Think tanks don’t take things personal and are never surprised. The only ones who are or who seem to be surprised by “failures” are the “gentlemen” whose job it is to offer- and many time believe the noble lies fed to them before a press briefing. These people don’t gamble because every scenario has been worked out and it’s merely a matter of reacting according to the already worked out solution. If one can imagine a group of small time managers or sports coaches doing this, then surely they can understand that the powers who make up the ruling class go well beyond hoping that their plan works?

I think that no matter how “bad” US destabilization plans went down in Iran or how “dumb” it was because of only minor differences being reached with success, obvious goals were easily met– Especially convincing good white folks across the planet that Iranians live in tyranny and bombing all of them would be no worse than allowing them to suffer at the hands of evil oppressors. It’s an old and worn script with such recent examples as Iraqis being raped by Sadam’s sons and women in Afghanistan not being able to show their sexy lips…these being true ain’t the point! Making US citz mercy killers is.

I’ve read that irony used to be far from funny…I feel very sad for those in Iran thinking that they operate outside Empire’s influence and control. As far as US (or Aus or any other client/bitch) citz backing them? It’s like going to a movie and cleansing your own shameful participation and compliance by safely rooting on your doomed hero.

firstly:

‘While Ahmadinejad crafted just enough populist rhetoric to provide headlines’

Thats your perception…and its called demonisation. ‘Crafted’? I dont think so and you cant substantiate that he is not genuine

and:
‘Ahmadinejad’s reign ‘

‘Pro-market privatizations have been combined with harsh restrictions on worker’s ability to organize in order to advance Ahmadinejad’s neo-liberal restructuring of Iran. Although Iran is technically a member of the International Labor Organization, and thereby mandated to allow free trade unions, workers are restricted from forming independent unions’

Like in Venezuela where the free labor unions organised with the business owners/bosses to remove Chavez
not the word id use as it signifies absolute power….which we know he does not have…

Then:
‘Pro-market privatizations have been combined with harsh restrictions on worker’s ability to organize in order to advance Ahmadinejad’s neo-liberal restructuring of Iran’

Really? Its strange then that A isa friend of anti-neoliberalHugo Chavez and the govt of venezuela.That he attended the inauguration of an anti-neoliberal Correa of Ecuador.…

What we do see is a concerted effort to have ahmadinejad removed and replaced with…who? If the mass of people vote for Ahmadinejad thats their democratic choice…and its not up to the bill whartons to contradict them, or agitate for his removal…thats not democracy.
======================

‘I think you are missing my overall argument’

No its abundantly clear. but its a new approach to claim Ahmadinejad is a privatisor when thats been the claim for mousavi! You do say the election was stolen…it wasnt and theres no mor evidence it was than that A is a nasty privatisor.
Ive seen many left wing sites support the idea the election was fraudulent from Louis Proyects to Lenin blog….This doesnt make it so,but it does show left wing commentators are no more honest when their desires are crossed.
==================
Now what ive not been able to find are direct quotes from Ahmadinejad on neoliberalism policy. What i DO see is Whartons lies about vote fraud and a demonisation of president ahmadinejad

1. he is not:

‘On the face of it, that looks improbable. Deng Xiaoping was always an outward-looking economic reformer as well as a political oppressor. Ahmadinejad is not. He has halted or reversed Mohammad Khatami’s tentative efforts toward a market economy and privatization of state enterprises. It is hard to imagine Ahmadinejad as anything other than a crude populist with scant understanding of economic issues. But Iran’s current leaders may well determine that economic and social liberalization — as in the case of China — can save the revolution, or at least their place in it. We have seen what China has done in the name of Communism. What somersaults might the mullahs and their military backers perform in the name of Islam?’

