-I have caught up a little more with the Iranian protests and this is what I think.  At its core, I'm a bit more skeptical of the American media.  One simply has to watch Buying the War by Bill Moyer and see how the media works hand in hand with the government, as opposed to keeping the government accountable.  For example, pertaining to the Iraq War, the major news network such as Fox, CNN, and MSNBC were overwhelmingly focused on the threat of Iraq over WMD's, link with Al-Qaeda, and dictatorship, and these networks did so in the interest of finding favor with the government, competition with other networks, and patriotism.  The smaller news networks who saw the lack of proof and irrationality of war was pushed aside.  In another example, this was visible with the coverage on Russia's invasion of Georgia.  U.S. simply assumed that Russia cast the first stone, and sent $1 billion military aid to Georgia.  This was not the case with other international sources as they debated who comitted the first strike.  When it was later confirmed that Georgia attacked first, to my knowledge, this story was barely covered, and Condaleeza Rice simply responded, "I'm not surprised."

-How does this apply to Iran?  It applys in the ideas we assume and the way the media covers the issue.  The first assumption is that the election was rigged, and I think this assumption stems from the unfriendly terms with Iran since 1979 and therefore whoever is against the established government are the "good guys."  I'm not saying election was not rigged, but I think no one has any solid evidence that's not based on conclusions from suspicious, ambigous behavior.  Someone mentioned that Ahmadinejad was declared the winner before the votes were finalized, and therefore the election was suspiciously rigged.  On the other hand, this has happened in American history, although the announced winner lost when the votes were finalized.  I think it's possible, if not just as likely, to declare yourself the winner early on, and actually win.  The press also covers the government as brutal and repressive, but fails to acknowledge that is what free states and dictatorships do.  For example, in the 30's when WWI veterans (AKA Bonus Army) rallied to receive the G.I. Bill of Rights earlier than 1944 (when it was to be ratified), the government cracked down on the veterans and several people were killed.  The same was true for Vietnam War protests during the Kent State shootings, where several protestors were shot and killed.  Repression is not only done by dictators and oppressive governments, but free states as well.

-Maybe our past brutality should not justify Iran's brutality, and the truth is, the riots are brutal.  Watching someone die, blood spilling from the mouth and nose, with a haunting stare is hard to watch.  But before attributing the government as inherently evil, we should ask ourselves a couple questions.  What is the government's point of view on domestic riots?  Wouldn't it be something to the affect of "we need to protect our power structure," or "we need to protect our free society," depending on who's rioting and where?  Even if they wanted to keep their power, they would think that they're using it for good or are somehow justified or necessary, not view themselves brutal oppressive dictators.  What I am implying is that we need to look at this from not just American vs. Iranian point of view, but a government point of view.  Sometimes, repression is not necessarily a tactic of a repressive government, but a natural reaction of any government, though noted not all the time.  Other questions to consider include: To what degree of repression is necessary to call a state repressive?  The U.S. does it, but we're a free state.  What about Iran?  Free state relative to who?  The West or Middle East?

-Iran has claimed that the protests stem from the West meddling with Middle Eastern politics, but Obama has refuted this.  But according to the former U.S. national security advisor Bren Sowcroft, there are U.S. intelligence agents in Iran.  The details are unknown and even Sowcroft seem to be ambigious to the role of those agents in Iran.  My guess is that intelligence agents are probably in Iran, but have limited power in changing the outcome of the protests.  But are there other ways of affecting Iran in different ways such as the media outside of Iran and these external sources going into Iran?  Can this be considered meddling with Middle Eastern politics?  If it is, to what extent and is it ethical?

-My conclusion is strictly consequentialist.  If the majority really voted for Mosavi and the election was really rigged, then the people have a right demonstrate.  If the majority people really voted for Ahmadinejad, then the Moussavi's supporters are just poor losers and should accept the election.  What I am saying is that Moussavi's camp is viewed as the democratic "good guys" and the government is the evil dictator in Western media, and I am skeptical of that view based on past news media coverage, and I have not heard any statement that convinced me the election was rigged or not.  I am also skeptical because emphasizing Moussavi serves U.S. interests, and since it would be unwise to intervene, the government can let the media and the people take care of it.  By doing so, will it become another mess such as Iraq, or be a success story such as South Africa's break from Apartheid, or will anything happen at all?  Moussavi and his supporters are inspiring and their fight for democracy certainly stirs the blood.  Lets hope Moussavi has the majority and not forget that there are also many Ahmadinejad supporters too.  We may not like it, but it's their democracy, not ours.

A more intelligent debate from AlJazeera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA4yZfyl3b0
Former US national security advisor Bren Sowcroft: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr2SALuISyk