Telephones Cut Off, Mousavi Arrested, Rafsanjani Resigns

[Penguin]

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/measuring-tor-and-iran

I've been fielding some calls from the press about Tor and Iran. Someone quoted me as saying "double the clients from Iran over the past few days". We wondered, what are the real numbers? What does our network see from Iran? Is port 443 or https:// really blocked? Here's what we've discovered in the past day of working with the new metrics we've developed to be safe to collect without compromising anyone's anonymity.

https://blog.torproject.org/blog/perfor ... or-network

^snip^

Graphs at links.

[John Schröder]

I'm not sure that a single comment on Juan Cole's blog means that their argument has crumbled.

That's not what I'm saying. I quoted that comment just because it summarized a convincing argument: that more than 100 % turnout doesn't necessarily mean that there was vote fraud - in some cases maybe, but not necessarily and probably not even in most cases. If you read carefully what I said ("every single argument for massive vote fraud"), you'll see that I didn't suggest that there was no fraud at all, just that almost certainly 11 million votes have not been manipulated. Iran's electoral process, unlike in the US, is too transparent to do that. Ordinary people, teachers for instance, were counting the votes and Mousavi's observers were watching them at roundabout 95 % of the polling stations. There may have been manipulation, but not up to 11 million votes (probably not even up to one million votes, I would guess). It's not that easy to manipulate on such a massive scale without e-voting. We may sympathize with the protesters who are demonstrating (or have demonstrated) for more liberties, but Mousavi has to shut up. He didn't win the election, that's - to me, at least - pretty clear at this point.

[AlicetheKurious]

Links in original:

More Respect for Dr Ahmedinejad
June 19th, 2009 by Syd Walker

For several years now, the USA has been spending $75 million per year in “pro-democracy aid to Iranian dissidents”. That’s what’s on the books.

One can only guess at the real figure, because so much of the ‘intelligence’ budget of this bloated, bankrupt, parasitized imperial beast is impossible to scrutinize.

These days the United States of America (USA) might be better described as the PEI: the Parasitized Empire of Interference.

The US spider


'US Spider' by Palestinian cartoonist Majed Badra; is the spider carrying a tick?

It would be most out of character if the PEI and MSM (Money-Serving Media) are on the side of the angels this time. Zionist agent Dennis Ross has just moved into the White House to advise Obama on ‘Iran policy’. Not a good sign…

In all the network TV cacophony about Iran in recent weeks, I’ve never once heard use of the elected Iranian President’s academic honorific. It’s a small point perhaps – but did you know that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has a doctorate? Did you know that before becoming Mayor of Tehran in 2003, this man of humble origins gained a degree in civil engineering, followed by a doctorate in civil engineering and traffic transportation planning?

If you live in the USA, you probably do know that Ron Paul is Doctor Ron Paul. If you live in Australia, I bet you’ve heard of Dr Carmen Lawrence. PhDs are still sufficiently uncommon among leading politicians to be worth noting… usually. But there’s nothing usual about the psy-op directed against Iran. You may have to wait until hell freezes over before any of the MSM tell you anything meaningful about Ahmadinejad’s pre-Presidential background.

President Ahmeninejad at Columbia University


Ahmeninejad at Columbia University: had first-hand experience of Zionized America's dumbed-down academic discourse

It appears Dr Ahmadinejad quickly put his skills to work, once in office. Elected Mayor of Tehran in 2003, within two years he was short-listed for the prestigious award of World Mayor. The World Mayor website explains:

During World Mayor 2005 a small number of short-listed mayors resigned from office and were thus no longer eligible for the Award. The World Mayor rules state that finalists must be in office at the close of voting (26 October 2005) to remain in the contest. Mayors who left office and were strong candidates for a number ten position include Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Mexico City), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Tehran) and Naimatullah Khan (Karachi) … Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran on 24 June 2005.

So, in a remarkably short time, Ahmadinejad had made his mark as a well-regarded Mayor of one of the world’s largest cities. Perhaps his expertise in transport planning had some relevance? Perhaps this history has some relevance to his current popularity?

Over the last few days, the role of former President Rafsanjani as a sponsor of the pro-Mousavi protests has become more evident. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, discusses some of the behind the scenes power struggles within Iran in: Iran elections: Rafsanjani’s Gambit Backfires. These are nuances that haven’t made it into the one-dimensional freedom v dictatorship narrative of the western mass media.

After describing Mousavi’s background in some detail – and highlighting the irony that he is momentarily a ‘liberal’ hero – Bhadrakumar writes (emphasis added):

If we are to leave out the largely inconsequential “Gucci crowd” of north Tehran, who no doubt imparted a lot of color, verve and mirth to Mousavi’s campaign, the hardcore of his political platform comprised powerful vested interests who were making a last-ditch attempt to grab power from the Khamenei-led regime. On the one hand, these interest groups were severely opposed to the economic policies under Ahmadinejad, which threatened their control of key sectors such as foreign trade, private education and agriculture.

