Iran, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan

Diplomacy of Brotherhood

The trilateral summit of the presidents of three Persian-speaking countries of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan wrapped up on August 5 in Tehran and recorded another unforgettable event in the memory of the three brother nations. With innumerable cultural, religious, social, lingual and strategic commonalities, the three countries of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan have demonstrated their potentiality to build one of the strongest diplomatic partnerships in the region and benefit the world nations through a unique, fruitful and constructive cooperation.

The people of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, whose countries were parts of the Greater Persia in ancient times, consider Iran as their cultural homeland and believe that the Iranian nation is the inheritor of their paternal legacy, the Persian civilization.

I had the opportunity to conduct an exclusive interview with the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran for the local weekly magazine last month in which I discovered for the first time that the roots of cordiality and affinity between Iran, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan are so deep and robust that one can hardly imagine. The Tajikistani ambassador Ramadan Mirza talked of Iran so enthusiastically and passionately that I felt for a while that he is in actuality more Iranian than I am. He called Iran a brother nation several times, talked of Tehran as an ancient and respectable city, paid homage to the antiquity and preciousness of Persian language as the common heritage of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan and told me of his early childhood’s aspiration of visiting Iran. He told me that when, under the soviet dominance, he was attending the high school in Tajikistan, he read about the historical sites of Iran such as the mausoleum of Persian poet Saadi, the tomb of Cyrus the Great or the ancient site of Persepolis in his school textbooks and since then, it became his ambition to visit these sites one day. He said that when he was selected to his mission as the Tajikistan ambassador in Tehran, his 50-year-long dream came true and he finally succeeded in visiting the sites which seemed to him unreachable and inaccessible long ago. Mr. Mirza told me that it is his honor to serve as his country’s ambassador in Tehran where he can freely visit the four corners of Iran whenever he likes.

It was in this interview that Mr. Mirza revealed for the first time that the Tajikistani President Emomali Rahmon has formally asked his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Nowrouz festival of 2011 be held in Persepolis which is actually the native soil of Nowrouz.

Nowrouz is a set of ancient festivities held at the beginning of vernal equinox to mark the commencement of new solar year.

He also pointed to the fact the despite the longstanding dominance of Russia over the newly-established state of Tajikistan, the Tajik people has never forgotten their maternal Persian language. It’s noteworthy that since Tajikistan was separated from the Greater Persia during the Russo-Persian wars of 1860s, the Soviet rulers launched a de-Persianization project in Tajikistan where almost everyone would speak Persian and write in the Iranian alphabet. The history of Russia’s relations with Iran narrates the bitter story that the Eastern superpower never dealt with Iran in a sincere, truthful and loyal manner. Traditionally, the Iranian nation thinks of Russia as a betraying, hypocritical and oppressive state which has shown its hostility towards the Southern neighbor on various occasions. One clear instance is the de-Persianization project in which the national media outlets, schools, public offices and universities of Tajikistan were banned from using the Persian alphabet and forced to employ Cyrillic alphabet instead. This was an artificial and uninteresting incorporation of the Russian culture into Tajikistan which had been an inseparable constituent of Iran’s large puzzle of cultural heritage since the establishment of Achaemenid dynasty 2500 years ago.

Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan have the capability to form a powerful political coalition. They share the same language, religion and cultural background and this is something which is a rarity in the contemporary world. They have common ideological objectives and since they’ve historically suffered from the subjugation of the superpowers, they seek independence and freedom. The closeness of the three countries is evident in their broad collaborations in various fields including academic exchanges, agricultural cooperation, military ties, financial relations and cultural collaborations. The three countries are slated to launch a trilateral Persian-language TV channel which is based in Dushanbe and will be broadcasting programs produced by each party. A long railway will be connecting the three countries in near future. All of them are the members of Organization of Islamic Conference and Non-Aligned Movement. They also sit at the same table in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as member states.

The joint declaration of the fourth summit of the heads of states of Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and Republic of Tajikistan was compiled in 14 articles and signed by the three presidents who have planned to hold the fifth joint meeting in Afghanistan in 2011.

In the 5th article, the three brother countries emphasized the importance of trilateral financial relations and highlighted the expansion of economic transactions through empowering and assisting the merchants and investors of each country.

In the 7th article, the three parties supported the development of cultural, scientific and educational cooperation and underscored the significance of joint planning for collaboration in the fields of culture, literature, history, common cultural heritage and sports.

In the 9th article, they announced their complete readiness to combat extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and drug trafficking which pose serious threats to the security and stability of the three countries.

In the 11th article, the three countries stressed the importance of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and underlined the inalienable right of the NPT member states to use the nuclear power for peaceful purposes under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The fifth joint summit of the presidents of Iran, Tajikistan and Afghanistan will be held next year and its date will be announced very soon.

Overall, it seems that the expansion of relations between the three Persian-speaking countries who are bound together through ancient cultural ties will serve to meet the interests of the Central Asian and Middle Eastern nations and contribute to the sustainable and durable stability and development in the region.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles have appeared on a number of media outlets and newspapers. He is a member of Tlaxcala Translators Network for Linguistic Diversity. Read other articles by Kourosh.

96 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Cameron said on August 14th, 2010 at 9:53am #

    Yet another propaganda work from the headquarters of the criminal Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran-Afghanistan cooperation and collaboration OR is it the case of Iran-US/NATO cooperation and collaboration? Invasion of Iran by the US coming soon!!!
    This article is worthy of magazines such as Tehran Times, the mouthpiece of the barbaric clerical regime in Iran. It is trying to raise nationalist fervor (Persian empire, culture..) because the Islamic part is no longer as effective. Why not write an article on political prisons where labor and social activists are being tortured, raped, and murdered? Yes these three “brother” countries have a lot in common. Torture chambers such as Abu Ghraib in Afghanistan are duplicates of Evin and Kahrizak and many other chambers in brother country Iran.

  2. Don Hawkins said on August 14th, 2010 at 10:57am #

    Ah ha Cameron a most fascinating comment.

  3. hayate said on August 14th, 2010 at 6:01pm #

    :D

    He had to use his left hand, though…

  4. hayate said on August 14th, 2010 at 6:05pm #

    From the article:

    “They also sit at the same table in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as member states.”

    He’s talking about Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. I know of only one of these being a member, and that is Tajikistan. Iran has observer status, I don’t think Afghanistan has any relationship to the SCO at all. I could be wrong, though.

  5. Rehmat said on August 15th, 2010 at 7:23am #

    Persian was an official language in India sub-continent before British occupation in the 18th century.

    Islamic Republic, Pakistan, Mongolia and India are the “Observer States” of SCO.

    Turkey, too, is spreading its influence in that part of the world – as the five Muslim states which got independence from USSR – are Turkic just like the great majority of the Western and Israeli Jews.

    Turks turning to their eastern roots
    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/turks-turning-to-their-eastern-roots/

  6. teafoe2 said on August 15th, 2010 at 11:52am #

    Cameron I’m disappointed to see you parroting the US/Israel line being pushed to justify an attack on Iran.

    I’m sorry but your post seems to contradict itself: “…OR is it the case of Iran-US/NATO cooperation and collaboration? Invasion of Iran by the US coming soon!!!”

  7. teafoe2 said on August 15th, 2010 at 11:57am #

    Pakistan now has Observer status in the SCO, and continues to lobby to be accepted as a full member, which seems to be opposed because it would not please India.

    Afghanistan’s status is given as “Attendee” which seems to mean they have a delegate at the SCO summits but don’t participate in other activities such as the military exercises.

  8. Cameron said on August 15th, 2010 at 12:56pm #

    Teafoe2, I’m not sure why you’re saying I’m parroting US/Israeli line. Perhaps I haven’t made myself clear. Let me try again. First I was being sarcastic when I said “invasion of Iran by the US coming soon”. I’ve said it before and say it again that it’s a mock battle and an invasion is not going to happen. I’ve been hearing about this immanent attack for so many years I’ve forgotten when I heard it first. I have been saying all along that it won’t happen. This article talks about Iran-Afghanistan as if Afghanistan is an independent state. Obviously it’s the US/NATO in charge and this cooperation and collaboration is really between Iran and US/NATO. The regime in Iran has helped the US in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The president of Iraq was trained in Iran. We know who runs the show in Iraq as well.
    Basically teafoe2, I believe that the regime in Iran is neither anti-imperialist nor anti-Zionist. Remember the Iran-Contra deal? The regime is politically independent and does not take orders from the US or anyone else. It has its own Pan-Islamic ambitions. It wants to exert its influence among Moslems everywhere and expand. It supports reactionary Islamic groups and Zionists don’t like that. That’s what this is all about. US want obedience and Israel wants Iran to stop supporting those forces. The so called sanctions and threats are pressure tactics for the US and Israel to get what they want. It’s costing the regime because it has to pay middlemen in Dubai and elsewhere to get what it wants and they get it.
    While they have their differences, IRI and the US have been cooperating and collaborating where they have common interests.

  9. hayate said on August 15th, 2010 at 8:41pm #

    Harvard University fund sells all Israel holdings

    No reason for the sale was mentioned in the report to the SEC.

    15 August 10 17:15, Hillel Koren

    In another blow to Israeli shares, the Harvard Management Company notified the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Friday that it had sold all its holdings in Israeli companies during the second quarter of 2010. No reason for the sale was mentioned. The Harvard Management Company manages Harvard University’s endowment.

    Harvard Management Company stated in its 13-F Form that it sold 483,590 shares in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) for $30.5 million; 52,360 shares in NICE Systems Ltd. (Nasdaq: NICE; TASE: NICE) for $1.67 million; 102,940 shares in Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP) for $3.6 million; 32,400 shares in Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE:CEL; TASE:CEL) for $1.1 million, and 80,000 Partner Communications Ltd. (Nasdaq: PTNR; TASE: PTNR) shares for $1.8 million.

    Harvard Management Company’s 13-F Form shows some interesting investments. Its two largest holdings, each worth $295 million, are in iShares ETFs, one on Chinese equities, and the other on emerging markets. Harvard also owns $181 million in a Brazilian ETF.

    http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000581912&fid=1725

    This divestment from israeli firms means they expect them to be poor investments. Considering the sort of people that are in harvard’s alumni, I would imagine they get a lot of very good inside investment tips from former students.

    What would makeisraeli firmsa poorinvestment? An attack on Iran and the increased worldwide anti-israeli consequences that would bring? Did someone in theknow tip off harvard about this?

    It’s something to think about.

  10. hayate said on August 15th, 2010 at 9:21pm #

    Left Think Tank Mystifies Iran-Saudi Tensions

    by Rostam Pourzal 12.08.10

    No one should be surprised when The Economist or another controlled opinion source misrepresents tensions in the Persian Gulf as religious rivalry while overlooking decades of U.S. and Israeli success in stoking them for imperial gain. The so-called mainstream press typically repeats unsubstantiated charges to pretend that Arab client states of Washington buy tens of billions of dollars of advanced weaponry as a response to alleged Iranian fanaticism. No mention that Iran’s military spending per capita is among the lowest in the region, even though it faces the credible threat of a devastating US or Israeli attack. We expect such “analysis” from the guardians of Western elites’ perverse campaign to confuse the public about what causes conflicts.

    But shouldn’t we expect less ignorance from a think tank that is known for advocating responsible positions on Latin America, race relations, domestic surveillance, and the environment? At a time when the corporate media are in a race to scapegoat Iran as they did pre-occupation Iraq, shouldn’t a pro-UN, anti-militarist research institute correct false claims that Iran’s foreign policy is guided by sectarian dogma? Who else is there to highlight the fact that Shi’i Iran has far better relations with Christian-majority nations Brazil, Venezuela, and Nicaragua than with the Republic of Azerbaijan, a close US ally whose population is two-thirds Shi’i? Doesn’t the brainwashed public deserve to be reminded that Saudi Arabia’s ruling family, which now confronts Tehran for claimed fear of Shi’i zealotry, was even more hostile during the 1960s towards Gamal Abdel Nasser, the popular anti-colonial leader of Sunni-majority Egypt? Why stop at attributing strained Saudi-Iran relations to religious schism and not claim that tensions between Venezuela and the US are animated by Catholic-Protestant rivalry?!……
    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/pourzal12081

    The think tank, Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), is the one promoting this variation on the ziofascist “clash of civilizations” propaganda. Using a religious rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia propaganda model is a cover of the role the israeloamerican puppet regime in Saudi Arabia is used to further israeloamerican hegemonic interests.

  11. hayate said on August 15th, 2010 at 9:24pm #

    Bad link above:

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/pourzal120810.html

  12. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:08am #

    Iran prepares mass graves for US soldiers

    Published 11 August, 2010, 01:42

    Edited 16 August, 2010, 08:29

    Speculation of a possible US and Israel military attack against Iran has pushed Tehran to take a rather unexpected counter-move.

    (More on the video at the link)

    http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2010-08-11/iran-dug-us-graves.html#

  13. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 5:03am #

    > I’ve said it before and say it again that it’s a mock battle and an invasion is not going to happen.

    I agree that as long as Obama is in office there will be no invasion of Iran. Obama has tossed out some public denunciations of Iran as a concession to the Israel lobby, but he is not in their pocket (unlike Bush, in my opinion). But I do have the impression that Obama (and the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction of America’s ruling class which he represents) does wish to bring about a color revolution of some kind in Iran. That much is not a Zionist agenda (unlike the calls for a military confrontation with Iran, which do come from Israel-firsters).

    Assuming that the Israel lobby is unsuccessful in pushing through a war in Iran, and assuming that proletarian revolution does not simply sweep capitalism into the dustbin of history where it belongs, my guess would be that at some time in the future (maybe near, maybe far) we will something in Iran that will be akin to East Berliners climbing the Berlin Wall. Most real ordinary Iranians are increasingly fed up with the reactionary Islamist regime and that trend is bound to continue. US imperialism, and more specifically the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction of the US ruling class (which stands opposed to the JIBSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction that advocates war with Iran), will very likely seek to take advantage of this disgust which average Iranians have for the theocracy to bring about something like a Yeltsinization of Iran.

    I long ago concluded that if there were some easy way for the USA to not only invade and occupy Iran but to (within 10 years let’s say) turn the whole country into a carbon-copy of South Korea then most Iranians would likely welcome this and the Koran would get relegated to the role of a door-stopper. That is sort what happened to DAS KAPITAL in eastern Europe after 1991, at least until it became obvious what a disaster Gorbachev & Yeltsin had brought about. The latter scenario is unrealistic however. South Korea’s “economic miracle” was possible because global capital was growing fast at the time. Even under such circumstances, North Korea was ahead as late as the 1970s. Only in the 1980s did South Korea surge ahead. But global capitalism doesn’t really seem to have the room right now for another such economic miracle to brought about in Iran under the auspices of a US occupation.

    A long-term danger though is that Iranians may lose sight of this fact. That was what happened in eastern Europe. After several decades of Soviet censorship many people came to regard the lessons in DAS KAPITAL and related works as just stale party-dogma which real party-officials did not take very seriously themselves. The highest bureaucrats began having illusions that by opening eastern Europe up to Wall Street they would turn the region into something economically equivalent to western Europe. It didn’t work out that way, and today capitalist crisis hangs over the whole world.

    But if capitalism stabilizes itself somehow in the next few years, then there is still a strong future likelihood that average Iranians who are sick of the corrupt Mullahs may be drawn into some kind of Green Revolution or whatever. I do believe that the Obama administration and its backers hold that as a long-term aim, though they do not intend to invade Iran. Obama coughs up some occasional smoke for Israel-firsters which can create some confusion as to what he intends, but my sense is that he does intend for a color revolution eventually.

  14. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 5:35am #

    > I believe that the regime in Iran is neither anti-imperialist nor anti-Zionist… It supports reactionary Islamic groups and Zionists don’t like that.

    Those statements are slightly in conflict with each other. I agree that Zionists do not like the Iranian regime. I also agree that the latter is not anti-imperialist in any sense. This is why I find it necessary to invoke the factions-in-ruling-class argument when evaluating such apparent discrpeancies.

