This morning's Star Tribune has a front page article titled "Both sides claim victory in Iran". The article is not available on the Star Tribune web site because it is a Washington Post story. In the Post it was titled "Iran Election in Dispute as 2 Candidates Claim Victory", Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post Foreign Service, Tehran, 2009-06-13.
The Post headline is more accurate as there are definitely more than two sides in the Iran election conflict. The Star Tribune headline ignores that there were four candidates on the ballot and that many more candidates were rejected by Iran's Council of Guardians.
Although the Interior Ministry is under the President, do we really know that the President was responsible for how the vote was counted or miscounted? What if a faction of the Council of Guardians, the Assembly of Experts, or the Supreme Leader wanted Ahmadinejad to win, not so much that they agreed with him, but wanted to control him? Discounting the candidates who got few votes or those who rejected, the possibility that unelected powers have an interest gives us at least three sides.
If this third side was responsible for giving the vote to Ahmadinejad, would he not be somehow beholden to them? If so, would they reign in some of the behavior that embarrasses Iran's interest and get him to work more in the direction they want?
If my conjecture is right, the power brokers should be careful playing with tame bears. Sometimes they attack their handlers.
