Iran

The struggle for reform is definitely on again. A good blog discussing what's going on is here: http://reroad.blogspot.com/

better then we can say for here!

Iran Sanctions are Precursor to War by Rep. Ron Paul

Ron Paul is amazing in some respects, isn't he? Iranian politics are way too complicated for me to fully comprehend from the outside, and the only image we're ever presented by the MSM is one dimensional and cartoonish.

I'll second that, Sandstone.

Yes, we must not speculate. (Freedom of speech under the new Supreme Court ruling must have limits).

And so Murder Incorporated are all set to go with brand new bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and menacing oil-rich Iran next door. The chess pieces are in place. The military muscle is primed and ready to go to work. 

Will it be another Al-CIA'da pretext for a good shallacking of Iran? Or another ghost attack a la Tonkin prior to shock and awe part two? We can be sure there no credible leftwing militants would dare try to make war with the beast or provide another pretext for randomized counter-attack on targets of the vicious empire's choosing. Perhaps another sword operation spit out from a pre-programmed random pretext generator. What will non-truthers for ongoing 9/11 coverup have to say when another Middle Eastern country suffers the wrath of the same vicious empire they tell us are simply prone to human error over and over with their bomb first and produce evidence later stratagem? Oops, they did it again?  Is Iran just another oil-rich country nearer Russia, China and cruisin' for a bruisin'?

A U of T alumnus writes: Prisoners in Tehran

excerpt:

Iran has been caught in a terrible cycle of revenge, torture, intolerance and hatred for many years. The only way for us to break free from it is to understand and study our past and present with an open mind. Survivors need to be encouraged to speak out. Throughout history, victims have turned into torturers and torturers into victims. Enough is enough.

What the US would prefer is a US-backed military dictatorship for Iran,  like Pakistan has been since the 1970's and leaning that way today with the US heaping laurels on Pakistan's military and ISI and threatening Zelaya, and probably had something to do with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Our corporate newzies would proceeed to ignore Iran for decades at a time regardless of the torture if NATO gangsters are able to create a US-friendly regime in Iran. The Yanks have actually worked to make Iran a dominant country in the region with creating chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq and having murdered so many clerical leaders in those countries. And Iran has fully cooperated with the US in waging illegal wars against desperately poor countries Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States has guided Iran, too, over the years away from social democracy and democracy in general,  and pushed them toward militant Islam. They've done this in Pakistan and Palestine and Afghanistan. But the end goals are never democracy. Democracy is a worst case scenario for the vicious empire wherever they've stuck their big noses in.  

The U.S. didn't "guide Iran", it destroyed democracy there and imposed a dictator, Fidel. Then came the revolution - but as we see on the death of a deposed Imam, the one who was slated for leadership, not all think the revolution  was best for Iran and Iranians.  But we must not endanger the delicate balance of theocracy and police state  there now, right? Or the "Green Movement" will, in overturning the "crony capitalism" that now pays for the police, extend U.S. hegemony there again?  

In the name of freedom of speech, what evidence is there that that would happen?  

The Yanks had no expectations for democracy in Iran after their puppet was overthrown. The revolution and subsequent militant Islamic state that arose was perfectly compatible with US great game goals for the region. Have you ever wondered how the Yanks have never-ever screwed up and accidentally worked to create a democratic outcome anywhere ever? The mullahs themselves in Iran said that they knew nothing of running a country and that it would end badly.  The Yanks would much rather deal with militant Islamic states of their creation than democratic ones. Because in a country where the economy is based largely on military-insdutrial complex, they are going to see military solutions everywhere. And this is an established historical pattern. We can't claim ignorance of history anymore than we can the law.

I'm with you on the ignorance of the U.S. and the pernicious effect of its relations - anywhere - but "In the name of freedom of speech," what evidence is there that victory by the Green Movement would mean the bad guys take control again?  

How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?

I didn't intend to say that US hawks are ignorant of what they do. They may act crazy on a continuing basis, but they are crazy like foxes.

The CIA doesn't rig elections so much anymore with the exception of Afghanistan and El Salvador and Honduras, Haiti and a few more recently. What they do today is to try to appear legit in regime change methods using CIA and funding "democracy groups",  NGO's etc. But when that doesn't work as it doesnt appear to be working in Iran, for example, they tend to resort to the executive death squads, renditions, torture, vicious trade sanctions etc in softening up a country for aerial bombing.

I think the sanctions declared against Iran recently are just as Ron Paul suggests they are - a prelude to bombing and marching into another sovereign country, and whether they have a UNSC rubberstamp or not. Gangsters are needing fewer and fewer justifications for their military actions.

AS that MSMedia news gatherer, the BBC told us, Sunday, Dec. 27:

"Tensions have risen in Iran since influential dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri died a week ago aged 87.

"Mr Mousavi' supporters have sought to use Shia religious festivals to show continued defiance of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government.

"Denied the right to protest, the opposition chose the highly significant festival of Ashura when millions of Iranians traditionally take to the streets for ceremonies and parades, BBC Tehran correspondent Jon Leyne says.

"The festival mourns the 7th Century death of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad.

"Mr Mousavi came second in the June election, and anger at the result saw mass protests in Tehran and other cities that led to thousands of arrests and some deaths.

"Mr Mousavi has said the poll, that returned Mr Ahmadinejad to power, was fraudulent."

And as the veil of silence is pulled down over new events there, we may never know. "Mum's the word" . "Loose lips sink ships, " etc.

