ARTICLE: Signs of Fraud Abound, But Not Hard Evidence, By Glenn Kessler and Jon Cohen, Washington Post, June 16, 2009

The pile of circumstantial evidence grows...

Unfortunately, none of it can be "admitted" to/by Iran's official "court."

I see the unrest to date and welcome it, but I do not share this mushrooming of enthusiasm for, and expectation of, a bottom-up revolution in Iran.

I think people are being unrealistic.

This may well be the start, but I suspect we're a long ways from a successful peak. I just don't see that correlation of forces yet.

Even though I predicted such an outcome by 2010 in previous books.

My optimism simply fails me now, even as I would love to be proven wrong.

Maybe it's just due to hanging out with all these cautious Chinese academics ... but I think we expect too much from this one event.

Thus we watch for the surge to develop some serious legs, and that's where I'm pessimistic.

Hmmm.

Then I peruse the Wikipedia entry on the election and I get more upbeat.

Arguing against the Tehran-is-important-but-unrepresentative-of-Iran argument is the larger youth-skewed demographic reality.

In short, the optimist argues that this contested election proves how doomed theocracy is in Iran, the question being only timing.

Apologies, but I have simply been unable to track this much (or in a timely fashion from Shanghai, where I have been maximally engaged).