim invasion of Europe, I'd be the first one to rejoice if the Muslim hegemon crumbles, but I tend to believe him. In addition I'm sure the cheating was not in the order of being able to sway the outcome.
Coming from South Africa, where the ANC has regularly cheated elections since 1994, and Mugabe is a by-word for election-cheating, and being used to the muted or non-existent reactions from the MSM in the West, I cannot but believe that this is a concerted operation by US and Israeli intelligence operatives to discredit the Iranian regime. Obviously election-cheating per se is not the problem, is it?

RobertHume said...

The reason we get excited over events in the middle east is that there are nuclear bombs involved. If Al Qaeda gets their hands on them, then we lose big time.

Of course, Al Qaeda is trying to get their hands on those bombs because of our other middle east policies ...

Bill said...

Uninterest in Mexico (as opposed to disinterest) probably resulted from the outcome being, all things considered, the one most Americans would prefer.

Oddly enough, WHO wins in Iran probably won't make much difference. Except for a loose screw or two, I can't tell them apart. So I guess the attention and perceived importance is inversely related to the discernible difference.

In all probability, Iranians aren't that stupid and are really protesting the futility of the whole thing.

outlaw josey wales said...

This is another thing I have to agree with. We have a country on our border that is the source or conduit for a ton of illegal activity, is the way illegal immigrants make their way across the border and is our #3 source of oil (I think). Yet it is perpetually ignored.

How about we stop wasting time trying to intervene in trans-Atlantic governments and make some strong statements about Mexico? It seems like there something in Mexico for both liberal and conservative interests.

Anonymous said...

George Soros' Open Society fund...

Anonymous said...

I live in Mexico, am Mexican, and trust me there is little in common between the Iranian situation and Mexico's. Iran is a theocracy controlled by Ayatolas, Mexico is an developing democracy with an extremely efficient (and expensive!) independent voting auditing organism the IFE.

There were two problems with the 2006 election in Mexico 1. The result was extremely close 2. The campaigns on both sides previous to the election were quite nasty and they did do illegal things. However this does not mean that there was a fraud or that the ballots were stuffed.

In the Iranian ellection the incumbent won by about 80% with more votes than there are registered voters, with official results coming in mere hours after the polls closed.

The Mexican election was a close contest that had more in common with the Bush v. Gore election (if anything). There were protests in the US then, but then you wouldn't equate the US with Iran.

Were there protests in Mexico? Sure, in the capital, wich has 20 million inhabitants and is wholy controlled by the party that lost, the PRD. Outside of Mexico City most people were outraged at the protests.

The PRD incidentally will get around 30% of the vote in the upcoming congressional elections, so it's not like they have sweeping approval ratings all around.

López Obrador, the candidate who lost, by the way, has become a sort of national joke. He broke off with his own party, the PRD, and has a lot of disturbing Hugo Chavez like messianic tendencies. Even people that I know who supported him hard-core then call him a fascist.

The protest in mexico in 2006 were a symptom of a general unease with the way that politics are conducted in this country, however, equating that with Iran is way off the mark. Apples and oranges.

best,
P. Lopez

John Seiler said...

So, you're saying we're going to get a couple million more Persians coming to America?

testing99 said...

Steve, this is why you should not talk about things that you yourself say "you don't know anything about."

Ukraine was never part of the Byzantine Empire. Iran is important because it has or will have shortly nukes, has been killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, is dedicated to "wiping Israel off the map" (precipitating a war, inevitably, of nuclear character, between them), creates with an American security withdrawal, nuclear proliferation in the region, and features the current regime dedicated to a "World Without America."

That's just for starters.

Mexico's illegal immigration is a serious, constant, long term threat to the security of the US. Mexico has not engaged in State/Factional sponsored terrorism against the US. Nor does it have nukes. Nor does it threaten regional neighbors into nuclear proliferation. Nor does it desire a war of annihilation with say, Bolivia. Again, that's just for starters.

Moreover, Mexico 2006 featured at the most, marginal cheating in a fairly close election. Not much brutal force was used. Iran 2009 was a massive fraud, that nobody not even regime supporters back, and featured brutal repression AND huge breaks with the regime by former supporters.

Mousavi for example is no Angel or friend of the US. Nevertheless unlike the Mexican protesters of 2006, he faces either victory, or death (ala Trotsky) and the same is true for Rafsanjani, and others. In 2006, the Mexican Revolution was nearly 100 years old, while in Iran the Revolution is within living memory.

More importantly, Mexico 2006 was solved by side deals peeling off critical labor and other leaders. In Iran, the problem is "solved" by mass killings, executions, and brutal repression without any prospect of a post-Tienanmen Square economic revival. With the added caution that in Iran, power has passed almost entirely to the IRGC, and the regime has changed character to a purely military-secular dictatorship (Khamenie is almost entirely alone in the Mullahs in endorsing Nutjob), vs. the Mexican Military staying out of the 2006 conflict, and Mexico's regime nature unchanged.

Anonymous said...

Look at who owns and runs our TV networks and newspapers & where they are located. Its the reason why.

