My current take on the matter will irritate a good many of you. My advice: Be wary, and do not dismiss the contrarian viewpoint.
I'm starting to suspect that this "uprising" is 1953 all over again.
This story gives some of the background for Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the Iranian politician allegedly robbed in the election. Turns out he has close ties to the old Iran-contra gang -- Manuchar Ghorbinfar, Adnan Khashogghi, and dear old Michael Ledeen. Long-time readers know my feelings about Mikey. The following comes from Time magazine, January 1987:
"By [Ghorbanifar's] own account he was a refugee from the revolutionary government of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini, which confiscated his businesses in Iran, yet he later became a trusted friend and kitchen adviser to Mir Hussein Mousavi, Prime Minister in the Khomeini government. Some U.S. officials who have dealt with Ghorbanifar praise him highly. Says Michael Ledeen, adviser to the Pentagon on counterterrorism: "[Ghorbanifar] is one of the most honest, educated, honorable men I have ever known." Others call him a liar who, as one puts it, could not tell the truth about the clothes he is wearing,"...
Keep in mind that Mousavi ordered the execution of 30,000 political prisoners in 1988. This is not a nice guy.One theory -- and it is really more than a theory -- holds that the 1979 Iran revolution was itself a CIA coup. During the last years of the Shah's regime, the Socialist party of Iran stood a good chance of gaining power. The CIA knew that the Shah could not last. America could not tolerate the ascent of Socialism in such an oil rich nation. Moreover, neocon strategic thinkers wanted to see a sharp rise in Islamic fundamentalism on the border of the USSR.
At the time, the Ayatollah Khomeini was an obscure exile. One Iranian dissident once told me that the CIA arranged for the widespread duplication and distribution of Khomeini's tapes in Iran. I do not know the basis for his claim, but I suspect that he was right.
In my view, Khomeini was put into power on the "better a religious kook than a red" theory. American spooks kept their man Mousavi close to him. Eventually, Mousavi killed all of the Socialists in Iran. That was the reason why he was put into that position.
Why do I say that this is more than a theory? Because Zbigniew Brzezinski (Jimmy Carter's Kissinger) pretty much let the cat out of the bag. If I may quote from an older post:
To fulfill his grand geopolitical vision, he demonstrated a willingness to destabilize an entire region and to risk nuclear war:It's important that you understand this history, because Brzezinski was (is?) Obama's mentor. At present, Obama is advised by people who share Brzenzinski's worldview and obsessions.In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter’s National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will “explode into genocidal fury” against Moscow.Brzezinski laid the groundwork for our present problems by initiating an alliance with Muslim jihadis in Afghanistan. In order to topple the closest thing to a functioning modern government that country has ever had, Brzesinski fomented a rebellion of thugs, zealots and terrorists, who later turned on the United States. Osama Bin Laden first came to prominence in Brzezinski's war.
An interviewer once asked Brzezinski if supporting the Mujahadeen might be a mistake. Brzezinski's answer:
"What's a few riled-up Muslims?"
His obsession with the Soviet Union led to Islamic revolution in Iran:In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an “arc of crisis” and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.Few on either the right or the left understand that, until roughly a year-and-a-half before the revolution in Iran, the Socialist Tudeh party and the constitutionalist National Front commanded wide public support in that country and stood an excellent chance of gaining power when the Shah's tyranny ended. When the CIA learned of the Shah's precarious health, Brzezinski had the Agency covertly aid the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini, a Shi'ite theocract. The goal was twofold: Preventing a Socialist or nationalist government from taking power, and fomenting a jihad against the Soviets.
What's past is present.
And the future? Recall Joe Biden's prediction of a great foreign policy test for Obama which would come early in his presidency. This is that.
Nothing in this post should be taken as favoring Iranian theocracy or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. However, I am -- as always -- 100% against any military attack on Iran by either the United States or Israel. That has been my position for years. And right now, I'm very afraid.
Update: The media manipulation is pretty obvious. This CNN story is ominously headlined "Ahmadinejad: No guarantee on rival's safety," which makes it seem as though we've wandered into a Martin Scorcese movie. But when you go on to read the actual words used by Ahmadinejad -- "There is rule of law in this country and all the people are equal before the law" -- you get quite a different impression.
