Mebane has significantly revised his assessment since the version Afrasiabi draws on. He now thinks the data suggests "the 2009 election was affected by significant fraud":
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/note18jun2009.pdf
and scroll down to page 21.
But, going back to Weisbrot -- there was a second part to the title of his piece, namely, "Does it matter?". And his response: yes, but in terms of US/West-Iran relations. Serious as it may lead to overt war. But how about in other terms? Or, more narrowly, to the views being expressed in this list? Given the mass outpouring, it would not seem to matter. What matters is how one views the mass outpouring (hopefully, without simplifying and misleading labels). References to US/Western destabilisation are not to the point (I take that as a given). To the point are the divisions within Iranian society that have given rise to this mass outpouring and whether one judges it to be more like the crowd that brought down Marcos or Suharto, or more like the one arraigned against Allende or Chavez. Sure, it'd be easier if there was election fraud, but that isn't the real test, is it?
kj