For those who do not know Iran better, suffice to say that the Rafsanjani family clan owns vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran. Known as Azad there are 300 branches spread over the country, they are not only money-spinners but could also press into Mousavi’s election campaign an active cadre of student activists numbering some 3 million.

The Azad campuses and auditoria provided the rallying point for Mousavi’s campaign in the provinces. The attempt was to see that the campaign reached the rural poor in their multitudes who formed the bulk of voters and constituted Ahmadinejad’s political base. Rafsanjani’s political style is to build up extensive networking in virtually all the top echelons of the power structure, especially bodies such as the Guardian Council, Expediency Council, the Qom clergy, Majlis, judiciary, bureaucracy, Tehran bazaar and even elements within the circles close to Khamenei. He called into play these pockets of influence.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani: Iran's homegrown plutocrat



Rafsanjani’s axis with Khatami was the basis of Mousavi’s political platform of reformists and conservatives. The four-cornered contest was expected to give a split verdict that would force the election into a run-off on June 19. The candidature of the former Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Mohsen Rezai (who served under Rafsanjani when he was president) was expected to slice off a chunk of IRGC cadres and prominent conservatives.

Again, the fourth candidate, Mehdi Karrubi’s “reformist” program was expected to siphon off support from Ahmedinejad, by virtue of his offer of economic policies based on social justice such as the immensely popular idea of distributing income from oil among the people rather than it accruing to the government’s budget.

Rafsanjani’s plot was to somehow extend the election to the run-off stage, where Mousavi was expected to garner the “anti-Ahmedinejad” votes. The estimation was that at the most Ahmedinejad would poll in the first round 10 to 12 million votes out of the 28 to 30 million who might actually vote (out of a total electorate of 46.2 million) and, therefore, if only the election extended to the run-off, Mousavi would be the net beneficiary as the votes polled by Rezai and Karrubi were essentially “anti-Ahmadinejad” votes.

The regime was already well into the election campaign when it realized that behind the clamor for a change of leadership in the presidency, Rafsanjani’s challenge was in actuality aimed at Khamenei’s leadership and that the election was a proxy war. The roots of the Rafsanjani-Khamenei rift go back to the late 1980s when Khamenei assumed the leadership in 1989.

Rafsanjani was among Imam Khomeini’s trusted appointees to the first Revolutionary Council, whereas Khamenei joined only at a later stage when the council expanded its membership. Thus, Rafsanjani always harbored a grouse that Khamenei pipped him to the post of Supreme Leader. The clerical establishment close to Rafsanjani spread the word that Khamenei lacked the requisite religious credentials, that he was indecisive as the executive president, and that the election process was questionable, which cast doubt on the legality of his appointment.

Powerful clerics, egged on by Rafsanjani, argued that the Supreme Leader was supposed to be not only a religious authority (mujtahid), but was also expected to be a source of emulation (marja or a mujtahid with religious followers) and that Khamenei didn’t fulfill this requirement – unlike Rafsanjani himself. The debunking of Khamenei rested on the specious argument that his religious education was in question. The sniping by the clerics associated with Rafsanjani continued into the early 1990s. Thus, Khamenei began on a somewhat diffident note and during much of the period when Rafsanjani held power as president (1989-1997), he acted low key, aware of his circumstances.

The result was that Rafsanjani exercised more power as president than anyone holding that office anytime in Tehran. But Khamenei bided his time as he incrementally began expanding his authority. If he lacked standing among Iran’s clerical establishment, he more than made up by attracting to his side the security establishment, especially the Ministry of Intelligence, the IRGC and the Basij militias.

While Rafsanjani hobnobbed with the clergy and the bazaar, Khamenei turned to a group of bright young politicians with intelligence or security backgrounds who were returning home from the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war – such as Ali Larijani, the present speaker of the Majlis, Said Jalili, currently the secretary of the National Security Council, Ezzatollah Zarghami, head of the state radio and television and, indeed, Ahmadinejad himself.

Power inevitably accrued to Khamenei once he won over the loyalty of the IRGC and the Basij. By the time Rafsanjani’s presidency ended, Khamenei had already become head of all three branches of the government and the state media, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and even lucrative institutions such as Imam Reza Shrine or the Oppressed Foundation, which have almost unlimited capacity for extending political patronage.

All in all, therefore, the power structure today takes the form of a vast patriarchal apparatus of political leadership. Thus, perceptive analysts were spot on while concluding that Ahmadinejad would never on his own volition have gone public and directly taken on Rafsanjani during the controversial TV debate on June 4 in Tehran with Mousavi.

