For me, any sensible discussion of Iran must accept a number of facts. I will set these out as Set A and Set B. Both sets are true. But ideologues of the right routinely discount Set A, while ideologues of the left routinely discount Set B. That is why most debate on Iran is inane.
Set A
Iranian Islamic fundamentalism allied to fierce anti-Americanism was born from CIA intervention to topple democracy and keep in power a ruthless murdering despot for decades, in the interests of US oil and gas companies
Iranian anti-Americanism was fuelled further by US support for US friend and ally Saddam Hussein who was armed to wage a murderous war against Iran, again in the hope of US access to Iran’s oil and gas
The US committed a terrible atrocity against civilians by shooting down an Iranian passenger jet
Iran is surrounded by US military forces and has been repeatedly threatened to the extent that the desire to develop a nuclear weapon is a reflex
There is monumental hypocrisy in condemning Iran’s nuclear programme while overlooking Israel’s nuclear weapons
Set B
Iran is governed by an appalling set of vicious theocratic nutters
Iran is not any kind of democracy. It fails the first hurdle of candidates being allowed to put forward meaningful alternatives
Hanging of gays, stoning of adulterers, floggings, censorship and pervasive control are not fine because of cultural relativism. Iran’s whole legislative basis is inimical to universal ideals of human rights.
Iran really is trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme, though with some years still to go.
There are two very good articles on the current situation in Iran. One from the ever excellent Juan Cole. I would accept his judgement on the elections being rigged.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/class-v-culture-wars-in-iranian.html#comments
The other from Yasamine Mather, which puts it in another perspective.
http://www.hopoi.org/articles/elections%20June%202009.html
I am not optimistic about the outcome of the popular protest.
Very sensible views, M. Murray. Thank you to try balance things, though I find your set B objectively weaker than set A.
“Universal ideals of human rights” are not that universal, despite the fact that anyone deeply feels the contrary. Personaly, if I was handed a pen and asked to make a list, right there on the way to work, I probably would commit prejudicial and useless commonplace.
I am at a loss as well when it comes to define “democracy”.
But I think I know violence and gross falsehood when I see them and the West side is certainly not a friendly place in that respect. It makes no difference to me to see people murdered -legaly or not- because they were gay or because they were at the wrong place in the wrong lot.
Invisible person – You have posted that article about five times now and it is a pile of faeces. Whoever wrote it cannot even write decent English. It is a disgrace and a slander upon brave people. If you wish me to demolish it I will, but it is barely worth the trouble.
No, it’s a different article, there are two different articles, both by Paul Craig Roberts, who was Reagan’s Assistant Secretary to the Treasury. Roberts was a right-winger who was at the very centre of US power and he knows what he’s talking about.
He is most certainly not illiterate. One of the articles, I think, is from ‘Counterpunch’ a very good oppositional webzine based in the USA and co-edited by iconic journalist and car fanatic, Alexander Cockburn, brother of Patrick Cockburn (who writes for the Independent and who provided some of the best Iraq reportage of the past few years) and Andrew Cockburn, another journalist. They are all sons of Claude Cockburn, the late, famous and excellent Irish-American journalist.
These people are the very antithesis of illiterate.
No, please do demolish it eddie. I’d be interested to see you engage with the key points it makes.
“If you wish me to demolish it I will, but it is barely worth the trouble.”
Please do, Eddie. I’d like to read your demolition of PCR.
And Eddie, remember that virtually everyone on Twitter (unless a well-known public figure) is anonymous. I have an account myself. I could have been posting so-called updates from Iran today. And labelled them #iranelection, which hashtag was coming in at around 30 per second. Many continuous repeats, including one offering to turn your avatar green (I think from the USA) something many had already done. It was like a rush on a new fashion accessory.
@Suhayl,
Both Paul Craig Roberts articles were fwd’d on Information Clearing House email updates. Sadly Tom is running out of money (because of the recession, I assume.) He said yesterday that the situation is critical. I’d hate to see him go under.
Quote of the week:
Ari Fleischer on the present situation in Iran:
“I think it’s fair to say that George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East.”
Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com:
“[m]uch of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country — actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People.”
http://tinyurl.com/mynklr
Nameless person:
Interesting article although it think that it fails to mention Akbar Rafsanjani in this revolt. I have a sneaky feeling that Rafsanjani is working this from behind the scenes. He wants Ahmedinejad out and probably Khamenei out too so he can push his own political agenda forward. I would imagine that he wants reform so that there will be relaxations on the current UN sanctions that will allow his business interests to thrive. I don’t believe that any of this is about democracy.
