NO SHIT SHERLOCK

The Iranian events have produced a veritable flood of commentary, most of which tells us more about ourselves than it does about what is really going on in the land of the Persians.
On the one hand, we have the cheerleaders – Andrew Sullivan comes to mind – who uncritically support the student-led "Green Revolution," and are now demanding… what? Well, with Sullivan it’s not so clear: one minute he’s telling us the U.S. ought to withhold any kind of recognition of Iranian "President" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the next he’s hailing President Barack Obama for his restraint in not declaring all-out support for the Green Wave. His teetering between these two positions is reflected in the actions of his idol, our sainted president, who, on the one hand, initially refused to say anything much beyond hoping the crisis could be abated without resort to violence, and then – under pressure from Hillary and Joe Biden – issued a much stronger statement, calling for "justice," quoting Martin Luther King, and ending with a conjuration of some of that old-time Sixties rhetoric: "The whole world is watching." As indeed it is. As a statement of concern, Obama’s message to the Iranians could have been a lot worse: he might have issued a not-so-veiled threat, and even pulled back from his election promise of meeting with Iranian officials without preconditions to negotiate the nuclear issue. This he did not do, and so we – at least those of us who anticipate with horror the prospect of war with Iran – can breathe a sigh of relief. On the other hand, one has to wonder why it was necessary to say anything at all, beyond what had already been said: why is it that American chief executives feel compelled to pontificate on all matters, large and small, especially in this case? Everyone knows what Obama – and most Americans – feel and hope for when it comes to the Iranian crisis: he’s hoping Ahmadinejad is gone, replaced by his chief challenger, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, a veteran of the 1979 Iranian revolution, and – up until now – a mainstay of the regime. No statement beyond Obama’s first response was necessary, and one gets the impression the president allowed himself to be pushed into it, against his better judgment.
In any case, the cheerleaders have been getting louder as the protests continue and blood is shed: leading the charge are our old "friends," the neoconservatives, most of whom had been keeping a low profile (except on the op-ed page of the Washington Post). After the humiliation of having been proved totally wrong about Iraq, relative silence was the only viable option, at least for the moment. Prompted by the Iranian turmoil, however, they have come out of hiding to claim an ersatz vindication. After all, didn’t they say that the "liberation" of Iraq would spark revolutions across the region, and specifically in Iran? Well, yes, but to attribute the Green Revolution to the presence of 120,000 American soldiers to the south, and more to the east in Afghanistan, is Bizarro World logic, at best. The fact that Iran is nearly surrounded by enemies empowers and emboldens the hard-liners – Ahmadinejad’s faction – and cripples the opposition with a rather large albatross hung ’round its neck: the suspicion that they are a fifth column, agents of the Yankees and the hated Brits. Ahmadinejad and his supporters are now taking this line, including the supreme leader, Khamenei, who – in a weird, rambling speech – labeled them "terrorists," demanded an end to the demonstrations, and warned that failure to get with the program will end badly for the protesters. Insofar as America’s impact on events in Iran is concerned, it’s a lot closer to the truth to say it was the Obama effect, rather than the "axis of evil" rhetoric, that loosened up the Iranian status quo enough to cause a split in the ruling elite and pit the moderates – Mousavi, Rafsanjani, the Ayatollah Montazeri – against Khamenei and his ally, Ahmadinejad. The military threat to Iran posed by the presence of American troops in large numbers right across the border strengthens the Ahmadinejad faction, and it’s only the prospect of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that depressurizes the situation. There have been signs that the military is acting to protect the demonstrators from the Basij and other pro-Ahmadinejad paramilitary gangs, such as Ansar Hezbollah (not the Lebanese outfit, but a homegrown Persian hard-liner militia). This development – not yet fully unfolded – directly threatens the stability of the present regime and calls into question the authority of the supreme leader. Khamenei’s legitimacy has already been undermined, perhaps fatally, by his ridiculous assertion that the election "results" amounted to a "divine assessment." If there is a divine assessment of Khamenei’s role in all this, he’ll wind up smack dab in the midst of the fires of Gehenna – and, if this goes on much longer, perhaps a lot sooner than he or anyone else thinks.Although Flynt and Hillary Leverett think otherwise, there seems little doubt that the election results announced by the regime were completely fake...

chavez has shown up himself and all his followers in the west .. suprise suprise the leftist dictator supports the 'iranian revolution' and revolution that murdered thousands of socialists and trade unionists ..