I daresay if all TV networks were based in Salt Lake City or LA and run by Mormons or Southern Baptists our news would look quite different.

bg said...

if in 1945 the country for the jews had been created in Latin America, as many sensible people proposed, the Mexican elections would be much more important than the iranian's

PRCalDude said...

OT: Steve, you'll be interested to know what Rahm's brother is up to.

Anonymous said...

The USA just loves to fish in troubled waters.

Just Wonderin said...

Steve I enjoyed your post over at Taki's Mag.

Was wondering if you planned on reposting them up here at iSteve since Taki doesnt have comments.

Liked the post at Takis a lot and I think any comment threads about it as well.

Anthony said...

Mexico doesn't pose a direct military threat to anybody.

The Mexican ruling establishment had the patience to let the protests blow over, rather than starting to beat up protesters on Day 2.

The Mexican ruling establishment knows how to steal elections, but it starts by being popular enough to come close to a real majority. It's harder to get worked up about a 51-49 election being stolen than a 60-40 election.

Eric said...

The question that interests me is why almost nobody who is anybody in America cared about Mexico in 2006, but everybody was supposed to care about Iran in 2009.

Because the Iranians are on the threshold of posessing nuclear weapons. In recent decades we've sent exactly the wrong signal - develop nuclear weapons and you're somebody.

PRCalDude said...

Mexico doesn't pose a direct military threat to anybody.

Some of us in the Sand States wonder if that will continue to be true as the Mexican cartels grow stronger.

Anonymous said...

"Because the Iranians are on the threshold of posessing nuclear weapons. In recent decades we've sent exactly the wrong signal - develop nuclear weapons and you're somebody."

Nobody needs to send that signal - it's obvious. Despite the proliferation, there have been only two nuclear strikes in the history of the world. Nuclear war is everyone's worst nightmare.

Lucius Vorenus said...

RobertHume: ...Of course, Al Qaeda is trying to get their hands on those bombs because of our other middle east policies ...

Al Qaeda is trying to get its hands on nukular weapons on account of these things called "The Koran" and "The Hadith".

Now, technically speaking, the Koran and the Hadith are in fact policy manuals, but they're not our policy manuals.

[Or at least they weren't our policy manuals prior to the ascension of Mr. Hussein Obama.]

Anonymous said...

Look at who owns and runs our TV networks and newspapers & where they are located. Its the reason why.

I daresay if all TV networks were based in Salt Lake City or LA and run by Mormons or Southern Baptists our news would look quite different
.

The European press - where the Jews are much less prominent than in the US media - was just as interested in the Iranian riots as the US media.

Anonymous said...

Because the Iranians are on the threshold of posessing nuclear weapons. In recent decades we've sent exactly the wrong signal - develop nuclear weapons and you're somebody.



Pakistan did not become somebody when it got nukes.

Anonymous said...

Mexico doesn't pose a direct military threat to anybody.



Iran does not pose a direct military threat to us.

And Mexico does in fact pose a direct threat to us, even if not a military one. The threat is economic, social, and political.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

It sounded like an indirect reference to our caring disproportionately about Israeli interests, an idea which has some popularity over at this site. In addition to the excellent other reasons cited in the comments why we might be concerned about Iran, I would add our lack of confidence that the Europeans or Russians would do much about it even if it did get out of hand, compared to our (relative) confidence that we would respond appropriately to complete antagonism from Mexico. Secondly, we think thoroughgoing aggression from Mexico pretty unlikely, but Iran slipping into that seems quite possible. Third, Iran is a tectonic plate in a very large Middle-Eastern uncertainty, so effects might cascade. Mexico, OTOH, has many connections throughout South and Central America, but can be seen as an individual player.

Related, but perhaps tangential. The idea that we would have fewer problems in the Middle-East if we had a different Israel policy seems attractive, but is grasping at straws. If Israel were to disappear from the map, we would see a short burst of improved rhetoric from the region, but no observable improvement for the foreseeable future.

Chris said...

Speaking of elections, local favorite Larry Nativo Lopez was charged with voter fraud yesterday.

Anonymous said...

Some of these comments are crazy.

I didn't know the Weekly Standard readers were Steve Sailer fans.

Anonymous said...

The European press - where the Jews are much less prominent than in the US media - was just as interested in the Iranian riots as the US media.

This response only further proves Steve's point -- no one cares about Mexico.

noseworm said...

"The European press - where the Jews are much less prominent than in the US media - was just as interested in the Iranian riots as the US media."


Mmm, somebody does not understand or want to understand who owns the European press. For instance, in Germany the Springer Verlag sets the tone in anything related to Israel or the ME. It’s the largest media holding in Germany, by far. They mainly make money off a daily rag meant for the masses, full of sports, naked babes and superficial reporting on scandals and anything which somehow affects Israel. The masses should consume porn and be worried about Israel. They also own porn channels. Their political/ideological/pseudo-intellectual paper, "Die Welt", is essentially loss making but being subsidised by the porn and tabloid businesses. The order of loyalty of this outfit, which was mysteriously founded directly after the war, at a time when NOBODY in Germany had any money, is this:

-Israel
-Israel
-US
-EU
-Germany.