How about the fact that it's a "color revolution" following the same pattern of every other CIA backed color revolution?

Why do we have to assume that every major political uprising and movement in the Majority world is backed by the yankies. Is the assumption that largely brown societies cannot shape the futures of their respective nations without the help of white people?

You said before that Iranian politics is copmplex and very confusing for outsiders.  I would go further and argue that middle eastern politics in general is befuddling and that we should think twice before making shit for brains statements about  what people in middle eastern states want

intellectualy arrogant post fucking baboons!

That seems to be the vicious empire's long-time assumption, yes. And especially since prominent Yankees like Ron Paul write that the intellience agency for chaos and general mayhem is there and meddling in Iran as we babble.

That seems to be the vicious empire's long-time assumption,

Why are you being an arrogant fucking buffoon? GV asked if there was any evidence the US was behind the events in Iran and I suggested the nature of the revolution, a color revolution, might just be the evidence, circumstantial, but nevertheless impressive, of US involvement. For direct evidence, I would suggest George W. Bush dedicating a fair amount of money to destablizing the Iranian government--not a secret to anyone. What would the destablilization program look like? A color revolution?

I would check your own racism. Why do you define Iran as "brown"? They're a fairly diverse looking group to me.

Finally, while I do think Iranian politics are complex too me, the same is not true for US foreign policy which is quite predictable and even transparent in its ruthlessness.

People don't go out and get themselves shot just because the CIA paid them.

Were there not political opposition groups there in Tehran in 1953 when the CIA also happened to be there as "observers"? And did it not result in a brutal US-backed imperialist dictatorship for the next quarter century?

The CIA and democracy are two separate and incompatible institutions as a rule of thumb.

Very astute of you. And yet how many color revolutions have we witnessed so far? Remember Georgia? Did the CIA pay all those protestors who brought down the government or just the con man who led them into a militarist regime backed by the US and Israel?

I do not at this point believe that the CIA is behind the protests in Iran. I will stand corrected if concrete evidence comes out to that effect, but I don't buy the idea that it's a US backed movement just because it identifies itself with the colour 'Green'. I support the Iranian people in their fight against the corrupt Islamic regime in Iran.

At the same time, I think we do need to be mindful of potential US involvement in Iran, and not simply call for the overthrow of the Iranian regime without making it clear that we oppose any attacks by US imperialism against Iran. If the US/Israel ect. were to attack Iran tomorrow I would oppose such a move despite what I think of the current Iranian regime. As Malalai Joya says, "No nation can liberate another".

It is not just the color Green, it is a series of factors that are similar to other color revolutions such as calling into question the legitimacy of the elections before voting even takes place. You say you don't "buy" that the US involved, but you base that on what? Faith?

I don't know that the US is involved, but I don't know that it isn't. What I do know is the the US has systematically surround Iran, engaged in trade war against it, had said it would fund destablization of the government, and has a very long history of mischief making and violence in the region. On the basis of probablities, it is far more likely the protests are orchestrated than not. But, sure, this one time could be different.

It's possible, and I'd like to believe it, too. However...

Independent investigative news journalist Seymour Hersh said in 2008:

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails [26] June '09

Balkanization of Yugoslavia and colour revolutions are the model for destabilizing what Zbiggy Brzezinski insanely refers to as the "arc of crisis" countries. I'm afraid that a large part of the world is being run by a tiny group of megalomaniacal psychopaths who should have been in prison a long time ago.

Why are you being an arrogant fucking buffoon?

I apologize, and yes, I will check my racism in future. I will stand by my point however. Third world activists do sometimes act because of their ideals, not just because of the CIA.

The assumption that American power brokers ar ALWAYS involved in acts of majority world rebellion is wrong and imperialist. 

Very astute of you.

Because $400 million earmarked for CIA shit disturbing in Iran might only be what they've admitted to? That kind of money thieved from taxpayers doesn't just grow on trees for things like colour revolutions and all that fancy stationary and personalized water bottles that go  with the closed door meetings, renditions,  torture workshops for the military, executive death squads, sword ops etc. It must be hard to keep up with how little they know of what's going down in oil-rich countries they are supposed to be destabilizing.

HANDS OFF IRAN!

Well would be nice if Mr. Obama stops giving aide and help to the Mullahs. We will finish off the bastards ourselves.

On the contrary. Those of us who saw Iran in 1979 and in 2009 know that this movement is gradually becoming a carbon copy of the 1979 Iranian revolution (although in early stages).

Before we get too carried away with "any enemy of Ahmadinejad is a friend of the people" thinking, I read in Wikipedia -- and it may even be true, perhaps someone here knows -- that Montazeri wanted the official religion of the state to exclude Sunnis and Ismāʿīlī's, and that Shi'a jurists like -- well, like him -- should have a veto over laws passed by the elected representatives of the people.

"When we say humans, it includes both men and women... you see, if people around the world want to say certain things about women for example being equal to men in matters of inheritance or legal testimony, because these issues pertain to the very letter of the Qur'an, we cannot accept them."

I don't doubt that a lot of good people are under attack in Iran at the moment. I just don't claim to understand what underlies this.

