Don't look away from Palestine

Asa Winstanley

A demonstrator displays a placard reading: "Palestinian Lives Matter" during a pro-Palestinian protest in Berlin on 19 May 2021 [JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/ Getty Images]

If there was only one tiny sliver of hope that emerged after the horrors that Israel inflicted on the Palestinians last month, it was a new sense of unity among the people of Palestine themselves. And the global solidarity movement for Palestinian rights received a major boost too. On our streets, on our social media feeds and – yes – even in the corporate media, the visibility of the Palestinian struggle was higher than ever.

Today, though, things have died down. In a way this was inevitable. Movements come and movements go. They ebb and flow. Awareness grows slowly over months, years, decades and even (in the case of long term struggles for freedom like the one in Palestine) centuries.

The Black Lives Matter movement, for example, began in 2014, with the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, a young African-American whose life was snuffed out by a white police officer in Ferguson. This movement also developed in waves, with activists drawing attention to more and more cases of injustice against Black people, usually young Black men who were victims of police racism and brutality.

The latest major wave of the BLM movement crested last year, with the infamous murder of George Floyd. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was sentenced this month to 22.5 years in prison for the murder. Chauvin used excessive force to arrest and detain Floyd for an alleged petty crime. A police officer at the time, Chauvin infamously knelt on Floyd's neck for almost nine minutes. The whole murder was caught on camera by witnesses at the scene.

It is a sad fact of history is that it is often not until such shockingly violent injustices are exposed to the public and in plain sight for all to see, that there is a reaction powerful enough to make actual change.

This is also the case in Palestine. It is unusual to see the corporate media paying attention until Palestinians begin firing back, or otherwise responding to Israeli violence.

The expulsions by Israel of Palestinians from East Jerusalem neighbourhoods such as Sheikh Jarrah that have been highlighted by activists over the past few months are really nothing new. Indeed, as many activists have pointed out, all of Palestine is Sheikh Jarrah in one way or another.

It was events in Jerusalem which began the latest Israeli military offensive against the civilian population of Gaza, the 11-day killing spree which Israel unleashed in May. For once, that much seemed clear to all.

Increased tension over the expulsions fed into more violent Israeli extremism. Kahanist settlers began roaming the streets of Jerusalem chanting "Death to the Arabs" and looking for Palestinians to beat up. Israeli forces increasingly began to target worshippers in Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, a violation of all norms of freedom of worship and basic morality, not to mention religious sanctity.

That was the straw that broke the camel's back. The armed Palestinian factions in Gaza, led by Hamas, made the decision to respond to Israel's aggression in Jerusalem. Their increasingly long-range missile technology made this possible. For the first time, Palestinian resistance rockets were able to strike everywhere across occupied historic Palestine.

The 11-day war that followed resulted in victory for the Palestinian resistance. The "Death to the Arabs" annual Jerusalem march was delayed and finally halted. It eventually went ahead earlier in June, but was curtailed, and marchers were prohibited from entering the Old City.

More than 250 Palestinians were killed in Gaza, including 67 children, but the Palestinians still regarded the outcome of the war as a victory. And with good reason. The objective victory conditions for an indigenous guerrilla resistance force are not the same as those for an invading, alien, military entity.

The resistance was able to inflict a serious cost on the coloniser, and impose a deterrence factor. The expulsions in Jerusalem were delayed by the colonisers' courts. Israeli troops were unable to enter Gaza, as their commanders knew that many would be coming back in body bags, if at all. Ultra-right Israeli politicians like Itamar Ben Gvir complained that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was making the decision over who could parade through Jerusalem, after his "Death to the Arabs" march was curtailed for fear of repercussions from Gaza.

But now, with the world media's turning away from Palestine once again, the threat of expulsion looms once more for many Palestinian families. As I write, Israel has started to demolish Palestinian homes and shops in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Silwan. The long delayed court decision on Sheikh Jarrah is expected soon.

Palestinians expect no justice from the occupier's racist courts. It is down to us to raise Palestine's visibility again and impose costs on Israel for its crimes, forcing it to change course.

For us in the West, that means campaigns, demonstrations and Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) activism. Now more than ever the message is simple and very important: don't look away from Palestine.