    The Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction has a long record of supporting reactionary Islamic fundamentalism as barrier against against socialism. The JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction also has some record of this, but there are in addition special considerations for them. The demands from this faction to stop Iran from developing nuclear capabilites are real enough, because they fear the establishment of Iran as a stable power next to Israel. More traditional imperialists in the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction could more easily adapt to a nuclear Iran even as they would work to bring about covert regime change through a color revolution of some kind.

    I believe that the original “Islamic Revolution” in Iran in 1979 was deliberately engineered by US imperialism as a step in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Carter administration began pressuring the Shah in 1978. All accounts which I’ve read agree that these moves by Washington were what triggered the uprisings as Iranians suddenly realized that the Shah was no longer being supported. The rise to power of Khomeini in 1979 proved to be very good for US imperialism as a step towards counter-revolution in Afghanistan (and from there all the way up central Asia and into Moscow).

    If the USA had simply tried funding an Islamic war in Afghanistan, then Moscow could have pointed out that the Islamic reactionaries were mere lackeys of imperialism. Having an “Islamic Revolution” occur in Iran “against” US imperialism bestowed an added credibility upon Islamic counter-revolution in Afghanistan, supported by both US imperialism and the Iranian ayatollahs. An apparent “loss” of Iran by US imperialism made it easier for Ronald Reagan to invite Afghan “freedom fighters” to the White House without this simply confirming Soviet charges that the Afghan counter-revolution was made in Washington.

    But I do have the impression that the US ruling class today does feel that some eventual change in Iran will be for the better. The more parochial JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction is guided by fears that Iranian power would deprive Israel of its “top dog” status. But, I think, even the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction desires a color revolution which will accomplish something more like the Yeltsinization of Iran.

  15. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 7:42am #

    {But I do have the impression that Obama (and the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction of America’s ruling class which he represents) does wish to bring about a color revolution of some kind in Iran. That much is not a Zionist agenda (unlike the calls for a military confrontation with Iran, which do come from Israel-firsters}

    This statement can be written by people who are not familiar with Iranian politics and their knowledge on Iran has been formed by ‘Marxist’ analysis of HOPI dominated by slogan like “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy” who are racists as Zionists and have especial hatred towards Islam and holds Islam NOT ZIONISM or IMPERIALSM, as the ENEMY OF OUR TIME. They preach ‘Imperialism” but do NOTHING about imperialism, like gatekeepers, but all their activities are against Islam and resistance forces in the region grown since the Iranian Revolution in 1978-79. These forces are the only forces against Zionism, NOT the “LEFT”, such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. No wonder the gatekeepers are strong supporter of phony ‘left’ like HOPI who supports election ‘fraud’ HOAX and give a helping hand to velvet revolution, the GREEN stooges where their main ‘leaders’ and spokesperson are in THE POCKET OF JEWISH LOBBY in the US and Europe. Please watch the following video to see how Bernard Henri Levy, a Zionist fascist and strong supporter of Israel and its war, Iraq and now Iran, is heavily involved in training the GREEN STOOGES including Norizadeh, CIA/MOSSAD runs the campaign of lies and deception using Voice of American as the main outlet, and Makhmalbaf, an illiterate filmmaker recently was awarded A PhD in LITERATURE by University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Bernard Henri Levy, an imposter, is involved with Islamophobia industry against Muslim in support of “greater Israel.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQWP29xH2SA

    An organized ‘left’ does NOT EXIST IN IRAN. Those who call themselves ‘left’ are mainly living abroad where majority of them have accepted neoliberal economic arrangement of the US empire and have friendly relations with ZIONISM against Islam because the Iranian leaders of the ‘left’ like other countries are mainly coming from the upper middle classes and have to maintain a COMFORTABLE LIFE which is not possible without the support of dominant power, therefore, their cooperation with the evil forces is necessary to support their life style and boost their EGO. These people never defended the country from the Iraqi invaders backed BY IMPERIALIST FROCES IN THE US using the excuse that the Islamic republic is NOT ANTI IMPERIALISTS.

    These opposition groups cannot function without the support of dominant power, thus, each of them knows where the power is LOCATED. Therefore, we hear that Mohajerani, a womanizer, goes to “the Washington Institute for the Near East Policy” and Makhmalbaf goes to Washington to beg for more sanctions against Iran to destabilize Iranian nation. Therefore, all have chosen to demonize IRI to hide Zionist crime and its supporters , the United States with its DARK HISTORY where was involved in the Iraq war against Iran, shut down Iranian airbus and killed 399 many children in cold blood, overthrew democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953 to install a dictator, the Shah, on Iranian people and created SAVAK to kill the left in Iran, in order to control Iran and its resources, are just a few crimes of the US EXCEPTIONALISM in Iran. Iranians have not forgotten the crimes of the United States which is supported by their ignorant population with their tax $$$. Since the revolution, the US is involved in a campaign to destabilize Iran for Partition, like Iraq, directed by the organized Zionist Jews and their stooges including the ‘left’ abroad. The leadership of the ‘left’ is mainly in the pocket of the neoliberal forces, like Farrokh Negadar, who lives in Britain and has cooperation with MI6, is an apologist for Zionist crimes and goes to WINEP, Israel spy network. All spokesperson of the GREEN are in the pocket of CIA and Mossad, including Norizadeh, Makhmalbaf, as a result many Green supporters in Iran and abroad have abandoned these stooges and told them: “MAKHMALBAF: You are NOT our spokesperson.”

    The US foreign policy is run by the Zionist lobby and its extension. Obama was installed on the thrown through campaign of lies and deception, like the Zionist campaign against Iran to form public opinion among ignorant population in the US and the West, because his BLACK SKIN, not his ‘leadership’, was important to Zionist Jews to change the image of the US as a rough state to expand the war in the region including North Africa, Red Sea region where Sudan and Somalia is included. Zionist policy has been sold to US elite, where majority are Jewish Billionaire and their associates.
    Mohammad Khatami , former President, and his vice president Massoomeh Ebtkar, who was involved in hostage taking after the revolution, were invited to Bilderberg secret meeting, in 1999 in Portugal. You can find their names among other participants on the list.

  16. Cameron said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:21am #

    PatrickSMcNally, this is a very interesting analysis of Iran. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it but it’s a good one.
    >I believe that the original “Islamic Revolution” in Iran in 1979 was deliberately engineered by US imperialism as a step in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
    That is absolutely the case. In January of 1979 US, UK, Germany, and France heads got together in Guadalupe, an island in the Caribbean to discuss many issues most importantly Iran. The idea was to build a green belt, a series of Islamic states along the southern border of USSR. To that end Khomeini was the best candidate. Ever wonder why we now have so many more Islamic regimes in that region? Khomeini was shrewd though. After taking power he kicked out all of the imperialist representatives that had surrounded him.
    >Most real ordinary Iranians are increasingly fed up with the reactionary Islamist regime and that trend is bound to continue.
    Unfortunately some believe that the recent events in Iran were instigated by the US. They don’t realize the plight of the people in Iran. Labor participation wasn’t significant but it doesn’t change the fact that people are fed up. Imperialist powers will undoubtedly try to influence and shape the course of events in Iran. They will intervene especially if the continuation of the opposition becomes radicalized to the point of a possibility of a proletarian revolution there. A color revolution is not possible because the regime in Iran will absolutely not tolerate any kind of non-violent opposition. The risk of instigating a color revolution is that it could get out of control and that could spill to the whole region.
    The regime in Iran is not reformable. It would be a waste of time for anyone or imperialist powers to try to achieve reforms in Iran. The reason is that it’s a clerical regime. Though it’s a capitalist economy there is always friction between clerical rule and capitalism which makes the regime unstable.

  17. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 11:13am #

    > Unfortunately some believe that the recent events in Iran were instigated by the US.

    Yes, I realize that. A few posters on here (not very many, only two that I can think of offhand) sometimes sound as if they were in the pay of the Iranian foreign ministry. Most of the passages which I’ve run across remind me more of some old Leftists from the 1980s who acted as if the Soviet Union would be there forever and then were honestly shocked to see east Berliners climbing over the wall. I do expect that at some point (I can’t honestly guess if it will be near or far in the future) we will probably see the equivalent of people “climbing the Tehran wall.” I’m not so sure that Gilad Atzmon and some others will be better equipped than Gus Hall was to handle that when it occurs.

    > The regime in Iran is not reformable.

    If “reform” (burp, hiccup) were to occur in Iran then I expect that it would follow something like the Gorbachev/Yeltsin model (or maybe Deng Xiao-ping, if you want to stretch it further). Things like the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia or the “Orange Revolution” in Ukrainia happened long after the perestroika counter-revolution. A “Green Revolution” in Iran might be implemented later after some kind of Ayatollah Gorbachev comes to power, but that would first have to be generated from within the top heirarchy of Iran (as occurred in the Soviet Union). But Gorbachev did not reform the Soviet Union either. He simply paved the way for Yeltsin.

  18. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 11:31am #

    > slogan like “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy”

    That’s a perfectly good slogan. But you’re one of those who rambles like a paid agent of the Iranian foreign ministry, so I don’t expect you to acknowledge the validity of that as a slogan.

  19. Cameron said on August 16th, 2010 at 11:34am #

    >A few posters on here (not very many, only two that I can think of offhand) sometimes sound as if they were in the pay of the Iranian foreign ministry.
    Yup! You got that right. Bought and paid for by information or foreign ministry or both. The rhetoric is remarkably similar.

  20. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 11:38am #

    > Labor participation wasn’t significant but it doesn’t change the fact that people are fed up.

    That almost sounds like you could be talking about the USA. “Labor participation” in anything outside of election campaigns for Democrats hasn’t been really significant here for a long time. But people are getting fed up slowly even here. I just see it happening at a faster pace in Iran, although below the surface.

  21. mary said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:05pm #

    About another country in the region and where the majority have brown skin and brown eyes and who are Muslim and about our lack of compassion for those people.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20641
    “Humanitarian Warfare” in Pakistan: Bombs not Bread.
    The scale of the disaster caused by the floods is barely comprehensible

    Written by someone who has compassion and who cares for her fellow brothers and sisters and their children, of whom 3 million are now at enormous risk of dying from waterborne disease.

    Not the Islamophobic reactions that are quoted.

  22. mary said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:06pm #

    s/be Note the Islamophobic reactions that are quoted.

  23. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:21pm #

    mary and other UK-based DV readers: here’s a link to a review of what seems to be an interesting book which has roused rightwing UK thinktanks & a couple in US to fury:

    http://pulsemedia.org/2010/08/16/the-spirit-level/

  24. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:41pm #

    I wish the Iranian foreign ministry would hurry up and send me some of that “pay” it is alleged I must be getting, because I could use some car repair.

    Sorry, Mr McN and Cameron, with all due respect, your theories are very interesting but are too imaginative to convince me. Applying Occam’s Razor, to me Shabnam’s version makes more sense. And I’m about as far from being a Muslim as you can get.

    I think anytime you find yourself echoing the Voice of America version of reality, you need to go spend a week in a Zen monastery or a sweat lodge. Or do something.

    “Get back, you’re on thin ice!”

  25. Cameron said on August 16th, 2010 at 12:49pm #

    teafoe2, I never thought you were a paid agent. On the contrary, I believe we have a lot in common. I seriously doubt that PatrickSMcNally is referring to you either though he can speak for himself.
    Read the rhetoric of the poster PatrickSMcNally calls an agent. It speaks for itself. There is no doubt in my mind about that and same goes for the author of the article that started the debate.

  26. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 1:01pm #

    > I seriously doubt that PatrickSMcNally is referring to you either

    I definitely did not have him in mind when speaking of Iranian agents. But I did think of him briefly when recalling how some old Gus Hall types were blown away to see the Berlin wall torn down. But I don’t really know enough about TF2 to judge if he has any such illusions about the Iranian theocracy. I have, however, seen a fair number of “Leftists” whom I do not at all regard as paid agents or Tehran but who would, in my opinion, be excessively shocked if the Iranian masses were to tear down the theocracy. But I won’t try to put any words in TF2’s lips.

  27. Don Hawkins said on August 16th, 2010 at 1:01pm #

    teafoe2 I used to think the same way then at first say come on these people can’t be this devious there must be method to there madness no no no, no method just madness. You know Glenn Beck he uses some of my stuff I have written on DV and what Joe Mowrey wrote today just watch Repert is probably on the phone right now with Steve Forbes and a few more deciding where to have dinner and think to moves ahead then reverse it. Our elected leaders are on vacation or raising money for more grand illusion as we all go down the drain in not such slow motion and all is about 6.8 billion and that number is probably about to level off then head the other way.

  28. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 1:12pm #

    > to me Shabnam’s version makes more sense.

    It’s hard to credit ideological gobbledy-gook with anything approaching sense.

    > I think anytime you find yourself echoing the Voice of America

    Well, just to be realistic and honest, Voice of America does make more of an effort to put together a certain amount of honest research than does Iranian propaganda. Sure, you can point out all sorts of ways in which certain VOA “findings” can be skewed and used to distort a point. It’s wise to bear that in mind whenever one looks at something which comes from a VOA source. But compared to the way the Iranian government brands discontented citizens as “CIA/Mossad agents” the VOA is highly sophisticated. One doesn’t need to start putting any faith in calls by US imperialism to “restore freedom” in order to realize just that much. This is exactly the kind of talk among various Leftists which always makes me wander back in my mind to the way that some people were so shocked out of their minds to see major support all across eastern Europe for capitalist restoration. It was as if these people had been living in a little bubble cut off from reality for so long that they weren’t prepared to cope when real events stared them in the face.

  29. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 1:15pm #

    {Yes, I realize that. A few posters on here (not very many, only two that I can think of offhand) sometimes sound as if they were in the pay of the Iranian foreign ministry.}

    Recently, more stooges have come to this site to ‘prepare’ the ignorant audience for the RACIST US EXCEPTIONALISM AND ZIONIST MURDERES.
    Their ‘analysis’ targeted those poster that believe Iran has RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN DESTINY AND IS TIRED OF THE RACIST PROJECT OF CIVILIZING MISSION OF THE WEST where is supported by its ignorant population especially the phony ‘left’ who have extended their hand to war criminals to complete the racist project of the West meaning “WORLD GOVERNEMT’ according to protocol supported by the gatekeepers including Chomskyte.

    These stooges never ask themselves why the racist American elite and its ignorant population with big asses have to come to these countries, including Iran, and push everyone around to bring the country under racists who have no respect for Iranian people WITH A CIVILIATION MORE THAN 7000 years of humanity.

    These stooges, instead, go after PETTY things, like is HOPI influenced by Trotsky or not, to present themselves as a ‘credible’ person to perform his MISSION which most likely fits for intelligent services of the west to expand racist American Exceptionalism abroad.
    These people have done nothing to expose racist project of US exceptionalism to defend people around the world, especially Iranians, to build their society. Instead, for the past 32 years they have tried to destroy Iran through campaign of lies and deception, war, economic sanctions, funded velvet revolution, tainting fifth column, Sasegara, Ramin Ahmadi, Hadi Ghaemi, in the service of the NED(CIA) directed by Gene Sharp, equipped with the velvet revolution industry’s slogan, ‘Down with the Dictator’ to destabilize Iran to construct an ‘opposition’ to build Iran which is directed by American Exceptionalism. People of the region, including Iran, are fed up and started to spit at the photos of the US stooges black and white in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according to David Rhodes a journalist at NYT, and Iran SOON.

    These stooges never imagine what would have happened if racist Americans including phony ‘left’ had mobilized the population against their government to demand the United States forces fu*k off from the region and stop their terrorist activities against these countries, stop spending millions of dollars to train the fifth column in these countries, stop establishing terrorist networks such as Jundullah, MEK, Kurdish terrorists like PEJAK, and instead end economic strangulation of Iran, illegal sanctions, end to construction of ‘minority’ in the targeted countries and transferring $$$$ and weapons through ‘humanitarian aid’ to fight against the targeted government? If Iran and other countries have applied the same treatment to America, the United States would have been partitioned into, at least 20 different states, by now.