It seems like anarchists and leftists are confused about which side is bad in the whole Iran situation.

On the one hand we hate religious fundamentalism and theocracy.

But we also hate US imperialism and the Shah's monarchy.

Freedom of expression is always good though, so maybe working for freedom from the ground up and trying to erode the power of whatever shitty regime is currently in place is a good strategy.

Maybe the CIA was involved in Iran, I'm sure they are at least to a small extent. Or maybe it is just a conspiracy theory. I don't know, but maybe it isn't really relevant.

>It seems like anarchists and leftists are confused about which side is bad in the whole Iran situation. On the one hand we hate religious fundamentalism and theocracy. But we also hate US imperialism and the Shah's monarchy.

We oppose all organised religion and all states. We also oppose corporatism, monarchism and all such euphemisms that power clothes itself in.


>Freedom of expression is always good though, so maybe working for freedom from the ground up and trying to erode the power of whatever shitty regime is currently in place is a good strategy.

Anarchy is the only alternative to living under an unjust government that I've heard of.

>Maybe the CIA was involved in Iran, I'm sure they are at least to a small extent. Or maybe it is just a conspiracy theory. I don't know, but maybe it isn't really relevant.

The CIA are involved in Iran to a large extent, to the tune of $400 million, we know that from untarnished US sources, and it is extremely relevant and important. It's not damning or even critical of the Iranian protestors to point that out, just because the CIA fund them doesn't mean the protests are wrong, but it does indicate caution and it shouldn't be dismissed as 'conspiracy theory'. The Whitehouse, Pentagon and State Department all refused to comment on the ABC and New Yorker reports, and they would always dismiss such respectable sources if the story was false.

'just because the CIA fund them doesn't mean the protests'

Proposition 1: the CIA have been given money to spend;

Proposition 2: there is an opposition in Iran;

therefore:

the opposition is being funded by the CIA.

Illogical, captain! Still, why pass up the opportunity for a good smear?

We know, from public records, that:

amerikan political elites want political change in Iran (for $$$, oil & power - same as ever)

amerikan political establishment has appropriated openly to the tune of $400 million amerikan tax payers money to 'destabilize' Iran

amerikan imperilism has played this game before all over central & south america, south east asia, the ME and even in Europe (Italy, Greece etc)

amerikan reactionary forces has false flagged their way through a veritable genocide of attacks on individuals, intellectuals, political activists & random innocent crowds

WE KNOW ALL THIS, it is on record and diseminated widely.

Whatever our feelings about Irans theocracy, we can not believe that amerikan designs, were they to succeed, would produce a more enlightened governance.

The zionists in the amerikan power system and the collective desire of almost all the political spectrum in israel want to 'bomb bomb bomb' Iran back to the stone age - to remove a potential threat and stumbling block to regional dominance and to appropriate or otherwise organise Irans resources for their own profit, rather than for the benefit of the people of Iran.

WE KNOW ALL THIS, it is on record and diseminated widely.

Now squeeze the current data and what passes for reporting from Iran through this filter ... looks pretty stark.

It is a fact not a logical statement.
In late 2007, the CIA were given $400 million to specifically destablise Iran partly by funding the opposition groups and partly by equipping every terrorist group in Iran. This was given by Bush from a Presidential Finding that was green-lighted by a Democrat Congress. You can read about that from these two independent reports, from the New Yorker and one from ABC news, neither of which was denied by the administration.