Montazeri was a follower and top student of Khomeini who first came up with the concept of supreme jurist -pretty much the idea described in the above. In the debate over Iranian constitution in fall 1979, Montazeri and other Islamists successfully pushed the idea into the Iranian constitution. In later years (after his fall out with Khomeini over the execution of political prisoners) he started to move away from the concept, eventually almost completely rejecting it. Just before his death it was announced that he was working on a book on repudiation of the supreme jurist concept. Not only that, but a couple of years ago he was the first Shia mulsim scholar (and could be the first jurist in the whole muslim world, I am not sure) who issued a fatwa to support full civil rights for the persecuted Bahai minority, just short of accepting it as an official religion. 

That said, as any other muslim jurist he still restricted himself on the issues explicitly mentioned in the Quran, e.g. discriminatory women's rights. Until the whole islamic view of Sharia and Quran as a static, unchangable set of rules are changed, few muslim jurists would dare contradicting it.

I should also mention that Montazeri is being celebrated by dissident Iranians not as a religious leader to follow, but as a man of principle and conscience who gave up supreme power (and the chance to rule a country)  in defence of the human rights of the Iranian political prisoners who were executed in 1988. His record before then was not spotless and it is not his religious edicts that the Iranian protest movement is looking to.

I don't think that's what you mean. It may very well be developing into a carbon copy of 79, but that doesn't reduce the similarities to CIA backed color revolutions elsewhere.

FM, sanizadeh was there a few months ago during the protests and is Iranian. Perhaps we should take those with lived experience a little bit more at their word.  It is quite easy to pontificate a half a world away while white and behind a computer.

Well in that case perhaps we should examine whether those similarities are related to backing by CIA, or they are essential characteristics of any popular upraising against dictatorships. People do borrow ideas from other movements; that does not make it a CIA plot.

And by the way, if you think any CIA money could make people rise up against a dictatorship and risk their lives against bullets, you need a reality check. CIA money buys coups and dictators and wars. People revolutions are never bought. 

That's not to say that foreign governments never try to fish in the muddy waters or benefit from instability in other places; however in this particular case and as Iranians, we could not care anymore.

Perhaps we should. I can't think of any popular revolution that followed to the letter a CIA backed color revolution, can you? (ETA: In fact, can you think of a popular democracy movement backed by the US at all?)

It is you my friend who requires a reality check. Like Doug, above, your perception is simplistic. Yes, the CIA stands on the corner and gives dollars to people to revolt. :insert rolly-eyes here:

The CIA has proven methds of creating dissent fomenting revolt. You think that would be obvious to you given Iran's own history from pre-1953 to present. Or did you miss that? What about Chile? Are you aware what happened there? Georgia? Ukraine? Is all of this new to you?

Fidel linked to the Great Satan Himslef, Kissinger, calling for just a color revolution in Iran. This is immaterial?

In this particular case and as Iranians you should care. If you don't think the US with Saudi Arabia and Israel would smash Iran and its population as easily as they have Iraq, you're not paying attention.

FM: Is there really a need for condescending personal attacks? We have so few posters of colour on babble as it is.

Your post is really offensive - especially when we are lucky to have someone with personal experience (that you do not have!) telling his story.

Wow.

Sorry, what color is he?

I don't consider it a personal attack as I don't accuse him of anything. He did say, "That's not to say that foreign governments never try to fish in the muddy waters or benefit from instability in other places; however in this particular case and as Iranians, we could not care anymore," and that caught my attention.

Does he speak for all Iranians? Would all Iranians agree they don't care if the current violence, bloodshed, and death is being fomented by foreign governments? I think he speaks only for himself and those comments expressing a lack of concern reminded me of the man the CIA picked to lead Iraq in the aftermath of that bloody war and continued occupation.

ETA: Nevertheless, I have removed from my comments the part I assume you consider to be offensive.

It really doesn't wash to see Uncle Sam under every bed when there's the much simpler explanation that a substantial number of people in Iran (though they be younger, more urban and more middle class than average) are fed up with being told what to do by theocrats.

That may be true, but should you choose to investigate the color revolutions that have occured so far you will discover university campuses and student protest formed a fundamental aspect of all of them. To be honest I find it remarkable that the

• US can surround Iran
• that the US and Israel will direct war-like belligerance at Iran
• that the US would commit hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilizing the government, openly
• that the opposition will follow, almost to a T, the anatomy of a color revolution
• that Satan Himself, Kissinger, will publicy call for a color revolution

But over here people will say, "no, I don't believe it" and close their eyes to it. What more is needed, a "Made in the USA" stamp?

Doug that is false. I had a conversation about this just the other night. For one the US is known to have started the coup attempt indirectly in Venezuela, had the coup taken hold would we be saying right now that the people were behind it, and not say the business class withamerican money sent for stirring the pot? Lets just look at Haiti and honduras....oh wait they also had coups that we are supporting against democratic elected government. Sometimes ocrams razor just isn't so, or perhaps the truth is too terrible to be considered the easiest solution.

Made in the USA

There is much more here from Foriegn Policy Journal, all with footnotes and sources, such as this gem:

I'm not claiming that the US government is not involved in any shape and form, but it's taking advantage of real issues and political movements rather than instigating the whole thing.

I don't need to read foreign policy journal or enlighted web sites or read Kissinger to know who is fomenting dissent. I know full well where the dissent comes from; have felt it myself, seen it with my eyes, and heard it from my friends. The Iranian government is THE only cause of dissent among its people. period. I am wondering if you had a chance to check the events, especially the past two weeks.  Now If you are not following the news of what is happening in Iran, your ignorance of the situation is really your own fault. You don't have to rely on MSM. Read weblogs; even English versions of local Tehran newspapers are available.