    These stooges are comfortable in their chair behind the computer so all they can do is to support the status quo since they have benefited from the rogue state based on massacre of other groups. These people are the enemy of Iranian people and Iranian people do know that very well. Today, the Green does not exist in Iran, only in the imagination of the racists in Washington and their agents who are sent to different sites to influence ignorant and virgin mind. These stooges are better to wake up to see that people of the region hate the US, Israel and their representatives. Iranian president is MORE popular than your Zionist stooges who are installed at the WH and elsewhere by the organized Zionist Jews. You have no control over your fu*king fate either, yet still have this illusion that things are going to go back to ‘normal’. Things are not going back to normal unless you move their behind and stand with Iranian people against the war criminals whom you support with your tax $$$$. Things are not going back to normal if you continue to harass Iranian people through illegal sanctions, insult, murdering their scientists, murdering Iranian citizens to frame the Iranian government, like the way you designed and implemented the 9/11 terror to frame Muslims to wage war to destabilize their nations to partition their countries to control their resources.
    You hate the Iranian government because IRI is trying to create UNITY among people of the region to stand against YOU, a Zionist and imperialist racist who are after destruction of many countries in the region including Iran, a great civilization where her cultural influence is beyond Iran today’s BORDERS. Iranian people are united against the Zionists and imperialism and their stooges who have hidden their true faces behind phony ‘left’ like HOPI. As Ramin Kouri said:

    {Arab views of President Barack Obama and the United States have plunged sharply in the past year. This year only 16 percent of Arabs are hopeful about US policy in the Middle East – compared to a healthy 51 percent just a year ago. More significantly, a whopping 61 percent of Arabs polled said that US policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the most important reason for their disappointment with Washington. Arab support for Iran’s nuclear rights is massive and keeps increasing, while Arabs regard the US and Israel as their principal enemy.}

    The stooges have spent millions of dollars to isolate Iran and insult her larders, but what you have gotten are Arabs’ middle fingers to tell you that they do not trust YOU and you must fuck off from the region. Your stupid campaign of lies and deception to demonize Iranian leaders and paint Ahmadinejad as ‘Hitler’ has backfired to show your ugly face. Obama’s ‘popularity’ with even black skin is LESS than Ahmadinejad whom you, the racists, have tried to bring down with your color revolution. Arabs are supporting not only the legal enrichment program of Iran but they want Iran to have NUCLEAR WEAPON to break Zionist supremacy in the region. Your arrogance is responsible for your BLINNESS to the facts on the ground and have internalized the lies of the imperialism and Zionism since you are not willing to move your behind to do any work to bring your ignorant population out of their shells to overthrow the criminals in the government and stop the “world Government” project, because it is in the interest of YOU but not the rest of the population on earth.
    > slogan like “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy”

    This stupid slogan had a hidden agenda, and that is ‘regime change’ that HOPI and his Zionist supporters will take it into their graves one by one. This stupid slogan is based on Trotsky’s ‘permanent revolution’, an ideology of the Jewish neocon, Israel Firsters, who took American ignorant into Iraq war and now they want Iran war.

    http://www.workerspower.com/index.php?id=139,1609,0,0,1,0

    {Hopi also now includes Permanent Revolution. Unlike the Weekly Worker, it is not third campist, but has a revolutionary defeatist position on imperialist wars. Permanent Revolution intervened into the founding conference and improved some of the founding statement’s formulations. It also moved the deletion of the formulation in the founding statement that called for a “nuclear free Middle East”, arguing, quite correctly, that semi-colonial states have a right to nuclear weapons, if they so wish, in order to defend themselves against imperialism (but lost the vote).}

  30. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 1:29pm #

    > Their ‘analysis’ targeted those poster that believe Iran has RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN DESTINY AND IS TIRED OF THE RACIST PROJECT OF CIVILIZING MISSION OF THE WEST

    This lie is worthy of noting here in conjunction with some other postings above. In an earlier post above Mr. Shill here had quoted a slogan “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy” put out by some other people. That slogan is entirely compatible with the argument that “Iran has RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN DESTINY AND IS TIRED OF THE RACIST PROJECT OF CIVILIZING MISSION OF THE WEST…” Yet Mr. Shill is trying to slander people for saying something which they never said.

    > to complete the racist project of the West meaning “WORLD GOVERNEMT’ according to protocol supported by the gatekeepers including Chomskyte.

    It’s obvious that “protocol” here means The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. More Right-wing rubbish from Mr. Shill. By the way, any of the occasional vague talk about “world government” has generally come from the Bilderberg/Trilateral/CFR faction of America’s ruling class and is not usually supported by the JINSA/AIPAC/WINEP faction. For one thing, Israel is very frequently voted against in the UN and this has always been a sore spot with the Israel lobby. The people who advocate a stronger role for the UN have generally also been those advocating a more even treatment of the Middle East and less favoritism towards Israel. That doesn’t mean that I really think the UN is going to solve anything, but “world government” is a thesis mainly associated with sectors of the ruling class which do not lean so favorably towards Israel.

  31. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:23pm #

    “It’s obvious that “protocol” here means The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.”

    Oh? I myself failed to make that connection. To me this is more mindreading, reminiscent of Zionist debating tactics.

    Please, forays into ESP only detract from the rest of your arguments.

  32. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:29pm #

    Mr. Ziabari thank you for your interesting article to tell the readers how Iranians (Persians) are trying to connect with their BROTHERS AND SISTERS who have been subjected to brutal western civilizing mission while Persian civilization has given humanity its first ‘human rights’ and contributed greatly Islamic civilization. Ignorant people of the civilizing mission, perhaps, is better to leave other people alone and spend some times thinking about the way their civilizing mission has destroyed lives of other groups. You have talked about Tajikistan and Afghanistan but have not brought our sisters and brothers in Uzbekistan, mainly Tajik into your discussion. Tajik of Uzbekistan also speak Persian.
    The following video is the song GOLE SANGAM (PERSIAN), a popular song in 1970’s Iran, is performed by NASIBA ABDULLAYEVA, a Tajik/Uzbek, which is may favorite although few Iranian singers, males and females, sang this song. American singer, Monica Jalili, also sang this song.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR8iq_Opwek&feature=related

    Persia (Iran) is an ancient civilization with more than 7000 years of proven history. Her contribution to humanity and Islamic civilization, beside Persian Empire, is documented. Persian culture and language is beyond today Iran’s borders and its cultural influence can be found throughout the Central Asia going to India and China.

    Sogdiana or Sogdia was the ancient civilization of a Persian people and a province of the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Sogdiana, at different times, included territories around Samarkand, Bukhara, Khujand and Kesh in modern Uzbekistan. The inhabitants of Sogdiana were the Sogdians, an Eastern Iranian people, who are among the ancestors of modern-day Tajiks. Other cities which are related to Persian people and are part of their identity are Bukhara and Samakand have come under control of Uzbakistan. The Sogdian language is a Middle Iranian language that was spoken in Sogdiana (Zarafshan River Valley), located in modern day Uzbekistan and Tajikistan
    Bukhara is the capital of the Bukhara Province of Uzbekistan. Located on the Silk Road, the city has long been a center of trade, scholarship, culture, and religion. The historic center of Bukhara has been listed by UNESCO as one of the World Heritage Sites. Ethnic Tajiks constitute the majority in Bukhara who speaks Persian, the national language of Iran.

    According to the legend Bukhara was founded by King Siavash, a legendary Persian prince from the beginnings of the Persian Empire. At the time of the Arab conquests, Bukhara was ruled by the Sogdian dynasty. In 389/999 Bukhara was occupied by the Ilak (Ilig) Nasr b. Ali. For the next 150 years it was part of the western Qarakhanid khanate, ruled by descendants of the Ilak Nasr. Under the loose, decentralized rule of the Turkish tribesmen, Bukhara lost its political importance.
    Bukhara was con¬quered by Gengiz Khan in 616/1220. All inhabitants were driven out and the city was burned., but in the time of Ögedey Qaan (626-39/1229-41) the city was prosperous again.

    The Khanate of Bukhara came into existence after the conquest of Samarkand and Bukhara by Muhammad Shaybani. The Shaybanid Dynasty ruled the khanate from 1506 until 1598. Under their rule Bukhara became a center of arts and literature. Bukhara attracted skilled craftsmen of calligraphy and miniature painting , poets and theologians. Abd al-Aziz Jhan (1533-1550) established a library “having no equal”. The khanate of Bukhara reached its greatest influence under Abdullah Khan II, who reigned from 1577 to 1598.

    The Khanate of Bukhara was governed by the Janid Dynasty (Astrakhanids) in the 17th and 18th cent. It was conquered by Nadir Shah of Iran in 1740. After his death the khanat was controlled by descendants of the Uzbek emir Khudayar Bi through the position of “ataliq” (prime minister). The khanate became the Emirate of Bukhara in 1785.
    Samarkand Persian: سمرقند; is the second-largest city in Uzbekistan and the capital of Samarqand Province and important to Persian culture. The city is most noted for its central position on the Silk Road between China and the West, and for being an Islamic centre for scholarly study.

    Samarkand Founded circa 700 BC by the Persians, has been one of the main centres of Persian civilization from its early days. It was already the capital of the Sogdian satrapy under the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia when Alexander the Great conquered it in 329 BC. Although a Persian-speaking region, it was not united politically with Iran most of the times between the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire and the Arab conquest (except at the time of early Sassanids, such as Shapur I.

    From the 6th to the 13th century it grew larger and more populous than modern Samarkand] and was controlled by the Western Turks, Arabs (who converted the area to Islam), Persian Samanids, Kara-Khanid Turks, Seljuk Turks, Kara-Khitan, and Khorezmshah before being sacked by the Mongols under Genghis Khan in 1220 . A small part of the population survived, but Samarkand suffered at least one other Mongol sack by Khan Baraq to get treasure he needed to pay an army with. The town took many decades to recover from these disasters.
    In 1365, a revolt against Mongol control occurred in Samarkand.
    In 1499 the Uzbek Turks took control of Samarkand. The Shaybanids emerged as the Uzbek leaders at or about this time.
    In the 16th century, the Shaybanids moved their capital to Bukhara and Samarkand went into decline. After an assault by the Persian king, Nadir Shah, the city was abandoned in the 18th century, about 1720 or a few years later. From 1784, Samarkand was ruled by the emirs of Bukhara.[2]
    The city came under Russian rule after the citadel had been taken by a force under Colonel Alexander Abramov in 1868. Shortly thereafter the small Russian garrison of 500 men were themselves besieged. The assault, which was led by Abdul Malik Tura, the rebellious elder son of the Bukharan Emir, and Bek of Shahrisabz, was beaten off with heavy losses. Abramov, now a general, became the first Governor of the Military Okrug which the Russians established along the course of the Zeravshan River, with Samarkand as the administrative centre. The Russian section of the city was built after this point, largely to the west of the old city.

    In 1886 the city became the capital of the newly formed Samarkand Oblast of Russian Turkestan and grew in importance still further when the Trans-Caspian railway reached the city in 1888. It became the capital of the Uzbek SSR in 1925 before being replaced by Tashkent in 1930.
    I hope American people stand united against the war criminals in Washington and their stooges who are sent to other sites to influence minds. American people must bring Troops home and stop funding the Zionists wars.

  33. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:32pm #

    Mr McN. posts: “In an earlier post… (Shabnam)…quoted a slogan “neither imperialist war, nor theocracy”… That slogan is entirely compatible with the argument that “Iran has RIGHT TO DETERMINE ITS OWN DESTINY AND IS TIRED OF THE RACIST PROJECT OF CIVILIZING MISSION OF THE WEST…”

    I’m sorry, but to me the two slogans totally contradict each other. The mention of “theocracy” in the former is nothing but an attempt to impose Western ideology on Iran. It echoes the standard zio-imperialist propaganda line that we must “shoulder the whiteman’s burden”, god save the queen.

    (i’m starting to get tired of this…)

  34. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:35pm #

    > Oh? I myself failed to make that connection.

    I didn’t make it based upon a one-time reading but rather upon seeing him use this type of reference before in conjunction with talk about “world government” and having seen the same pattern used in threads at other places where it was made clear that this was what “protocol” meant.

  35. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:51pm #

    re myself, McN says:…I did think of him briefly when recalling how some old Gus Hall types were blown away to see the Berlin wall torn down.”

    The pattern becomes clear now. Troksytite Patrick is one of those who gleefully applauded the disintegration of the USSR and the former “Soviet Bloc”, patting each other on the back as they joyfully witnessed the ascent of toady Gorbachev followed by thug Yeltsin and his Zionist oligarch pals.

    I know it’s heresy to say so out loud in “progressive” circles nowadays, but the demise of the USSR has been a disaster of unparalleled magnitude for the worldwide propertyless classes.

    Meanwhile the Trots, “Social Democrats” & the rest of the Zio-Capitalist loyal opposition never cease congratulating themselves for their part in visiting the disaster on us.

    You can take your “color revolutions” and your “solidarnosc” and your big hero Soldshytneatzin the Monarchist & put them where the sun don’t shine. All part of the zionist-capitalist okeydoke. right out of Victor Navasky.

    Don’t fall for it.

  36. lichen said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:51pm #

    I agree, there are people here do sound like they are paid by the Iranian foreign ministry; all they do is post blind, naive pro-government propaganda, insisting that any of their own people who disagree with the government are actually zionists, and therefore it is acceptable to gun down the young protesters in the street. Regardless, they don’t know a damn thing about the non-democracy that america is.

  37. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 2:57pm #

    Oho!
    Et tu, Liche? somehow I’m not surprised.

    All that “green revolution” crap had the same basis as the coup vs Hugo Chavez. Or do you think that was also justified?

  38. lichen said on August 16th, 2010 at 3:00pm #

    I’m not surprised either that you believe in violent insurrections against a civil rights movement in order to prop up a radical capitalist, oppressive regime. You have a lot of ideological blindnesses, but oh well. It doesn’t keep me up at night.

  39. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 3:17pm #

    “civil rights movement” my burro.

    Which “radical capitalist oppressive regime” are you talking about, Iran or Venezuela?

    “Violent insurrections”? “Ideological blindness”?

    You mean to tell me a bright fellow like you never figured out that the so-called “Green” movement in Iran was from the jump based A) in the USA and B) in certain of the more Western-orientated elements of the Iranian priveleged classes? That the Iranian workingclass gave its support overwhelmingly to the Ahmedinejad administration and totally rejected the attempt to re-orient Iranian policies toward “Western” interests?

    “Ideological blindnesses”? Care to point out one or two? Yes?

    Just for fun, lemme axe you: what was your take on Letch Walensa and that “solidarnosc” bs? Did you support the attempted coup vs Chavez? the Bay of Pigs invasion & JFK’s many attempts to assassinate Fidel? How about that (unprintable) Aquino and that phony “people power” business?
    Oh, forget it, go back to sleep.

  40. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 3:58pm #

    > The mention of “theocracy” in the former is nothing but an attempt to impose Western ideology on Iran.

    That says a lot about the kind of racism which pervades some sectors of the current “Left” today. Here’s a reality check: the growth of Islamic theocracy across the Middle East in Arab and Persian regions is almost entirely the result of US imperialist intervention. By that I do not really mean Zionism, although it’s always worth recalling how Israel once supported Hamas in order to undermine the Palestinian Authority. But things like the coups in Iran and Iraq which destroyed the Communist parties in these countries were not done for the sake of Israel. The deliberate undermining of the Shah by Washington in 1978-9 was primarily motivated not by Zionism but by a wish to create a radical Islamic front which could then pierce Afghanistan and go upwards. Islamic theocracy as it exists across the Mideast is not the result of some deep native cultural process. It was thrust upon the region at a time when support for different types of socialist parties was growing.

