Full-Spectrum Idiocy: GOP and Chavez on Iran

When approaching Iran, the Republican Party line and the Hugo Chavez line are running in opposite directions — but parallel. The leadership of GOP reaction and the leadership of Bolivarian revolution have bought into the convenient delusion that long-suffering Iranian people require assistance from the U.S. government to resist the regime in Tehran.

Inside Iran, advocates for reform and human rights have long pleaded for the U.S. government to keep out of Iranian affairs. After the CIA organized the coup that overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953, Washington kept the Shah in power for a quarter century. When I was in Tehran four years ago, during the election that made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, what human rights activists most wanted President Bush to do was shut up.

But Bush played to the same kind of peanut gallery that is now applauding the likes of Sen. John McCain. The Bush White House denigrated the 2005 election just before the balloting began — to the delight of the hardest-line Iranian fundamentalists. The ultra-righteous Bush rhetoric gave a significant boost to Ahmadinejad’s campaign.

Denunciations and threats from Washington are the last thing that Iran’s reform advocates want. And Iranians certainly don’t need encouragement from Uncle Sam to do what they can to bring about democratic change.

John McCain doesn’t get it. And neither does Hugo Chavez.

Of course, Chavez has practical reasons for his warmth toward Ahmadinejad. (Practitioners of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” usually do.) While sharing Washington as a common adversary, their oil-rich countries have the makings of a world-shaking energy bloc. And they’re on similar pages with well-founded antipathies toward institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank.

But human rights — whether food, shelter and healthcare or freedom of speech, press and elections — should not be matters of winks and nods.

As voting began in Iran on June 12, Chavez praised Ahmadinejad as “a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism.”

Nine days later, with a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters gaining momentum, Chavez declared that “Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way.” The Venezuelan president condemned those “trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution.”

I’m among millions of progressive North Americans who admire much of what Chavez has been doing for economic equity and social justice in Venezuela. But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.

Meanwhile, in the United States, we have nothing to be smug about. The day after President Obama toughened his criticisms of Iran’s rulers at his June 23 news conference, a venerable human-rights organization named the Quixote Center was noting that more than 1,200 people had sent letters and faxes asking the Obama administration “to denounce the violent repression of peaceful protests organized in response to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement” — a massacre of indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon.

What happened during that massacre on June 5? “A hundred people were wounded by gunshot, and between 20 and 25 were killed,” the Center for International Policy reports.

“The Obama administration,” the Quixote Center noted, “remains silent on the massacre in Peru.”

But the fact of some hypocrisy from President Obama does not change the fact of some idiocy from President Chavez.

On Wednesday (June 24), the Associated Press reports, “Chavez reiterated his support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a close ally, and said he is ‘completely sure’ Ahmadinejad fairly won re-election on June 12.”

For good measure, Chavez ascribed the protests in Iran to Washington and its allies. “He said protests and violence that have rocked Iran since the contested vote appear part of a recurring strategy by U.S. and European intelligence agencies to destabilize enemy governments.” Chavez declared: “From my point of view, that’s what’s happening in Iran.”

It seems to be beyond the vision of both Hugo Chavez and John McCain to see that vast numbers of Iranian people, fed up with repression, are able to grasp the historical moment on their own while opposing the regime. The last thing they need or want is “help” from the U.S. government as they struggle for a democratic future.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He writes the Political Culture 2013 column. Read other articles by Norman, or visit Norman's website.

29 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Reaganite Republican said on June 25th, 2009 at 12:48pm #

    Well, he can bow, kiss his ring, and call him “Supreme Leader” all he wants… but these blood-soaked tyrants are laughing at Obambi. It doesn’t matter what Obama says to the Mullahs now… they lost all respect for him when he started sending them adoring fan mail. They know this smiley plastic mannequin isn’t going to do anything.
    -
    Ronald Reagan’s support of Poland’s Solidarity in the dark days of the Soviet-ordered crackdown is the model here… not the preposterous straw-man argument of “what are you going to do, invade?” disingenuously presented by the do-nothing, Obama-pologist left.
    -
    And isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East in the wake of Iraq’s liberation?
    -
    Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.
    -
    That, and the fact that he’s already piled all his chips on legitimizing this vile regime- and a democratic revolution at this point would be downright embarrassing for Obama now