{editted - Thanks for taking the insulting part out, and I removed my response here too}

Regardless of all efforts by the US and other powers, their influence on the events inside Iran has been at a minimum since 1979, and that includes now.  That was because the 1979 revolution triumphed with almost unanimous popular support. Then, for decades we were told that if we don't stay quiet and hold our dissatisfaction, the "enemy" would benefit. Well, That's just as much one could take. A government with no popular support will start gving away the nation's rights right and left, as Ahmadinejad's government has started to do so. Only a government based on true popular support can stand against outside threats. So bringing down this tyrannical regime is a prerequisite for protecting Iran against its enemies.  

If you were more familiar with Iranian politics, you would know that Trita Parsi's organization (NIAC) actively pursues restoration of Iran-US relations and removal of US sanctions,  and is generally accused in the opposition circles of being an agent of the Iranian government. The other groups allegedly funded by NED are primarily monarchists whose names few have heard in Iran. If any of the current opposition figures in Iran had received aid from the US, would not you think the Islamic government would have used it against them in their trials? The sentences just came out.  and not surprisingly, all the hue and cry about "foreign hand" has quietly disappeared from any sentences (except one poor journalist sentenced to nine years because he used to inteview foreign embassy staff). Every other arrested leader has received around six years based on two charges: opposing the government and walking in the June 15, million-man protest in Tehran.

Because $400 million earmarked for CIA shit disturbing in Iran might only be what they've admitted to? That kind of money thieved from taxpayers doesn't just grow on trees for things like colour revolutions and all that fancy stationary and personalized water bottles that go  with the closed door meetings, renditions,  torture workshops for the military, executive death squads, sword ops etc. It must be hard to keep up with how little they know of what's going down in oil-rich countries they are supposed to be destabilizing.

HANDS OFF IRAN!

CMOT, the unmentionable country has just declared trade sanctions against Iran. It's expected that this will have the effect of re-uniting the country under Ahmadinejad against the west. There are a number of ways to interfere and meddle in another country's democratic process, and vicious trade sanctions is but one of them.  People should be free to make democratic decisions without undue duress of trade sanctions or any other form of outside meddling. Why can't the unmentionable country just mind its own business?

 Why can't the unmentionable country just mind its own business?

Alright, prove to me that the sanctions are directly linked with the Iranian student protests.

The thing is, we really don't know what's going on in Iran.  We have  people( government officials activist bloggers, Podus) speaking like they know Iran like the back of their collective hand, but the fact is they don't.  Obama's advisors are as distant as we are from the issue.  The activist bloggers inside Iran are mainly bourgois and can't speak for the rural poor. 

Ufortunatley this complete and utter lack of solid information has not stopped us from grabbing hold of the few scraps of info we do have and tearing each other to shreds over a ton of speculation.       

The Crisis of the Islamic Republic and the Tasks of the Iranian Working Class

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d29.shtml

But the Green revolution is very large.  Are the vast majority of protesters really free market fundamentalists? 

He can't. Iran has been under full United States trade sanctions since 1995 under Clinton's order, as well as sanctins against companies that  invest in Iran's oil and gas industry, approved by US congress during Clinton. Bush and Obama have merely renewed the executive order year after year. However the impact of US sanctions are generally limited becuase since 1979 US has never been Iran's top trade partner.

It's as Ron Paul says, the people who say they believe in free trade do not and have actually used trade as a weapon to affect "regime change" around the world. If some government somewhere has a nationalist agenda and refuses to knuckle under to the neoliberal financial regime, then they are targeted for sanctions, 12-step colour revolution,  covert manouvering by Murder Inc. etc. I'm not sure why they would want to empower Ahmadinejad with re-creating the western menace through trade sanctions. But they've waged genocidal trade sanctions against Cuba for decades, and they know that Cubans will not go along with their shananigans either way. Iran does have an upper crust elite though, like Pakistan etc, and who are favourable to America and the coalition of western world elites and all alligned in the war on democracy.

I'm inclined to agree with Doug here. While evidence has been presented in this thread that the US is funding some groups that oppose the current US regime, I do not believe that most of the protesters are coming out into the streets in support of these groups. It appears to me that most of the protesters are coming out to oppose the repressive actions of the Islamic regime in jailing, torturing, and killing dissidents, among other things. I highly doubt that most protesters have any idea whether or not the US is behind the groups that called for these actions.

The resistance of the Iranian people to the brutal Islamic regime is worthy of our support. Not necessarily those who will try to manipulate the situation, but definitely the sentiment of the Iranian people against this regime.

I think Ahmadinejad and his government won the elections fair and square, and that the CIA should get the hell out of Iran and stop meddling.

Can we imagine a foreign government fomenting social unrest in 2000 America after crazy George II lost the popular vote count? Or when the Republican cabal rigged the 2004 elections? US hawks would have a fit and demand that the foreign government stop interfering in America's democratic process.

A View from an Iranian Reader:

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/12/view-from-iranian-reader.html

"The protestors have already moved beyond what the reformers can offer...Why do some commentators think that Iranians have two options: either stay with their ugly reactionary government or be a client of US capitalism-imperialism?"

She rocks! *bump*

Venezuela Condemns US Attempts to Destabilize Iran

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=115005&sectionid=351020101

"The Venezuelan government says the US is trying to "spread violence" in Iran to destabilize the Islamic Republic."

The Iran/Contra scandal, the sanctions, that much of Iran's current actions and aliances (Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas) would seem to contradict you.