Ahmadinejad said, “Today it is not Mr Mousavi alone who is confronting me, since there are the three successive governments of Mr Mousavi, Mr Khatami and Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani] arrayed against me.” He took a pointed swipe at Rafsanjani for masterminding a plot to overthrow him. He said Rafsanjani promised the fall of his government to Saudi Arabia. Rafsanjani hit back within days by addressing a communication to Khamenei demanding that Ahmadinejad should retract “so that there would be no need of legal action”.

“I am expecting you to resolve the situation in order to extinguish the fire, whose smoke can be seen in the atmosphere, and to take action to foil dangerous plots. Even if I were to tolerate this situation, there is no doubt that some people, parties and factions will not tolerate this situation,” Rafsanjani angrily warned Khamenei.

Simultaneously, Rafsanjani also rallied his base in the clerical establishment. A clique of 14 senior clerics in Qom joined issue on his side. It was all an act of desperation by vested interests who have become desperate about the awesome rise of the IRGC in recent years. But, if Rafsanjani’s calculation was that the “mutiny” within the clerical establishment would unnerve Khamenei, he misread the calculus of power in Tehran. Khamenei did the worst thing possible to Rafsanjani. He simply ignored the “Shark”.

The IRGC and the Basij volunteers running into tens of millions swiftly mobilized. They coalesced with the millions of rural poor who adore Ahmadinejad as their leader. It has been a repeat of the 2005 election. The voter turnout has been an unprecedented 85%. Within hours of the announcement of Ahmadinejad’s thumping victory, Khamenei gave the seal of approval by applauding that the high voter turnout called for “real celebration”.

He said, “I congratulate … the people on this massive success and urge everyone to be grateful for this divine blessing.” He cautioned the youth and the “supporters of the elected candidate and the supporters of other candidates” to be “fully alert and avoid any provocative and suspicions actions and speech”.

Khamenei’s message to Rafsanjani is blunt: accept defeat gracefully and stay away from further mischief. Friday’s election ensures that the house of Supreme Leader Khamenei will remain by far the focal point of power. It is the headquarters of the country’s presidency, Iran’s armed forces, especially the IRGC. It is the fountainhead of the three branches of government and the nodal point of foreign, security and economic policies.

Obama may contemplate a way to directly engage Khamenei. It is a difficult challenge.

By contrast with billionaire Rafsanjani and millionaire Mousavi, Ahmadinejad is widely respected for his ascetism, somewhat reminiscent of Jerry Brown Jnr while Californian Governor. It’s reported Ahmadinejad didn’t want to move his family into the Presidential residence on his election in 2005, although the security staff insisted. He’s widely regarded as a popular populist politician, willing to stand up to moneyed vested interests.

Ahmadinejad and Putin: popular leaders for good reason



Stripped of religious trappings and the all-pervasive distorting lens of “Is it good for the Israelis?” bias, the recent election in Iran can be regarded as a class contest – and a battle between honest public-interest politics on the one hand, and corruption and plutocracy on the other. It could be argued that in a British context, Ahmadinejad is more like Ken Livingstone than Gordon Brown; in Australia, he’s comparable to Clover Moore.

The obsession with “Is it good for Israel?” shows how dangerous Zionism has become for world society. People in different societies must be free come up with their own solutions to tackle the multi-faceted social, economic and environmental problems each part of the world currently faces. Each society needs its own authentic popular leadership. Manipulators thousands of kilometres distant can’t second-guess that choice.

How typically arrogant that the Israelis and their dumbed-down American henchman interfere in internal politics from Sudan to Iran, Bolivia to Australia.

Zionism is an manufactured secular religion that divides a very complex world into two ’sides’, like a footmall match. It is helping to keep world society in a state of arrested adolesence.

For his courage in taking a strong stand against Zionism and its core myths, Ahmadinejad has my respect. I may disagree with him about many issues, from homosexual rights to nuclear energy. But the world is not in perpetual war and strife because of these issues; Zionism, on the other hand, poses an ever-present threat to peace and stability.

The mad sectarian project of a supremacist Israeli State – with a self-appointed mandate to interfere anywhere it wishes whenever it pleases – must indeed be ‘removed from the pages of history’.

To vanquish this Mordor of our times, anti-Zionists need to re-learn the basic lessons of solidarity.

Iran and its courageous leadership are on our side. They are staunch allies and we should be grateful.

http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/06/19/m ... medinejad/

[John Schröder]

Absolutely no followup detectable by search in The Guardian or anywhere else on the story of Mohammed Asgari, the supposed Interior Ministry official who supposedly passed supposed evidence of electoral fraud to Mousavi before supposedly dying in a supposedly suspicious supposed car crash.

I hope he's alright. I mean, he's a hero. Supposedly, at least.

[John Schröder]

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/d ... -week.html

I discovered this week that Western media are capable of personalizing victims--only when they want, and only when it serves the larger imperial interests. You watch the coverage and want to us some American reporters: you were under the impression that Middle East victims have no faces or names? Did those media note the names and faces of the victims of the American-installed regime of the Shah?