  2. Reza said on June 25th, 2009 at 7:01pm #

    Hi Everybody,
    Found this link to a statement of support from Venezuela, from the real leftist radicals who disagree fundamentally with Chavez and his shameful stance with a repressive regime; no friend of the international left.

    http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-solidarity-iran-statement-cmr.htm

  3. Max Shields said on June 25th, 2009 at 7:21pm #

    And here is a quite different analysis in Foreign policy journal:

    “The turnout was a massive 85% by most estimates, resulting in almost forty million ballots cast by the eligible Iranian voting public.

    Before the polls even closed, Mousavi had already claimed victory. “In line with the information we have received, I am the winner of this election by a substantial margin,” he said. “We expect to celebrate with people soon.” However, according to the chairman of the Interior Ministry’s Electoral Commission, Kamran Daneshjoo, with the majority of votes counted, the incumbent president had taken a seemingly unassailable lead.

    And so it was. Ahmadinejad won. By a lot. Some said by too much.
    …….
    To me, the only thing unprecedented about what we’re seeing in Iran seems to be the constant media hysteria, righteous indignation, and hypocritical pseudo-solidarity of the West; a bogus, biased, and altogether presumptuous and uncritical reaction to hearsay and conjecture, almost totally decontextualized in order to promote sensational headlines and build international consensus for foreign intervention in Iran.

    The foregone (and totally unsubstantiated) conclusions drawn by a rabid, clucking media have led to an ever-growing outrage over the elections results. Weak theories are tossed around like beads on Bourbon Street and assumed to be “expert analysis” and beyond reproach. By now, the accusations are well-known. However, with a little perspective and rational thought, the “evidence” that purportedly demonstrates proof of a fixed election winds up sounding pretty forced. With closer inspection and added context, the arguments crumble and are revealed not to be very compelling, let alone convincing.

    We read that the reelection of Ahmadinejad was impossible, unbelievable. It was a sham, a hoax, and a coup d’etat. But, in fact, there is no alleged, let alone substantive, proof to suggest that the results were fixed beyond mere speculation, biased and baseless assumptions, and suspect hearsay. It appears quite clear that the pre-election predictions of a soaring Mousavi victory by the Western press were nothing more than the consequence of presumptuous wishful thinking. Analyst James Petras tells us,
    “What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an imminent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.”

    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/06/25/in-fraud-we-trust/

  4. Melissa said on June 25th, 2009 at 7:32pm #

    Reza, thank you. The background is helpful and the distinctions help a lot too. I’m having a hard time understanding all of the competing testimonies without an adequate history or context, though this helps the process along.

    Peace,
    Melissa

  5. Shabnam said on June 25th, 2009 at 7:40pm #

    Norman Soloman, a HOPI supporter, a Trotskist organization and has identical position as Israel on Islamic liberation movement got it wrong. HOPI has shown over and over that its main enemy is Islamic organization NOT ZIONISM. The organization is dominated by the closet zionist including Chomsky and with their phony slogan “No to imperialism, no to theocracy’ cleaverly beat on the war dram. We are not a fool.

    This is acoup d’etat against Khamanie’s camp in Iran, by US/zionist forces, worse than fascists, and their puppets the Iranian business class headed by a corrupt wealthy cleric, Akbar Rafsanjani , and a traitor Mir Hussein Mousavi. Iranians can’t wait for his arrest along with other traitors who have sold the interest of Iran to foreign enemies. The monarchists and the terrorist organization of Mujahedeen (KEM) are working closely with Israel creating chaos to destabilize the country under spurious charge, ‘elections fraud.’ The US/Israel had the knowledge of Ahmadinejad popularity among majority of Iranian people ahead of time, therefore, they planned this coup against Khamenaie’s camp to bring them down to install Rafsanjani’s puppet, Mousavi, to control Iran destiny. They are watching closely the Iranian government move against Mousavi and are waiting for an opportunity to speed up the paste of this coup d’etat. Iranian people want the government to arrest Mousavi and those who are involved in CIA/Mossad coup against Iranian people and Iran interest but Iranian government is aware of the trap. Therefore, they are not going to arrest Mousavi any time soon. Mousavi is aware of this protection and he uses it to create more chaos to continue his stupid act for his masters. He is not a brave man; he is a timid person otherwise he would have shown it at the time of debate.
    The traitor son of the Shah wants outside power to install him, like his grandfather and father, to the throne. He must be stupid if he thinks Israel can do that. The whole world is waiting for complete destruction of Zionism worse than fascism.
    The ousted Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi’s son urges Israel to support post-election riots in Iran to bring down the government of Tehran.