    > It echoes the standard zio-imperialist propaganda line that we must “shoulder the whiteman’s burden”

    No, you are the one who is echoing Ronald Reagan when he talked about the Afghan “freedom fighters” while supporting counter-revolutionary war.

    > Troksytite Patrick is one of those who gleefully applauded the disintegration of the USSR

    You really are a biased ideologue. My first interests in Trotsky’s writings came about when someone from the Spartacist League came trying to sell me a newspaper where they talked about the “Gorbachev/Yeltsin counter-revolution” and the need to stop it. Admittedly, I should mention that I’ve developed my own awareness of many major flaws with the Spartacists and it’s not my intent to push their line. But with regards to just that time there, they were right on target. The majority of Leftists whom I had seen that had sometimes indicated a favorable view of the USSR simply wilted in the face of Gorbachev rambling on about glasnost. It was disgusting to watch and in that respect I still maintain some little appreciation for the SL keeping a different approach open.

    > I know it’s heresy to say so out loud in “progressive” circles nowadays, but the demise of the USSR has been a disaster of unparalleled magnitude for the worldwide propertyless classes.

    That’s not a heresy in my house, but I can’t speak for the editors of DV.

  41. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 4:15pm #

    > You mean to tell me a bright fellow like you never figured out that the so-called “Green” movement in Iran was from the jump based A) in the USA and B) in certain of the more Western-orientated elements of the Iranian priveleged classes?

    I’m still keeping a cautious reservation in my judgments on that. It was clear that the levels of public support for the would-be “Green Revolution” were much wider than anything which had been visible in the “Rose” and “Orange” ones done in Georgia and Ukrainia. Beyond that, I can’t tell exactly and I’m not going to pretend to be an authority. However, my problem with some of the butt-kissing which goes on with some so-called Leftists is not really linked with attempting an assessment of that election or the subsequent protests. What I really have to react strongly against is when “Leftists” start talking about the Iranian theocracy as if this was something which just grew on native soil the way that a lot of barbaric practices had existed in China at the time when western imperialism arrived there (though it took Mao to get rid of them). No, if we could roll back events in the Mideast by some 60 years or so and take away western intervention and let things go from there, then today you would be seeing many more socialist of some type or other across the region. You would not have the Iranian theocracy if not for imperial intervention. In light of those facts, it should not arose any shock to learn that a significant number of real ordinary Iranians would be glad to get rid of this theocracy. Papering facts like that over just reduces the Left to impotency until one day Ayatollah Gorbachev comes to the fore and starts telling us all about the glorious glasnost which lies ahead. When that happens all that any of these cheerleaders know how to do is gush with enthusiasm for the new direction. I’ve seen this all before 20 years ago.

  42. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 4:24pm #

    well I’m afraid I have to retract a lot of what I said. Obviously I misjudged where you’re coming from, Patrick.

    excuse me while I go write “Assume Nada” 500 times on the blackboard.

    However you’re going to have to supply documentation before I’ll be ready to accept this part: “The deliberate undermining of the Shah by Washington in 1978-9 was primarily motivated not by Zionism but by a wish to create a radical Islamic front which could then pierce Afghanistan and go upwards. Islamic theocracy as it exists across the Mideast is not the result of some deep native cultural process. It was thrust upon the region at a time when support for different types of socialist parties was growing.”

    I’m completely aware of how the US promoted Islamic fundamentalist sects in Afghanistan in their campaign to undermine Soviet influence, but if you want me to believe that the US deliberately sabotaged the Shah you will have to provide evidence.

  43. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 4:31pm #

    “…if we could roll back events in the Mideast by some 60 years or so and take away western intervention and let things go from there, then today you would be seeing many more socialist of some type or other across the region.”

    Hmm, sixty years… 1950? The Mossadegh era. Well, if wishes were horses I’d take you for a ride. I wonder just what you hoped to establish by this bit of informed speculation?

  44. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 4:35pm #

    “You would not have the Iranian theocracy if not for imperial intervention.”

    It’s not clear to me whether you are still referring to the CIA-engineered ouster of Mossadegh, or to some intervention that took place immediately prior to the overthrow of the Shah, or shortly afterward maybe?

    If you have evidence of the latter, I’d love to read it. ??

  45. Rehmat said on August 16th, 2010 at 4:49pm #

    Don’t be fool by the action of Harvard University. Being a Jewish occupied institute – it’s not bycotting or divesting from the Zionist entity. Like a good ‘shylock’ it’s selling its holding in Israel which have been losing money between 20-35%. But like a cunning Zionist – it’s exploiting the political trend, which is to keep a distance from the murderous Zionazi state.

    On Saturday, US-Israeli military carried out maneuvers in a terrain that resembles South Lebanon (Hizbullah’s home territory) as part of exercises on the occupied part of Palestinian territories’ border with Lebanon and Syria. Israel TV channels showed parts of the excercises in which the Israel Occupied Force (IOF) aided by US Marines were shown engaged with Hizbullah fighters.

    In the 34-day Israel-Hizbullah war of Summer 2006, according to conservative estimates, the Israeli army lost 139 soldiers as compared to 45-49 Hizbullah fighters. Israeli army lost 27-34 Merkava tanks, 12 helicopters and probably two F16s. Hizbullah shelling also damaged two of Israeli naval vessels. One of the Merkava tank was captured by Hizbullah fighters and has been on display at the 2006 War Museum in Beirut. The Israeli carpet-bombing killed over 1,300 Lebanese civilians and made another one million refugees. On the other hand, over 750,000 Israeli Jews ran to areas farther from the reach of Hizbullah unguided rockets.

    Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry in a 2006 study, titled How Hizbullah Defeated Israel, wrote:

    “Our overall conclusion contradicts the current point of view being retailed by some White House and Israeli officials: that Israel’s offensive in Lebanon significantly damaged Hezbollah’s ability to wage war, that Israel successfully degraded Hezbollah’s military ability to prevail in a future conflict, and that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), once deployed in large numbers in southern Lebanon, were able to prevail over their foes and dictate a settlement favorable to the Israeli political establishment.

    Just the opposite is true. From the onset of the conflict to its last operations, Hezbollah commanders successfully penetrated Israel’s strategic and tactical decision-making cycle across a spectrum of intelligence, military and political operations, with the result that Hezbollah scored a decisive and complete victory in its war with Israel”.

    Dr. Stephen D. Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman, in their 2008 study for the US Army War College, concluded that Hezbollah’s performance in the 2006 war was more effective than that of any Arab army that confronted Israel in its history, and that Hezbollah fighters wounded more Israelis per fighter than any previous Arab effort.

    The Zionist-regime’s appointed Winograd Commission in its January 2008 findings also blamed Israeli government and IOF leadership for the failure of Israel’s military adventure against Hizbullah.

    Stephen J. Sniegosky in his book ‘The Transparent Cabal’ documents the neocons who are predominantly Jewish and are in alliance with Israel’s radical Likudnik Jews – and how they have succeeded in pushing the US into wars in the Middle East for the interests of Israel. (watch video of Stephen’s interview below).

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/the-israeli-hizbullah/

  46. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 5:00pm #

    “…a significant number of real ordinary Iranians would be glad to get rid of this theocracy.”

    I happen to know enough post-Shah era Iranian immigrants to the US to know that the above is undoubtedly true, except that those I happen to know take a more nuanced view of the situation. No matter how they mutter about the mullahs in private, they are even less enthusiastic about the prospects for improvement in the situation should the “Green” faction come to power.

    Do you mean to contend that Iran is not facing an all-sided effort by the US and Izzy to reconquer Iran one way or another? By supporting the kind of obvious US stooges who came to our attention as leaders of the “Green Revolution”, IMHO we would wind up making it even more difficult for a process leading to positive change to come about.

    It is one thing to criticize China, which is not facing a threat of imminent invasion or carpet bombing, even though we know CIA-inspired covert actions are ongoing in the PRC as we talk. But to repeat anything that lends credence to the US/Izzy effort to prepare the ideological ground prior to an attack on Iran strikes ME as “criminal”, under present circumstances.

    You say that no such attack will ever happen, and you support your take on it with facts and logic that I find almost persuasive. But not quite.

    The Zionist regime is not entirely predictable. They do things that look really crazy from a non-Zionist pov. Like killing a US citizen during their attack on the Flotilla. Which so far they’ve gotten away with, but for which they’re paying a price ideologically.

    So logic may indicate that no attack on Iran will ever materialize, but how can Iranians bet the farm on it? No, no Patrick. I have to caution you against lining up with the US/Izzy propaganda line in any circumstances.

  47. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 6:09pm #

    > if you want me to believe that the US deliberately sabotaged the Shah you will have to provide evidence.

    It is valid to ask for harder evidence than I can provide and this does have to rest on some informed speculation. But, the only alternative thesis is to argue that under Jimmy Carter the Democrats proved to be yellow-bellied liberals who brought about the defeat of the USA in Iran because of their wishy-washy concern for human rights. If it’s not that, then it’s something more like what I’ve postulated. But on this much I can’t claim to have hard proof.

    What has been supported by every account which I’ve yet seen is that starting around 1978 Carter began pressuring the Shah to make changes and was complaining about human rights abuses under the Shah, and this loss of support for the Shah was pivotal in causing the Iranian revolution to break out the way it did. Back in my Chomsky-days I tried looking through his works for some rebuttal on this point. But I was never really satisfied with how far he addressed it. He went on a lot about how hypocritical all of the Carter concerns for “human rights east of the Elbe” were, and I understood all of that. But it just seemed like he was blowing off some facts where the Carter administration’s behavior didn’t seem to match with his model.

    My first explanation was to simply argue that maybe human behavior was more complex than any model could offer and as a consequence maybe we just have to accept that there are some aspects of Carter’s behavior which don’t fit Chomsky so well, but are more like what the Right-wing charged about how liberal concern for human rights can undermine US influence. But years later when looking back over things from a post-911 perspective I reexamined the whole matter and this was the kind of explanation which stood out that matched more consistently with the facts about Brzezinski seeking to create a “Soviet Vietnam” as early as July 1979 and other related points. I won’t be winning any court cases on this argument anytime soon. but it’s the one that seems to fit the best.

  48. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 6:15pm #

    > I wonder just what you hoped to establish by this bit of informed speculation?

    I was simply pointing out that calling for an end to theocratic regimes is perfectly in line with the native culture of the Mideast and does not depend upon some “White Man’s Burden” theory. The reason why groups of Iranian exiles call for an end to theocracy is not because they are in the pay of imperialism (although some of them undoubtedly are) but because this is consistent with what many native Iranians desire.

  49. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 6:21pm #

    > It’s not clear to me whether you are still referring to the CIA-engineered ouster of Mossadegh

    I meant Carter’s human rights campaign to pressure the Shah, which did in fact play the key role in triggering off the revolution of 1979. The only really serious question about this is whether the good-hearted peanut-farmer made a dumb mistake which caused a defeat to imperialism, or whether there were some other hidden machinations involved. Before seeing Brzezinski’s interview where he acknowledged that the plan of drawing the USSR into Afghanistan had been formed by July 1979, I had tended to go with the bleeding-heart liberal explanation just by default. Nowadays I see it differently.

  50. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 7:15pm #

    RE: the patrick sayanim/hasbarat:

    Damnit! The local boa wont cash my paycheck. They say it”s in Iranian thingamajigs, whatever their currency is called. I’ll just have to go to my old U.S.S.R. bank branch, I guess. We Soviet and Iranian foreign service workers all stick together, you know.

  51. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 7:23pm #

    The founding of, Tudeh in 1941, is often regarded as the beginning of the Modern Communist movement in Iran. However, the Old Persian communist Party, or PCP, founded in 1920, had influence on formation of the Tudeh party in 1941, both in terms of ideology and organization.
    Reza Shah’s repressive rule (1926-41) did not succeed in altogether stopping PCP activities in 1920s. Rather, it removed Iranian Communist activities to Europe and to Tehran’s Qasr Prison. In both these locations, the PCP helped shape the nucleus of what was to become the Tudeh.
    The PCP itself had strong ties to the Russian Bolshevik party. Before and during WWI, there were hundreds of thousands of Iranian workers in the Caucasus, especially in the Baku oil fields. Bolshevik recruitment among Iranian workers in the Baku region was very successful during the WWI. In Baku in May 1917, Assadullah Ghafar Zadeh and Bahram Agayev, the leaders of a group of Bolshevik-affiliated Iranians, founded the Adalat, or Justice, Party, which later became the PCP.

    The Adalat Party, like the Bolshevik organization with which it was affiliated, was Marxist in its political philosophy. The party’s leading theoretician, Avetis Sultanzadeh, was from minority of Iran, Armenian extraction. After the Soviet-supported establishment of Gilan Republic (one of the provinces near the Caspian Sea region of Iran) in June 1920 where later was defeated by Reza Shah. Reza Shah came to power assisted by the British to implement ‘”Westernization” Ataturk style meaning adaptation of Western clothing where forced Women to unveil. This reactionary law made many women not to leave the houses. At that time, during 1930s, many Iranian houses did not have private bath and they had to go to public bath to wash where this law made it difficult for many women to go out because they felt naked when they were unveiled. So, the arrogant Westerners view Western forced unveiling, PROGRESSIVE, but forced veiling as Islamic and UNPROGRESSIVE.

    Iran and Russia are the only countries in the region that had CONSTITUITIONAL REVOLUTION, took place between 1905 and 1911. The constitutional revolution led to the establishment of a parliament in Persia (Iran).

    The British Empire and Russian Empire divided Iran into two spheres of influence; the South was under the British influence, and the North was under the Russian influence supported by the Tudeh Party before 1950s, as a result, the party lost the support of many Iranian intellectuals including Jalal Al Ahmad, an important intellectual activist who had profound influence on intellectual activity of the Iranian society during 1950s – 1970s. His manuscript, Gharbzadegi ( Occidentosis: A Plague from the West ), clandestinely published in Iran in 1962. Today, he is viewed by many phony Iranian left as IRI’s ideologue which is not true.
    Al Ahmad, however, in his short life was very influential figure. He came from a religious background but perused secular education in hiding. He was working during the day and attended school at night where was able to finish High Scholl and go to the University and finally ended in PhD program in Persian Literature but due to bureaucracy under the Shah he left the program in 1951 to became a teacher.

    He was a member of the Tudeh party but he left Tudeh party and joined other socialist organizations. He read majority of the Western intellectual works, especially in socialism, colonialism and had an admiration for gene Paul Sartre like other Iranian Socialists. Majority of the Iranian Socialists welcomed the creation of Israel in 1948 because they hated Arab dictatorial rule, like the Shah. Israel was eager to influence non Arab intellectuals to paint Israel as ‘democratic’ to gain their support for the state. Therefore, Israel invited Jalal Al Ahmad to Israel in late 1950s.
    Al-e-Ahmad was invited to visit Israel for 2 weeks in 1962. At that time, the Iranian ‘intellectuals’ including Al-e-Ahmad were under the influence of the “European socialist” groups including Gene Paul Sartre. After Al-e-Ahmad came back from Israel who gained first hand information was very angry because he thought he was deceived by the European Socialists including Gene Paul Satre since they had painted Israel differently and hided the racist nature of Zionism. He wrote an influential manuscript, “A journey to Esrael,” عزرائیل (angle of death) which sounded like ‘Israel’ in Persian and rejected the zionist state as racist and the extension of US imperialism in the region. He immediately stopped the publication of kibbutz in Iranian Socialist Journals. He held European socialists including Gene Paul Sartre responsible for misleading the public including the Iranians socialists regarding the racist state of Israel. He published this manuscript in Persian. No wonder he, like Edward Said, is a target of Iranian ‘opposition’ especially the Green stooges, today.

  52. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 7:27pm #

    > they are even less enthusiastic about the prospects for improvement in the situation should the “Green” faction come to power.