Yet they have the gall to present themselves as „conservative“ and somehow patriotic.
I suspect things are not much different in France or England.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who's ever lived in Mexico knows that it's a stable democratic society that is rapidly improving. There is no potential for collapse, revolution, or anything else that would cause a ripple effect.

The price of oil, tourism, and remissions all collapsed and we haven't heard a peep out of Mexico.

David said...

asst. village idiot said

"we think thoroughgoing aggression from Mexico pretty unlikely, but Iran slipping into that seems quite possible."

Iran slipping into aggression against whom?

The mestizo invasion will do more long-lasting damage to America than Iran's construction of a nuclear power plant ever could - or even of a nuclear weapon. Btw, no one ever said Iran will wipe Israel off the map. It was said that Israel will one day be unsustainable due to demographic change. "We will wipe you off the map!!" was long ago exploded as a dishonest translation.

The Spaniards are simply trying to drag us into another war.

Anonymous said...

Bummer about the King of pop dying in the middle of the Iranian Revolution. Talk about having all the oxygen sucked out of your media coverage. Tough luck, Neda.

Svigor said...

The reason we get excited over events in the middle east is that there are nuclear bombs involved. If Al Qaeda gets their hands on them, then we lose big time.

Perhaps necessary, but not sufficient. NK nukes never seem to amount to much.

Svigor said...

The European press - where the Jews are much less prominent than in the US media - was just as interested in the Iranian riots as the US media.

From which we should conclude what?

Svigor said...

Related, but perhaps tangential. The idea that we would have fewer problems in the Middle-East if we had a different Israel policy seems attractive, but is grasping at straws. If Israel were to disappear from the map, we would see a short burst of improved rhetoric from the region, but no observable improvement for the foreseeable future.

That's a bold statement. I think if Israel turned "nice" (formulating it as "wiped off the map" seems to concede too much to Likudnik rhetoric for my tastes) we'd see very different behavior from ME states.

Svigor said...

I didn't know the Weekly Standard readers were Steve Sailer fans.

They aren't. They all hate Steve with a passion. HBD? Closed borders? Foreign policy pragmatism? What are you, effin' kiddin' me?

Anonymous said...

The order of loyalty of this outfit, which was mysteriously founded directly after the war, at a time when NOBODY in Germany had any money, is this:

-Israel
-Israel
-US
-EU
-Germany.

Yet they have the gall to present themselves as „conservative“ and somehow patriotic.
I suspect things are not much different in France or England
.

Uhhh, do you have evidence that the European newspapers are pro-Israel?

Historically, they have been rather sympathetic to the Palestinians, but God forbid we let facts get in the way of a good antisemitic rant.

Anonymous said...

The order of loyalty of this outfit, which was mysteriously founded directly after the war, at a time when NOBODY in Germany had any money,

Yes, clearly the existence of German newspapers after WWII is damning proof of an international Jewish conspiracy.

/smirk

Reactionary said...

Anyone who's ever lived in Mexico knows that it's a stable democratic society that is rapidly improving. There is no potential for collapse, revolution, or anything else that would cause a ripple effect.

I really, really hope this is true. But does anybody see any voluntary repatriation going on? Is the rate of immigration dropping (for the good of both countries, it needs to plummet)? In 2005, the Pew Hispanic Center found that forty percent of Mexicans would emigrate to the US if they could. That is a HUGE no-confidence vote in your country's future. Have those poll results changed?

Anonymous said...

"Uhhh, do you have evidence that the European newspapers are pro-Israel?

Historically, they have been rather sympathetic to the Palestinians, but God forbid we let facts get in the way of a good antisemitic rant."



How about getting some education and learning to read in German. Then you can open any copy of Die Welt or its porn-sister "Bild", which together have more turnover than the other papers. Try finding anything critical of Israel. The problem for you is that unlike your rant, everything I said is based on fact.


God forbid we let facts get in the way of a good pontificating.

Anonymous said...

How about getting some education and learning to read in German. Then you can open any copy of Die Welt or its porn-sister "Bild", which together have more turnover than the other papers.

If you think the European newspapers, such as Le Monde, are pro-Israel then you've been smoking something funny and there is no point talking to you any further.

Svigor said...

If you think the European newspapers, such as Le Monde, are pro-Israel then you've been smoking something funny and there is no point talking to you any further.

The whole "pro or anti" Israel thing is a sham. Likudniks say someone's "anti-Israel" when they don't toe the Likudnik line. It has nothing to do with any reasonable pro/anti metric.

It's like calling someone an anti-Semite if they want a Jewish mass murderer brought to justice.

So yeah, relative to the position Israel occupies on the "defying the multiculti world order," I'd be willing to bet that the German press is pro-Israel. They're just not pro-Israel enough for you.

People are so clueless on the issue they think a "balanced" approach vis-a-vis the I-P conflict is actually balanced. So we're all "balanced" now? The segregationists were only half to blame? The Nazis got a bum rap? Apartheid had its good side?

No, no, no, no. Peddle that shyte at Free Republic.

YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either European ethnic nationalists and Israel both have a point of view, or neither do.