Complicity and accountability in Banat's killing

Ramona Wadi

A girl stands behind posters depicting late Palestinian human rights activist Nizar Banat during a demonstration in remembrance of him in Gaza City on June 29, 2021 [MOHAMMED ABED/AFP via Getty Images]

In the international community's narrative of illusory state-building in Palestine, the Palestinian Authority's security services are dissociated from violence. Whether such violence is meted out according to PA Leader Mahmoud Abbas's directives, or in terms of security coordination with Israel, the EU and the US prefer to retain a distant approach and one that is deeply rooted in the dynamics of the two-state paradigm. Never mind that the EU and the US are directly funding and training the PA's security services to turn against Palestinian civilians.

The killing of Nizar Banat at the hands of the PA's security services last week ignited protests across the occupied West Bank. Simmering beneath the immediate protests is the Palestinian people's awareness of security coordination with Israel, treacherous collaboration with Israel's colonial violence that has targeted Palestinians with dissenting voices or involved in resistance activities. At a time when Abbas is descending into a chaos of his own making, notably his refusal to hold democratic elections, Palestinians are protesting against the intricate web of violence which has so far sustained his "authority".

Why did the PA kill Nizar Banat? – Cartoon [Sabaaneh/MiddleEastMonitor]

US State Department Spokesman Ned Price's statement is indicative of how Washington absolves itself of any role in creating the PA's security services and their violence. "We have serious concerns about Palestinian Authority restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression by Palestinians and harassment of civil society activists and organisations," said Price. Anyone else for dodgeball?

However, the US exhibits no concern whatsoever that it trains the PA's security services to commit acts which lead to the murder of Palestinian civilians. Once again, Palestinian lives are expendable in view of the international commitment, to which the US is bound by consensus, to keeping the Palestinian people tethered to the two-state compromise, and protecting the occupation, apartheid state.

The EU's statement recognised the PA's "increasingly persistence practice" of targeting its opponents, yet it hesitated to describe Banat's death as politically motivated. "Apparently" allows the PA to remain on the EU's agenda, for no other reason than the two-state compromise and the humanitarian agenda forced upon the Palestinian people. In this context, how can the EU's calls for there to be accountability for Banat's killing have any meaning?

If scrutiny is projected onto the donors, namely the EU and the US, an additional process of accountability must be taken into consideration; one that calls into question the Oslo Accords, the two-state compromise, and the international oppression which forced Palestinians to bend under PA rule.

In November 2020, Banat was arrested for a video denouncing the PA's resumption of security coordination with Israel, a betrayal by the PA at the news that Joe Biden had won the US presidential election. Security coordination, therefore, is the main issue. Banat's dissent threatened what remains of the PA's repressive power. Without security coordination, the PA risks political dissolution and accountability. These are two truths that it tries to stave off, even as Palestinians are clearly more emboldened in their protests and less willing to fit within the parameters imposed by the international community in its quest to legitimise Abbas, despite the clear illegitimacy of his political position and absence of a mandate to govern.

Mountain House in British Columbia, Canada

Designed by Milad Eshtiyaghi

The Iranian Architect & Interior designer Milad Eshtiyaghi has recenty designed "Mountain House'' a family cliff house that located in Quadra Island, British Columbia, Canada. 

Architect's Statement: The idea of ​​the design start from the base that was already there on the site of the 4 old trees, and we wanted to building our project without cut or move the trees so we built our project around the trees and in the space of between we made a backyard in front of the trees. 

We divided the project into three levels according to the client need:

One level for family parents. One level for son's of the family and his wife. We connect these two level by the level above which is the recreational sports space. 

Project canopies can be mechanically opened and closed depending on sun move or depending on person. The windows of the valley side can be opened and closed so that windows become a terrace and terrace becomes a windows and the structure of this system is a cable structure.

The modeling of this project is done in 3-D MAX 2019 software and after completing material and exposure modeling in V-RAY 4.1 and check out rendering steps with Adobe Photoshop post production operation has been applied to get perfect result and real render. 

Architect: Milad Eshtiyaghi

Location: Quadra Island, British Columbia, Canada

A roundup: America continues to lurch from bad to worse…

 By Martin Love

America has become a malignant power without consequence given the ignorance and malfeasance of those in political power. 

One would think that eventually the self-serving political “elite” in Washington would get their just desserts for deeds that go against rationality, morality, and common sense, and which now undermines the viability of the U.S. as a respected influence. Many people across the globe simply wait impatiently for the expected consequences of further U.S. decline, which have by some miracle been mostly held at bay for decades, especially in this century.