It was also interesting that Khamenei mentioned in his speech today that all the parties were for the revolution. He’s right as none of these people want to topple the regime. They are just trying to eliminate their political foes. However, it appear that the west are trying to stoke the fire in the hope that they’ll destroy each other and the regime with it.
Here’s a video of Henry Kissinger threatening regime change in Iran if the current coup fails.
Little eddie the troll,
Demolish this pile of faeces.
http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime
chris.glasgow:
Good point about Rafsanjani. Lost to Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential election and claimed vote rigging. Reputedly the richest man in Iran with a fortune made from nut farming, oil, private schools and, it is rumoured, arms dealing. Widely thought to be very corrupt but, as Chairman of the Assembly of Experts one of the few men in Iran with the power legally to remove the Supreme Leader. Remarkably silent over the past week.
Where do I begin? “Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration.” What, and demos in London don’t? All those SWP banners? “The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes” a) he has no proof that they are primarily young people, images are censored b) dress codes – this is insulting, as if young women only care about dress codes.
“carry signs written in English: “Where is My Vote?” The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government” – er, is that a problem? They are appealng to an international audience.
“More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters’ chant, “death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad.” Oh so orchestration on the streets of London (“We are all Hamas now”) is ok but not on the streets of Tehran? The chant is ambiguous, that’s its whole point. The real enemy is Khameini.
“Even Ahmadinejad’s superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.”
This is bullshit. The supreme leader cannot be removed. An individual can, but the post carries on. Hitler may be replaced by Jodl but it remains a dictatorship. Over 400 potential presidential candidates were rejected. The finalists are all supporters of the system.
“On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran.” More insults. Whatt is wrong with speaking perfect English? TV companies are more likely to interview people who can speak English than to pay for translations.
“Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes.” Christ, they want to free themselves from more than this surely? They want a decent system of democracy for a start. “But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct” (what reports?) “paid troublemakers are in their ranks.” Do me a favour? This is an insult to all the brave people risking their lives on the streets and he has absolutely NO proof of it.
“Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.” So is he orchestrating the street protests or is the CIA, or is he working with the CIA? The article is full of confused logic like this.
“If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran’s independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran’s new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands.” What on earth does this mean? The people on the streets of Tehran want a better relationship with the West, mainly because it would help to rebuild the economy that has been so damaged by Ahmedinejad.
“If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.” More weird logic. The Iranian revolution was not legitimate. It was a coup by the Ayatollahs, after which they executed thousands of their allies in leftist and other parties. So they can’t admit they’ve faked the election now because it would admit that the revolution was also a fake?? Strange logic.
“The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth.” This is the classic Media Lens device. The proles may be stupid but we are clever. How does he know? Where does he get his information from that the rest of us can’t access? You’ve already quoted Alexander Cockburn, is he part of the propaganda device? Chomsky too?
“Feminists take the side of the “reformer” Mousavi.” This statement is left hanging in the air. What does it mean? Feminism is bad?
“Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition.” He has already said that he doesn’t know what the result was, yet accepts that the results were announced too quickly. He is doing exactly what he accuses others of.
“Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.” More bad English, you’ve just said the votes were swiftly counted so clearly votes were counted.
“The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.” Oh so we should ignore a dodgy election in one of the most important countries inthe world? Let’s turn our attention back to Israel, obviously.
I could go on. The language is tortured and bad. The logic is flawed. As for Claud Cockburn, he was a Stalinist hack who was attacked by Orwell. His son is a supporter of scientology, a climate change denier and has regularly been accused of anti-semitism. Both he and this author are 9/11 troofers. Enough said.
The point is that American money and US/UK support and propaganda are behind this ongoing ‘colour revolution’. This is a replay of what happened in 1953.
US/UK obviously believe that regime change would be in OUR interest. It is unlikely that we care quite so much about what is in the Iranians’ interest.
Here’s a video of Henry Kissinger threatening regime change in Iran if the current coup fails.
http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/kissinger-threatens-regime
by the way, eddie, for a plain fellow you are suddenly very well informed about the detailed background of an obscure individual, Roberts. I’d be careful if I were you. Personal paradigm shifts undermine credibility.
Roberts is right about 9/11 also, by the way. He’s that unusual thing in politics. An honest and decent man.
I sense a vast and deep knowledge and a superb range of techniques for the massaging of information. We are indeed entering the maze of the Minotaur. Better hold onto that piece of string, people. We are in the presence of an expert. Exposed!