    http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=98844&sectionid=351020101

  6. Deadbeat said on June 25th, 2009 at 10:43pm #

    What is interesting is how the “Left” has positioned itself as advancing “U.S. Imperialism” by backing the so-called “protesters”. The Left is very split on the issue of Iran whereby some members has aligned themselves with the Zionist wing who interest it is to see the downfall of Iran.

    The irony however is their claim about revolting against the Iranian theologians as an expression would not be so if the U.S. had not overthrown Mossigdeh in 1953 and installed the Shah. Is that what the Hopi folks want? Once again we see the division on the Left and the fallacy of “Chomskyism” of whom is a signatory of Hopi.

    Kudos to Shabnam who reminds us about the motivations of Hopi and its willing or unwilling desire to align itself alongside “U.S. Imperialism”.

  7. Deadbeat said on June 25th, 2009 at 10:46pm #

    Solomon writes…

    But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.

    Again Kudos to Shabnam for exposing Norman Solomon dubious alignment with Hopi.

  8. Deadbeat said on June 25th, 2009 at 10:48pm #

    Also let’s not forget that Solomon was also vehemently against Ralph Nader’s run in 2004.

  9. dino said on June 25th, 2009 at 11:33pm #

    Reza call everybody to be in 26 june to stand with Iran people against its dictator Ahmadinejad.I’m sure will be such actions in many places and in the first lines will be:Joe Lieberman,Bibi,Olmert,Tzipi,Dershowitz,McCaine,Kristoll,Krauthammer and so on.How David Bromwich wrote today:”The secular prophets for the bombing of Iran have always known how to perform this trick. They knew long before they fell in love with a fraction of the Iranian people. McCain himself, and Charles Krauthammer and Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman and Alan Dershowitz–all are friends of Iran, as they see it. Friends of the Iran of their minds, which will some day replace the enemy Iran. The proof of their friendship is their eagerness to secure a blockade and to bomb.

    And how these prophets of war loved the protests! Here was the real Iran, yearning to be surgically struck. We will bring these Iranians their freedom, said McCain and the rest, by killing their country. So let us cheer them now, and metaphorically shake their hand by satellite image, before we bomb them for their own sakes”

    I,from my part,with my ability to understand something how much i have,think that Chavez is right on Ahmadinejad,the latter is an obstacle for Israel and US imperialism and to demonize him was the propaganda target for long.If people think about Iraq,Lebanon,Gaza,Palestinian people at all, and “the Iranian threat” the victims of great injustices :war,invasion,boycott,sanctions,a dezhumanization propaganda,then
    remain no doubts: in all these Ahmadinejad was no the perpetrator but the defender of the victims.

  10. brian said on June 26th, 2009 at 1:42am #

    ‘Of course, Chavez has practical reasons for his warmth toward Ahmadinejad. (Practitioners of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” usually do.)’

    No Chavez warmth is real…theres noi evidence of a ‘enemy of my enemy ‘ twaddle, any more than there is of vote fraud.

    ‘As voting began in Iran on June 12, Chavez praised Ahmadinejad as “a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism.”

    Nine days later, with a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters gaining momentum, Chavez declared that “Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way.” The Venezuelan president condemned those “trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution.’

    Chavez is right again…you may like to see what Kissinger said back in 1989:

    ‘Page 189 of Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, we find Kissinger, in 1989 refering to Tianamnen saying the following:

    ‘No govt in the world would have tolerated having thr main square of its capital occupied for 8 weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators…A crakdown was therefore inevitable’

    ‘But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.’

    he isnt, hes making common cause with Ahmadinejad…dont confuse the two.