21 comments:
The entire history of the CIA has been one FUBAR'ed covert operation after another.
FYI. "If the Ayatollah Khomeini was an enemy of the United States ruling elite, why did he adopt the CIA's security service?" http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/savak.htm
-Yuri
Something is also wrong with the lack of news coverage as well. I think before we "champion" this bad guy over the bad guy who claimed victory, we need to know more about who he is.
I feel for those who are protesting the loss of their vote, but I have some serious doubts about who this guy really is since it has been reported that he was one of the principles in the 1979 revolution which brought Khomeini to power and held our country hostage for over a year.
Best know who we support before we get too "hysterical" in the process. Exactly what does "revolution" mean in that country when the two front running candidates each have their own share of blood on their hands.
Joe, I'm glad you posted this. I was starting to scratch my head and wonder if we'd forgotten not only the watersheds of Iranian 20th century history but heck, what happened just a few years ago in Iraq. I'm just waiting for the incubator stories out of Tehran. Which is not to say much of the protests aren't genuine -- but so often, it comes down to how such protest crowds are spun, publicized, ignored, funded, encouraged, dampened, played, or screwed over. Too many potential finger prints in this and too much unverified information. I'm anxious about the endgame here too, and if the MSM starts banging out the "we must take action" headlines, I'll really worry. When the candidate of mass executions becomes the candidate of Change(!), I sit up and pay attention because something is afoot.
That uruknet article you link only adds to the growing pile of questions.
And if I can add:
The MSM pieces on Mousavi don't seem to even mention 1988 -- sanitizing and PR-jobbing the past. Saying just enough for plausible revisionism but not too much... Hm. Check out this choice piece from our ever truthful "hey, would the paper of record sell you a war you don't need?" friends at the NYT:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mir_hussein_moussavi/index.html
They even have to drop that he's, you know, a sensitive artistic type.
According to WaPo Ahmadinejad was leading in the polls by 2-1 as of 3 weeks ago.
Maybe he didn't steal the election after all?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
Then again, you can't trust WaPo
We might need a stronger word than 'obvious' to describe western propaganda on this. The Washington Post is saying there's been a 'military coup'. Meanwhile Michael Ledeen is spreading the rumour that Palestinians (supporting guess which government in Palestine?) and Venezuelan security personnel are doing some of the 'crowd control' in Teheran.
Goodness - can't have foreign meddling in a country's affairs! Reminiscent of those Cubans in Grenada!
On 1978-80 in Iran: it wasn't just the Socialist Party etc. who were gaining strength; there was a considerable increase in workers' struggle - among oil workers and others - which snowballed over a period of several months and came to an end when the US-backed Khomeini was put in. You make the point that the Shah had to fall, but it was the growth of workers' power that was the reason for this.
In terms of a wave of workers' struggle ended by a change of regime, comparison could be made with Jaruzelski in Poland at the end of 1981 and also with Pinochet in Chile in 1973. Neither Solidarity in Poland nor Allende in Poland could control the workers. I am not trying to say these latter were as bad as the Shah (he was much much worse), but in all three cases the 'international community' was relieved that 'social peace' was re-established, and the autonomous workers' movements crushed.
Of course the installation of Khomeini then did wonders for the US-based propaganda machine, support for the US Strategic Defence Initiative and the so-called 'Cold War Two' in general (the first one, the real one, having ended in the early 1960s, contrary to the currently received Winston-Smithed bullshit which holds that it lasted until 1991). Here, for example, was the birth of all the propaganda about 'fundamentalism', not directed at the 'armegeddonite' Christian loonies around Reagan, nor the head-choppers in the Arabian peninsula, nor even the rabies-suffering racist nutters who insist that the absence of a supremacist Jewish State in Palestine would mean forced mass exodus or even genocide,...but...against you-know-who with their non-trinitarian, non-Son-of-Goddist and non-chosen-ones take on monotheism. The whole biz was of major geopolitical importance. Lots of dosh for weapons companies too in the ensuing war - one of the two long-lasting biggies of the 1980s. A very favourable result for western interests indeed.