Yet, despite crippling sanctions, the US still managed to interfere in Iraq and presented as its successor for an Iraqi government a man who had no popular support in Iraq or within opposition circles but who said what the US administration wanted to hear. None of that was really relevant to the US operation. The use of figureheads is for domestic politcial consumption. They will figure out who will govern and with what authority, with a Made in the USA constitution later. Those are details.

It doesn't matter why they are in the streets or what their motivations are. The question is who leads the opposition, who funds them, and whose interests do they serve? The mass of protestors will not govern Iran if they are successful any more than they governed Iran after 1979. They are pawns in a battle that may represent the legitimate interests of the mass of the Iranian people and might represent something darker.

The resistance of the Iranian people to the Islamic regime is worthy of our support but not if it will represent yet another betrayal that is guided by Washington and its allies as a means to a) gaining control of the world's largest natural gas reserves (and thus also bringing China's ambitions to heel) and c) ensuring Israeli military dominance of the region and US hegemony remains unchallenged.

My, God, do you people not read history or even follow current events? Why are our news media so obsessessed with the internal politics of Iran even as journalists are being tortured in Egypt for interviewing Canadians trying to enter Gaza, an open air concentration camp?

Use your freaking heads and learn your history. Legitimate democracy movements whether they happen in Iran, Egypt, Israel, or South Africa are never, NEVER!, supported by the USA. Not once. Not ever.

Use your freaking heads and learn your history. Legitimate democracy movements whether they happen in Iran, Egypt, Israel, or South Africa are never, NEVER!, supported by the USA. Not once. Not ever.

The U.S. supported apartheid South Africa in border wars with Angola, Namibia, and Zambia from 1966 to 1989. Former US military personnel worked for apartheid South African Defence Force as assassins and mercenaries. The Yanks supported Ian Smith's Rhodesia in doing business with that country's corporate elites while Smith rounded up blacks and interred them in concentration camps referred to then as "protective villages" and rationed food to Rhodesians suspected of helping the rebels.

The Yanks and their imperialist partners in crime have meddled in Africa for a long time and continue to do so today. Africa is not home to a cornucopia of natural resource wealth and grinding poverty by accident or by their own design.

FM: What do you think a truly legitimate peoples revolution would look like in Iran?   When should it take place? How should it take place?  Do we really honestly know who is leading the damn thing,  Or are we guessing?  Are There left wingers in the movement?   communists? feminists? anarchists?  

 Interesting thing...

The Americans have a strategic interest in Iran, but they are also very worried about the war in Yemen's North.  We don't see any North American media coverage of this event.  Why?  It involves a large  U.S.  client state(Saudi Arabia) and takes place in a region of the world  that is of both spirtual and economic importance to the west.  What are the reasons for ignoring it?     

US hawks and their elitist friends in Iran are not happy with recent election results in that country, so they want to raise hell about it in the streets. It's like Pinochet's supporters banging pots and pans in the streets of Santiago in the 1970's because they didn't want to accept the election results. Democracy is the right's most hated institution and always will be.

It's like Pinochet's supporters banging pots and pans in the streets of Santiago in the 1970's because they didn't want to accept the election results.

I didn't say that this is a socialist democracy in Iran today. What I'm saying is that the CIA is there in Iran with a high likelihood that they have something to do with fomenting social unrest. Add to that the fact that Obama's admin - and a country that claims to support free trade around the world - is initiating vicious trade sanctions against Iran. The bottom line is that no country has a right to interfere with another country's democratic  process simply because they don't want to accept the election results. Trade sanctions and even the strong suspicion of CIA presence in that country amounts to political interference. "We don't know" is exactly how the CIA operates, because that US agency has nothing to do with democracy or public accountability whatsoever. The Yanks themselves have admitted to planning CIA presence in Iran and even admitted to a significant amount of American taxpayers money allocated for the black ops program to interefere in Iran as they have done so historically with Obama admitting to that fact recently. What more evidence do we need that the US-CIA is there and meddling in another country's democratic process?

They don't have to be socialist democracies for US hawks and their gladio allies to be interested in political interference in those countries. The CIA has admitted in recent years that they have not discriminated between socialist countries and those with nationalist agendas. Both are viewed as unfriendly to US corporate interests as well as the interests of our "new liberal" financial regime propped up with taxpayers money here in the west. Yes they are fascists doing what fascists always do, and the government targeted for regime change are not socialists. Does this mean that the US CIA and friends are justified with interfering in Iran's political process? No, it does not.

They don't have to be socialist democracies for US hawks and their gladio allies to be interested in political interference in those countries.

But you campared the protesters, many of whom may be fellow leftists, to the supporters of Pinochet, a man who was a  savage, authoritarian prick of the first water.   Why did you do that?

If you brought those examples to contradict my point about foreign influence in Iran, the fact is that Iran/Contra and US sanctions had no political impacts inside Iran whatsoever.

Answers: Who lead the opposition? While Iranian reformists are a center of focus, practically no one at the moment has control over the movement. This has become a mass protest of people of various classes and groups against the tyrannical Iranian government. 

Perhaps you could be more specific: which of the current reformist leaders in Iran, can remotely be considered US allies? This is laughable to anyone who follows the Iranian affairs. This is a movement that started from within the ideological ranks of the system itself (even thogh it is far broader now).