Joe Biden so far has offered no positive relief. Already, twice in his short term he has unleashed the military on illegal bombing runs in the Middle East (West Asia) – most recently an attack on Iraqi militias’ stores and personnel along the Syria-Iraq border region, the very militias which aim to obviate the resurrection of ISIS in Arab heartlands. These militias, who paraded in Baghdad this month, are claimed to be proxies for Iran, which they are not except that Iraq and Iran are allies for the most part. The U.S. claims it wants to destroy the likelihood of any future random attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq, but obviously the best way to do that is simply to withdraw the U.S. military from the region. This is just one of many moves that make no sense. The other biggest offense remains the U.S. posture of support towards Apartheid Israel.

Netanyahu, who was not popular with former President Obama, is not popular with Biden, who refused to call him for over three months after he became President last winter. Now, there’s Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett, and who knows how long they can survive with such a motley coalition government? Lapid anyway is trying to mend relations with Biden and the Democrats, many of whom have already begun to challenge Israeli Apartheid and change the narrative about Israel as being some kind of enlightened democratic polity in the Mideast (West Asia). Many liberal American Jews agree with the shift in the narrative, which is superb. Prominent Jewish commentators and writers like Peter Beinart have become outspoken in their hostility to Zionism and Apartheid.

Bennett as PM may not yet have done anything particularly dramatic, but he has continued to bomb Gaza (after the 11-day “war” with Hamas) occasionally and seems to have done nothing to call off the “settler” dogs who are ramping up ethnic cleansing in vital Palestinian neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in the West Bank, while the IDF protects this rabble of thugs, many of whom happen to be Americans.

Meanwhile, Nizar Banat, who has opposed the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas for deep corruption and even complicity with the Zionists, was beaten to death by Fatah thugs leaving the Palestinians more divided than ever in the West Bank. Abbas has accomplished nothing for decades but make himself and his cronies relatively rich. He is nothing but a quisling. (This writer, living in the West Bank for several months in 2006, got a good look at PA “police” who are doing nothing for the Palestinian cause of liberation from occupation.)

But the most glaring example of Biden’s retrograde action is his June attack on press freedoms and access to over 30 news outlets, like Iran’s Press TV, in the Middle East that happen to be a part of the so-called “resistance axis” that has long been challenging U.S. imperialism, colonialism, occupations and murder. The U.S. clearly does not have an honest “free press” in the mainstream media with some modest reportage exceptions, and does not want Americans to have access to alternative points of view from other media outlets which in any case can’t be entirely obliterated. Biden also ought to set free Julian Assange from charges that this month have been exposed as false and were in fact discounted by at least one primary perp who has changed his story. But Biden has no mind of his own, apparently, and his administration fears the truth.

It is also deeply ironic that Florida governor Ron DeSantis, an aggressive longtime Trump supporter who has been aiming to become president, has just announced that Israel is sending a team to Miami to assist with the clearance of the collapsed Miami apartment building and the recovery of some 150 more bodies rotting somewhere in the rubble. Unreal! The very country that has wiped out homes and big apartment building in Gaza once again this spring and continues threats to “flatten” Gaza! DeSantis is actually more dangerous than Trump, because he is maybe wilier than Trump who is fading fast and likely to be indicted soon for various crimes, including the crime of ever becoming “President”.

Meanwhile, Iran warns it is not forever going to negotiate the resurrection of the JCPOA, which makes sense. This revival has been stalled for too long, probably because the U.S. wants to add additional restrictions on Iran’s capacity to defend itself and Iran has correctly refused. It’s a wonder Iran has not already withdrawn from the JCPOA under the elected President Raisi who has been called a “hardliner”. The U.S. must own up to its foolishness. It was precisely because of its withdrawal from the accord in 2018 that “reformists” were largely demoted and excluded as candidates for the Iranian presidency. Did the U.S. fail to realize that after Trump canned the U.S. participation in the nuclear accord Iran would circle the wagons? How moronic is this oversight by Washington? Very. Thoughtful minds wonder why Iran can’t successfully carry on building its alliances with over half the world’s peoples in Asia and not literally be bothered by U.S. sanctions.

So, in sum for now, there is regression from assured peace in West Asia even as Iran has reached out to neighboring Arab countries to establish better relations.

