Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]  CSPAN  June 20, 2009 7:00am-7:30am EDT

7:00 am
. host: today is june 20, 2009. welcome to the program. to begin, we will talk with
7:01 am
babak connection -- babak yektafar. what should we expect out of this meeting? >> actually, three challenges for meeting with the garden council and the igregularities that are claimed to have taken place during the election. this in, a way, was a way for the regime to try to say to the people that we have heard what you are saying. we will be taking some legal measures. but after the speech given yesterday, i doubt that anything much is going to come out of it. there may be a case where they count some of the disputed ballot boxes in some areas but nobody really expects that it
7:02 am
will be to the extent to change the outcome or go in the direction that mr. musavid is asking for. >> in the financial times they said rallies must stop. it almost sounds like an ultima ultima ultima ultima ultimateum. the rallies must stop? >> for those that do follow the supreme leader. it is surprising. he is known to stay above the fray. he doesn't want to get involved in personal conflicts. normally one would expect him to say there seems to be a problem, go and solve it. and this has been his way. it is surprising that in the
7:03 am
speech, i thought he would focus on the turn out and the fact that the turnout is a testament to the legitimacy of the regime and the stuff that was made president. he went up supported president ahmadinejad, which he has been supporting, which is something that is rare, if you follow his actions. he has been supporting him. in some way, he has stuck his neck out. it is standing against a big portion of the iranian population, which again, as i said before is extremely rare to do that. i think more than anything, that signals a major risk internally. host: the continued resolution. the attempted resolution of iran's disputed elections is our topic for the better part of the
7:04 am
hour. our guest babak yektafar. our numbers are ... >> if viewers in iran or tehran want to get to us, you can get involved in the conversation as well. did the supreme leader underestimate the popularity of
7:05 am
musabi when he puttim on the ballot to run against ahmadinejad? >> i'm not sure what we are recognizing is the popularity of musavi. about a month before the election he was depicted as a rather uninspiring figure. particularly when the former president hasanmi pull out of the election. i think that the thinking is mr. musabi would have the greatest chance of standing up against ahmadinejad. we're talking about the fractions within the regime, the power elite. you hear the name of a former iranian president who backed -- i think what they underestimated was the way that people would react to how these elections
7:06 am
were presented. i don't think it is necessarily the result that mr. ahmadinejad has. i think the margin is something people could not believe and the speed it was announced and the way it was officially announced and ratified by the chamber that mr. ahmadinejad is the president and congratulated him as though it was all of this that really angered people. you got to remember, they only get a small window of opportunity in this type of regime to voice your concern. they felt extremely cheated and given the frustrations that they have, that is what they underestimated, more than anything else. >> how long do you suppose iotola will listen to the
7:07 am
people's upsetness or displeasure before he decided to seriously get help? jshgsz. >> the regime has to measures. it is unfortunate that -- basige means mobilization of masses. the groups formed to protect hussein from the invasion of iraq. back then they didn't have military equipment. they used the mass of people, using sheer numbers to defend against iraq. they also got involved in a number of causes, having to do
7:08 am
with agriculture and other issues. it is unfortunate that their name is related with thuggery and people with clubs and knives to breakup conflict. it is referenced in revolution regard. that is something i'm worried about once the revolutionary guards are involved. once they might do that is tying the protests to foreign middle link. once that happens, that is the name of national security that allows for the revolution guards to pull out. i hate to think what the outcome of that might be. >> let's go to the phones. host: baltimore, maryland on the line for the democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to see what his thoughts were, if people knew that more people in the west and u.s. and all over the world are
7:09 am
in support of him or do you think the president should have a stronger mess naj favor of the opposition or do they know that we support what they'r doing? guest: anyone that follows, thinks that there is a following for the iranian population. i'm not talking about the supreme leader. that is extremely stressful in the united states. that is one of the biggest impediments right now, vis-a-vis u.s. response. but the people know that. and particularly after the election of mr. obama, i think you could sense that, you could feel that in the dialogue that was going on, the literature and so on and so forth out of iran.
7:10 am
they understand they have a man who understands their plight and wants to stand behind them. of course, on the ground, there may be some difference of opinion as to how strongly president obama should be supporting this movement. in all fairness, mr. obama and the administration, one thing that you talk about with iran is given the history of u.s.-iran relations. he has ap(ñ good sense of what been exhausted. in particular the coup. if this is an issue that can be exploited by the regime, they're looking for something like that, there might be more bloodshed. finally, the ultimate concern of this administration still is regardless of who is in charge, there is still some very serious issues particularly reported in
7:11 am
iran that needs to be discussed. they don't feel they want to put themselves in any kind of position to put themselves in a handcuff when it comes to that. host: frank on our line for independents is calling in from palmdale, california. caller: thanks to c-span. to the iranian people, stay strong, be safe and do it in a nonviolent way. you will win. it is your right to have the kind of government you want. i hope that your guests on here today will get the word out to his brethren that are in the middle east, the american people are not againstia -- against iran. or the iranians. we're only against the brutality done against the people.
