While the post-election situation in Iran is still making news all over the world, it was the build-up to the Iranian elections that first caught my attention. I couldn’t help but notice that some of the details coming out about the issues and the voters seemed very familiar.
I listened as Iranians interviewed by U.S. radio stations said they were looking for change. Some said they felt their country’s reputation had been damaged and that world opinion had turned against them. They wanted this trend to stop. There was talk across numerous media outlets of the importance of the youth vote, as well as talk of the critical role of women on election day.
Aren’t these some of the same things I heard during elections in my own country? During the U.S. elections, a lot of Americans were also calling for change. Many felt that their country’s reputation in the world had also been damaged. Just as Iranian youth were getting attention as a powerful voting bloc, American youth proved to be a strong organizing and voting force for then-candidate Obama. And just as the media speculated on the importance of female voters in Iran, so too did it speculate on the importance of female voters in the U.S.
What’s more, social media – most notably blogs and Twitter - are playing an important role in the Iranian election aftermath, much as they were a critical organizing tool for the Obama and McCain campaigns. We’ve even seen the important role social media played in the recent Indian elections as well.
Am I the only one who noticed these similarities between the elections of these two countries? Some of the same issues, the same speculations, the same commentaries, the same public sentiment and the same voting blocs existed for both.
After practicing law for a number of years, Michael Jay Friedman returned to school and earned a doctorate in U.S. political and diplomatic history. 
Michelle Austein Brooks is a U.S. government and politics writer who has covered three national elections for America.gov. 
Peggy B. Hu defied Asian-American stereotypes in college by studying comparative literature and international relations rather than math and science. 
Stephen Kaufman is an experienced writer who has covered the White House and the State Department, and continues to report on international and democracy issues, including press freedom. 
Tanya Brothen is a blogging enthusiast who began writing for the web on a whim. Now it’s her job.
Comments (5)
prophecy
Location: Canada
June 23, 2009 at 08:12 EDT
Permalink
Is this all about picking the lesser of the two evils?
GodYesOrNo.com
Rial
Location: Canada
June 23, 2009 at 09:34 EDT
Permalink
Although there are similarities of the process and the tools that are used but the premises are very different. This is a defining moment for Iran, as to who controls the levers of power in Tehran. The uprising in Iran is not a challenge to the establishment rather is an infighting between the two feuding groups that have been at the logger heads for sometime. The reformists versus the conservatives. I do not see much difference between the two feuding groups. The division is based on an age old phenomenon of “haves” Vs the “have-nots” of the society. While Mr. Ahmedinijad and the Supreme leader rides on the shoulders of the have nots, Rafsanjani and Moussavi rides on the shoulders of the urban Middle Class and the students. Looking at the makeup of the two groups, I do not see much of policy difference between the two other than the use of the words and how they are delivered. Moussavi-Rafsanjani group does hint of their eagerness to extend hands of good will to the West but they also demand the use of peaceful Nuclear Energy for Iran as does the Khamenei -Ahmedinijad pole.
Whatever the case is, Iran will continue to broaden their influence in the area and would pursue their goals of exerting influences through their proxies, who are highly organized and driven by passion for Justice and Honor. I personally do not see any radical shift in Iranian policies, even if the reformist were to take over Power in Iran.
The Muslim world is watching the events of Tehran very closely and is also evaluating if Mr. Obama was sincere in his overtures to the Muslim World. The lingering question in every Muslim’s mind is whether the US uses double standards on democracy when it comes to the Muslim world. Democracy can not be spread using non democratic means. If someone is elected by its people, then the standards and the democratic values need to be applied as they are applied in the West.
Mr. Obama’s position on Iran has proven once more that he is genuinely interested to pursue a dialog with anyone, the Iranian people choses.
Tanya Brothen
America.gov Staff
June 23, 2009 at 10:48 EDT
Permalink
Hi Rial, Thank you for weighing in on this topic. Haves vs. Have Nots is indeed a struggle that is as old as time.
jabir
Location: kudus, indonesia
July 1, 2009 at 12:02 EDT
Permalink
my be we have other opinion about iran. we hope that some country have ideas to grove and born to fight amercian imprealis, that so monoplic in economic, an anything. may be you can submit your comment to this link;
http://www.pondokbareng1923.blogspot.com
blog from muslem society
Ares Vista
Location: http://www.ares.net
July 9, 2009 at 12:38 EDT
Permalink
While there are similarities, comparing the Iranian people’s struggles for freedom with the U.S.’s corrupt system is dangerous.