TAGS

• America
 
• lurch
 
• from bad to worse
 
• resurrection of ISIS
 
• Netanyahu
 
• Yair Lapid
 
• Naftali Bennett
 
• Peter Beinart
 
• Zionism and Apartheid
 
• “settler” dogs
 
• Press TV
 
• JCPOA

US Again Bombs Nations On Other Side Of The World In “Self-Defense”

By Caitlin Johnstone

"Information Clearing House" -  The US is again illegally bombing nations on the other side of the planet which it has invaded and occupied and branded this murderous aggression as “defensive”.

“At President Biden’s direction, U.S. military forces earlier this evening conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region,” reads a statement by Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby. “The targets were selected because these facilities are utilized by Iran-backed militias that are engaged in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against U.S. personnel and facilities in Iraq. Specifically, the U.S. strikes targeted operational and weapons storage facilities at two locations in Syria and one location in Iraq, both of which lie close to the border between those countries.”

Even more absurd than the fact that we’re all still pretending this clearly dementia-addled president is “directing” anything is the claim that these actions were “defensive” in nature. It is not possible for occupying invaders to be acting defensively in the nations they are occupying an invading; US troops are only in Iraq by way of an illegal 2003 invasion, a bogus 2014 re-entry, and a refusal to leave at the Iraqi government’s request last year, and they are in Syria illegally and without the permission of the Syrian government. They can therefore only ever be aggressors; they cannot be acting defensively.

It’s like if you broke into your neighbor’s house to rob him, killed him when he tried to stop you, and then claimed self-defense because you consider his home your property. Only in the American exceptionalist alternate universe is this considered normal and acceptable.

The only actual defensive action that the US could legitimately take to protect troops in Iraq and Syria would be to remove US troops from Iraq and Syria.

As former US representative Justin Amash pointed out following the bombing, there is no actual legal authorization for US troops to be in Iraq or Syria in the first place. As journalist Glenn Greenwald highlighted, there is also no legal basis for bombings on the military personnel in those nations either, no matter how “Iranian-backed” they are.

“I know it’s boring to note this but Biden has no legal authorization to bomb ‘Iranian-backed’ targets in Syria and Iraq, making it illegal,” Greenwald tweeted, adding, “But Obama bombed Libya after the House voted against doing so, and few of the Sacred Rule Of Law mavens cared.”

The legal justification the Biden administration is using for this airstrike is the same bogus one it used for its airstrikes in Syria this past February: not counter-terrorism, but an extremely weird and broad interpretation of Article II of the US Constitution.

“As a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense,” Kirby writes in the aforementioned statement. “The strikes were both necessary to address the threat and appropriately limited in scope. As a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq.”

This claim the Executive Branch has been leaning on lately, that Article II permits unilateral acts of war on the other side of the planet without congressional approval, has come under criticism from legal scholars across the US political spectrum. As Tess Bridgeman wrote for Just Security following Biden’s February airstrikes:

“With former President Donald Trump’s term in office over, it’s time to evaluate his war powers legacy and where it leaves the Biden administration as it begins to grapple with how and when to use force abroad in the absence of congressional authorization. The picture that emerges from Trump’s war powers reporting to Congress is one of an extraordinarily broad vision of the president’s authority to use force abroad without congressional authorization, and of a willingness to exploit loopholes in reporting requirements in a way that obscures information on the use of force from the public.”

A willingness to exploit loopholes is right. But as long as acts of mass military violence serve as the glue which holds a globe-spanning empire together, death finds a way.

Caitlin's articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking her on Facebook, following her antics on Twitter, checking out her podcast, throwing some money into her hat on Patreon or Paypal, or buying her book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Biden's Lawless Bombing of Iraq and Syria Only Serves the Weapons Industry Funding Both Parties

U.S. citizens derive no benefit, but instead suffer great loss, from endless war in the Middle East. But their interests are irrelevant to decisions of bipartisan Washington.

Glenn Greenwald

For the second time in the five months since he was inaugurated, President Joe Biden on Sunday ordered a U.S. bombing raid on Syria, and for the first time, he also bombed Iraq. The rationale offered was the same as Biden's first air attack in February: the U.S., in the words of Pentagon spokesman John Kirby, “conducted defensive precision airstrikes against facilities used by Iran-backed militia groups in the Iraq-Syria border region.” He added that “the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense.”