7:12 am
thank you. guest: i think the caller has a great point. first and foremost, i think, this nonviolent movement and the emphasis on nonviolence, i think, should rule supreme.. we have seen, unfortunately some casualties. savage beatings, shootings, deaths in the past week. i truly hope that regardless of what the final outcome is that we will not see any more of that. there is one thing i do want to mention here. what has fascinated me about all of this that has taken place, there were debates prior to election. especially those before, debating whether people should vote, whether it matters, given the system within the regime. and my position is essentially that if the state gives all the limitations and the opripressio
7:13 am
gives this window. i do not see why they should be using it. in fact, the reason they're allowed to protest without a major breakdown. there have been semi breakdown of the forces to breakup the protests and all that. the reason it has been tolerated is because of the fact that these people went to vote and now they're basically voting where -- they're basically claiming where is my vote. the fact that they did go out and vote has allowed them to sustain this week-long protest. if it was without no confrontation in the election, i doubt they would have tolerated one or two days of protests. host: we have this tweet, why should a reelection be given?
7:14 am
ahmadinejad won we a landslide. >> a guess a lot of people question whether or not he did win with the margin we saw. there are questions with the challenges that we are having. mahmoud ahmadinejad he was lead in some posts. depending on the posts, there were some saying the main challenger in some of the major cities was seen as someone who was really surging up in some cases, even overtaking mr. ahmadinejad. there were charges that the ballots, the number of polling stations they ran out. and charges that communication between representatives of the challengers who were observing the voting areas was cut off there was a portion of teleservice that day.
7:15 am
there are legitimate concerns and questions. host: next up ohio, malcolm on the line for democrats. caller: one, it is fascinating the watch the hypocrisy of the american media on what is going on to iran compared to george bush's stealing the election and then the war in iraq. and then to c-span, since the u.s. media has decided to constantly bombard us with the middle east as the only foreign policy in the world that is important. it is good to see your guest. tell c-span to give us both sides of the stories. i don't want to hear someone talk about hamas. bring the members on to speak for themselveses. we're not children. give us an opportunity to hear the palestinian, jordanian side,
7:16 am
syrian, et cetera. so we can have the opportunity to judge for ourselves, our tax dollars. our children are put in the conflict in the middle east. you should focus on africa and cuba. give us other perspectives to see other opportunities. host: we will take your request into consideration. guest: i can understand your caller's concern in regards to why i'm here today has to do with the fact that there is somewhat of a crisis in a given part of the world. i think the one point that i would make, maybe not directly related to the caller's concern, there is a great deal of thought about change in iran and whether how far the change is going to go. i doubt that there are that many people that expect, as i have seen or suggested that there is a good time that the regime is
7:17 am
vulnerable and may be a good time to change the regime and all. i want to caution to the degree that the regime is going to take place. after all, we're talking about a country of immense political importance. the country that is sitting between iraq and afghanistan for still unstable countries. i doubt that anyone would want to envision an unstable iran as well in the middle of that. i hope one thing we will take out of it is a very widely civic society that is engaged in iran. my hope is that, regardless of the outcome and i hope it is not a violent outcome in any shape or form, that we would not witness another mass exodus of
7:18 am
iran's youth, their best and brightest and brain drain we have experienced in the past couple of decades. i hope that this leads into structuring of the political system and maybe the powers elite have gotten the message and would allow some room for this to grow. after all, we have another series of elections coming up, for the parliament and then four years later for presidency. again, i say that given the fact that all of this, part of the issue, there are major internal dynamics within the power that is going on that is flaming the current conflict. >> briefly tell our viewers about your background so they have a better understanding. >> i'm originally born in tehran, iran. i moved to the united states in 1977. i had the good fortune of working in this organization for a while, which was a great learning experience, particularly about the united states and its government and how it works.