    By “Green” faction I assume you mean Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi? I can’t locate any place where I’ve indicated anything about supporting such cranks. On the other hand, it is pretty naive for some “Leftists” to ignore the fact that the popular discontent which broke across the country in 2009 was driven by much more than simply Mousavi and Karroubi. This clearly has nothing to do with supporting an imperial attack on Iran. The reactionary Mullahs do seek to formulate discussion in terms where anyone who voices doubts about their legitimacy is a CIA/Mossad agent.

    > By supporting the kind of obvious US stooges … we would wind up making it even more difficult for a process leading to positive change to come about.

    I haven’t seen anyone supporting US stooges, and certainly none of the people slandered by another poster on this page were ever doing such. To actually be claiming that people who denounce theocracy are somehow guilty of supporting Mousavi and Karroubi is absurd.

    > You say that no such attack will ever happen

    Actually, I didn’t say that. I said that I don’t think (and I made sure to qualify this as an opinion several times) that an attack on Iran will be carried out while Obama is in office. If we are going to look beyond that, then it’s anybody’s guess what will happen. Maybe Jeb Bush will take the Presidency in 2016 and then after a terrorist strike on the Empire State Building will be told that Iran has weapons of mass-destruction ready to go off on 45-minute notice. Anything is possible that far ahead. But it is not my considered opinion that Obama will likely be doing this anytime soon.

    > The Zionist regime is not entirely predictable.

    Yes, and that’s why I’ve said several times that if an actual military confrontation with Iran breaks out it will quite certainly be initaited by the work of Israel and its helpers and no but. Don’t waste your time preparing to protest an oil war in Iran. That’s not what it will be, if a war comes. But Obama himself appears from the outside to rather be acting as a politician who aims to avoid this, while appeasing certain segments of the Israeli loyalists on lesser issues so as to maintain a functioning political coalition behind the Democratic Party. That’s just my own estimation, not much more.

    > I have to caution you against lining up with the US/Izzy propaganda line

    I would have to reject any claims that simply recognizing in puvlic discourse that a large volume of real discontent exists among Iranian workers has anything whatsoever to do with lining up with establishment propaganda. This almost reads like a rerun of what segments of the old Left put themselves through in the run-up to Gorbachev coming to power and initiating glasnost.

    I can see as a very plausible future that we’ll have a whole crowd of Leftists immersing themselves in going on about how “native Islamic culture” in Iran is all like such-and-such and we westerners can’t really appreciate it because blab-blab-blab. This will serve not as the basis for any really concrete accomplishments that may help anyone but will simply be a way for such Leftists to generate their own world of self-delusion. Then, at a certain key point in history, a new Supreme Leader will take power who will begin speaking about the need for “openness” and “restructuring.” He’ll be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and a Ronald Reagan Freedom Award in succession, and all of these different “Leftist” groupings which have spent so much energy banning any criticism of ayatollahs will be unable to do anything other than gush about how nice it is that we can all get together on the same page and don’t need a war. But they’ll be shocked when they hear Iranians saying bad things about what the government did. They won’t know what to do and will start spinning off into confusion.

    Of course I’m just copying that from what I saw on the Left at the time of the Gorbachev/Yelstin counter-revolution. But it does seem very plausible. It actually seems more plausible than an imminent Israeli attack, though I may be wrong on that. But it just underscores the need for any real “Left” to define an independent stance.

  53. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 7:31pm #

    > Damnit! The local boa wont cash my paycheck.

    I never implied anything about you receiving any check. You sound more like someone who is just ideologically confused, but honest enough according to your own understanding.

    > We Soviet and Iranian foreign service workers all stick together

    Well, Soviet workers who went to Afghanistan were obviously not sticking together with the Iranian ayatollahs very well. But like I said, you sound like an honestly confused person.

  54. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:00pm #

    sayan patti

    Ah, I see it’s a zionist spam spree…

    “Just keep repeating Iraq has wmds, son, that’s the ticket for now.”

    “But supervisor, it’s Iran?”

    “Oh, did I say Iraq? Yes, Iran, of course. We got to git them evul mullahs, they aint given us no moolah! – but don’t write it that way, we’ll end up looking like this fat, cheesy sow:”

    On Facebook: Israeli soldier posed with bound Arab

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100816/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_facebook

  55. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:03pm #

    {that the popular discontent which broke across the country in 2009 was driven by much more than simply Mousavi and Karroubi.}

    This is a LIE. The popular discontent did not broke across the country, rather it was limited to NORTH OF TEHRAN and the University Students who were under influence of liberal professors, the IRANIAN NEOCON, such as Soroush, Morteza Mardiha, who wrote a reactionary article by the name of از کجا آغاز کنیم (From where should I begin), basically an apologist for US crimes where he painted necessary to bring ‘democracy’ to different countries.

    The journal, Aftab, was a right wing liberal publication where was translating garbage of the American neocon like Bernard Lewis, Francis Fukuyama, to influence empty brain of the Iranian young to prepare them for liberalism, American style and neoliberal economic arrangement.
    No wonder the Iranian university Students have turned right, compare to 1960 and 1970 Iranian students, and consumerists and illiterate of their own history.
    Another NED agent, Jahanbeglou, is responsible to influence the consumerist young, to turn right and have become ANTI LEFT and any ideology and pro racist American exceptionalism project, because Iranian young have no knowledge of either history or politics, therefore, they are easy target to be manipulated. They are extremely consumerists.

  56. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:07pm #

    BTW, it’s been a couple of months since I’ve been following the comments here and I don’t remember patticakes from before. Is this a new sayanim/hasbarat, or am I having one those blonde moments I’ve increasingly been having?

  57. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:13pm #

    > sayan patti

    You honestly are retarded.

  58. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:14pm #

    > or am I having one those blonde moments I’ve increasingly been having?

    It sounds more like you’re just stuck in blondeland permanently.

  59. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:21pm #

    “The reason why groups of Iranian exiles call for an end to theocracy is not because they are in the pay of imperialism (although some of them undoubtedly are) but because this is consistent with what many native Iranians desire.”

    “Many”? How many? “Many” US citizens hate Obama, but do they represent a national consensus? A majority? Do they’re numbers even approach a plurality?

    After doing a little online research, I find your position even less plausible.

    Who or what are the “leaders” of the Iranian non-pro-US opposition movement, now that Mir Hossein Mousavi is more or less defunct, kaput as a politician?

    I see there are a long list of “Communist Parties” that support some of this “anti-theocracy” rhetoric, but I don’t see among them any that I’m sure are credible, that I can be sure are more than a handful of old Trotskyites meeting in an attic somewhere. Or Maoists or Stalinists etc.

    I don’t see the PFLP or the DFLP on the list. Neither do I see the PSL or the WW party, which I have a lot of differences with but which I know have something resembling a popular base. Neither do I see Ahmed ben Bella’s international coalition anywhere.

    I don’t see Raul Castro’s name. But if you know of some figures with solid credibility, let me know of them.

    If Winnie Mandela came out in support of what you support, I’d be impressed.

    I’m just looking for something solid that supports the stance you’re taking; so far I’m not finding it. ??

  60. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:35pm #

    teafoe2

    And you wont, either. Any more than the you’ll find it in patticake’s massa’s propaganda surrounding the Honduran coup.

    On a different note, I’ve noticed a lot of these israeli sayanim/hasbarats use Irish names and pretend to be of Irish Catholic background. Strange….

  61. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:39pm #

    Patrick posts, responding to me earlier: “By “Green” faction I assume you mean Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi? I can’t locate any place where I’ve indicated anything about supporting such cranks. On the other hand, it is pretty naive for some “Leftists” to ignore the fact that the popular discontent which broke across the country in 2009 was driven by much more than simply Mousavi and Karroubi.”

    So far so good, glad to know you don’t support Mousavi et al. But if the “popular discontent” wasn’t driven by them plus the CIA/Mossad, what was it driven by? To me it was driven by the frustration of relatively affluent urban strata denied the chance afforded by their prosperity to enjoy a Western consumerist lifestyle. But I’m not an Iranian & I wasn’t there last summer.

    Turning to your next sentence: “This clearly has nothing to do with supporting an imperial attack on Iran.”

    I’m sorry but it is not at all “clear” to me that such is the case. I think it has EVERYTHING to do with supporting an imperial attack on Iran, in fact amounts to a contribution to one aspect of the ongoing zio-imperial attack on Iran.

    “The reactionary Mullahs do seek to formulate discussion in terms where anyone who voices doubts about their legitimacy is a CIA/Mossad agent.”

    I’m sure they do, and regardless of their backwardness in other respects, I’m also sure that most of the time their perception on this point is accurate.

  62. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:40pm #

    > Who or what are the “leaders” of the Iranian non-pro-US opposition movement

    Given the state of things in Iran, there clearly are no well-defined leaders. The millions who came out protesting were not principally motivated by adherence to Mousavi.

    > Neither do I see the PSL or the WW party, which I have a lot of differences with but which I know have something resembling a popular base.

    Workers World was formed when Sam Marcy was kicked out of the Socialist Workers Party for declaring his support for the Soviet occupation of Hungary. Since that time they’ve pretty well followed the rule of maintaining a steady form of “support” for whatever leader is in conflict with the US government at the moment. While that position commendable insofar as it concerns actual wars, they’ve never been able to avoid reducing it in peacetime to just running a PR-operation for foreign leaders. That, unfortunately, has undercut their credibility on a lot of other things.

    > I don’t see Raul Castro’s name.

    Why should one expect any politician in the position of the Castro brothers to be taking a position on a controversial issue going on in a foreign country with which Cuba seeks to maintain relations?

    > If Winnie Mandela came out in support of what you support

    What exactly have I “supported” that you are referring to? Or are you just making crap up like some others liars and idiots on this thread? I merely pointed out that there clearly is a significant share of discontent among Iranians which lacks any real meaningful leadership. There isn’t anything very concrete there which one may talk about “supporting.” I simply cautioned against a tendency among some sectors of the Left (Sam Marcy was a prize example of this) to get lost in personal fantasies. These very restrained statements have been blown up by you according to your ideological magnifying glass.

  63. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:41pm #

    Riding the “Green Wave” at the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and Beyond

    by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

    24.07.09

    There are many problems with the Campaign for Peace and Democracy’s “Question & Answer on the Iran Crisis,” issued by the CPD on July 7, and widely circulated since then.1

    The CPD adopted this format, it tells us, because “some on the left, and others as well, have questioned the legitimacy of and the need for solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement,” and the CPD believes “those questions need to be squarely addressed.”

    We believe, on the contrary, that the CPD’s 13 questions-and-answers do little to clarify issues related to Iran’s June 12 presidential election and its tumultuous aftermath, and even less to help leftists and “American progressives” decide how they should respond to them.

    As we try to show below, when stripped of its didactic format, this Q&A amounts to little more than an emotional plea to its target audience to surrender what remains of their leftist instincts (long under siege in the States, and shrinking rapidly), and join its authors2 for a ride on the “green wave” of yet another color-coded campaign that fits well with one of their government’s longest-running programs of destabilization and regime change. We believe that any “confusion” felt by the left and “American progressives” towards these events is a confusion that has been sown by our would-be instructors.3

    1. Consider first the CPD’s selectivity. A look at its “Past Sign-on Statements and Letters” and elsewhere on its website (e.g., “Statement of Purpose”) shows that, in contrast to its lengthy, 4,000-word Q&A of July 7, as well as its earlier statement on the “Crisis in Iran” (June 17), the CPD has yet to put up a Q&A related to or a statement announcing its solidarity with the mass demonstrations in Honduras after the June 27-28 military coup that overthrew the democratically elected president of the country, Manuel Zelaya. Neither has the CPD announced its solidarity with the 100 or more indigenous victims of a June 5 massacre by the government of Alan García in Peru, which some groups are calling the “Amazon’s Tiananmen,” nor with the high numbers of civilian victims of the several-year-long U.S. and NATO bombing campaigns over Afghanistan and Pakistan, now sharply escalated by the new Democratic administration.

    If we expand the purview of perpetrator-and-victim sets beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan to other theaters of U.S. and NATO violence, the possibilities for Q&A’s and shows of solidarity with the victims would become unmanageably large. But as of July 2009, shouldn’t Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Honduras rate a very high priority among American progressives precisely because the U.S. government and its military are destructively engaged in the first two theaters, and in the third, where the U.S. is deeply involved in training and arming the military, and where its influence is unmistakable, almost surely could have prevented the coup, and still could easily reverse it, had the U.S. leadership wanted it reversed?

  64. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:42pm #

    Cont.

    Given that Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt is on the U.S. payroll and a part of the “global spider’s web” of secret prisons run by Washington, shouldn’t we have been more concerned with Egypt’s last presidential election in September 2005, which Mubarak, effectively Egypt’s president-for-life, won with 89% of the vote? Shouldn’t we pay more attention to the complete absence of elections in U.S. client Saudi Arabia? Or to client-state Mexico, where presidential elections have a long history of vote-rigging, the last one, in July 2006, stolen in favor of the pro-business, U.S.-favored candidate Felipe Calderon, and inspiring a massive tent-city protest in the center of Mexico City to demonstrate people’s support for the leftist runner-up, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador?

    In each of these theaters and the many others that fall within the U.S. sphere of influence and responsibility, the potential benefits of a sustained left-critique and consciousness-raising about U.S. policy and its devastating impact on the lives of people are far greater than anything to be gained by urging “solidarity” with dissenters in a distant land where the U.S. influence for constructive purposes is minimal, but its hostile and destructive interventionism has been and remains great.

    2. Is it a mere coincidence that these neglected matters, all of which bear undeniably on the cause of peace and democracy, are also ones in which a thoughtful Q&A would inevitably challenge U.S. policy action or inaction, whereas a focus on Iran at this moment fits instead the long-term U.S. policy of demonization, isolation, sanctions, destabilization, and eventual regime change?

    Contemporaneous New York Times coverage of events inside Iran and Honduras (for example) reflects exactly the same set of priorities: That is, on the one hand, a heavy focus on the Iranian election, the charge of vote fraud on behalf of Ahmadinejad, the protests against this, the violent crackdown across Iranian society, and the shaken legitimacy of the Islamic Republic; and, on the other hand, the downplaying of the Honduran coup and the protests and repression there, the possible U.S. role behind the scene, the credulous reporting of the formula repeated by the Obama administration that it seeks the “restoration of the democratic order in Honduras,” rather than of the ousted President, sober questions about what the Honduran Constitution does and does not permit, and a barely concealed apologetics for the coup.

  65. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:43pm #

    Cont.

    The contrast in the Times’s treatment of Iran and Honduras for the first 15 days of coverage after the June 12 election (i.e., June 13-June 27) and after the June 28 coup (i.e., June 29-July 13) has been dramatic.4 The Times devoted at least 61 reports to Iran, and 19 to Honduras, with at least 21 of the Iran reports beginning on Section 1, page 1; in fact, the Times devoted page-1 reports to Iran consecutively for all 15 days in our sample. Only two reports on Honduras started on page 1. The Times also devoted 14 op-eds and 2 editorials to Iran, but only 2 op-eds and 1 editorial to Honduras. In terms of content, the Times’ opinion pages unequivocally rejected the fairness and legitimacy of Iran’s election and its government’s handling of the protests. (Its two editorials were “Neither Real Nor Free” [June 15] and “Iran’s Nonrepublic” [June 18].) But when discussing Honduras, it was the legitimacy and tactics of Manuel Zelaya’s government that the Times and its contributors questioned, with Zelaya dismissed as an “ally” of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez (Alvaro Vargas Llosa, “The Winner in Honduras: Chavez” [June 30] and the editorial “Mr. Arias Steps In” [July 10]), and a politician whose “larger goal seemed to be a change from our democratic system into a kind of 21st century socialism . . . to create a Hugo Chavez-type of government” (Roger Marin Neda, “Who Cares About Zelaya?” [July 7]).

