Skip to content or view screen version

A Different Perspective on the Iranian Elections

Gary Sudborough | 15.06.2009 19:09 | Anti-militarism | World

Iran is in a very strategic location for the expansion of US imperialism and control of oil in the Middle East. Military Force by the United States has already been threatened, but has drawbacks. However, the CIA is an expert at fixing elections and stirring up violence and street demonstrations in other countries until an overthrow of that government occurs and one more favorable to US imperialism takes its place.

It is utterly amazing how liberals and some who consider themselves even radical leftists get confused over the relationship between elections and democracy. Haven't the two elections involving George W. Bush proved that all sorts of tricks can be used to give a false result. The United States through various government agencies like the CIA and Agency for International Development and many others, some which are supposed to be NGOs, pumps enormous amounts of money into foreign elections to get the result they want. They want to get a government into power in these countries which is totally sympathetic to US foreign policy and the penetration by US corporations into their economy. They definitely do not want any country which is unsympathetic to total privatization and has any ideas about nationalization of anything- particularly very valuable natural resources like oil. Hence, we have the so-called Rose revolution in Georgia, the Orange revolution in the Ukraine and the Velvet revolution in Lebanon. In case, there are some who get confused by all the repetitious propaganda and think the US would never influence foreign elections, there is the very well documented case where the CIA used every trick in their book, including vast amounts of money, to prevent the Italian Communist Party from winning the election in Italy immediately following World War 2. When the election turns out the way the United States desires, a very nice sounding name is given to it like Rose or Velvet. Since these elections are so far from anything resembling true democracy, why not call them skunk, outhouse or rotting corpse revolutions. It would be exceedingly more appropriate. If the US puppet gets a little imperialistic like the one in Georgia and attempts to expand its influence by military force, it sometimes gets a pummeling by a state like Russia, which is now very nationalistic and not completely a US puppet, like it was under Yeltsin. Then, the US and most of the corporate controlled media call it an invasion by Russia, which it was not, but a response to an invasion by Georgia and massacres of civilians by Georgian troops, recently trained by the US military and CIA.

Now, let us turn to recent events and the elections in Iran. The United States and the corporate elite definitely want a change of government in Iran. Under George W. Bush the idea of an open invasion or a bombing campaign like the one against Yugoslavia that would bring them to their knees was openly discussed. Why is Iran so important to US foreign policy? One of the main reasons can be deduced by simply looking at a map. Iran lies directly between their military conquest in Iraq and all the profits that will bring to US and British oil companies and Afghanistan and the oil rich republics of Central Asia. Iran itself has a large quantity of oil. Iran is a large country, and it simply can not be overemphasized, situated between the military bases and the world's largest US embassy, which looks like a fort, in Iraq and the US military bases in Afghanistan, which not surprisingly are located on the once proposed Unocal pipeline from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. Remember Zbigniew Brezezinski's grand chessboard of the Middle East and all the countries US imperialism should control for maximum US domination of the region. Iran is a gigantic missing piece. Iran is definitely not a US puppet state, its oil is nationalized and it has formed alliances with countries like Venezuela and Bolivia, which the United States and its corporate elite despise because of their socialistic policies. All of these things aggravate the United States intensely.

This whole situation presents a great dilemma to US foreign policy. They can't openly invade because the American people would be adverse to a major war, which this would entail. Iran has some modern weapons, which could probably sink US ships and aircraft carriers and cause large US casualties, which the American people would definitely oppose, even if a major propaganda campaign was unleashed in the media. Therefore, the other options are a coup or an election strongly influenced by the United States, which would bring a regime sympathetic to US foreign policy and corporate desires to power in Iran. When I saw the pictures on television of the riots in Iran, it brought back memories of similar riots I saw occur, which were orchestrated by the CIA and caused the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah, who naturally privatized the oil and invited US oil companies back into the country.

I realize that there is a difference between a coup like the one that brought the Shah to power and an election, but with the exceedingly sophisticated methods the United States uses to influence foreign elections, I think the difference is rapidly evaporating. I am not a supporter of theocracy or lack of true democracy. In fact, I would love true democracy all over the world, but that would entail the dissolution of corporations and imperialism, and US imperialism is far from dying. I suspect the hand of US imperialism in the Iranian elections and the riots immediately following. It seems I am all alone in this opinion as every leftist publication I am aware of or leftist pundit is strongly of the opposite opinion. Every time there is an election against a regime which is oppressive to some degree, these people get all excited and forget that there is something called imperialism, which has been operating for hundreds of years and should be the immediate thought of every true leftist. Some regimes like those with socialist governments must be repressive to some degree because the CIA spends every waking moment trying to devise a method to overthrow them. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the new government in Iran, if it had been elected, would have been just as antagonistic to US imperialism as the previous one. However, I am very, very suspicious because of all the reasons I have mentioned in this article.

As a post script to this article, I have just researched the opposition candidate to Ahmadinejad, Mr Mousavi, on Wikipedia and found that he favors privatization and also that he ordered the execution of 30,000 political prisoners from various leftist parties in Iraq in 1988, including the Tudeh or Iranian Communist Party. This fact alone would make the CIA very happy. Is this the candidate leftists in the United States should be supporting? Emma Goldman, Joe Hill and a thousand other real leftists must be rolling in their graves. Isn't there something terribly wrong with the so-called left in this country? Hell, we aren't even strong enough to get single payer health insurance, which almost all industrialized capitalist countries have had for many years. It is pathetic. I don't even know why I continue to write. Indymedia is the only place that dares publish my writings. I have spinal stenosis and no insurance and little money, so my writings may be coming to a close, I am sure to the great glee of those who love capitalism. I gave it my best effort on behalf of justice, peace and a decent standard of living for all humans on Earth.





