There are some fascinating thoughts from Paul Craig Roberts on Counterpunch.The full article ("The U.S. Regime-Change Recipe for Iran") is here - my excerpts of the most interesting nuggets are as follows...
On May 16, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
We are now witnessing in Tehran US “attempts to foment a popular revolution” in the guise of another CIA orchestrated “color revolution.”
---
Even if the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the outside world has been damaged. Obama’s diplomatic approach is over before it started. The neocons and Israel have won. ... One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), “Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results.” ... Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.
In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.
---
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi, @IranRiggedElect, and @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that On June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
---
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives. Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a “moderate”? Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Is Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money?
Posts
4 comments:
Hi dave,
Interesting article but I think a serious fault in the analysis lies in the disconnect between the propagandising and the genuine anger among vast swathes of disillusioned Iranians inside and outside the country. There's possibly a tendency here to overstate the influence that online commentary has had and understate the genuine outrage and frustration that many Iranians feel about both the election and in the broader political society in Iran.
Also, I would be very uncomfortable with any description of this as a "victory for israel" as it cheapens a complex and subtle issue by using the language used by Ahmedinajad and his populist cronies.
The popular outrage on the part of Iranians is driven primarily from frustration at an administration that has frittered away economic and diplomatic opportunities which would have strengthened Iran in the global community over the course of Ahmadinejad's term.
His party was soundly thrashed at local elections only 18 months ago and now emerges with an overwhelming majority? Why would the electorate change their mind to such a degree?
Obviously you can't discount the CIA's role in any sort of diplomatic subterfuge in the region and particularly Iran but this sort of conspiratorial speculation only serves to frame the discussion in Ahmadinejad's favour. (ie "Obama=Bush, UK="Little Satan", "It's an israeli plot").
You have a point... I was just relaying the interesting POV from Counterpunch! Just for contrast, here's what Zizek makes of it:
http://supportiran.blogspot.com/2009/06/slavoj-zizeks-new-text-on-iran.html
I get you, i was referring to the article.
I think it's more interesting reading something I disagree with rather than something I do!
That said, the zizek thing is pretty tasty stuff!
this just about sums it up for me:
"we are witnessing a great emancipatory event which doesn’t fit the frame of the struggle between pro-Western liberals and anti-Western fundamentalists."
anyway, i like the blog, and the tunes too!
I disagree with your analysis clom.
There is no doubt that the outrage and frustration of Iranian 'reformists' is genuine ... but the quaility of being 'genuine' does not translate as legitimacy, nor does it correlate that the Iranian government alter itself in accord with the demands those who are dissatisfied with the election results.
I was genuinely dissatisfied with the Bush government's economic and diplomatic policies ... but I did not torch any gas stations in effort to express my frustration and get my voice heard.
Regarding the often quoted condition of Iran's deteriorating economy ... it is important to note that Iran has been under international economic sanctions for years and that it is official US policy to destablize their currency and sabotage their economy ... so perhaps Amadinejad may not be held entirely accountable for that.
This is yet another tactic of US / Israel imperial design for maintaining its military hegemony over the Middle East ... with the MSM acting as the propaganda Golem in a PsyOps war.
Paul Craig Roberts is correct.
Ohm51
(having problems w OpenID recognizing my wordpress account)
Post a Comment