2, the there is this, circulating on left wing sites:

‘Since his election in 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, under the guidance of the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has overseen a regime dedicated to the privatization of state-controlled industries. The intention of the regime, as stated by the newly appointed Governor of the Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyyed Shams Al-din Hosseini, is to privatize 80% of state-owned industries by 2010′
…
‘Meanwhile, somewhere deep inside Evin prison, clandestine communications may be being initiated between a jailed bus driver and a newly minted student radical or an ailing baker and young rock-throwing worker. These actors need little help in understanding that Ahmadinejad’s regime, despite all his populist rhetoric, has worked hand-in-hand with IMF privatizers. After failing to deliver on his populist rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has stolen the election. Now, his only recourse is state repression. On the streets, something far more brilliant is underway — an open-ended emancipation project demanding nothing less than political freedom’

Now: who knows whats true…What IS true is the Billy Wharton in number 2 hates Ahmadinejad…but then so does Bowring, i suspect. What is clear is that he is popular where it counts: with his own people…hence he is called a populist…what western leader can claim to be a populist…only obama, for now.

But of course you know that you’re just playing ignorant…right?

I lived in Oaxaca, Mexico for a while. No tacos. Rice, I guess, but no real culture around it. Corn was far more important. I think the taco thing might be northern Mexican thing. I was only in Puebla for a little while and I do not think tacos fly very well in Chiapas. I imagine then that there are plenty of folks from Mexico who are not interested in either tacos or rice. It just takes a bit of curiosity to discover this.

There is nothing imagined about over $400,000 to destablize the Iranian government. You can deny it, you can ignore it. It is real and Obama has added to the pot.

Why would you call a well known effort to destablize the Iranian government “imagined” and yet you take a massive crowd with no focus, rioting as something that represents not only a cohesive movement, but one that sees Ahmadinejad as the cause for privatizing government run industries. That, afterall, is YOUR argument. Western promoted (internally and externally) rioters don’t want privatization is like saying Mexican don’t want tacos and rice.

I think you are the one suffering a bout of illusion. Imagination is good but your story lacks substance as I’ve said from the beginning. There’s just too many facts that support the opposite of what you purport.

I don’t disagree that a non-farsi speaking reporter is not going to get the story, but then, some of the story may extend beyond the boundaries of Iran.

That strawman fallacy is “played out” and stale. Zionism is a racist ideology and the problem has been the lack of confronting this racist ideology head on. These kind of strawmen fallacies has the opposite effect of directly confronting Zionism but are used to essentially obscure and to dismiss any real confrontation. Zionism is not about “Jews”. It is about using power to oppress another group. The fact that Zionism is based on “Jewish” hegemony is the way that Zionism inflate their ranks no different than White Supremacy used “whiteness” to inflate its ranks.

The fallacy that bozh is trying to convey is that the “U.S.” is in control not Zionism is a fallacious argument. It shift the focus into arguing that there is a “cabal” of Zionist running the U.S. which is really a stupid idea and intellectually lazy. bozh uses this intellectual laziness to frame his fallacy into talking point which he can easily shoot down or make his opponent look ridiculous — thus the strawman.

We know that the ruling class embraces Zionism because they are on record saying such. Let’s not forget Joe Biden famous quote “we are all Zionist now”. Therefore Zionism is not EXCLUSIVE of the “U.S.”. but is an INTEGRATED part of United States’ society. The Left has FAILED on this front by only offering up denials and ridicule rather than really confront this racist ideology. If the Left was really serious about confronting “U.S. Imperialism” as they claim they are then they would be serious about confronting Zionism.

even if we assume, that all of palestine +shebaa+golan, are now in ‘jewish’ possession, why can’t ‘jews’ obtain a permit from US to expel all non-judaic shemites from the three regions?

so, jews are either impotent to get US to OK an expulsion or they are not as influential as people say.

if US is frightened of an expulsion [because of unforesen results] then US is in control. tnx

The idea here is not to get into extremes. The Left has spent these past 35 years providing cover for Zionism’s influence on U.S. Foreign Policy. At the same time it is obvious that there is a class struggle going on in Iran. Since there is evidence of the U.S. desire for regime change in the Iran it is not inconceivable that the U.S./Israel could be involved in exacerbating internal class conflicts to achieve its own goals. To assume not means denying U.S. history and the overthrow of Mossadegh. On the other hand to deny class struggle is to deny Capitalism and the desire by the more educated class who may want to feather their own nest at the expense of the mass of Iranian people.