    For progressive Americans, aren’t the New York Time’s priorities upside-down? But then how about those of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy? It is interesting that the CPD actually lauds the news media’s performance on Iran, claiming that “there is no good evidence so far that Western news reports on the government’s electoral fraud and violence repression of dissent have been fundamentally inaccurate” (#7). But there were gross inaccuracies in the establishment media’s assertion of vote fraud. As Mark Weisbrot points out,5 the first sentence in the lead, front-page story run by the New York Times on June 23 reported that “Iran’s most powerful oversight council announced on Monday [June 22] that the number of votes recorded in 50 cities exceeded the number of eligible voters there by three million, further tarnishing a presidential election that has set off the most

  66. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:44pm #

    > Any more than the you’ll find it in patticake’s massa’s propaganda surrounding the Honduran coup.

    Since nothing about Homduras has been indicated here, I’d appreciate knowing what retarded misreading of which passage has caused you to come up with such bollocks.

  67. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:44pm #

    Cont.

    sustained challenge to Iran’s leadership in 30 years.”6 Yet, Weisbrot adds, Iran’s Guardian Council had actually stated something completely different:

    Candidates’ campaigns have said that in 80-170 towns and cities, more people have voted than are eligible voters. We have determined, based on preliminary studies, that there are only about 50 such cities or towns. . . . The total number of votes in these cities or towns is something close to three million; therefore, even if we were to throw away all of these votes, it would not change the result.7

    So there were 3 million total votes in the 50 towns and cities, not 3 million over-votes. Furthermore, the over-votes did not prove fraud. Iranians can vote at any polling place, so it is — according to the government — common to have more votes than eligible voters where there are a lot of commuters, vacationers, or areas where the voting districts are not clearly delineated. Yet the Times’ misleading report was picked up widely and used to convince people that the government had “admitted” to having stolen three million votes.

    Given the U.S. news media’s history of systematically biased and unreliable reporting on issues central to U.S. foreign policy and when dealing with an official enemy, is the CPD’s position on media coverage of Iran’s election credible? We wonder if the CPD also found media performance on the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq to be fundamentally accurate, ca. 2002-2003? Or on Israel’s recent wars against Lebanon (2006) and the Gaza Palestinians (early 2009)? Or on the alleged “threat” that Iran’s nuclear program poses to the world? Or is it just the news media’s performance on the election and its aftermath in Iran that the CPD finds fundamentally sound?

  68. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:45pm #

    Cont.

    3. By portraying the Islamic Republic as even more of an outlaw regime than it had been portrayed prior to June 12, doesn’t this intensive focus on discrediting the Iranian election feed nicely into the U.S.-Israeli destabilization and regime-change campaign? No matter how much the CPD protests otherwise (#13), doesn’t its call for “solidarity with the anti-Ahmadinejad movement” and its advocacy for “a different form of government in Iran” encourage leftists to pull down their natural defenses against U.S. imperialism?

    Much intelligent analysis has pointed to similarities between a strategy employed by the Mousavi camp in June 2009, and the strategy used in earlier campaigns of destabilization against U.S. targets for regime change that date back to the elections in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 2000, Georgia in 2003, and the Ukraine in 2004, to name three where it succeeded.8 As was the case in these three other countries, the challenger Mousavi and his aides started by declaring Mousavi the “definite winner” by very wide margins on the day of the election (Friday, June 12), long before the polls had closed and the votes were counted; one Mousavi aide even told Agence France Presse that “Mousavi has got 65% of the votes cast,” a “landslide victory,” AFP called it.9 This was followed by Mousavi’s claim on the next day (Saturday, June 13) that his rightful victory and therefore the will of the Iranian people had been stolen by the incumbent President Ahmadinejad’s supporters in the Ministry of the Interior, with the official result delegitimized; from here went the calls to Iranians and all democracy-loving peoples the world over to reject it.10

    But the regnant portrayal of Iran’s 2009 election as a sham, riddled with fraud and illegitimate, also reminds us of the Reagan administration’s propaganda campaign in 1984, which focused on the hostile Sandinista treatment of the newspaper La Prensa, the withdrawal of Contra leader Arturo Cruz from the election, and other actions that delegitimized it, thus justifying further U.S.-sponsored terrorism. As early as July 1984, Ronald Reagan himself had likened the Sandinistas’ proposal to hold elections in November to a “Soviet-style sham.” The editors of the New York Times picked up on their President’s rhetoric, warning first that “If [the Sandinistas] go forward with plans to hold a sham vote. . . , they will confirm Mr. Reagan’s thesis” (October 7), and concluding one month later that “Only the naïve believe that [the] election in Nicaragua was democratic or legitimizing proof of the Sandinistas’ popularity. . . . The Sandinistas made it easy to dismiss their election as a sham” (November 7).11

  69. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:45pm #

    Cont.

    For progressive Americans who’d like to “make it clear to the Iranian people that there is ‘another America’, one that is independent of the government and opposed to its oppressive and anti-democratic foreign policy” (#12), butwhose memory of their own government’s history has yet to be Twittered away, isn’t the net effect of the CPD’s activism to increase the likelihood that the next president of Iran, some time in 2013 (if not sooner12), will be a U.S.-supported candidate — in the pattern of the “remarkable victory” of Violeta Barrios de Chamorro in 1990 that delivered a “devastating rebuke to the Sandinistas,” as the New York Times editorialized, a “clear mandate for peace and democracy,” in the first President Bush’s words?13

    4. Even the language used by the CPD displays a revealing bias. At no place in its July 7 Q&A does the CPD refer to the United States or to Washington or to any U.S. leader as “murderous” or “vicious” or “barbaric,” or any U.S. action as “ferocious.” Instead, such language is reserved for U.S. targets such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic (#9), and for the clerical state in Iran. Thus, the CPD’s introduction speaks of their “horror at the ferocious response” of Iran and the “brutal repression” in support of the “electoral fraud,” and later the CPD refers to the “ferocious violence of the security forces” against the protestors and the general public (#8).

    But in the CPD’s November 2002 statement (later updated), “We Oppose Both Saddam Hussein and the U.S. War on Iraq: A Call for a New Democratic U.S. Foreign Policy,” such invidious language is used only to describe the regime of Saddam Hussein, whom it calls a “killer and serial aggressor,” and a “tyrant who should be removed from power,” but never the United States.

    “War” — not George Bush or the United States — but “War threatens massive harm to Iraqi civilians,” the CPD stated, “and will encourage international bullies to pursue further acts of aggression.”

    The CPD recognized that President Bush’s objective was “to expand and solidify U.S. predominance in the Middle East, at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives if necessary” (and many more, ultimately). But this didn’t make the United States or Washington or President Bush a “bully,” a “killer and serial aggressor,” or a “terrorist” on a grand scale.

  70. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:46pm #

    Cont.

    5. The CPD goes to great length to deny that the post-June 12 protests in Iran can be regarded as a consequence of U.S. policy towards that country, and is adamant that U.S. interference played no role in the election and its aftermath. “[F]oreign meddling does not prove foreign control,” the CPD asserts, and “foreign meddling does not automatically discredit mass movements or their goals; it depends on who is calling the shots. . . . [T]there is no evidence that the CIA or any other arm of U.S. intelligence — or Mossad — had anything to do with initiating or leading the protests in Iran. . . . [T]there has been not a scrap of credible evidence that the millions of people in the streets these past few weeks were brought out by CIA money” (#6).

    But “foreign control” and “calling the shots” are extreme forms of foreign meddling, and we regard them as straw men of the CPD’s making. Another straw man is the CPD’s repudiation of the notion that “millions of people in the streets” were on the CIA’s payroll, the CPD implying strongly that the consequences of U.S. meddling are too insignificant to be a factor.

    But who ever said that huge numbers of Iranians were on the CIA’s payroll? More to the point: Does the CPD have any “credible evidence” that none of them are?14

    Surely the CPD knows that in early 2006, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice requested $75 million “in emergency funding to step up pressure on the Iranian government, including expanding radio and television broadcasts into Iran and promoting internal opposition to the rule of religious leaders”? Before the money was appropriated by Congress, $15 million of it was channeled “toward grants for software programmers who specialize in creating programs that thwart Internet firewalls erected by repressive countries such as Iran and China. The idea, which was championed by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), is intended to assist dissidents without making them the target of arrests and harassment.”15

    The CPD ignores ABC TV’s report in 2007 that the CIA “received secret presidential approval to mount a covert ‘black’ operation to destabilize the Iranian government,” a policy that “would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime,” retired CIA officer Bruce Riedel told ABC. The CPD also ignores Seymour Hersh’s report about a “major escalation of covert operations against Iran,” worth $400 million, and “designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.” One source familiar with the presidential order told Hersh that its purpose was “to undermine the [Iranian] government through regime change,” and involved “working with opposition groups and passing [out] money.”16 As always with how the U.S. “intelligence” agencies spend their massive budgets, the potential for additional unreported operations is great.17

  71. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:47pm #

    One of the stooges of the Green who wants to overthrow IRI and bring the Green stooges including Shireen Ebadi, Shadi Sadr, Ramin Ahmadi, Roya Hakakian, all supported by the NED of the West and have received millions of $$$$ for their services, to power. Payam Akhavan is also working closely with the Jewish organizations such as ‘Save Darfur’ to bring regime change in Sudan to partition the country for the Zionist project. He was involved in construction of the phony charge, ‘genocide’ in Darfur but he has said nothing about the crimes of the US, Israel and NATO forces including Canada where he has its citizenship and is part of the board of the Canadian NED, ‘Rights and Democracy.’ He is one of the Green stooges.

    http://deathtozion.wordpress.com/2007/06/01/dear-professor-akhavan/

    Another Green supporter, Hamid Dabashi, Colombia University professor has attacked number of Green personalities, all NED agents such as Abbas Milani close to Clawson from WINEP, neocon and close to Wolfwitz, Azar Nafisi for their cooperation with John McCain, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran. He complained that many today have become Green, including Mr. Bomb, Bomb who wears a GREEN BAND around his wrist. Shame on them all.

  72. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:47pm #

    Cont.

    The CPD ignores the existence, let alone the impact, of multiple, large, and overlapping governmental and nongovernmental programs devoted to developing the media and expertise necessary for “democratic movements” in other countries, and to “strengthen the bond between indigenous democratic movements abroad and the people of the United States,” as the National Endowment for Democracy describes its mission.18 Despite President Obama’s semi-apologetic admission in his speech at Cairo University the week before Iran’s election that the United States once “played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government,”19 USA Today reports that “The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, . . . continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.” Part of the purpose of the $15 million Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, a Senate Appropriations committees spokesman told USA Today, “is to expand access to information and communications through the Internet for Iranians.”20

    In short, there is extensive evidence of U.S. meddling inside Iran, over a very long period of time, and these efforts cannot simply be dismissed as old-style leftist hyperbole.21

    6. Also relevant to assessing the true nature and scope of U.S. interference in the lives of Iran’s 70 million people — and their election process — but virtually ignored by the CPD are the massive U.S. wars in neighboring Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, the constant threats of attack by the United States and Israel, the use of the International Atomic Energy Agency dating back to 2003 to harass Iran over its legal and NPT-compliant nuclear program,22 and the serious economic and political sanctions imposed on Iran by the United States, its allies, and the Security Council — all of which add up to a sum that vastly exceeds “foreign meddling,” and the impact of which cannot be dismissed by asserting that there is “no evidence that” the CIA has engineered yet another coup on the model of its 1953 overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq.23

    Isn’t U.S.-organized economic warfare that reduces Iranian standards of living over many years,24 along with the likelihood that it can only be ended by a U.S.-approved political transformation, a grave form of foreign intervention in Iranian politics, in the June 12 election, and in its aftermath? Isn’t it reminiscent of Reagan’s and Bush One’s blackmailing threat to continue the Contra’s terrorist war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua until the people removed the Sandinistas from power? Isn’t the CPD’s insistence that “American progressives” can safely discount these forms of foreign intervention as having played no important role in recent events inside Iran a form of apologetics for the same ugly operations?

  73. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:48pm #

    Cont.

    7. Apart from these ongoing destabilization campaigns, a series of reports since early July have described plans and training for possible future Israeli military attacks on Iran’s nuclear program. It is important to remember that such reports have been regular features in the Western media for six years running, invariably contain a psychological warfare component, and are even discussed as psy-ops inside Iran. But this time we notice some novel features to the reports, including an agreement with Egypt for Israeli warships to pass through the Suez Canal to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, an agreement with Saudi Arabia permitting the Israeli air force to traverse Saudi airspace, several long-range, joint U.S. and NATO training missions with the Israeli Air Force, and joint U.S.-Israeli tests of the Arrow interceptor missile “designed to defend Israel from missile attacks by Iran and Syria,” according to the London Times. “It is not by chance that Israel is drilling long-range maneuvers in a public way,” an Israeli defense official stated. “This is not a secret operation. This is something that has been published and will showcase Israel’s abilities.”25

    There is also U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s response to question by George Stephanopoulos on ABC TV in the States, widely interpreted as giving a virtual go-ahead to an Israeli bombing attack on Iran:26

    Stephanopoulos: [I]f the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily, the United States will not stand in the way?

    Biden: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they’re existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

    We find it damning that, as these U.S. and Israeli threats to attack Iran have escalated in June and especially in July, the U.S.-based Campaign for Peace and Democracy — while remaining silent on this major threat to international peace and security posed by the United States and Israel, which if carried out would undoubtedly kill many more Iranian civilians than the Iranian government has killed since June 12 — initiated its campaign to delegitimize Iran’s June 12 election as its cause celebre . . . and in effect laid down with the lions.

  74. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:49pm #

    Cont.

    8. Considering events inside Iran from June 12 on, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Iranian financiers of the Mousavi campaign had concluded that they could achieve their political objectives best, not at the ballot box in June 2009, and not by arguing their case before the rigid bodies of Iran’s executive branch, but by tailoring their messages of dissent to foreign audiences, taking to the streets to provoke repressive responses by state authorities, with every action of the state serving to delegitimize it in the eyes of the West’s metropolitan centers, whose recognition and validation the protestors have sought above all.27 Indeed, the West is where we find the real streets the demonstrators — Iran’s more affluent, urban-activist, and technologically savvy youth — want to control. Not “from Engelob Square to Azadi Square,” as Robert Fisk reported it,28 but how Engelob Square and Azadi Square, Evin Prison and the Basij militia, play in the United States and other Western powers, where 98% of the “internationalists” wouldn’t blog, “tweet,” text-message, or take to their own streets to stop a single NATO missile from striking a wedding or funeral party in Afghanistan, however much they cheer Iran’s dissidents.

    Today’s mobile communications technology (including voice, text-messaging, and digital imaging) played an unprecedented role in the election and its aftermath, as did the Internet (websites, email, Twitter, Facebook, and photo and video-sharing platforms such YouTube and Flickr), and foreign-based radio and television sources such as the BBC, CNN, and Al Jazeera, as well as BBC Persian TV and Voice of America’s Persian News Network. Bypassing Iran’s state-run media, younger Iranians kept informed via these state-of-the-art samizdat and establishment foreign sources. Much of the establishment Western media (print, TV, and radio) also relied heavily on the new samizdat and for one-to-two weeks running featured content drawn allegedly from Iran’s street protestors.29

    When Tehran’s executive branch accuses the U.S. Government and foreign NGOs of trying to foment a “velvet” or “color revolution,” this is the modus operandi that Tehran has in mind. Given the U.S., U.K., and Israeli investment in destabilization and regime change in Iran, we believe it highly plausible that strategy exists for mobilizing Iran’s dissident youth via both samizdat and the foreign media beyond their country’s borders that feedback into the consciousnesses of the Iranian street and the executive branch, altering the relation between the two, in precisely the sense that U.S.-based nonviolent action-operatives and foreign regime-changers have been advocating for use in Iran for years.30

    In short, the protests are certainly not entirely “homegrown” and have a pretty clear link both to direct destabilization campaigns and to the massive destabilizations imposed upon this region of the world by the United States and its allies just this decade alone. It is also interesting to note that Peter Ackerman, the founding chair of the U.S.-based International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and a former chair of the right-wing Freedom House, along with the ICNC’s founding director and president Jack DuVall, once cynically cautioned that for a destabilization campaign such as this to be maximally effective against Iran, it “should not come from the CIA or Defense Department, but rather from pro-democracy programs throughout the West.”31

  75. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:49pm #

    Cont.