One can also cite the 'strategic arrangement' between Israel and Iran during the 1980s.
Back to 2009. Now there's not a rise in workers' struggle...and similar means are being deployed to those tested out in the Philippines and later imposed in a large number of ex-Soviet and ex-Warsaw Pact countries, albeit without a US embassy, but unfortunately the US media are still there.
It is hard to see how in the short term (a month or so) the present events would give ostensible cause for a nuclear strike against Iran...unless the Israeli airforce just goes in and nukes the shit out of the place, bragging in the face of the world that in war you hit the enemy at his moment of weakness, and anyone who doesn't like it, well what are they going to do about it? That may not be particularly likely.
More likely is that Ahmadinejad will stay in power and the US-Israeli interests will enforce a destabilising job of a sort that's similar to what they've achieved in Iraq. Then it will be Pakistan. Next could be other countries in the broader region.
Then during that period the nuking could come, maybe preceded by 911/2 or whatever.
PS "pikers" is considered a racist term in the UK. Recent background being that "pikie" is used by middle class people and the better-off elements of the working class against poorer people in the working class, viewed as being in the same target group as gypsies and other travellers. (Whereas "pikie" has long been used against gypsies, the term "chav", nowadays of similar meaning, is of gypsy origin).
In many countries there are small groups of untouchables, e.g. the gypsies in many countries, or the burakumin in Japan. In Britain it's about 80% of the population. The commonplace observation that the rulers run this place like they ran India and other parts of the British Empire remains spot-on.
Re: "Pikers" ( a word actually used in another post) -- I am grateful to learn this. Not long ago, a reader told me that "cakewalk" is a racist term.
I am beginning to think that it is impossible to compose an English language sentence of more than fifteen words which cannot be construed as racist, sexist, or in some other way offensive.
If you read what Ledeen is saying about all this, you know that something is up. He actually relates the "rumor" that the Venezuelans are somehow involved with repressing the Iranian populace. I think that when Ledeen says "rumor," he means "I made it up."
Frankly, Ledeen's machinations would be a lot less transparent if he simply kept his mouth shut when the shit started going down.
I don't think that the current upheaval in Iran will lead to a nuclear strike or a non-nuclear attack. But it provides the necessary background. The American people have to be trained to think of the Iranian government as illegitimate, and elections make that difficult.
I think I agree with your take on 1979, although your colorful language is a bit hard to follow. I think today's young folk would have a hard time understanding just how big a role the Iranian revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis played in the spread of Christian fundamentalism in the United States.
Joseph, the young folks don't even know about the hostage crisis back then. They've never bothered with recent history. You can tell this by how they view the Clinton Administration. They learn all the facts they need to know from Twitter and Facebook. Our media sure doesn't do "education".
Seems strange to hear the US complain about stolen elections in another country....oh, wait! The thieves in this country are the ones acting so sanctimonious now.
thank you, joseph, for this important background info available nowhere else without a veritable snowplow.
emmag
thank you, joseph, for this important background info available nowhere else.
emmag
"I'm starting to suspect that this "uprising" is 1953 all over again."
In 1953 Iran was well on it's way toward a true representative democracy before the US aided coup against Mosadegh halted that movement. The clergy in Iran have always been inseparable from the business community(much like the bond between Republicans and religious right here)and their backing of the coup was integral to it's success and the few like Khomeini who weren't willing to play ball were either exiled or isolated. Mosadegh on the other hand(although was not a socialist by any means)was the main proponent of nationalizing the oil industry which was effectivley controlled by Britain at the time. There was also a strong Todeh Party presence in Iran which was essentially a Soviet style Socialist movement who had no use for the Shah or the clergy. Mosadegh wanted a British style Monarchy and therefore he was abandoned by the Todeh party as well.
I pretty much agree with Joseph's assessment of events between 1953 and now.
In 2009 the clergy are the government in Iran as oppose to a powerful force within the population. In addition almost all viable Socialist or Nationalist movements within Iran have been eradicated in the last 30 years......back in a minute
beeta
The American slang term "piker" has no ethnic connotation. It is derived from the verb "to pike", which in 19th Century gamblers' slang meant "to gamble with very small sums of money". It sort of the opposite of a "plunger. It's unrelated to the British term "pikie". Like most Americans, my knowledge of the British term is confined to Guy Ritchie movies.