As a result, Le Monde offered nuanced reports which illustrated the sharp struggle between the left and Khomeini.

This was well known at the time of the internal struggle of the Iranian Left and Khomeini. Khomeini was a reactionary but the first step in Iranian liberation was to overthrow the Shah. It is a shame that Khomeini had to come to power but if the U.S. hadn’t overthrew Mossadegh there most likely would never have been a Khomeini.

In this case I have to essentially agree with Max’s position and I believe it is much better for the the Left to struggle against Imperialism and Zionism at home as the most effective way to assist the Iranian people. I am very skeptical of those that have signed on to Hopi since those signatories have unfortunately used their influence to outright deny and to obscure the growing influence of Zionism in the U.S.

I could provide you with an equally extensive argument that the history of the region over the last 60 years involves a variety of attempts by capital to control/curtail labor. More macro actions by the US are just the background noise to this larger struggle. Of course, one is limited to around 1,000 words for an article such as the one which was published on DV.

A wonderful book by the French historian Maxine Rodinson, Islam and Capitalism, stretches back even further. Another interesting work is that of Edward Said entitled Covering Islam. In it, Said argues that there is a constant problem in the US media regarding coverage of the Islamic world. The problem stems from the very structure of the media.

His primary example is the coverage of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. He compared the coverage of Le Monde and the NY Times. Le Monde assigned Maxine Rodinson to write reports – he spoke Farsi and has deep historical background. The Times assigned a journalist who had just been in Africa, had no language skills or background in the history of the region. As a result, Le Monde offered nuanced reports which illustrated the sharp struggle between the left and Khomeini. The Times tended to reproduce State Department press releases which viewed the fate of the hostages as the primary story.

In this case, the focus on the imagined role of the CIA/Zionist conspiratorial forces substitutes a blanket macro factor for a serious analysis of internal conditions. It takes a fairly narrow pre-conceived notion and forces it onto a dynamic historical event.

It’s like the pre-World War II calm in Britain when I was a young man. No one did anything until bombs began to fall. We really don’t notice climate change; it seems theoretical to most of us. When the first great climate disaster strikes, I hope we will all pull together just as if our nation was being invaded. James Lovelock

James Lovelock is a thinker like you Max. Just like your last comment I wish too that Lovelock is wrong but unfortunately we don’t need Nostradamus on this anymore. Two million to start one voice calm at peace, Capital.

My point is by tracing US/Iranian history over the last 60 or so years we have some understanding of motive in terms of destablization; we also have thoroughly documented records of US interventionism and CIA or CIA-like destablization.

A “movement” without an articulated purpose, with no recognizable demands or goals, or leadership (in whatever form) is just a spontaneous crowd reaction to something that incited them (whatever that is – the belief that their guy’s election was stolen ? But for the most part it is a hodgepodge of factions which have yet to form a cohesiveness at best. At worst they are plants of US and Western subversives, some directly others indirectly.)

The Rodney King incident did have an undercurrent of injustice that runs through to today with the police and the racist penal system. But it was a riot which had no resolution. It was bloody and without direction…many of the people horribly injured were bystanders. It does not reflect a “movement”, but rather an outburst that comes and goes.

Mexico may allow some dissident behavior, but so what? The US allows it from time to time, it curtails it, subjugates it to the fringes to make it non-existing.

The system retaliates against that which it sees as a threat. If the “threat” has been nullified, there is little reason to bother with it. If it begins to form real impetus, you watch how quickly the Mexican militia are out in full force crushing it.

If you think the ability to control dissention is the difference between Mexico and Iran, than you’ve lost all sense of reality.

This is not my argument. My argument is that you do not care to know or, worse, you seem to think of Iran as a impossible place to know unless one lives there. This is a very old idea about the exotic or impenetrable nature of “the other” – unknowable. I find this thoroughly anti-human.