    None of this is to deny the reality of a massive democratic surge inside Iran on a scale unseen since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. But it is to question how well we understand the role of state-of-the-art communications technology in mobilizing the demonstrators, and how truly “indigenous,” autonomous, and independent they are from foreign meddling and influence, where foreign powers have invested considerable resources and know-how in these modern regime-change campaigns.

    9. The question of vote fraud in Iran’s reported election results remains hotly contested.32 There have been allegations of fraud among both Iran’s political class and foreign analysts,33 but the true scale of any possible tampering with the actual ballots cast is uncertain. Still, more than any other factor, it is the allegations of an election rigged by Iran’s executive branch to deny the will of the Iranian people that have driven events inside Iran since June 12.

    The CPD devotes its first five Q&A’s to delegitimizing both the election and Iran’s political system. The CPD dismisses the political system’s fairness (#1), the “un-elected” nature of its “theocratic rulers” (#2), as well as rejects Ahmadinejad’s reported victory (#3 – #5). “[T]here is very powerful evidence that either no one emerged with a majority [in the first round],” the CPD even states at one point, “or that Mousavi won outright” (#3). The CPD also states that the “basic prerequisite of a democratic system — that people can change their government — is missing” in Iran (#2), and that as the “un-elected Guardian Council” filtered out hundreds of potential candidates, leaving only four to run for the presidency, with no free press, free expression and freedom to organize, the June 12 election wasn’t free and fair (#1 and #2, and passim).

    While we agree that Iran’s political system has very serious defects, it towers above others in the Middle East that are U.S. clients and recipients of U.S. aid and protection. If Iran were a U.S. client rather than a U.S. target, its political system would be portrayed as a “fledgling democracy,” imperfect but improving over time and with the promise of a democratic future. Furthermore, in the current electoral contest, the three challengers (Mousavi, as well as the former Speaker of the Parliament, Mehdi Karroubi, and the former head of the Revolutionary Guards, Mohsen Rezai) seemed ABLE to voice sharp disagreements with the incumbent and with many aspects of Iranian life under its current executive branch; also, Mousavi’s candidacy was supported passionately by large numbers of people, and he had very contentious debates with Ahmadinejad as well as the other two candidates on national TV.34 We do not recall the CPD ever contesting the legitimacy of the U.S. political system or the fairness of U.S. elections on the grounds that an unelected dictatorship of money — as opposed to the Islamic Council of Guardians — vets the nominees of the Republican and Democratic parties, reducing the options available to U.S. citizens to two candidates, neither of whom can change the foreign or domestic priorities of the imperial U.S. regime. Nor did the CPD draw any important comparison between conditions in Iran, on the one hand, and conditions in Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Kuwait, or Iraq and Afghanistan under U.S. military occupation, on the other. And though the CPD mentions that conditions are worse in the “dictatorship” of Saudi Arabia, the CPD never explains why its focus is (and has been) on Iran rather than Saudi Arabia or the United States of America.

  76. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:50pm #

    Cont.

    Although serious doubts have been raised about the integrity of Iran’s vote-counting process, it is worthy of note that the only relatively scientific, non-partisan poll of Iranian opinion conducted in the pre-election period, between May 11 and 20, asked the question, “If the presidential elections were held today, who would you vote for?”35 33.8% of the Iranians surveyed said that they’d vote for Ahmadinejad, compared to 13.6% for Mousavi, 1.7% for Karroubi, and 0.9% for Rezai. These results formed the basis for the pollsters Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty’s claim shortly after the election that their “nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by more than a 2 to 1 margin — greater than his actual apparent margin of victory [on June 12].”36

    While 50.1% who did not name any of these four candidates, either because they didn’t know (27.4%), they didn’t like any of the four (7.6%), or they refused to answer (15.1%), present a real problem, this deserves less weight than critics of the official results have given it. “If one merely extrapolated from the reported results [of the Ballen-Doherty poll],” Robert Naiman writes, “that is, if one assumed that the people who refused to respond or who didn’t know voted for the four candidates in the same proportion as their counterparts who named candidates,” Ahmadinejad would have received 66.7% of the votes, almost 4 points more than the Interior Ministry announced on June 13.37 Moreover, were we to allocate as high as 60% of the undecided votes to the two “reform” candidates (Mousavi and Karroubi) and only 40% to the two “conservative” candidates (Ahmadinejad and Rezai), but in the same proportion that each received from those who answered the “who would you vote for” question by naming their candidate, Naiman projects that Ahmadinejad still would have received 57% to Mousavi’s 36% — results that “differ from the Interior Ministry numbers by less than the poll’s [3.1%] margin of error.”

    The CPD tries to get around these results by arguing that the Ballen-Doherty poll was taken early in the campaign, before the TV debates in early June, which were a “turning point” where people “sensed . . . an opportunity for real change” (#4). But the CPD’s contention that Iranian public opinion changed after the poll in May is not only speculative and lacking in evidence, it ignores the fact that Ahmadinejad’s forces were also campaigning, and vigorously; and contrary to the CPD implication that the TV debates turned the tide against Ahmadinejad, U.S. journalist Joe Klein, though hostile towards the incumbent, nonetheless reported that Ahmadinejad “was, without question, the best politician in the race,” and that his nationally televised debates against both Mousavi and Karroubi “were routs.”38

  77. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:51pm #

    Cont.

    The CPD also claims that, while Ahmadinejad did get support from the poor with his social welfare programs (i.e., Ahmadinejad’s “social welfare programs, funded from oil revenues, have undoubtedly induced many among the poor to give him their allegiance,” the CPD sneers [#5]), “there is no evidence that these were enough to give him the huge majorities that he claims” (#5). But we repeat that the only evidence gathered by an opinion poll suggested roughly a 2-1 lead for Ahmadinejad over Mousavi, and hence a possible majority victory. Nowhere does the CPJ acknowledge that Ahmadinejad’s refusal to kowtow to the West and his nationalistic stance in opposing the U.S., Israel, and a threatening Western establishment, also could have won him votes.

    The quasi-official source for the fraud allegation in the West is the U.K.-based Chatham House analysis, released on June 21. When Ahmadinejad defeated Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani by 61.7% to 31.5% in the second-round run-off in June 2005, commentators attributed Ahmadinejad’s nearly 2 to 1 margin of victory to Rafsanjani’s “symboliz[ing] wealth and power,” with Ahmadinejad “capitaliz[ing] on the schism between the government and the people, the poor and the rich,” as one senior advisor to the outgoing President Mohammad Khatami explained. “The White House responded to the [2005] election result by reiterating charges made previously by President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the legitimacy of the vote, noting that ‘over 1,000 candidates were disqualified from running and there were many allegations of election fraud and interference’,” the New York Times reported.39 But with voter turnout in June 2009 showing “massive across the board increases,” rising from 28,100,000 in the first-round of 2005, to 38,700,000 in the first and only round of 2009, Chatham House finds it “problematic” that there was any “correlation between increases in turnout and increased support for any candidate. . . .”40 This would be a solid objection, if in fact there had been a substantial “swing to Ahmadinejad” in 2009. But out of the total number of valid votes reported by the Interior Ministry on June 13, Ahmadinejad received 62.6% to Mousavi’s 33.8%, leaving little evidence of a “swing” or change between the second round of 2005 and 2009. Furthermore, as noted, the Ballen-Doherty poll completed three weeks before the election showed Ahmadinejad with a 2 to 1 edge over Mousavi, and as Naiman indicated, with reasonable adjustments for the effects of non-voting and run-off consolidations, Ahmadinejad’s numbers for the June 12 election are consistent with that pre-election poll.

  78. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:52pm #

    Cont.

    In short, although there is some anecdotal evidence of vote fraud in the reported results of Iran’s June 12 election, the CPD’s assurances of massive vote fraud and a possible Mousavi majority are not based on any credible evidence whatsoever.41 Some 700,000 Iranians worked 45,000 polls on June 12, including tens of thousands drawn from opposition parties. Ballots were counted at the polling sites in the presence of some 14-18 people, including these opposition observers. Numerous other safeguards also would have had to be violated on a massive scale — in the presence of tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of witnesses. The results of each of the 45,000 polls were posted to the Interior Ministry’s website. Neither the Mousavi camp nor anyone else have produced witnesses who can testify to the violation of voting and counting procedures on a scale beyond the anecdotal and therefore marginal. If vote fraud occurred on the scale necessary to rig the election by the nearly 11,290,000 votes that separate its proclaimed winner, the incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from its runner-up, the former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, the fraud would have had to occur outside the voting process. This is possible, but unproven. As Iran’s Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in his first post-election sermon, “If the difference was 100,000 or 500,000 or 1 million, well, one may say fraud could have happened. But how can one rig 11 million votes? The Guardian Council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them.”42 It is quite possible that Ahmadinejad won his first-round majority without or despite a resort to fraud.

    “The data offers no arbitration in this dispute,” the Chatham House analysis cautiously states, and we agree.43 But this means that the assured conclusion of massive fraud, a stolen election, and a “coup d’état” simply is unproven speculation, and that passions in the West, stirred by the repeated allegations of theft, are deeply problematic — as they would not be, were the same passionate intensity focused closer to home, on the tangible coup d’état in Honduras.

  79. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:53pm #

    Cont.

    10. The CPD asks whether Ahmadinejad is “good for world anti-imperialism.” It answers that “There is a foolish argument in some sectors of the left that holds that any state that is opposed by the U.S. government is therefore automatically playing a progressive, anti-imperialist role and should be supported. On these grounds, many such ‘leftists’ have acted as apologists for murderous dictators like Milosevic and Saddam Hussein” (#9).

    This tendentious analysis misrepresents the real issues, and begs several questions. According to both the letter and the spirit of the UN Charter, a state that is on the imperial hit-list ought to be defended against aggression, and interference in its affairs is ruled out. Aggression and subversion should be strenuously opposed by the American left. It should not be suckered into such efforts even when the target is not playing a “progressive, anti-imperialist role.”

    Whether North Vietnam and the Vietnamese resistance were “playing a progressive, anti-imperialist role” in the years 1950-1975 can be debated. But it must be recalled that folks straightening out the “confusion” on the left in those years were also busy demonizing the “murderous dictator” Ho Chi Minh and featuring Vietnamese terrorism, thereby providing de facto support to a truly genocidal aggression by the United States.

    The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was not playing a progressive, anti-imperialist role in the 1980s and 1990s. But what leftist would have swallowed the U.S.-U.K. aggression of 2003 on grounds that Saddam was a “murderous dictator”? (For the record, we know that on this occasion, the CPD did not swallow it.) Yet, it appears that in the CPD’s judgment, anyone strenuously opposing imperialist attacks on the former Yugoslavia and Iraq could be found guilty of apologizing for “murderous dictators”!

    So, while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might not be good for world anti-imperialism, his country is not just “opposed by the United States,” it has been under serious U.S. attack and faces a continuing threat of escalated violence. It should be first-order business of a left and supposed campaign for peace as well as democracy to oppose this threat. But with Ahmadinejad a demonized target and Iran’s allegedly sham election of June 12 utterly discredited, the CPD’s willing participation in that whole process (in contrast to Honduras, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia) provides first-class service to the imperial powers.

  80. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 8:57pm #

    Cont.

    Concluding Note: “American Progressives”?

    The Iranian election of June 12 and its aftermath have been subjected to competing but not necessarily exclusive interpretations. In dealing with these events, some commentators have framed them as features of an autonomous, local struggle for democracy; others view them as an internal struggle tightly integrated into regional and global struggles for conquest of territories and control over scarce energy resources. We may recall that Iran is one of the two remaining members of the “Axis of Evil” (January 2002-), accused then and still today of pursuing weapons of mass destruction and exporting terrorism, “while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.”44

    We believe that the latter frame is by far the more illuminating and politically relevant, as it emphasizes the fact that the huge publicity given to Iran in the establishment Western political and media systems is closely connected to the U.S., NATO, and Israeli campaign to destabilize and change regimes in Iran, a campaign that is part of a larger program of power-projection, subversion, territorial expansion, and serial warfare. The same basic point applies to the U.S. campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, and remains perhaps the most visible part of the regime-change project (i.e., short of an eventual military attack).

    It goes without saying that “all peoples have the right to self-determination,” and that any struggle for freedom deserves our solidarity and respect. No less compelling to us, however, are the injunctions against the “subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation,” “armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples,” and the “partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country.”45 The Iranian election and the Iranian struggle for freedom are the rightful property of the Iranian people, not something about which their allegedly more sophisticated counterparts in the States and on the “internationalist” left need to instruct them. But this is especially true where that struggle is used in the destabilization and subjugation program.

    Overall, the Campaign for Peace and Democracy’s “Question & Answer on the Iran Crisis” reminds us of the position Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice staked out in her early 2006 statement before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee: “We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,” Rice warned. But, she added, “We do not have a problem with the Iranian people. We want the Iranian people to be free. Our problem is with the Iranian regime. . . .”46

    A Gallup World Affairs poll taken in the United States around the same time found that nearly one in three Americans ranked Iran “America’s greatest enemy,” ahead of Iraq (22%) and North Korea (15%), to name the other two notables. The same poll found that Americans rated Iran the “most negatively” out of 22 foreign countries, a place of honor formerly held by Iraq for the previous 15 years (1991-2005). “Generally speaking,” Gallup explained, “Americans’ ratings of other nations are fairly stable from year to year, though they do change in response to international events.”47

    But the “international events” to which Gallup referred were located in Washington, London, Paris, and Bonn, and directed at Iran, specifically these capitals’ use of the IAEA to harass Iran over its nuclear program, to depict its nuclear program as a global threat to international peace and security, and to demonize its president — the latter process ratcheted-up so high since the 12th of June that by now Iran has been demonized beyond recognition.

    Rather than countering this process, the CPD pleads with “American progressives” to let their guards down and go for a ride on the “green wave.” Instead of U.S. citizens asking the question, What should we do about the current situation in the United States of America? (extended to those parts of the world that suffer beneath its myriad forms of violence and oppression), the CPD asks (#12): “What should we do about the current situation in Iran?”

    This approach to “progressive” politics makes us wonder, not whether “Ahmadinejad [is] good for world anti-imperialism” but, frankly, whether the CPD is. We have our doubts.

    The 47 end notes at the link:

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/hp240709.html

    That pretty much wraps it up,though Herman and Petersen did a couple of follow up articles later, which I could post as well, when I finish with me laundry. ;D

  81. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 9:03pm #

    THANK YOU HAYATE!

  82. PatrickSMcNally said on August 16th, 2010 at 9:05pm #

    > To me it was driven by the frustration of relatively affluent urban strata denied the chance afforded by their prosperity to enjoy a Western consumerist lifestyle.

    That’s one of the first inklings of an intelligent coming from your end on this thread. Like I said already, a big part of what brought about glasnost was that many Soviet officials began to see themselves as having the opportunity to become a new bourgeoisie. At the same time, it was ridiculous to overlook the way that the people who climbed the Berlin wall were real ordinary people that were not just wanna-be millionaires. This was exactly the point which left people like Sam Marcy in a state of constipation. The result of course was that none of the various groups on the Left had much of an alternative to either joining in the cheering as the wall came down or insisting that multiple ordinary people were “fascist counter-revolutionaries.” It didn’t really have a chance either way of leading anywhere. But that’s being set up again now.