Embedded in this formulaic Pentagon statement is so much propaganda and so many euphemisms that, by itself, it reveals the fraudulent nature of what was done. To begin with, how can U.S. airstrikes carried out in Iraq and Syria be "defensive” in nature? How can they be an act of “self-defense"? Nobody suggests that the targets of the bombing campaign have the intent or the capability to strike the U.S. "homeland” itself. Neither Syria nor Iraq is a U.S. colony or American property, nor does the U.S. have any legal right to be fighting wars in either country, rendering the claim that its airstrikes were "defensive” and an “act of self-defense” to be inherently deceitful.

The Pentagon's description of the people bombed by the U.S. — “Iran-backed militias groups” — is intended to obscure the reality. Biden did not bomb Iran or order Iranians to be bombed or killed. The targets of U.S. aggression were Iraqis in their own country, and Syrians in their own country. Only the U.S. war machine and its subservient media could possibly take seriously the Biden administration's claim that the bombs they dropped on people in their own countries were "defensive” in nature. Invocation of Iran has no purpose other than to stimulate the emotional opposition to the government of that country among many Americans in the hope that visceral dislike of Iranian leaders will override the rational faculties that would immediately recognize the deceit and illegality embedded in the Pentagon's arguments.

Beyond the propagandistic justification is the question of legality, though even to call it a question dignifies it beyond what it merits. There is no conceivable Congressional authorization — none, zero — to Biden's dropping of bombs in Syria. Obama's deployment of CIA operatives to Syria and years of the use of force to overthrow Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad never had any Congressional approval of any kind, nor did Trump's bombing of Assad's forces (urged by Hillary Clinton, who wanted more), nor does Biden's bombing campaign in Syria now. It was and is purely lawless, illegal. And the same is true of bombing Iraq. The 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) in Iraq, which the House just last week voted to repeal, has long since ceased to provide any legal justification for ongoing U.S. troop presence and bombing campaigns in that country.

In its statement justifying the bombing raids, Biden's Pentagon barely even bothered to pretend any of this is legal. It did not cite either the 2002 AUMF for Iraq or the 2001 AUMF authorizing the use of force against those responsible for 9/11 (a category which, manifestly, did not include Iran, Iraq or Syria). Instead, harkening back to the days of John Yoo and Dick Cheney, the Biden Defense Department claimed that “as a matter of international law, the United States acted pursuant to its right of self-defense,” and casually asserted that “as a matter of domestic law, the President took this action pursuant to his Article II authority to protect U.S. personnel in Iraq."

Those claims are nothing short of a joke. Nobody seriously believes that Joe Biden has congressional authority to bomb Syria and Iraq, nor to bomb “Iranian-backed” forces of any kind. As The Daily Beast's long-time War on Terror reporter Spencer Ackerman put it on Sunday night, discussions of legality at this point are "parody” because when it comes to the U.S.'s Endless Wars in the name of the War on Terror, “we passed Lawful behind many many years ago. Authorization citations are just pretexts written by lawyers who need to pantomime at lawfulness. The U.S. presence in Syria is blatantly illegal. Such things never stop the U.S.”

That is exactly right. The U.S. government is a lawless entity. It violates the law, including its own Constitution, whenever it wants. The requirement that no wars be fought absent congressional authority is not some ancillary bureaucratic annoyance but was completely central to the design of the country. Article I, Section 8 could not be clearer: “The Congress shall have Power . . . to declare war.” Two months after I began writing about politics — back in December, 2005 — I wrote a long article compiling the arguments in the Federalist Papers which insisted that permitting the president unchecked powers to wage war without the approval of the public — through their representatives in Congress — was uniquely dangerous for ushering in the kind of tyranny from which they had just liberated themselves, and another article in 2007 which did the same:

The Constitution -- while making the President the top General in directing how citizen-approved wars are fought -- ties the use of military force to the approval of the American citizenry in multiple ways, not only by prohibiting wars in the absence of a Congressional declaration (though it does impose that much-ignored requirement), but also by requiring Congressional approval every two years merely to have an army. In Federalist 26, this is what Alexander Hamilton said in explaining the rationale behind the latter requirement (emphasis in original):

The legislature of the United States will be obliged by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence.

Public opposition is the key check on the ill-advised use of military force. In Federalist 24, Hamilton explained that the requirement of constant democratic deliberation over the American military is "a great and real security against military establishments without evident necessity". . . .