But stop! Character assasination is the lowest form of critique.
Because Alexander Cockburn does not follow a party line – thank goodness someone doesn’t – doesn’t mean that he’s a nutter! Alex Cockburn has written massively knowledgeable political analyses on the USA over many decades, he’s not a crank. Btw, he doesn’t believe the Kennedy assassination was a plot, so where does that place him? I disagree with him on that. So he doesn’t agree with climate change? So I disagree with him on that, too. It is permitted. Claud Cockburn was one of the premier intellectuals of his day. Orwell and he had a fight – there were many fights within the Left over the role of the Soviet Union (what’s new?!). Good, that means they were both alive and awake.
Patrick Cockburn is one of the best journalists in the UK – his accounts of Iraq were superb, honest and lucid.
Paul Roberts was Reagan’s Assistant Sec to the Treasury. This is a guy who was in the US Administration when Iran-Contra was being organised by the US Administration.
Anybody can pick apart any sentences in isolation (even this sentence can be picked apart) and make them look ridiculous. And then it is possible for one to be lost in a labyrinth of semantics and illusion, a hall of mirros, so that one no longer knows whether one is looking left, right, up or down. Confusion, dissimulation, the viral spread of disniformation. See no evil, hear no evil.
Yes, the key point is this: I agree, the SWP helps to organise popular front-type demos in London. And I agree that the demos in Iran have been organised by outside forces, indeed that the whole orchestration has been Made in America.
What we may think of theocracy is another matter, as is whether we agree or disagree with the US action, the posited role of (taboo-word!) Israel, the demonstrators’ views, couture, etc. We may think it as an entirely valid use of US power to do this, so spread liberal capitalist democracy where it suits our purposes and to support dictators and theocracies where it suits our purposes, to facilitate the use of torture and simultaneously to bellow about human rights – where it suits our purposes.
There now is no disagreement, it seems, that the US is behind the current disturbances in Iran.
The point is, to look at the big picture, to loacte its heart and then to draw a rapier.
Just as Theseus did, with the Minotaur.
“BBC Persian is the Persian language franchise of BBC which conveys the latest political, social, economical and sport news relevant to Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan, and the world. Its headquarters are based in London, United Kingdom”
“BBC proposals for the service were drawn up by senior BBC management. These were approved by the then BBC Governors ?” the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC’s independence from the UK Government. They were then submitted to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for their consent as the BBC is obliged to do under the agreement with the FCO”
“Relationship between BBC and FCO”…
http://tinyurl.com/krrsnt
BBC…
tinyurl.com/mje7xs
You see, I – and many people – long for such things to be true, I mean for a tableau of ‘The People’ rising up against all forms of oppresion, etc. wherever it may be. This is the key. The iconic images of 1968 in Paris and other cities are what all these tableaux – in Ukraine, Georgia, etc. – draw on. Everybody – esp. left-wingers in the West – long for this kind of popular front burning-property-but-not-killing types of outbreaks, but the terrible fact is that real shifts in power effected by revolution, as opposed to evolution, are very violent and are not the sort of thing that would look good on TV or as a poster on a student’s wall. I’m not being facetious.
I just think we need to look at facts.
There seems to be an internal power-struggle going on within the ruling class in Iran and I would be very surprised indeed if the USA (and the UK, since the UK MUST do everything the USA tells it to do or the USA will ruin the UK economy completely; this has been the nature of the ‘special relationship since 1956, although Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson – a giant, compared to Tony Blair – chanced his arm in the mid-1960s by refusing to get into Vietnam, for which he paid a huge price later on, there was almost a coup d’etat against him engineered by MI6) did not have a hand in fomenting this. In fact, from time immemorial, divide and rule has been the modus operandum of empire; the UK perfected this technique and in terms of imperial genotype (speaking politically), the USA grew as a ‘cutting’ from the UK. I see MI6’s hand in this kind of subtle manipulation.
These are not bread riots, this is NOT the French Revolution of 1789, 1832, 1848 or 1871. It’s not even Hungary, 1956 (also CIA-backed, though one has no time for Stalinism) or even Czechoslavia, 1968 where a new form of democratic socialism was promised.