Who funds it? the demonstrators have no TV station, practically no newspaper, no headquarters, nothing that requires funding. Rest assured if there was a shred of evidence that CIA money had played a role in the protest, the regime would have made it the center point of the trials that just wrapped up. Would not a money trail to outside be a golden evidence for a regime who is attributing the unrest to everyone from Bahai minority to zionists to imperialists to the British to Saudi fundamentalists to communists etc?

Whose interests do they serve? Their own. Unless you think anything that we people of 3rd world do, is somehow managed by you whitey supreme masters of the world, and that we have no roles but pawns!

BTW, stop trying to teach us about our own history. Shed this orientalist/colonialist mentality that somehow we are some sort of guinea pigs studied by you guys and that we should fit into your theories about the global affairs. The world is not revolving around you! You can learn about us by listening to us, not by lecturing us about what we should think and how we should behave to fit your prejudices.

That's why I have asked repeatedly here: there are many well known progressive/leftist Iranians that can never be accused of being at the service of Washington; take Hamid Dabashi, Saeed Rahnama and many others as example. How come all of them are in support of this movement? Can you name any major progressive Iranian figure who thinks like you do? Or perhaps you think you know something that all of them collectively missed?

1) I don't recall the Allende government mass arresting, torturing and executing the demonstrators; 2) Iran is not a democracy; 3) elitists don't go through torture and execution to fight for their freedoms; and 4) none of the leaders of this movement are Pinochet or even a US ally. In fact as I mentioned, this movement started from within the ideological ranks of the system itself (though it is far broader now).

which of the current reformist leaders in Iran, can remotely be considered US allies?

Rafsanjani?

But you still haven't said that the CIA and democracy are at cross purposes. Which makes me wonder about your personal views on democracy in general.

This CIA plan for regime change a la colour revolution isn't going to happen, and the CIA knows it. So they will continue bolstering Ahamadinejad's anti-west popularity with vicious trade sanctions, and interfering where they can and threatening Iran with military action, which is illegal. US hawks purpose in life is to prevent outbreaks of democracy around the world and especially in energy-rich and strategically situated countries as a general rule.

First, Rafsanjani is hardly the person the protesters on the street listen to. Then, he is considered a pragmatist senior politician who advocates better relation with the world. If that makes him a US ally, I guess Chavez who had an embassy in Washington must be a neocon!

The fact is that global affairs are not the center of attention for Iranian protesters. We want a democratic government that makes our national interests its main objective. The assumption that somehow democratic governments are US allies is totally wrong, and in fact it is the opposite. As top Israeli officials mentioned  before election, they would love to see Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. No government in Iran has served the purposes of Israel and US and other foreign powers more than Ahmadinejad's government.

But you still haven't said that the CIA and democracy are at cross purposes. Which makes me wonder about your personal views on democracy in general.

The CIA are a bunch of vicious, racist, capitalist, fachist, homophobic indecent, fashion impaired shit cocks.

Democracy is very important.

Have I past the test?    

1. That was a a brutal US-backed dictatorship that tortured and abducted socialists and union leaders in Chile, and very similar to the way a brutal US-backed Shah of Iran took care of democratic threats to his power

2. Who said that it Iran today has become a democratic country after decades of US and British meddling? Answer: Not me, and why would anyone come to this conclusion? 

3. Why would one necessarily have to be socialist or democratic minded in order to warrant torturing?

4. And so what gives the US-CIA a right to interfere in Iran politically as they have done so historically and admitting to doing on a continuing basis today?

So you are basically admitting that everything you said in the previous post (about the comparison between Iranian protesters and Pinochet supporters) was false?!

No not quite. You've admitted to what the CIA represents in a kind of neutral-ish past tense without connection to this discussion of current events in Iran. And I'm simply trying to introduce a bit of reason and logic to this discussion. A country does not necessarily have to be socialist or leftwing in general in order to merit a CIA-orchestrated regime change, or at least, and attempted one regardless of outcome. The CIA has infiltrated leftwing organizations and civil society groups before. This is some of the method to their madness and how they operate today since being told to cover it up a little by the US senate select committee in the 1970's who advised this very undemocratic agency to be more discrete about their illegal activities around the world. We still have secret CIA prisons around the world, and executive death squads and CIA-Military black budgets of around $60-$80 billion a year that they admit to, but it doesn't mean that the CIA can not be deeply involved in the events occurring in Iran today.

No I'm saying that historically the CIA has never discriminated between leftwing nationalists and plain-jane nationalist governments in particular ie whether democratically elected leftwing government in Chile, or Pan-Arab nationalists in Egypt, or Mossadegh of 1950's Iran, or whether it's Ahmadinejad's nationalist agenda exclusive of US and British corporate and financial interests. And like the American CIA's non-discriminatory practice of targeting various countries for regime change, assassinations, military action etc whether socialist or nationalist in general, you, too, seem unable to tell the difference betwixt those two very different and broadly categorized political movements. In other words, the CIA aren't the only ones who don't care about those differences when working to interfere in another country's sovereign political affairs. What the CIA's friends, Himmler's SS intelligence agents and Nazis once tried to do with marching into sovereign countries, the west does today with marauding capital and black operations to overthrow democracy and to stear certain countries away from democratic choices in general. Iranians and other citizens of the world are supposed to learn the hard way that democratically elected governments are powerless to pursue sovereign agendas which don't include the interests of supranational corporations and those of western world financiers. They can't allow any such examples to exist anywhere in the world.