Gary Sudborough
- e-mail: IconoclastGS@aol.com

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

wrong

15.06.2009 19:42

There are millions of people on the streets and like all mass movements they do not always follow a set game plan. do you honestly think the CIA is behind this? Your post smacks of the "anti-imperialist" doctrine of the left which seeks to support anyone against western imperialism no matter how brutal the system is. Your no more than an apologist for oppressive fascistic regimes.

The people demonstrating are already going beyond what the reformist mousavi has wanted, already people are organising within the universities and work places against the regime. Only time will tell what the iranian people will do, how their struggle will emmerge and what character it will take. It is a social movement that will encapsulate all social struggles and speak to many who are against the Islamic fascism. That also includes workers and students that have been repressed.

What is expected though is that all the political parties when they see the whole establishment threatened will band together, call for calm, "peace" and busines as usual. What we must do here in the west is support the iranian people and not spreading misinformation that it is all the CIA backing. At best we can see how the west will try to use - which every way this develops - for its own interests.

anarchist


But why are they "rioting"?

15.06.2009 21:29

Who says the elections were rigged?

What evidence is there other than western media questioning of a regime they hate , and a regime that the U.S. is determined topple by hook or by crook.

All I hear is hype from people with a definate agenda.

Evidence, Facts , do you not remember Iraq and all the bullshit before the massacre.

That is why people are sceptical ,and rightly so.

Dip in a toe, but you all seem to have jumped in with both feet on the back of media hype and the say so of proven liars and prostitutes.

Who will gain most as usual??????

punter


How can you apologise for facism?

15.06.2009 22:04

Apologising for fascism?

What next you'll support the BNP because they're pro pulling the troops out of Iraq and dislike America too? There is no room on this earth for fascists of either sort be they Islamic fundamentalists who repress women and homosexuals or White nationalists who'd like to see coloured people deported. The people are on the streets and all you can do is sit there in your arm chair criticising them like some sort of SWaPy cunt, pathetic!

pathetic


Now I know the CIA and western media are involved

16.06.2009 01:42

Last night when I looked at Wikipedia the fact the Mousavi had been responsible for the murder of 30,000 leftists in 1988 was there staring me in the face plain as day. Now it has been removed by someone and a rosy picture of Mr. Mousavi is being depicted.

Incidentally, I wish people who think they are leftists would learn the meaning of the term "fascism" Mussolini described fascism as corporatism or corporate control over all facets of society. Something like we have here in the United States. It has nothing to do with religious fundamentalism. In fact, Hitler tried to destroy most religions. Pastor Niemoller gave evidence to that fact. Hitler was brought to power by some of the largest bankers and industrialists in Germany including Thyssen, the steel baron and Krupp, the arms manufacturer.

Gary Sudborough
mail e-mail: IconoclastGS@aol.com


perhaps a short read

16.06.2009 07:22

If people remember the 'Iran-contra' scandal, then perhaps they might like to read up on the conections between the Iranian 'challanger' and certain individuals from (among others) The american Enterprise Institute (for-runner to A project for a New American Century) like Micheal Leeden.

One also might dwell on the reported $400 million put aside by the pentagon for covert activities inside Iran designed to 'bring about revolutionary change'.

How nice that the opposition rally around the single colour of green - another colour coded revolution bought by the CIA, designed to subvert democracy in countries where it might produce the 'wrong results'[sic].

Tired of this bullshit,tired of the same old media culpability and unfounded hysteria.

informer


thanks

16.06.2009 11:22

Alarm bells rang with the mainstream coverage of the Iranian elections as I watched them. There have been too many occasions when the US has created or subverted opposition movements to their own ends, to get rid of regimes it doesnt like. A lot of money can go a long way in creating a 'people's opposition' and it is still cheaper than going to war.

Thank you for posting this. It made interesting reading.

history


"There are millions of people on the streets"

16.06.2009 11:30

Have you got a source for that? The highest estimate I've seen is hundreds of thousands. The reporters in Tehran indicated the trouble was localised rather than city-wide. When the Shah was deposed 2 to 4 million took part in Tehran alone, 6 to 9 million people marched nationwide, making it the most participated revolution of all time by percentage.

Danny


Square of Revolution to the Square of Freedom

16.06.2009 20:25

Fisk says a million at the Tehran demo, I trust he is not including the Ahmadinejad supporters in this lyrical quote-

It was Iran's day of destiny and day of courage. A million of its people marched from Engelob Square to Azadi Square – from the Square of Revolution to the Square of Freedom – beneath the eyes of Tehran's brutal riot police. The crowds were singing and shouting and laughing and abusing their "President" as "dust".

Maybe that could translate into two million over the entire country. It is odd that Fisk is so taken with the protests when he writes that he believes Ahmadinejad really did win the election. That many people can start a revolution, or lose a civil war.

Danny
- Homepage: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-irans-day-of-destiny-1706010.html