This is not a ‘Third World Revolution’, either. It’s not Cuba, 1959 or Vietnam, or Algeria. In fact, it’s not a revolution, at all. These people are not hungry, their faces are not drawn and lined like the faces of those in Pakistan, for example. They are mostly very well-dressed, fashionable people (even if in chadurs, the chadurs are well-cut); this seems to be a revolt of a certain section of the urban middle-classes. Who am I, with my much-enjoyed individual freedoms, to criticise them? I’ve no doubt that their grievances are real. But this is my perception – that there may be an element of class struggle. Look at the students who rioted against Chavez in Venezuela a couple of years ago – their organisation was paid-for by the USA. It’s a familiar sight. It’s got nothing to do with the American people and everything to do with American power.
It’s good that the American people are empathising with Iranians, seeing their faces. But American people are not in power in America – and British people are not in power in Britain, othewise we (in Britain) would never have attacked Iraq, as, in spite of massive govt propaganda the vast majority of UK citizens were absolutely against the attack in 2003.
I think that Obama is unlikely to want to get involved in another full-blown war (and I am wary of the constant threat of war on Iran as I think that in itself to some extent is a psy-op, as I’ve said before). I think the US Administration wants to hobble the power of Iran in the region by all other means (other than open war), although I suspect an Israeli attack on selected targets as part of a ‘softening-up’ process is still on the cards.
Nonetheless, the US depends to some extent on Iran to maintain stability in Iraq, and Iran also has influence in the western part of Afghanistan, so I think what they’re seeking is a definitive and sustained reduction in Iran’s influence regionally, esp. in Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. Israel, of course, would want to go further. I think they also want to neutralise Iranian independence – I mean REAL, as opposed to nominal, independence – as it is the only state still to be independent in the region. They see Rafsanjani and Mousavi – leaders with whom the US dealt with during the 1980s (Iran-Contra) even while supplying Saddam Hussein with chemical weaponry, and leaders who may have come to the conclusion that the maintenance of the power of a certain element of the ruling classes in Iran can be accomodated only through rappochment with – aka submission to – US power.
On the other hand, leaders get ‘bought’ all the time. Nelson Mandela was almost certainly an MI6 agent. This doesn’t mean he was not a great leader, he was, but necessity and his lifelong anti-communism, anti-trade unionism drove him into their arms. The rest is history.
I’m not privy to any inner workings, so I may be completely wrong. But that’s my take, today.
George Dutton,
Quote:”These were approved by the then BBC Governors ?” the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC’s independence from the UK Government.”
If the UK ‘government’ (MP’s) are as detatched from real power as they seem to be then it is certain that the ‘BBC governors’ are much closer to our real government (the financial oligarchy that really run this country) than parliament.
This talk of ‘independence’ is comical and the mechanisms put in place to ‘achieve’ it, are nothing but a smokescreen.
Do you think the powers-that-be will leave their fate in ‘independent’ hands or leave their fate to chance in any way whatsoever.
Anyone who is capable of believing such a thing is brainwashed to an extreme degree by our dominating little oligarchy/cryptocracy.
Enough of this ‘independent’ bollocks.
Wait for the ‘Iraq Inquiry’, then call that independent. Be prepared to get laughed off stage.
Eddie,
Taking just one of your comments (because you’re better off reading Suhayl Saadi. I just try to keep up.)
“But if reports of the US government’s plans to destabilize Iran are correct”
(what reports?)–Eddie
Paul Craig Roberts, from “The Waning Power of Truth”, June 19, 2009 (ICH)
http://tinyurl.com/mzecm2
“on May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”
“On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”
“A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger 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.”
“On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”
If you have some special knowledge, Eddie, that this is another pile of faeces, please explain.
Yes, and corroborated on June 16:
“Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.””
I would add that if protesters in Iran are protesting an internal election result in their own country, I have yet to see a good argument for why they would be so desperate to get the word out IN ENGLISH on Twitter, or by carrying placards written IN ENGLISH on the streets of Tehran.
Iranians are a proud people with a proud history. Why would anyone imagine they want intervention from outside?
Quote:”These were approved by the then BBC Governors ?” the body that oversaw the BBC and ensures the BBC’s independence from the UK Government.”
The point of my post was to point out that…as you say…
“This talk of ‘independence’ is comical and the mechanisms put in place to ‘achieve’ it, are nothing but a smokescreen.”
The BBC is control by some not very nice people…NOT very nice at all.The BBC is nothing more then a propaganda agency.
Come to think about it…the money that is being used to pay for the…”BBC Persian is the Persian language franchise of BBC which conveys the latest political, social, economical and sport news relevant to Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan, and the world. Its headquarters are based in London, United Kingdom”…does that come out of the TV Licence?.