This is what you westerners think. You think you are controlling the whole world, and that anything that happens must have to do with your governments' will. In fact, it is mostly a mirage propagated by your governments to keep your empire together. The British instilled the myth in our countries that "even a leaf falling from a tree branch is decided in advance in London".

That's why there was a time that in our countries (the south, as you call it), leaders were viewed and judged solely based on their acceptance or challenge of the empires goals. The more uncompromising and challenging they looked, the better and more independent they were. If a country at some point collaborated with an empire, it was a servant. If it challeneged them, it was a rebel. No other choice. At the time it was deemed impossible for our nations to have goals and plans of their own. We were supposed to be either servants or rebels.

But that world has changed, and we have learned the falseness of this view. Even the British got a great kick in the butt in India. We no longer try to adjust our decisions based on your thinkings and goals. We don't care whether a certain decision would help your empire or would harm it. The only question for us is: how would that decision serve OUR nation. We can't become equals until we think of ourselves as equals. And that means, no more playing your servant/rebel game. You want a rebelion against your empire, do it yourself. We have more important things to do. Like toppling a tyrannical government.

Iran didnt gain democracy afer CIA intervention in 1953.

India gained independence from British rule by Britain's Labour government under Clement Atlee. Gandhi and other socialists have been assassinated by fascists, and that country continues to be a human rights hellhole under democratic capitalist rule with hundreds of millions living in grinding poverty and despair.

Iran did not become a democratic nation after the US-backed Shah was overthrown. What Iran gained was a theocracy and militant Islamic rule. The imperialist west has actually worked hard and invested billions of US and other taxpayer dollars to orchestrate the proliferation of militant Islam in Central Asia and Middle East, Africa etc since the 1970's as a way of destabilizing countries and preventing democracy but never accidentally creating democratic states. Their record on political interference around the world speaks for itself.

sanizadeh:

"But that world has changed, and we have learned the falseness of this view. Even the British got a great kick in the butt in India. We no longer try to adjust our decisions based on your thinkings and goals. We don't care whether a certain decision would help your empire or would harm it. The only question for us is: how would that decision serve OUR nation. We can't become equals until we think of ourselves as equals. And that means, no more playing your servant/rebel game. You want a rebelion against your empire, do it yourself. We have more important things to do. Like toppling a tyrannical government."

A fresh approach hereabouts, sanizadeh. Thanks. But now we have to shake the obsessive preoccupation with criticizing heads of our own states and begin creating ideas for their replacement. Understanding how our heads of state can get away with their tight-sphinctered, unthinking and visiionless and often bloody-minded positions because of the ignorance of their following, might bring about meaningful suggestions for policy alternatives.

Constant carping and quoting from the pronouncements and doings of our talking heads (of state) is counter productive. I suppose much like the idea that we can make meaningful suggestions for action in a state about which we are in near total ignorance.

I just could not let events there go entirely without recognition, and I thank you for your patience, sanizadeh. Good luck to the people.

Have there been any majority world uprisings(besides the Bolovarian revolution) that have met with widespread support here.

They got rid of cruel and corrupt imperialist regimes Russia and China first half of the last century. Corporate jackals here in the west thought for sure they would get to hack off pieces of China and Russia for themselves way back when.

And Crazy George's imperialists were turfed from America in 1776. Crazy George was reincarnated through the doctor and the madman in the 1970's and again by the 2000's. In fact, they are all the same crazy George since Truman and Eisenhower. And even Mackinley and Teddy Roosevelt. There has been a long line of insanity in the White House as well as Sussex Drive since Sir John A. MacDonald. The A stood for asshole-deluxe.

You didn't answer the question.    Maybe I should rephraise it.  Have their been any third world uprisings in the last 7 years(besides the Bolivarian revolution) which Babblers have supported.  Please avoid bate and switch tactics when answering.    

So what is democracy anyways?  The right to elect an MP to sit at the pleasure of a petty dictator who calls them in and out of session like a Russian czar.  Would Canadians go into the streets to defend it? I have heard America politicians say that democracy is only achievable in a "free market" environment so clearly the imperialists believe that any government no matter how it is elected or functions cannot be a legitimate democracy if it is not dominated by Yankee carpet baggers.  

I think Iran is experiencing its own resistance movement and that the CIA is trying really hard to keep up with the pace of events as they unfold. I do not need any proof for my belief that the CIA operates in Iran it is a self evident fact given American reporting of their spies knowledge of nuclear plants.  Obviously the CIA did not start the resistance against the Shah but many people believe they were instrumental in ensuring that the fundamentalists rose to power instead of a coalition of communists and socialists.  While I have no proof I believe they helped the fundamentalist in the killing spree within the revolution after the fall of the Shah when the secular left wing was largely eradicated. I believe they are presently working very hard to but together contingency plans to cease power from any popular movement that is successful in overthrowing the current regime.

What is this, an interrogation? I refuse to be waterboarded. And in case the question does arise, I had nothing to do with either 9/11 or the CIA's creation of the dreaded SAVAK in 1970's Tehran.

Aw c'mon. Don't shatter my belief system:

The CIA runs everything.

They pulled off 9/11, to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, because the people of those countries are impotent, the CIA had to engineer, arm, and finance the insurgency - so they would have something to fight against.

Likewise in Iran. Only the CIA has the brains, power, and diabolical drive to organize the Iranian movement for political change.

And don't get me started on the H1N1 thing.

Or climate change.

Because they control the weather too.

Or at least they did, until they paid one of their own to blow up 8 of their own the other day.