    ‘For good measure, Chavez ascribed the protests in Iran to Washington and its allies. “He said protests and violence that have rocked Iran since the contested vote appear part of a recurring strategy by U.S. and European intelligence agencies to destabilize enemy governments.” Chavez declared: “From my point of view, that’s what’s happening in Iran.”’

    Yes, Chavez is right…thats exactly whats happening…with a shah apparent waiting in the wings.

    ‘It seems to be beyond the vision of both Hugo Chavez and John McCain to see that vast numbers of Iranian people, fed up with repression, are able to grasp the historical moment on their own while opposing the regime. The last thing they need or want is “help” from the U.S. government as they struggle for a democratic future.’

    what ever s norman talking about???? Iran has just had ELECTIONS, which were more democractic than any in the US! One candidate won: Ahmadinejad..the other than cried ‘fraud’ and began post-election violence.,..which was followed by the crackdown!

  11. brian said on June 26th, 2009 at 1:44am #

    ‘To me, the only thing unprecedented about what we’re seeing in Iran seems to be the constant media hysteria, righteous indignation, and hypocritical pseudo-solidarity of the West; a bogus, biased, and altogether presumptuous and uncritical reaction to hearsay and conjecture, almost totally decontextualized in order to promote sensational headlines and build international consensus for foreign intervention in Iran’

    Yes, Max…you are quite right….

  12. brian said on June 26th, 2009 at 1:48am #

    reza:
    ‘Found this link to a statement of support from Venezuela, from the real leftist radicals who disagree fundamentally with Chavez and his shameful stance with a repressive regime; no friend of the international left.’

    stuff your leftist radicals…..Chavez us quite right…your leftists should be ashamed at being duped by the MSM!!

    Show us proof of vote fraud..as for th crackdown for once i agree with kissinger:

    Page 189 of Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, we find Kissinger, in 1989 refering to Tianamnen saying the following:

    ‘No govt in the world would have tolerated having thr main square of its capital occupied for 8 weeks by tens of thousands of demonstrators…A crakdown was therefore inevitable’

  13. Max Shields said on June 26th, 2009 at 4:54am #

    For those who seem to think we have no sense of Iranian history, it is clear they have no sense of US imperial history and what the US has perpetuated around the globe in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, in Central and South American, in Southeast Asia and throughout Africa and the Balkins.

    The goons and squads of murders and torturers US support, the proxy wars us promotes and funds is replete through much of US history.

    And yet, we are to “believe” that one of the targets of US state enemies – Iran – is not also the target of intentional attempts to undermine the Iranian regime?

    Are there complaints, legimate complaints against this Iranian regime? Like all regimes, for sure. But that these were not provoked and sustained by outside interests stretches credibility to the utmost.

  14. bozh said on June 26th, 2009 at 6:06am #

    I say that US governance wld not be even ifluenced to any degree let alone made to change its decisions by any org, movement, or protest.

    we have such a situation now in iran. The difference btwn iran and US is in the fact that no land wld dare to interfere in amer domestic business but many lands, including US, interfere to quite a degree in iranian affairs.

    an US gov’t can interfere or make things worse for a disliked country because of many factors. One factor is that amers have been isolated to quite a degree from the world- deliberately so; so that amers have less empathy or human feelings for any people from which they have been alienated by entertainment industry, schooling, media reports, and clero-political discourse.

    thus the ruling class in US has a much freer hand in meting out punishing raids, invasions, blockades, sanction, etc. tnx

  15. Max Shields said on June 26th, 2009 at 7:45am #

    Does anyone recall that Bush in 2007 funded an Iran destabilization program to the tune of $400 million dollars?

    The US has been working to undermine the regime for some time. One can not simply dismiss the post election revolts as a spontaneous call for reform. Behind this is regime change. The US tried the same with no effect in Iraq before trumping up WMD pretexts for the invasion and occupation.

    Iran does not exist outside the context of the geopolitical dynamics driven by the US/Israel menace. Again, that doesn’t mean there aren’t people who simply want a more open society; but like is the case in these matters, what ever there is of that is simply being played to make the changes the US wants short of an invasion. How much of the internal striff is of a piece remains to be seen. How much is a fundamental power struggle which is not so “pure” in motives will require time to decipher.