Finding a way to impose checks on the President's war-making abilities was a key objective of the Founders. In Federalist 4, John Jay identified as a principal threat to the Republic the fact that insufficiently restrained leaders "will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as a thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people."

But as Ackerman says, even discussing legality at this point is meaningless, an empty gesture, a joke. It gives far too much credit to the U.S. ruling class, as it implies that they care at all about whether their posture of endless war is legal. They know that it is illegal and do not care at all. Many have forgotten that President Obama not only involved the U.S. in a devastating regime-change war in Libya without congressional approval, but so much worse, continued to do so even after the House of Representatives voted against providing him authorization to use force in Libya. Obama ignored the House vote and kept troops in Libya anyways as part of a NATO mission, claiming that NATO and U.N. authorization somehow entitled him to do this despite his own country's Congress voting against it, reflecting overwhelming opposition among the citizenry. (The U.N. authorization — even if it could somehow supplant the U.S. Constitution — only allowed the use of force to protect civilians, not to overthrow the Libyan government, which quickly and predictably became the NATO mission, making it clearly illegal).

Post-election: Iran vs. U.S.

 Iran, U.S. presidential elections compared

TEHRAN – In a remarkable sign of unity and harmony, all former election rivals met with the Iranian president-elect to express readiness to cooperate with the new government in advancing the interests of the country, a move that stood in stark contrast to what happened in the United States during its November election.

Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi set a new example for how a winner in the presidential election should treat his former election rivals in Iran. In a rare move in the usually poisonous Iranian politics, Ayatollah Raisi met with his former rivals in the June 18 presidential election, which gave him a landslide victory with more than 18 million votes despite the coronavirus pandemic, which reduced voter turnout by 10% globally according to some studies. 

“We had a very good meeting with the presidential candidates, and we hope that such empathetic attitudes will lead to resolving the problems and undoing the knots in people’s lives,” the Iranian president-elect said, after the Wednesday meeting, which was held at Raisi’s office. All former presidential candidates - Amir-Hossein Ghazizadeh-Hashemi, Mohsen Mehr-Alizadeh, Alireza Zakani, Naser Hemmati, Saeed Jalili, and Mohsen Rezaei – attended the meeting. 

Iran’s presidential race was held on June 18 and led to the victory of Raisi. Shortly before the start of the voting, Zakani and Ghazizadeh-Hashemi withdrew from the race in favor of Raisi while Mehr-Alizadeh announced his withdrawal in tacit support for Hemmati, who represented the reformist and moderate political groups at the ballot box. Following the victory of Raisi, his rivals rushed to congratulate him on his success without casting any doubt on the election’s integrity, a move that was appreciated by Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a recent public appearance.  

Raisi himself appreciated the political behavior of his rivals, extending invitations to them for a joint meeting, which took place on Wednesday. During the meeting, the former presidential candidates discussed the situation in the country and ways to solve the existing problems with the president-elect. They once again congratulated Ayatollah Raisi on his election win. 

At the end of the meeting, the president-elect described his two-hour meeting with the candidates of the 13th presidential election as a very good meeting and said, “[our] friends in this meeting expressed their views and opinions and priorities that they think the next government should pursue this month.”

He added, “At this meeting, various solutions that exist to solve the country's problems, some of which were also discussed in the election debates, were discussed. Of course, all the friends are concerned about the country, the revolution, solving problems and untying the knots in people's lives, which is very important.”

Expressing hope for the continuation of such meetings, the president-elect emphasized, “The election campaign is over and now is the period of friendship, empathy, and cooperation to solve the problems of the people, which is a public concern.”

In addition to the former candidates, current officials also cooperated full force with the president-elect and his transition team, which is now busy making arrangements to pave the way for the next administration. Outgoing President Hassan Rouhani was quick to meet Ayatollah Raisi after the election. He went to the president-elect’s office at the Judiciary to offer congratulations and a desire to bring about a smooth transition. Raisi reciprocated the president’s cooperative stance by paying a brief visit to the presidential palace to transition. 

Rouhani also instructed his officials to dully cooperate with Raisi’s transition team. To this end, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araqchi, who is leading the Iranian negotiating team in the Vienna talks, was instructed by Rouhani to brief President-elect Raisi on the latest developments of the Vienna talks aimed at reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Mahmoud Vaezi, the Iranian president’s chief of staff, said the JCPOA is an important issue, and that’s why Rouhani instructed his diplomats to brief the incoming government.