7:19 am
but right now, i am in a project with ngo. i think tank, with an institute out of washington, d.c. i'm the editor in chief of their online journal in persian, farsi. a weekly journal we put out about the u.s., on the matter of politics, society and the such. host: back to the phones. cincinnati, ohio. d on the line for the democrats. caller: how are you? host: go ahead. caller: there is a lot of talk in the house and senate about what the united states should say vis-a-vis the elections in iran. these point out to me that there isn't much we really need to say. we said all we need to say in last year's election. and when barack obama was
7:20 am
campaigning for president and he talked about the power of one to make a difference in this country. i don't think he was just talking about the american people, i think he was talking to the people around the world to be free. this point sounds so ridiculous for the united states to go into a country and try to force democracy down the throats of people at the end of a gun. democratic has to be legitimate and sustained. i want to know how your guest feels about this and whether or not the young people in iran are taking a cue of what happened last year to the use of their media and the internet? host: before you go, i want to get your response to the vote yesterday in the house. they voted 405-1 to crackdown on the demonstrators and the
7:21 am
internet and cell phone communication. what do you think? will it have an effect in the situation? iran? caller: i think it will be negative effect. i think the vote was superfluous. the last thing the united states congress needs to do is poke their nose -- let the movement in iran take its course. let's these people have their moment. let them create the democracy in their own country. i don't think this is just about ahmadinejad. i don't think these young people want the yoke of some supreme leader telling them how to live and vote. i think they want to be free. guest: i couldn't agree with you more. i have maintained that if change -- if there is a need for change in iran, given the history of iran, i mean, we have
7:22 am
had past experiences of -- we just marked the century of the 1963 uprising, the revolution 30 years ago. if there needs to be a change in iran, it has to be from within. it has to be the iranian people on a daily basis have to live the life that they're living, calling for it. i know it is extremely difficult to do that in an oppressive regime where they go out and unfortunately at times, do the kind of things they do to put down these kind of concerns and questions, even if it is in a peaceful manner, which generally it has been in the past week. be that as it may. for it to have a longstanding impact, i think it really has to be done internally. on the other hand -- again, having been here, understanding
7:23 am
the way the politics of this country and particularly the hell, i can see why there would be these movements to try to come out in support of a certain group, for a number of different reasons. you know, i think we are all aware of how congress works. there are a number of different reasons that they come up with certain statements such as this one. i am glad, however, that at least it is only to the extent that they're condemning violence against people and not calling for anything beyond that such as regime change or anything hike that. i do agree with the caller, that this is enough for the powers to say that here we go again with the united states meddling in our business. this is not just some peaceful protest, this is a revolution
7:24 am
happening. host: representative mikepence in indiana has this quote. he did not say this wall is none of our business, he said president's regan's famous exhortation to the soviet leader to tear down that wall. is it time for president obama to step up and say something parallel to that? guest: i have heard that and i heard some other political comparisons to the uprising in poland, which was rolling the ball toward communism and such. i think one thing that mr. panse and others like him need to bring into this discussion is, you know, the climate of the time. you know, when we talk about the gidans uprising the ship yard
7:25 am
unions in 1982, we should go back and remember the spring of the '60's and the uprising in budapest, hungary, 1960's. the united states stood up and supported those protesting. the outcome was the soviet union tax rolling into town. what allowed for the movement to flourish and become this big gigantic movement that led to the fall of communism was the climate of the moment. the other important thing, also is yes, mr. reagan did say that. he did call for ending the evil empires. but at the same time, we were engaged with the soviet union, we have been engaged with them since the second world war. that allowed us to say those things and sit at a time with them at the same time and discuss other issues as two superpowers would do.
7:26 am
he saw a moment, mr. reagan. and moscow was having a difficult time coming up with leaders. they had leaders dying over in a couple of weeks before mr. gorbachev came in. we have to remember we have to have the proper climate and the right attitude and take that and not just use the historical comparisons. >> maryland, thank you for waiting. caller: since we're hearing this through interpretation, i'm referring to the ia tolla. i like to ask here if -- is the
7:27 am
language correct? i know some parts said death to the u.s. what were the other cheers? also, could you please clarify what he meant when he referred to hillary clinton. i heard it twice and i still don't understand it? am i missing something, please? host: go ahead. guest: i'm not sure about the hillary clinton comment. is
7:28 am
>> regarding the supreme leader, it seemed like he was backing down when he said the charges needed to be looked at. he came back strong on friday, after confrontation on the scene, those in the revolutionary guard. he figured this is a time to step up and warn these protesters. for the most part, translations were correct and proper. again, you have to understand, i believe the case with almost any other language as it is being translated, some words, some phrases that have some specific nuances which only the indigenous people might understand and would not really reflect the same thing when you are translating. a great deal was said when ahmadinejad was talking about wiping off the map and talking about israel. a big debate about that. the words were not what came out
7:29 am
in the western media, be that as it made. as far as commenting, "death to u.s.a." the usual chant is "death to israel" or "down with great britain" as well. essentially, these are groups that are put together. some come voluntarily. some do believe in the system, some do believe in the existence of the supreme leader, but there are also a lot of people because of their governmental jobs and recreations are encouraged to attend such rallies. host: our next call comes from doug in virginia on the line for republicans. are you there, doug? caller: good morning. mr. connection connection, it is hard


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on