What a shame. All that intelligence gone, in one fell swoop.

So sanizadeh, get with the program.

Fidel, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, it was really a question for everybody. 

Unionist that is merely the CIA's marketing campaign.  They would like to control everything and since they can't they will settle for the power that comes from people thinking they do.

No, the bastards let their Islamic Gladios pull it off on purpose, like they allowed Pinochet's DINA into the country,and who guided their fascist-alike visitors around Warshington for days before they murdered former economist in Allende's democratically elected government, Orlando Letelier

The CIA and their Gusano Gladios know all about hijacking planes and blowing up Cuban passenger jets with innocent people aboard. The bastards have actually boasted of their anti-Cuban terrorism and murder of innocent people before.

Oh sorry sanizadeh, I forgot one key element:

Anyone who questions the omnipotence and omniscience of the CIA is, of course, a CIA operative.

Unionist, are you saying that Murder Inc with a history of falsetto flagelato gladio and murdering scores of innocent people in this hemisphere over the years should be ruled out from the list of suspects who perpetrated 9/11?

What about Bush's and now presumably Obama's executive death squads running around the world murdering people? How about the renditions and torture? Is this all a figment of leftwing imagination, too?

What would Diefenbaker say besides, let's give an entire Canadian aircraft industry away? I think if Nortel existed then, he's have handed that off to the lowest foreign bidder, too.

No, I'm saying that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and many other countries have risen up in struggle in the past, and are doing so today, against oppression, both internal and external - that they have won in the past and will win today and in the future - and that any theory that the resistance is the handiwork of the Great White Powers is a theory in the service of those self-same powers. As for 9/11, I neither know nor care who perpetrated it, but I have a clear understanding of the need of some people to attribute it to the omnipotent U.S.

Oh Jeez, you're so not with it today. In case you haven't noticed, ordinary people in those countries have won nothing since shock and awe over Baghdad. Pakistanis are slightly better off than wretched Afghans who live in grinding poverty and despair after 30 years' worth of US meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And before you tell us again that VietNamese won that war, too, I must protest. The VietNamese actually won very little. They were forced down the road of  capital in Clinton's time as they could no longer deal with the vicious trade sanctions. Cubans and Iraqis and North Koreans know all about vicious trade sanctions waged against them by a vicious empire claiming to support and advocate for free trade.

And then there are the horrible birth defects still occurring in Vietnam with genetic mutations passed on to this generation of VietNamese. And the defects are truly horrible to look at on the internet. Believe me, with your somewhat optimistic outlook on things in general, you don't want to see those photos. And I refuse to post them here no matter how much bullshit you preach here about this glorious war and glorifying the organized murder for the sake of romanticizing a terrible-awful situation for many millions of human beings in those countries, or reasons I simply can not fathom.

I do not need any proof for my belief that the CIA operates in Iran it is a self evident fact given American reporting of their spies knowledge of nuclear plants.

x

They need  some serious analysis, right?

Isn't it possible that Iranians just had an election, and that Ahmadinejad actually won fair and square in spite of a lack of democratic alternatives?

US-managed elections in Afghanistan, otoh, produced no democratic winner because no one actually opposed the one time pro-Mooj Karzai and his government of corrupt warlords and war criminals. And the CIA and US Military are notorious for rigging elections. Those people, and apparently some babblers, too, are taking the CIA's line that election results in Iran should be overturned. Why? We want answers or else there will be a good waterboarding unless we get them. The truth would be nice but not entirely necessary, because we should all enjoy a good waterboarding that lasts for SIX YEARS at a place like Gitmo!! Or apprently any one of the CIA's secret horror prisons in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa or wherever.

sanizadeh certainly thinks so, CMOT.  In fact she says our little speculations from the heart of empire are sort of weird.  Makes sense, looking at the inspired offerings above.

Isn't it possible that Iranians just had an election, and that Ahmadinejad actually won fair and square in spite of a lack of democratic alternatives?

I sure hope you have made the point pointedly enough with that one, CMOT. But I will not hold my breath. Many paths beckon. : D

British reporter Nigel Horne wrote:

Compare that to the results of Three US-Managed elections in Afghanistan, El Salvador and Iraq [109] in the same decade. And remember, this is the same vicious empire some babblers refuse to believe is omnitious and omnipotent with thousands of CIA agents stationed in every major city in the world including Havana and Ottawa. I'm afraid to say so, but we're talking about gangsters with nukes.

Yer something to behold in your breathtaking boldness, Fidel.  Have a revolutionary 2010.

It would be as if Canadians took to the streets months after electing Brian Baloney by an actual majority of votes the first and only time in 1984. Plausible yes, but how likely was it at the time, because no one knew our elected stooge was lying to Canadians on behalf of Warshington and corporate America at that point.

I'm not really sure how to respond to Mr. Horne's article...

Don't fret about it. We pick on the CIA and US hawks way too much here, we know. And besides, it's not like the US has ever meddled in Iran or any resource-rich country before. We live right nextdoor to the Yanquis, and so we should know.

Fidel, how do you get accurate polling data about the Iranian government from Iran's citizenry?  Isn't that kind of like asking Jordanian gays to fill out the Good Vibrations sex survey?  

Are foreigners not capable of indicating their electoral leanings in a survey taken by a western-based polling company before Ahmadinejad's election? 

Is it the case that the only legit leaders in the world are our 22 percent Bay St. hirelings in Ottawa and Toronto? Because if it is, then God help us.

Closing for length