Oh you people are beyond belief. Why can’t you allow your silly selves to accept that a) the Iranian regime is wicked and reactionary and b) that many of its people want more democracy, an end to sexual and other forms of apartheid and discrimination and better relationships with the West? Instead you carry on smearing these brave people who are risking their lives at this vey moment. It may not have escaped your notice direlin that the USA took on a new president this year so all your fabricated “facts” from 2007 are meaningless and none of you has ANY proof that the USA is behind these demonstrations. You must have seen Obama’s measured response to the election. Why else is the UK public enemy number 1? I have dissected parts of the article above but none of you has responded. Suhayl, do you think the protestors of 1968 were hungry? Your comments are specious. Do people have to be hungry before they can demonstrate against sexual apartheid and in favour of democracy? You submit a long rant about how American power is behind it and then admit you may be wrong. The truth is you just don’t know. And Mandela a British agent? Oh dear me.
And George Dutton, you go on about the PErsian BBC service. Have you noticed that Press TV is advertised on all the buses in London – sponsored by Iran? That’s free speech for you. .
On Press TV we were able to see live what the Israelis were doing to the people of Gaza during Cast Lead. Same also from Al Jazeera. The BBC were only able to put Bowen or Adler on the Hill of Shame where Israelis were bringing their picnic chairs and binoculars, the better to observe the slaughter of the caged people. Press TV also have some excellent documentaries and current affairs programmes (even have people like Aarononovitch on). You should try to catch one or two – might learn something.
“The truth is you just don’t know”
eddie
The truth is you just don’t know.
“Have you noticed that Press TV is advertised on all the buses in London – sponsored by Iran? That’s free speech for you.”
Hmmm…I have heard UK government plans are a foot on that one eddie…a case of watch this space?.
I was giving some examples of revolts of different sorts – so, some were bread riots, others were not. Quite obvious, what I was saying, really.
Yes, there is strong evidence that Mandela did work with British Intelligence, this is not a secret. Sometimes he had to – as when they helped foil several assasination attempts by S. African white extremists post-1990, at other times it was as part of a power-game with the Communist party of S. Africa and the TU movement. The reaction was predictable.
I rendered this as an example of how liberation (or shall we say, oppositional) leaders can/ can have to work with the intelligence services of imperial powers for various reasons. Look at the Iraqia – one minute, they with the US, the next, their fighting them. See, such shifts are normal.
My analyses apply, regardless of whether or not one is a cheerleader for US power/ theocracy/ democracy/communism/fascism, etc.
I do not agree with theocracy, how many times do I have to state this? But I do not agree with US military-political power being exerted in a strategy to achieve imperial global hegemony. Most wars today are a direct result of this.
‘…they’re’, I mean! Lest I be accused of illiteracy!
“Hmmm…I have heard UK government plans are a foot on that one eddie…a case of watch this space?.”…
http://tinyurl.com/lfmtob
Where the USA goes today…The UK will go tomorrow.
George Perhaps you can enlighten me as I have barely watched Press TV. Do they have programmes like “Question Time”? Do they have interviewers like John Humphreys who give government ministers a hard time? From what I have heard press tv is firmly under the control of the regime.
Just had a look at the Press Tv website. As I suspected it is just a government propaganda station – every report toes the regime line. No feedback or message boards. No debate.
We’ve had “drearylin”, and now “direlin”, Eddie.
Why do you keep changing my name? Is it because of my nationality?
And don’t you think, as you’ve already virtually admitted on another thread, that it’s puerile and unnecessary?
As for your reference to “all your fabricated “facts” from 2007″, what evidence do you have that they’re fabricated?
You seem to be under the illusion that the arrival of Obama means the USA has done some sort of U-turn. It hasn’t. And if you think that all covert operations by the USA have been terminated, you’re making a very big and rather naive mistake.
One of Obama’s speeches before election referred to his vision of the USA “leading the world” in a different manner/fashion. I neither want nor need to be led by the USA anywhere. If you’re happy to sit there and be led by the nose, more fool you.
“Instead you carry on smearing these brave people who are risking their lives at this vey moment.”–Eddie
No, Eddie, you’re smearing them. By suggesting that they’re desperate for support from outside Iran, on Twitter and TV screens. I doubt if they have any need of you.
“Where the USA goes today…The UK will go tomorrow.”
And (culturally) Ireland the next day, George. We have all suffered from many of the worst aspects of American culture being assimilated via a shared language. But that’s off-topic so I’ll leave it there.