  16. joed said on June 26th, 2009 at 12:07pm #

    amerikan govt. thrives on chaos, death, confusion and mayhem.
    are there problems with irani election–probably. did amerikan govt help to create the death and chaos in recent iran–NO! the amerikan govt is innocent bystander in iran.

  17. dan e said on June 26th, 2009 at 12:17pm #

    Will wonders never cease! Today I find myself in complete agreement with Max Shields! In fact I find myself very impressed by his ability to articulate the facts of this situation at considerable length & detail. Plaudits also to Deadbeat, Bozh, Brian and Shabnam.

    To Deadbeat especially for remembering Norman Solomon’s anti-Nader/anti-Independent Candidate stance in 2004. NS is the War Party’s last line of defense, a guy who carefully builds credibility as a “left journalist” so that he can be trotted out in situations where the hegemonic fraction of the ruling class needs a shill.

    Here’s my personal take on the Iran election flap: having spent more time than I should have participating in US electoral politics has made me aware of just how expert the US ruling class has become at manipulating the electoral process. Elections under the ground rules of “bourgeois democracy” is a game of skill similar to high-stakes poker. Both are “serious”, “hardball” games with winners and losers. Both a “player’s” skill and a player’s quantity of resources are vitally important.

    The US State has big advantages in both departments compared to what can be marshalled by parties/movements in most other countries, so if the US/Israel/UK -led State Apparatus can coax a target country into holding an election according to US-style rules, you know who is going to win. US-style rules of course allow for maximum pro-US legal and not so legal intervention in the process.

    However when such intervention is forestalled by institutions in place or popular movements in the target country, the outcome is less predictable as we see in Venezuela and now Iran.

    Jumping to the chase, my take on Mousavi: it’s clear to me that Rafsanjani sees the chance to join “Globalization” as his best opportunity to maximize his present billions. (Definition of Globalization: The Highest Stage of Imperialism”:) Mousavi is his ace political salesman, who has sold the susceptible sector of the Iranian populace on the idea that if only they’ll let Rafsanjani privatize the now-publicly owned petroleum reserves, they’ll be able to join “the First World” and enjoy life just like middleclass Europeans and USians.

    Yes life under the Mullahs is undoubtedly stifling for bright young students & graduates, just as many bright young people in the former USSR felt stifled by the pre-Yelstin regime. Only the names & faces have changed, the Koolaid is the same.

    It would seem that at least for now Rafsanjani/Mousavi & Co along with their “Western” allies have lost this round. But said “western allies” have achieved at least one thing in the process: “Left” or/and “Progressive”, even the Anti-Zionist movements around the world and esp. here in the US have splintered badly over this issue. Some I’d thought of as my best political allies have gone the other way. Bummer.

  18. Deadbeat said on June 26th, 2009 at 2:07pm #

    dan e writes …
    It would seem that at least for now Rafsanjani/Mousavi & Co along with their “Western” allies have lost this round. But said “western allies” have achieved at least one thing in the process: “Left” or/and “Progressive”, even the Anti-Zionist movements around the world and esp. here in the US have splintered badly over this issue. Some I’d thought of as my best political allies have gone the other way. Bummer.

    I appreciate the acknowledgments and yes I wholeheartedly agree with Max’s analysis on Iran as well. But your observation regarding the splintering of the Left on this issue is quite telling and once again dishearteningly shows how retarded solidarity is on the Left. Such splintering is reminiscent of the anti-war movement on 2003. If the Left can be easily splintered on this issue it demonstrates how difficult it’s going to be to challenge the system alongside specious “allies”.

    The “Left’s” take on this issue reveals why ordinary folks cannot trust the Left to be on their side in any long term struggle.

  19. KL5 said on June 26th, 2009 at 2:41pm #

    dane- “having spent more time than I should have participating in US electoral politics has made me aware”
    that ‘s why US electoral politics is shit and the USsan radical leeeeeeeeeeft is so prevailing in USA. dane goes left and east to the depths of iran.

