[Herra Tohtori]

A group of clerics in Iran has called Iran's presidential vote invalid, contradicting official results.

The pro-reform group's statement pits it against the top legislative body, which last week formally endorsed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

(...)

The pro-reform clerics group said in a statement that the top legislative body, the Guardian Council, no longer had the right "to judge in this case."

In a statement to the press, the Assembly of Qom Seminary Scholars and Researchers said some members of the Guardian Council had "lost their impartial image in the eyes of the public."

"How can one accept the legitimacy of the election just because the Guardian Council says so? Can one say that the government born out of the infringements is a legitimate one," it said.

The Guardian Council is an unelected 12-member council made up of six religious leaders, appointed by the supreme leader, and six jurists.

The statement is further proof of a split at the top of Iran's establishment, correspondents say.

They say that in particular, it was an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

(...)

Holy Ferrite Testicles Batman.

Discuss. Predict. Argue.

[iamzack]

Predict: they all go missing mysteriously

[Scotty]

Argue:  It won't be mysterious, it will be visible and violent.

[The E]

Concur. Right now, if the Guardian's Coucil sticks to the playbook for tyrannies, it will be interested in making examples.

[MP-Ryan]

Concur. Right now, if the Guardian's Coucil sticks to the playbook for tyrannies, it will be interested in making examples.

Which would be their biggest mistake.  Iran's public is primed for change.  Crushing rational dissent will lead to revolution.

[Scotty]

Neither alternative is looking particularly good for the moment.

1) Re-vote, resulting in a possible loss of election (if they don't cheat)
2) Crush dissent, resulting in possible revolution.

Would this count as being caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place?

[Blue Lion]

Do these guys have any actual power to sway the election?

[NGTM-1R]

Do these guys have any actual power to sway the election?

In the Islamic Republic, yes. Iran was and is a country with deep ties to its faith. The Revolution packaged itself as Islam for the new era; a faith of relevance and meaning, reaching out not to merely the faithful but also to the secular. The closest parallel in Christian experience would probably be Vatican II, but with a groundbreaking edge to it something more like Martin Luther nailing a notice to the church door in Wittenburg. The country was founded on the religion.

Many of the promises made then have been betrayed. Many of the clergy who signed on in the early days still remember them though.

[Blue Lion]

But can they actually do anything? Can they order a new election? Can they stop the confirmation or whatever the hell process they use to put him in power?

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Well with the current state of things and the top clerics calling for not only punishment but brutal torture of anyone involved whatever they do they better do fast. 

Now they are going after anyone that even reported the events:  http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/05/iran.communication.crackdown/index.html

It's going to be a blood bath one way or another. 

[BloodEagle]

Iran has atomic weapons, right? 

[captain-custard]

iran is not quite there at the moment weapon wise but could i suppose make a dirty bomb quite easily , and as for testing atomic weapons on here soil im sure these ppl are willing to help....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8135414.stm

[TrashMan]

Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.

[Snail]

Iran has atomic weapons, right? 

Yeah, rather **** ones. Even North Korea has better nuclear capability.

[Turambar]

Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.

And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos.  Again.

[StarSlayer]

Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.

And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos.  Again.

[libertyPrime] Better destabilized then Red.[/libertyPrime]

[Rhymes]

[LibertyPrime] Death is preferable to destabilization. [/LibertyPrime]

[TrashMan]

Given that I don't really know what's REALLY going on, I won't support either side.
Things will settle themselves over time. They always do.

And then when they get a government that will protect Iranian interests, we will destabilize it and attempt to profit from the chaos.  Again.

Have you taken into account the possibiltiy that that is what's already being done? Any time election unrests or power struggles in some country starts, you have to ask yourselves just how many other countries have their hands in that mass.

[Ford Prefect]

Iran didn't need outside interference to go haywire. The conditions in that country are so ripe for violent upheaval, it might as well have been named "Revolutionistan."

[BloodEagle]

Iran didn't need outside interference to go haywire. The conditions in that country are so ripe for violent upheaval, it might as well have been named "Revolutionistan."

....

....

That's a pretty good name, actually. 

Iran has atomic weapons, right? 

Yeah, rather **** ones. Even North Korea has better nuclear capability.

Well if this leads civil war, any nuclear capability is far worse than no nuclear capability. :/