A stolen election?

Everyone expected the Iranian presidential election to be a highly contested one, and the momentum, in the final stretch seemed to belong to the challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
And yet, when the official results were released, the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner, with 62.6% of the vote, followed by Mr. Mousavi with 34%.
Voter participation was a historic 85%, meaning that over 46,2 million Iranians went to the polls..
The supporters of the reformist candidate were bitterly disappointed, and suspecting foul play, took to the streets, to vent their fury…There has been some violence, and many arrests…
Who is Mr. Mousavi, and who are his supporters?
To begin with, in Iran, all candidates belong to the same family: they are all followers of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, who overthrew the Shah in 1979...All share his islamist ideology and support the theocratic regime put in place thirty years ago…
Those who oppose the ideology and the regime are simply banned from participating in the political life of the nation. All candidates for the presidency and parliament, the Majlis, are vetted by the Guardian Council, and all those not deemed sufficiently islamist or fundamentalist are barred from running.
The choice for the voter thus boils down to choosing a reformist islamist or a conservative one…
Mousavi is backed by the reformist camp consisting in the Islamic left (the original revolutionaries, who, incidentally, occupied the US embassy in 1979), and the forces that supported the moderate Muhammad Khatami, who was president between 1997 and 2005), and the technocratic wing, also known as the modern right (for a detailed study of contemporary Iranian politics, see Walter Posch’s Prospects for Iran’s 2009 Presidential Elections).
The modern right is composed of pro-free market groups, and technocrats who support Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, another former president, and one of the richest men in Iran (and some claim, one of the most corrupt).
Mousavi also attracted the support of those conservative clerics alienated by Ahmadinejad (who is not a cleric), his populist, autocratic style and disregard for some prominent theologians.
More significantly, however, Mousavi has chiefly benefited from being the anti-Ahmadinejad candidate. Though a poor public speaker without much charisma, many women and young Iranians enthusiastically backed his candidacy in the hope that a government led by him would be more tolerant and less oppressive. As prime minister during the 80s and the Iran-Iraq war, he is remembered as having competently managed the economy during a difficult time.
Generally, the fundamentalist, conservative wing of the islamist movement does support Ahmadinejad. His most prominent supporter is the Supreme Leader (who has the final say in all essential foreign, military and security policy matters), Ayatollah Ali Khameni, the successor of Khomeini.
It is equally significant that he has the backing of the principle security forces in Iran, The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (founded in 1979, an elite corps in which Ahmadinejad served in the 80s), and the Basij militia, also founded in 1979. It is an all-volunteer paramilitary group notorious for its role in enforcing the regime’s strict dress and public behavior codes…It has frequently been accused of various human rights violations, including harassing and detaining political opponents.
Yet he has also found support in rural areas, and in the ill-educated urban poor, who appreciate his humble lifestyle, lack of pretense, and the subsidies he disbursed during his first term.
Politically, the two candidates differ more in style than in substance.
Both support the country’s nuclear program, for instance, as do the vast majority of Iranians… A Mousavi foreign policy, however, would be less abrasive, and shun the outrageous. Many in Iran have been deeply embarrassed by Ahmadinejad’s repeated denials of the Holocaust, and his diatribes against the state of Israel…
In addition, it would be easier for the West to negotiate with Moussavi, than having to deal with the unpredictable Ahmadinejad…
So, what did happen? Was the election stolen or was the Green Wave (his young supporters were clad in green) supporting Mousavi not potent enough?
There is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest that the official results do not reflect the actual will of the electorate.
To begin with, according to official results, Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi, an Azeri, in his home town of Tabriz, the capital of Azerbaijan province.
Secondly, he also officially defeated him in Tehran, one of Mousavi’s electoral strongholds.
Unlike other elections, the vote results by district were not published.
In addition, 40 different opinion polls recently released all predicted a Mousavi victory (though one issued June 8th, predicted Ahmadinejad would win 34%, and Mousavi 14%, thus forcing a runoff between the two next Friday).
Moshen Makhmalbaf, a filmaker, and campaign spokesman for Moussavi, declared that he had been contacted Friday night by the Interior ministry, and notified that Mousavi had won easily.
Yet, just two hours after the polls closed, Interior minister Sadegh Mahsouli, a staunch Ahmadinejad supporter, released election results indicating an overwhelming victory for the incumbent. Mousavi’s website was then shut down, and all cell communications and text messaging blocked in Tehran.
Furthermore, the Supreme Leader, Khamenei quickly recognized the outcome and congratulated the victor, thereby pre-empting all attempts to dispute the results:
The chosen and respected president is the president of all the Iranian nation and everyone, including yesterday’s competitors, must unanimously support and help him, he declared, even though the Electoral Commission is supposed to officially disclose the results three days after election day, so that all disputes can be examined and resolved…
In any case, demonstrations erupted in Tehran, Mashhal and Baabol .
Universities in Tehran were closed, cell phones and messaging were still unavailable Saturday…
Mehdi Karroubi, another reformist candidate who won little support (just 300,000 votes, according to official tallies) told the New York Times: The results of the 10th presidential election are so ridiculous and so unbelievable that one cannot write or talk about it in a statement.
As for Mr. Moussavi, his whereabouts are unknown.
There are some reports that, along with many other reformists, he has been arrested.
He refused to recognize the results, and has vowed to resist:
The reported results of the 10th Iranians Presidential Election are appalling. The people who witnessed the mixture of votes in long lineups know who they have voted for and observe the wizardry of I.R.I.B (State run TV and Radio) and election officials. Now more than ever before they want to know how and by which officials this game plan has been designed. I object fully to the current procedures and obvious and abundant deviations from law on the day of election and alert people to not surrender to this dangerous plot…We will continue with our green wave of rationality that is inspired by our religious learnings and our love for prophet Mohammad and will confront the rampage of lies that has appeared and marked the image of our nation. However we will not allow our movement to become blind one.
His options are few. If he, or his partisans continue to resist and take to the streets, the regime would no doubt crack down hard, as the security apparatus is firmly in their hands….
Yet, if he does not react, if his innumerable young and female supporters relent and acquiesce, then their hopes of building a more open and tolerant society will be dashed, perhaps for good…

To conclude, one interesting question comes to mind: win or lose, the fundamentalists, with the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council and other key institutions are always, ultimately, in control.
They were able to subvert Khatami's progressive agenda during his two terms in office.
Why would they feel sufficiently threatened, this time, to steal an election? 　
Were they afraid that the Green Wave might lead to another Velvet Revolution?　
　
.