 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html

'the Iranian protestors to point that out, just because the CIA fund them '

Just because the CIA has been given money does not imply that that the protestors have been funded by the CIA.

Without proof that CIA money had gone to the protestors, it's a smear. And smearing is dirty work.

It's not a deliberate smear but you are right, I should have said ''just because the CIA fund some of them".

More than that, both Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and ABC news may have been fed disiniformation deliberately, they themselves as journalists acknowledge that when asked. However you accept that the CIA was given an extra $400 million to destabilise Iran just 18 months ago, and I think that is beyond reasonable doubt. I assume most of the ordinary opposition don't recieve any funding, and the few who do don't necessarily know where it is coming from. At least $300 million has reached Iranian opposition in the past year though from this secret fund, so it would naive to dismiss this a 'smear' or a logical error. To call this fact a logical error is in itself a smear, so lets try to avoid smears and stick to accepted facts.

I hope Iran does evolve past theocracy, but if it takes them fifty years I hope they do it peacefully. There is a saying from Turkey to India that I think is appropriate, a drowning man will clutch at a snake.

You have no evidence that any of the people protesting in Iran have received money from the CIA.

So it's a smear, no matter how much verbiage you throw up.

"You have no evidence that any of the people protesting in Iran have received money from the CIA."

That is strictly true but it gives a false impression of my opinion. I can prove from repected mainstream reports that the CIA were given money in late 2007 to destablise Iran, that they have in fact passed gear on to dubious terrorists groups, but I can't prove any Iranian dissident knowingly accepted the money that was assigned to them. I can prove from repected mainstream reports than Iran is unstable today. I cannot prove a direct link as I am just a punter but I can cite Occams Razor in terms of logical deduction. Or in popular parlance, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

Of course the CIA are backing this however they can. Of course most Iranian dissidents will be too well informed to associate with the CIA, but it is a lie and an error to ignore it.

So, if in the 1970s the Kremlin gave the KGB lots of money to 'destabilise' Britain, and Mrs Thatcher was Leader of the Opposition, then you would no doubt be writing that she was being funded by the KGB on the highly logical grounds that "I cannot prove a direct link as I am just a punter but I can cite Occams Razor in terms of logical deduction. Or in popular parlance, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck."

"I cannot prove a direct link as I am just a punter but I can cite Occams Razor in terms of logical deduction. "

Translation: "I'm talking out my arse and making things up."

See number 5. here:

 http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

Anyone who disagrees with people like Danny and his ilk must be by dint of "Occam's Razor" or "cui bono?" agents.

No one could possibly be genuinely against the incumbent regime in Iran- and using "cui bono?" wouldn't the CIA be seeking to keep the extremist president in place as a pretext for further escalation oin the UN Secuirty Council?

No, anyone the conspiraloons don't like are CIA. As it stands to "reason": when you have eliminated all the possibilities you simply dislike, there is no other option that everyone who disagrees with you is a spy.

This is the New Yorker view of 'Family Guy'.
 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/01/16/060116crte_television

This is the 'Family Guy' view of the New Yorker.
 http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2007/family-guy-chacarron-p1.php

Basically even Faux Fox American intellectual wannabe snobs fancy the New Yorker magazine staff. The New Yorker is as established as establishment can be in the US. The few people who have heard of neither should realise the New Yorker is the home of poncey writing and 1930's cartoons, not the 'conspiracy rag' certain pro-CIA Indymedia posters have been portraying it as for the past week.

Okay, those of you who have heard of neither Peter Griffin or Seymour Hersh may still have have heard of ABC. Remember, as is ABC, CBC, NBC? Older readers may remember them as the US mainstream TV networks.

The story of the recent CIA funding to destabilise Iran was not broken on Indymedia. If you want someone to castigate, somewhere to complain, write a letter to the New Yorker, checking your grammar carefully, or sent an email to ABC.

Wouldn't Iran be a nicer place under Ayatollah Rafsanjani? That's something worth dying for?

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2009/06/432257.html?c=on>