    > I think it has EVERYTHING to do with supporting an imperial attack on Iran

    That really shows a bizarre authoritarian model of thinking whereby henceforth any information gathered about human rights abuses can only be blacked out for the sake of supporting a government which we suspect the imperial elite of wishing to remove. Here again we’ve seen how this went in the Cold War where Right-wing literature was able to relentlessly pump up mythologies of tens of millions, maybe 20 million, no, maybe 50 million, make that 100 million victims of Communism, by dominating the only thing that looked like semi-serious historical literature about blood purges which killed hundreds of thousands. The Left of the relevant time was so predominated by simple talk about “Trotskyite fascist counter-revolutionaries” that it was not able to mount any credible critique of anything.

    > I’m also sure that most of the time their perception on this point is accurate.

    The paranoid way in which such accusations are thrown around does have the potential to be self-fulfilling in the long-term. That is one of the main dangers.

  83. hayate said on August 16th, 2010 at 9:20pm #

    Cheers, teafoe2

  84. teafoe2 said on August 16th, 2010 at 9:20pm #

    PM posts: “That really shows a bizarre authoritarian model of thinking whereby henceforth any information gathered about human rights abuses can only be blacked out for the sake of supporting a government which we suspect the imperial elite of wishing to remove”

    Patrick, I think you’re tired. Maybe get some sleep and try again? “suspect the imperial elite of wishing to remove”? “Suspect”? where you been, man, don’t you read the papers?

    How come you’re so all fired up about “human rts abuses” in Iran, when there are so many other places where they’re being abused with US government support?

    Where do you get the idea that it’s up to Americans, or Britons or Canadians or any other Western public to remedy defects in Iranian society? Reminds me of the apologists for the US war on Afghanistan, claiming it’s motivated by concern for “womens rights”. Izzy uses similar logic to justify attacks on Gaza.

    Look around, there are any number of other places where suffering and injustice is taking place. Why focus on a place which is being targetted by the US & the IOF?

    I’m sorry, you do have a lot of knowledge, but your take on Iran is making less and less sense. And now you resort to firing insults at me?

    get some sleep:)

  85. shabnam said on August 16th, 2010 at 10:10pm #

    Those who are concerned about “Human Rights” abuses in Iran must move their behind and organize their ignorant population to demand from the Zionist stooges in Washington that stop their illegal economic sanctions against Iranian Workers, Children and Nation of Iran to be viewed as credible not as an agent of American exceptionalism.

    You cannot have it both ways. How is Iran supposed to become democratic? Can anyone build ‘democracy’ on empty stomach? What is the purpose of economic sanctions? Diplomatic isolation? The reason for these brutal actions against weaker countries, like they did it in Iraq where killed more than 650, 000 people, many children, to prevent Iran to become a developed nation to be able to stand on its own feet. The US is going after any country who is willing to have economic cooperation with Iran in order to destroy Iranian economy to keep Workers unemployed and hungry to be pushed into the street for ‘regime change’, then use it as ‘Iranian discontent with theocracy’. Those who are familiar with Iranian society and politics know that the major discontent in Iran is due to LACK OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, erosion of their economic power to maintain a NORMAL life, to travel and not be insulted by the custom officers. Dr. Ahmadinejad won the election because majority of the population cast their votes to protect their economic status not on basis of TRIBAL identity, where many westerners thought Iranians cast their vote based on tribal identity not economic interest. The reason is this Western government spent millions of dollars on destabilization of Iran based on ethnic and religious divide for regime change.

    Obama, the zionist puppet, has targeted Turkey because Israel expects Turkey not having any economic agreement with Iran in order to destabilize Iran further for ‘regime change’.

    Today, in The Financial Times, Daniel Dombey reports that “President Obama has personally warned Turkey’s prime minister that unless Ankara shifts its position on Israel and Iran it stands little chance of obtaining the US weapons it wants to buy”. A senior Obama Administration official told Dombey that “The president has said to [Turkey’s Prime Minister] Erdoğan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress”.

    According to Dombey, the Administration “was deeply frustrated when Turkey voted against United Nations sanctions on Iran in June”. Obama reportedly told Erdoğan that Turkey “had failed to act as an ally” when it voted against the sanctions on Iran, rather than abstaining.

    This story is a remarkable statement about the Obama Administration’s willingness to damage important strategic relationships in order defend its dysfunctional Iran policy. The claim, as the senior Administration official puts it, that the Turks “need to show that they take seriously American national security interests” is preposterous with regard to a NATO ally of long standing.

  86. Deadbeat said on August 17th, 2010 at 2:07am #

    I think Patrick should check out the Leverett web site “Race For Iran”.

    Here is their take from the article THE GREEN MOVEMENT IS NOT THE FUTURE OF IRAN

    But the reformist, “civil rights movement” agenda no longer defines the Green movement—if it ever really did. The movement’s “counter-revolutionary” current—which is the current that is so enthusiastically supported in the West—has trumped the “reformist” current, at least in popular perceptions inside Iran. That is one reason why the Green movement’s base of popular support has declined so sharply over the past year—because, as we wrote in our New York Times article, “polling after the [June 12, 2009 presidential] election and popular reaction to the Ashura protests [on December 27, 2009] suggest that most Iranians are unmoved, if not repelled, by calls for the Islamic Republic’s abolition”. Even Kadivar, in an interview after the five expatriates’ manifesto was published, acknowledged that “the majority of Iranians has no desire for a second revolution, thirty years after the last one”.

  87. Deadbeat said on August 17th, 2010 at 2:10am #

    Shabnam writes …

    The reason for these brutal actions against weaker countries, like they did it in Iraq where killed more than 650, 000 people, many children, to prevent Iran to become a developed nation to be able to stand on its own feet.

    This is what RACIST do. Take a look at what happened to Black in Tulsa OK. Anytime Blacks build something for themselves racists tore it down. Zionists are racist. Destroying people and cultures are what racist do.

  88. shabnam said on August 17th, 2010 at 6:17am #

    Attention – Attention – Attention:

    Abdullah Tajzadeh a Kurd, one of the reformists, behind the election ‘fraud’ hoax who is in Evin prison at the present time, has just revealed THERE WAS NO FRAUD IN THE ELECTION 2009 IN IRAN.

    He in the following video clearly said: WE LOST THE ELECTION. This confession was made when he was talking with other prisoners in his cell. People with Persian language skills can watch the video and stop the zionist hasbara at once . Down with zionism and its supporters. Stooges of the Green, including HOPI, sell out ‘left’, must think differently.

    http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/pages/?cid=114576

  89. shabnam said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:05am #

    The first name of Tajzadeh is Mostafa not Abdullah, sorry. Tajzadeh confest that there was no fraud in the Iranian election of 2009 to Abdullah Ramazanzadeh, and Farahahi when they were talking with each other.

  90. Cameron said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:16am #

    This is a very sad excuse to support notorious capitalist dictatorships like the regime in Iran or the former regime in Iraq on the grounds that they oppose the US and there is a threat of invasion. Even if true, my position is to condemn them all and promote anti-war at the same time. I keep wondering when I read this:
    > How come you’re so all fired up about “human rts abuses” in Iran, when there are so many other places where they’re being abused with US government support?
    Should we look the other way and condone the “human rts abuses” in Iran just because there are so many other places that do the same? Is that a valid argument from a progressive?
    I’m in it because I believe in human/animal/ecological emancipation, because capitalism is unnatural and irrational. I condemn any regime that commits crimes.

  91. Cameron said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:39am #

    Is it a coincidence that the uprising of the 1979 and 2009 happened in the context of economic crises? I do believe it was the economic crises as well as social and political oppression that brought people into the streets in both cases. Shah wanted to confront and crush the uprising. It was then that imperialist powers (France, USA, Germany, and UK) decided that Shah must go because Marxist organizations were becoming increasingly popular and the radicalization of the movement could have resulted in a proletarian revolution which would have sided with the USSR. This obviously was not acceptable to imperialists. To imperialists the best option was an Islamic state. It was then that France hosted Khomeini. NATO commander General Howiser (spelling?) was dispatched to Tehran to convince Iranian army commanders (trained by the USA) to be impartial which they obeyed hence changing the course of the uprising.
    You also know who created Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. CIA in cooperation with Saudis and Pakistan. It was the imperialists that pushed the Islamic theocracy in the region. The so called “green belt” around the southern border of the former USSR.

  92. shabnam said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:44am #

    {This is a very sad excuse to support notorious capitalist dictatorships like the regime in Iran or the former regime in Iraq on the grounds that they oppose the US and there is a threat of invasion.}

    STOP YOUR ZIONIST HASBARA AT ONCE. If you are not a Zionist habara agent, then why don’t you organize your population to destroy Zionism and imperialism terror against other countries and group? According to many polls, Israel and the United States are the main threat to world peace. It is not necessary to stay behind Iranian people. There are billions in the world who needs immediate attention to survive due Western brutal policy and their civilizing mission, what are you going to do? If you really want to help Iranian people bring down SANCTIONS against workers of Iran.
    Iranian people, like Iraqi people, suffered from ‘dual containment’ designed by a Zionist Jew, Martin indyk, stringent economic sanction to inject chaos and instability to push the population into the street. We have seen the same process during Mossadeq in 1950s, to destroy nationalists, after Mossadeq, to destroy the leftists, and since the Iranian revolution against ‘Islamists’. It seems to me always there is a fictional enemy to be used in order to expand the “world Government” project with full cooperation of the phony ‘left’ in the West. Show me what have you done against ‘imperialism’ and Zionism? NOTHING. You have lined with Zionist hasbara to bring down the true resistance mover net in the region, that’s why you have forgotten your stupid ‘imperialism’ talk and have chosen to work with the Zionists who are hiding themselves behind “Marxism” to hide their true identity. How many times you have posted your opinion against ZIONISM AND ISRAEL, but whenever there is an article on Iran, you come here and repeat your ZIONIST HABSBARA. We are not fools.

  93. hayate said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:47am #

    You people are this century’s nazis, camy.

  94. hayate said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:59am #

    Chutzpah, Inc.: “The Brave People of Iran” (versus the Disappeared People of Palestine, Honduras, Afghanistan, Etc.) by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

    20.02.10

    It is almost a commonplace, at least for the real — as opposed to the cruise-missile — left, that the flow of information, opinion, and moral indignation in the United States adapts well to the demands of state policy. If the state is hostile to Iran, even openly trying to engage in “regime change,” and if it is supportive of the state of Israel, no matter what crimes Israel may commit, and if it doesn’t like the populist president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, and supports his overthrow and a follow-up “demonstration election” by the local elite, the media and many intellectuals will follow the state agenda, even if they must indulge in mental somersaults. In the case of Iran, the Israeli state and its U.S. supporters are also eager for regime change, so the somersaults on the Iran menace are wilder yet, with large injections of chutzpah.

    This chutzpah is in full bloom in a full-page ad in the February 7 New York Times and February 9 International Herald Tribune addressed to Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, Dimitry Medvedev, Gordon Brown, and Angela Merkel: “How Long Can We Stand Idly By and Watch the Scandal in Iran Unfold?”1 The ad was sponsored by “The Elie Wiesel Foundation For Humanity,” and signed by 44 Nobel Prize laureates, 42 of them men and a substantial fraction Jewish. The ad attacks Iran’s “cruel and oppressive regime” for its “shameless war against its own people” and its “irresponsible and senseless nuclear ambitions [that] threaten the entire world,” and calls upon Washington, Paris, Moscow, London, and Berlin, the UN Security Council, and “important NGOs” to impose “harsher sanctions” on Iran, and adopt “concrete measures . . . to protect this new nation of dissidents. . . .” “They must know that we are on their side,” the ad implores. “All of us who care must offer our full support and solidarity to the brave people of Iran.”

    This open letter is a shameless and demagogic call for foreign intervention in Iran, for destabilization and subversion, and, above all, for war — although three of the signers (including Wiesel) are past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize2 — and the text could have been written by the Foreign Office of the state of Israel. Indeed, Wiesel himself is an unabashed protagonist for Israel, having long proclaimed his unwillingness to make a public criticism of that country (“I never attack, never criticize Israel when I am not in Israel”3), so that we can rest assured that his “Foundation for Humanity” will never proclaim its solidarity with any humans living under the Israeli boot. The Wiesel Foundation did not sponsor a full-page ad in the New York Times to protest Israel’s shameless and criminal onslaught against the Gaza Palestinians in early 2009, which in just three weeks killed some 340 children, a greater number than the aggregate of protester deaths in post-election Iran.4 Nor will it sponsor an ad that criticizes the irresponsible buildup of nuclear weapons that Israel has accomplished outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that pose a much clearer threat to the world than that posed by the still nuclear-weapon-free Iran, which is under steady threat of attack by Israel and by a U.S. leadership that says “all options” remain on the table. That Wiesel and his “Foundation for Humanity” could get 43 other Nobel laureates to sign this hysterical, hypocritical, and morally degraded war-call is a sad indication of the state of the reigning Western intellectual culture in 2010…..

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/hp200210.html

  95. hayate said on August 17th, 2010 at 7:59am #

    More at the link, including analysis of Iranian public opinion polls and comparison to the election results. The propaganda about the elections and the green coup is a product of corrupt Jewish zionist minds, just like the propaganda they created to sucker the west into the Afghan & Iraq war crimes.

  96. hayate said on August 17th, 2010 at 8:10am #

    The Iran Threat in the Age of Real-Axis-of-Evil Expansion1 by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson

    16.03.10

    It is intriguing to see how whoever the United States and Israel find interfering with their imperial or dispossession plans is quickly demonized and becomes a threat and target for that Real-Axis-of-Evil (RAE), and hence their NATO allies and, with less intensity, much of the rest of the “international community” (IC, meaning ruling elites, not ordinary citizens). If and when the need arises, any bit of news that is damaging to the targeted state will be fed into the demonization process — and in the marvelous propaganda system of the West, the grossest distortions will be swallowed and regurgitated without much guilt or apology, even upon the exposure of exceptional gullibility and dishonesty.2 The dishonesty, gullibility, double standard, and hypocrisy are handled with an aplomb that Pravda and Izvestia could never muster in the Soviet era.

    (snip)

    Concluding Note

    The real threat that Iran poses to the United States and Israel is that of a local rival to Israel which might hamper Israel’s dispossession and expansion program in the Palestinian Territories, as well as U.S. domination of this region of the world. From a global viewpoint, the real threat is that Iran’s independence and refusal to grovel might lead to a war of aggression against it by Israel and/or the United States, and such a war could in turn spark an even larger conflagration. However, the nature of this latter threat is such that it can not be addressed by the “international community,” which consistently defers to the power and demands of the Real Axis-of-Evil, as do the United Nations, the Security Council, and the IAEA.

    That Iran poses an offensive threat to Israel or the United States is obviously a sick joke. Both Israel and the United States possess operational nuclear weapons and superior conventional forces — and while they can attack Iran without facing unbearable retaliation, Iran cannot do the same and couldn’t even do so if it developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons.

    But if Iran did posses a small nuclear arsenal, it would be better able to defend itself, and Israel and the United States would have to be act more cautiously — their own regular cross-border attacks would have to be considered more carefully, and might be effectively deterred. Their longstanding domination of the Middle East, with its “stupendous source of strategic power, one of the greatest material prizes in world history,”38 would be threatened. Thus Iran has no right of self-defense, let alone deterrence.

    In short, while nuclear-armed Israel and its patron commit aggression, dispossess, and threaten more of the same, they have managed to transform nuclear-weapons-free Iran into the “threat” that the UN and IC worry about. The IAEA has never established that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons,39 and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei continues to reject the acquisition and use of nuclear weapons as contrary to the religious beliefs of the Islamic Republic.40 Yet the mere possibility that Iran might switch its nuclear program to a military dimension, along with a lot of rhetorical heat from the West, have provided the basis for organizing a sanctions regime and potential U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran. It has even provided a rationale for the installation of missile and anti-missile systems on the periphery of Russia and China, allegedly to counter the Iran menace! This is the triumph of chutzpah once again, as the Real Axis-of-Evil clears the ground for its ongoing programs of local dispossession and global expansion.

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/hp160310.html

    Muchmore info and extensive end notes at the link.