As for the CIA, I'm not sure I'd extrapolate too extensively about the success rate of covert ops based on public information. I think the success stories are very unlikely to be public knowledge.
...again I agree with Joseph's assessment of Mousavi's background and character. He is no prince and the people of Iran know that as well. He as a person is irrelevent in the uprising by the people. The people are voicing their opposition to Ahmadinejad and their contempt for the Government. Iranians desire for true democracy has never ebbed since 1953, if anything it has been bottled up since 1979 and they look for any opportunity to voice it. This uprising is about siezing a rare moment of opportunity. There is a sense that there is a rift among the ruling elite and by pitting Mousavi against Ahmadinejad, people of Iran are hoping to exploit the situation to their benefit.
The rift is between the hardliners who have similar views to Christain Fundementalist here and want to keep Iran isolated and apart from the west. They don't fundementally believe in democracy of any kind. They have organized and expanded a branch of the military called the Baseej whose members are fundementalist volentes. The supreme leader Khamenei is at the head of this faction and Ahmadinejad is his public face and he has been battling with Rafsanjani and Khatami who have backed Mousavi.....
beeta
......who like the old clergy are in bed with the business community or the Bazar(like wall street here). The Bazar is feeling the pressure and would like to have a more robust economic environment and Mousavi is the face of Iran's Wall Street hence the accusations of bribery and such by Ahmadinejad.
By the way I was in Tehran a couple of months ago and there was also a theory going around that after Obama's election and his overall attitude toward making amends with Iran that Ahmadinejad would be a sure win. The logic was that if a moderate gets elected and then there is improvement in relationships with the US, people might become emboldened to ask for more reform. Khatami himself was a candidate at one point and he was rejected as too moderate a face for Iran at the moment and he backed away in favor of Mousavi who was considered more radical(and had more blood on his hands as Joseph pointed out). Clearly Khamenei is butting heads with Khatami and others but I don't think any of them predicted this kind of reaction from the populace.
I did sense a storm underneath the calm surface while I was there. I heard Ahmadinejad being called "retard" more than once in plain public sight.
beeta
.....I don't think that there will be a recount or re-vote in Iran, but if this uprising does not end in an overthrow of the government Ahmadinejad will not be able to govern inside or outside of Iran. He maybe replaced in due time in some face saving fashion. If the US backs Mousavi in any way or even make any wrong noises, Ahmadinejad will use it to redeem himself and rescue his adminstration. That would be the worst outcome.
beeta
shaikh yamani's amazing revelations (allegations) of a secret meeting on a swedish island
to hike the oil price in the Guardian in 2001 was not picked up by any other media. i've always felt the oil price hike was meant to crush the educated, affluent and uppity younger generation of the late 60s/early 70s. sending this cos it fits with the later iran stuff u wrote about today.
14 Jan 2001: Guardian: Saudi dove in the oil slick
His voice quickens further when he reminisces about the era of great oil diplomacy in the Seventies and his contemporary, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
At this point he makes an extraordinary claim: 'I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.'
He says he was convinced of this by the attitude of the Shah of Iran, who in one crucial day in 1974 moved from the Saudi view, that a hike would be dangerous to Opec because it would alienate the US, to advocating higher prices.
'King Faisal sent me to the Shah of Iran, who said: "Why are you against the increase in the price of oil? That is what they want? Ask Henry Kissinger - he is the one who wants a higher price".'
Yamani contends that proof of his long-held belief has recently emerged in the minutes of a secret meeting on a Swedish island, where UK and US officials determined to orchestrate a 400 per cent increase in the oil price....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/jan/14/globalrecession.oilandpetrol
For reference: in the UK "piker" is a less common form of "pikie" and is always used derogatorily. Not in the same category as "cakewalk", "nitty-gritty", etc. which most users probably say without nasty intent. I heard of a policeman who was told by other policemen not to say "nitty-gritty", probably tongue-in-cheek and you can just imagine how they had a collective smirk about black slavery, all under cover of pretending to avoid being offensive.
Post a Comment