  20. KL5 said on June 26th, 2009 at 3:10pm #

    sometimes i forget some important things. dane farts in all directions. he knows everything, ye know. his grandmom ‘s proud of him. he knows all about USans, iranians, zionists, his uselessness and so on.

  21. lichen said on June 26th, 2009 at 4:30pm #

    A lot of young, poor people have stood up in Iran to protest rigged and falsified elections, which has grown into a genuine civil rights movement; that is what the people who are actually there, actually involved say, and I trust them, and the majority young people of Iran more than I do western conspiracy theorists, who are being about as stupid as the gop and chavez are.

  22. Luis Cayetano said on June 26th, 2009 at 9:38pm #

    Whatever is happening in Iran, Obama has nothing substantive to say on the topic, at least not until he deals with repression in nations where the US has great influence. Until he can do the latter – until he can deal with human rights violations carried out by clients in Colombia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Georgia – then anything he says is pure hypocrisy. Whatever one thinks of the regime in Tehran, this is a matter for the Iranian people to deal with. Everyone else can keep their dirty snouts out.

    Reaganite Republican said: “Well, he can bow, kiss his ring, and call him “Supreme Leader” all he wants… but these blood-soaked tyrants are laughing at Obambi. It doesn’t matter what Obama says to the Mullahs now… they lost all respect for him when he started sending them adoring fan mail. They know this smiley plastic mannequin isn’t going to do anything.”

    I’ll cut to the chase: you’re a fucking idiot and a worthless hypocrite. You, a Reagan supporter, bemoans the rulers in Iran for being “blood soaked” tyrants, while proudly labelling yourself in the image of a president who imposed on Central America an orgy of torture and killing. This is almost too sick to even contemplate. The reform movement in Iran has consistently asked that Washington tone down its threats, because these threats only embolden the jailers, who can then turn to the excuse that all dissent is simply the product of Western interference. It seems that you’re not actually overly concerned with what happens to Iranians, only with how you can use them to bolster your own snivelling, conniving self-righteousness. This self-righteousness is bought with the blood of Iranians. What you actually can’t stand isn’t repression per se, but defiance by another regime. You and the mullahs are really two sides of the same coin: fanatical ideology.

    And what “respect” are you talking about? The respect that they had for Bush? Yeah, that’s a good one. After Bush set the region on fire, after he destabilised the entire Middle East and left a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan from which neither country may ever recover, rest assured that the regime in Iran were already laughing at you. Heck, I’d be laughing at you. It’s an expression of imperial arrogance to think that the Iranian people want Washington’s help on anything. After people like you imposed dictatorship on them, encouraged and armed Saddam Hussein to wage war on them, imposed sanctions on them, and are now hypocritically concerned about “human rights and democracy” (while chumming around with the dictators in Riyadh and Cairo), you expect them to “look towards” you? The Iranian people don’t give a FUCK about you, and that’s regardless of whether they’re for a hardline Islamic republic or for secular democracy. People like you have absolutely no credibility anymore and are totally irrelevant. You’re like a fly that hangs around on a hot day. The best that Washington could do for human rights and freedom in Iran is to halt ALL threats, pay massive reparations to the Iranian people for the brutal crimes you’ve perpetrated against them, and to leave the nation to Iranians. Apart from that, eat my dick. And fuck everyone like you.

  23. KL5 said on June 27th, 2009 at 12:09pm #

    Luis Cayetona – “The best that Washington could do for human rights and freedom in Iran is to halt ALL threats, pay massive reparations to the Iranian people for the brutal crimes you’ve perpetrated against them, and to leave the nation to Iranians.”
    this is the best message to the white house, not farting around with alleged knowledge of the secrets of zionism of danes’ sort.

  24. bozh said on June 27th, 2009 at 12:34pm #

    i am puzzled by what is happening in iran right now. Some people tell that an iranian prez cannot set iranian foreign policy; it is the clerics who determine iranian foreign [or even domestic] policy; thus, the question arises, what wld moussavi be able to change?

    or, can he, with help from west, also end the priestly rule? tnx

  25. KL5 said on June 27th, 2009 at 12:52pm #

    bozh, moussavi would not chnage theocracy in iran. the noise about him and human rights in iran is a US-imperialist policy to meddle in iran and tell the world, the iraninas don’t respect human rights, so let ‘s invade them and democratize them. USans have already democratized iraq on this mode, wmd and no freedom, so it ‘s time to invade and change them.