Vaezi said, “As regards the JCPOA, which is an important issue, the president ordered Araqchi, along with the foreign minister, to meet with Mr. Raisi as soon as he arrives in Tehran, and to announce the progress and restrictions. The meeting lasted an hour and a half and everything was announced.”

Vaezi also said that the president had instructed all cabinet members to consult with Raisi’s transition team to make decisions that will affect the next government.

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also underlined the need to cooperate with Raisi, saying all should work with the president-elect. Speaking at the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Zarif noted that Raisi is now the president-elect, and everyone should support and work with him. The Iranian foreign minister also praised Raisi and described him as a rational president who will run the country well.

The smooth process has earned praise from Ayatollah Khamenei, who compared the successful Iranian election with that of the U.S., which was marred by allegations of voter fraud, a bitter war of words, and even scattered violent protests. 

In a meeting with Judiciary officials on June 28, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution called the “epic” presence of the Iranian people in the presidential elections “a strong blow to the enemies.”

In referring to the presidential election, he described it as being epic in the true sense of the word.

Noting that the efforts of the enemies to deny the greatness of the elections were futile, he stated, “The analysts who worked on this election understand what happened. Where in the world is it common for all opposing propaganda machines – the active, influential ones – to do their utmost to intimidate people in order to discourage them from participating in the elections? American and English media, as well as the media of some reactionary, dishonorable countries, focused all their efforts on our elections. Their own agents along with some treacherous Iranian individuals who are living under the American flag or the English flag and who are fed by them, began their work many months ago over the radio, television, satellite channels and on the internet. There were not just one and two of them. There were hundreds and even thousands of them that tried to push the people away from the elections.”

While stating that that the Guardian Council acted in accordance with religion and the law, Ayatollah Khamenei referred to attempts made by the opposing media to cause the people to be disappointed in the ballot box, “Well, despite such efforts, the people come and participate like this. Despite Corona— experts now estimate that at least 10% of those who did not participate refrained from voting because of Corona—people still participated, lined up early in the morning and voted. This was a serious blow by the people to the enemies and to those trying to create a boycott of the elections.”

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution described the U.S. election as “election fiascos” and said, “Those same scoundrels are criticizing our elections. An American official commented on the Iranian elections. Despite their own fiasco, which is still before them, they have found their tongues after several months and speak against our elections. But with their situation and the fiasco they created, they shouldn’t say even a single word about our elections.”

At the end of his statements, Ayatollah Khamenei pointed to the behavior of officials after the elections, describing it as a sign of calm and tranquility within the country. “The fact that the candidates who did not win congratulated the one who did win is a good sign. This is another divine blessing. Compare this with the Americans’ behavior after the elections when one of their candidates behaved very inappropriately toward the one who had won. You remember his statements and viewpoints. Look at their situation just a few months ago,” the Leader said, according to the Khamenei. Ir.

Ayatollah Khamenei was referring to the drama that erupted in the wake of the U.S. November presidential election, in which then-President Donald Trump warned of rigging the election months before it took place. And after the result was announced, Trump refused to concede defeat, casting doubts on the U.S. election integrity. Trump claimed Democrats “stole” the election by exploiting the vote-by-mail system, which allowed American people to avoid in-person due to coronavirus fears. 

Trump’s “mobs” staged protests across the country to “retake” their country from “the Do-nothing Democrats.” The protests spiraled out of control in some cases, which prompted U.S. army deployments to many cities and towns, including Washington DC, to protect state buildings and facilities, a move that invoked scenes of civil war. 

The pro-Trump protesters topped it off by storming Congress, creating a rare political crisis as Trump refused to openly condemn his supporters. Trump also refused to participate in the inauguration ceremony of his successor, gloomily leaving the White House. 

Many Trump supporters still believe that their favorite president was kicked out of the White House due to a rigged election in which even dead people did vote. CNN reporter Donie O'Sullivan spoke with several supporters of Trump ahead of his first post-presidential rally on Saturday, many of whom told him they fully expect the real estate mogul to be reinstated before the end of the summer and warned of potential political violence in America if he is not, according to the Hill. 

 “He didn't lose, I know he didn't lose,” one woman told O'Sullivan.

TAGS

• Iran
 
• Iran election
 
• U.S. election 
 
• Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei
 
• Ayatollah Ebrahim Raisi
 
• Hassan Rouhani