Second point about leaders. Two response. As a mass public phenomenon, this movement is very young. It needs time to develop itself and put forward leaders and spokespeople. Second, the movement is being conducted against a highly authoritarian government. Unlike the US Civil Rights movement – where the violence against the movement was mostly extra-legal – protesters in Iran break the law by simply stepping onto the street or having a meeting. The black community in the South controlled protected institutions – particularly churches. This is mostly not the case in Iran though things are still in flux.

Final point. There was and is a movement against police brutality in just about every urban area in the US. These movements have specific demands and are engaged in day-to-day organizing projects. Many of them were created in the aftermath of the Rodney King beating and the shooting death of Amadou Diallo in NYC.

The questions facing any social movement are:
- How much space is available withing a particular society to create consistent organized dissent in a democratic manner
- Can elites resolve grievances within the boundaries of the existing social order?
- Can dissenters build bases within the existing institutional framework of a society – eg Black Church in the civil rights movement
- Is the complaint linked to a fundamental structural-economic contradiction
- How does the dissent relate to global/external trends and resources

You can’t make a credible argument based on “me” not understanding Iran the way an Iranian does, when “you” are not an Iranian.

But, further, what happens here, in the US, where we “know” and “understand” and can discern the nuances, are not agreeable. That is we all have a framework/prism that these things flow and from it a narrative that is woven.

Head to head disagreements on “beliefs” get us no where, because our belief system dictates our thought process.

You “believe” that Iran is in the midst of a “civil rights movement”. Perhaps there is agreement on that “belief” here and in Iran. But where are the leaders; where is the purpose that emerges from all this?

It’s no where to be found. Holding up pictures of a young lady shot and killed, gives no more purpose than did videos of Rodney King being beaten unmercifully by the LA police. There was no movement. What did the crowd want? What did the crowd in Paris want several years ago when there were several days of riots? Who were their leaders. What was their purpose? Was anything resolved?

Overlay the narratives and the money trails of all, and there are still truths that highlight obfuscation. The most important is that I cannot feed my community with green paper or gold coins, or laws.

It may be, in the end, that Hamid Dabashi’s position is the correct one. He argues that the post-election movement in just one manifestation of an emerging civil rights movement in the country. The movement does not make “sense” to many Western observers since it is a new moment in the region – i.e. protesters are just trying to renegotiate terms within the confines of the Islamic Republic (not overthrow it). For parallels, Dabashi recommends considering the US Civil Rights movement and the anti-apartheid campaigning in South Africa.

I disagree with Dabashi. Obviously from my article, I think there is serious structural-economic decay which will not allow the Islamic Republic to adapt to the demands of even an internal civil rights movement. Key to moving beyond this, is some fusion between the current protest movement and long-simmering resentment among organized workers.

Either way, supporting the notion that a Zionist agenda is behind the protests or that it is a CIA-induced manifestation simply re-enforces the nonsense being peddled by the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader. Why would someone want to do that? What is the anti-imperialist purpose of doing so?

I lived in Mexico for a while. There was plenty of healthy anti-imperialist sentiment there. Yet workers also had the right to assemble and make protests against their government. They did not receive 5 year sentences for assembling during May Day. Having rights did little to diminish anti-imperialist ideas – if anything it enhanced them.

ruling classes love to hear how life, history is to ”complex”; meaning to say [tacitly tho, so that one does not espy the lie]: Look you ignorant peasants, Stop yammering and recognize that king and his team is doing the best they can for u.
or, they’ll say, Hey, it is not that simple as you say. Boy, this shuts dwn an inquiry much quicker than jailings, beatings.

please, folks, don’t fall for this ancient ruse. Shun, please, both the simplicity and complexity when on descriptive level. Neither of these to elevated words belong on this level; they belong on the level of obnubilation, fantasy, deception.
where is proof of that? We are still killing children and women for money; as always before because the situation is too damn complex and we are doing our best to achieve peace, prosperity.

when the word “complex” is used, or appears to be used, as WE DON”T KNOW AND WILL NEVER EVER KNOW, then, to me, that is crime; usually against weakest among us.

who the hell needs to know everything about afpak before ceasing with slaughter of, is it, 99.99% or 100% innocent people.
ah, bozh, damn u! U’r just simlifying everything. tnx