  26. lichen said on June 27th, 2009 at 1:55pm #

    Yes, Iranians knew from the debates that Moussavi did have the power and would do things like eliminate the ‘morality police’ that went around beating people up in the streets; the poor young people of Iran knew this, that is why they started their movement.

  27. dan e said on June 27th, 2009 at 2:08pm #

    Re “alleged knowledge of the secrets of Zionism”: the historical record is not a secret; neither is the membership of the Federal Reserve Board or the Fed’s Open Market Committee. It is no secret that the Israel Lobby has been leading the push for the US to bomb Tehran.
    Some facts are less widely known than others, but since publication of works by Grant F Smith it’s no secret that AIPAC is an Agent of a Foreign Power legally required to register as such that has been de facto exempted because successive Attorneys General have declined to enforce the law.
    Actually, nobody has alleged that any statement of fact I’ve posted on DV is false. All I see is an attempt to discredit me by making insinuations couched in foul language.
    What did I say that is contradicted by facts? Or is this another case of “everybody knows”?
    Sorry to belabor the point, but not so long ago “everybody knew” Obama was against the occupation of Iraq; before that “everybody knew” Saddam was responsible for 911.
    Permit me to suggest that before spraying foulmouthed insults, one might be better advised to question the basis for statements which go counter to ones preconceived ideas about the world.

  28. KL5 said on June 27th, 2009 at 2:33pm #

    Daneeee, “Sorry to belabor the point, but not so long ago “everybody knew” Obama was against the occupation of Iraq; before that “everybody knew” Saddam was responsible for 911.
    Permit me to suggest that before spraying foulmouthed insults, one might be better advised to question the basis for statements which go counter to ones preconceived ideas about the world.”

    you have exercised some catharsis. do you know what catharsis means? of course ye know everything. on dv you have freedom of speech and freedom of self-image. hope you feel better soon!

  29. Mulga Mumblebrain said on June 28th, 2009 at 1:01am #

    It appears to me that Solomon is just answering ancient, deep-seated, tribal loyalties. There was no stolen Iranian election, the US and Israel have been spending billions to undermine Iran, the protestors are a tiny fraction of society, mostly the rich, who, along with their venal ‘leaders’ like Rafsanjani, wish to join in the orgy of economic privilege that is capitalist globalisation. The 60% that undoubtedly voted forAhmadinejad are the ‘useless eaters’ that the elites care nought for and wish would disappear, with as little fuss as possible, as soon as possible. This is a ‘colour revolution’ like all the rest, with the same cast of villains, the NED, Albert Einstein Institute (what an insult to a great man) Jack DuVall, the Western media sewer, as ever singing in unison from the same prayer-book-the whole rogues’ gallery of ‘regime change’. If the US succeeds Iran will return to its status under the Shah as a puppet of the US. And most of the so-called Leftists supporting this US coup are, in my opinion, either fools, Zionasty plants or complete frauds. I’m always reminded when I see so-called Leftists spouting straight US and Israeli agit-prop of how ‘Living Marxism’ was taken over by a bunch of Thatcherites, who thought it jolly japes indeed to imply that market fundamentalism was some species of Marxism.
    Iran’s regime may be imperfect, but in comparison to the forces of evil that have been incessantly attacking it since its inception, Zionazism and Yankee fascism to the fore, it is absolutely
    preferable as the lesser, by far, evil. And the comparison with the torture and terror despotisms of the rest of the region, all Yankee stooges, is remarkably in Iran’s favour. This attempted putsch is clearly not only based on geopolitical priorities and xenophobic hatreds, but on straight class hatred. Ahmadinejad, despite his flaws, represents the interests of the Iranian underclass, which is clearly why Chavez, no Islamic fundamentalist he, supports him so fully and, I would say, correctly, against the forces of US inspired class hatred and privilege, allied to Zionazi and US hegemonic ambitions.