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/shahs-family.html

The media coverage went from crazy to insane this week. Now, they are--KID YOU NOT--reporting on the reactions of the Shah's family. Some of them at CNN in fact think that the Iranian people are demonstrating to restore the Shah's son to power. I heard that the Shah's widow--taking time from enjoying the wealth of the Iranian people which was embezzled with full American cooperation and complicity--was tearing up on national TV. The plight of the Shah's family will be similar to that of the descendants of the Iraqi Hashemites after the overthrow of Saddam. The royal dude went back to London when he discovered--against Amerian neo-con assurances--that he has no chance on earth.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/a ... ments.html

Let me explain the ABC of Iranian developments to you. Rafsanjani (the wealthiest and most corrupt man in Iran) represents refrom, and Moussavi (who led one of the most repressive eras in the Iranian revolutionary era and who sponsored Hizbullah in its most horrific phases) represents democracy. Did you get that? Write that down NOW.

http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2009/06/mousavi.html

"Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran's ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials. The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency." (thanks Olivia)
PS By the way, Mohtashemi is also supporting the "reform" movement now.

[Penguin]

That pretty much sums it up ...

That's not what I'm saying. I quoted that comment just because it summarized a convincing argument: that more than 100 % turnout doesn't necessarily mean that there was vote fraud - in some cases maybe, but not necessarily and probably not even in most cases. If you read carefully what I said ("every single argument for massive vote fraud"), you'll see that I didn't suggest that there was no fraud at all, just that almost certainly 11 million votes have not been manipulated. Iran's electoral process, unlike in the US, is too transparent to do that. Ordinary people, teachers for instance, were counting the votes and Mousavi's observers were watching them at roundabout 95 % of the polling stations. There may have been manipulation, but not up to 11 million votes (probably not even up to one million votes, I would guess). It's not that easy to manipulate on such a massive scale without e-voting. We may sympathize with the protesters who are demonstrating (or have demonstrated) for more liberties, but Mousavi has to shut up. He didn't win the election, that's - to me, at least - pretty clear at this point.

The votes are counted like that here too - a number on a paper, lots of voting places, volunteer vote counters and supervisors, votes counted within hours of polls closing.

[Sweejak]

From my old files I've got some stuff by Dreyfuss, I don't remember it and don't have time to read it right now.

FYI
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/iranian ... _1979.html

[jingofever]

That's not what I'm saying. I quoted that comment just because it summarized a convincing argument: that more than 100 % turnout doesn't necessarily mean that there was vote fraud - in some cases maybe, but not necessarily and probably not even in most cases. If you read carefully what I said ("every single argument for massive vote fraud"), you'll see that I didn't suggest that there was no fraud at all, just that almost certainly 11 million votes have not been manipulated. Iran's electoral process, unlike in the US, is too transparent to do that. Ordinary people, teachers for instance, were counting the votes and Mousavi's observers were watching them at roundabout 95 % of the polling stations. There may have been manipulation, but not up to 11 million votes (probably not even up to one million votes, I would guess). It's not that easy to manipulate on such a massive scale without e-voting. We may sympathize with the protesters who are demonstrating (or have demonstrated) for more liberties, but Mousavi has to shut up. He didn't win the election, that's - to me, at least - pretty clear at this point.

All it would take to steal the election is for the Interior Ministry to make up the results regardless of how (or if) they were counted locally. And because they never released the results by precinct the counters and observers would have no way of calling foul. As it happens, the government is now going to release those results after rejecting Mohsen Rezaei's requests about a week ago. So, if the votes were counted fairly and we start seeing complaints about the results released by the government that would show fraud by the Interior Ministry. (Although I have read that Interior Ministry officials grabbed the boxes in some cases before voting was even over.) And if we don't see any complaints, well, I reserve the right to suggest other methods of rigging.

[Sweejak]

From my old files I've got some stuff by Dreyfuss, I don't remember it and don't have time to read it right now.

FYI
http://www.venusproject.com/ecs/iranian ... _1979.html

Club of Rome, Freemasonry, Tavistock, Jesuits, Pol Pot and "Cambodiaization by persuasion".... oh my.

Maybe I should start reading The Nation. Is this usual fare for Dreyfus?

[Penguin]

All it would take to steal the election is for the Interior Ministry to make up the results regardless of how (or if) they were counted locally. And because they never released the results by precinct the counters and observers would have no way of calling foul. As it happens, the government is now going to release those results after rejecting Mohsen Rezaei's requests about a week ago. So, if the votes were counted fairly and we start seeing complaints about the results released by the government that would show fraud by the Interior Ministry.

Mmm.

[JackRiddler]

The US spider


'US Spider' by Palestinian cartoonist Majed Badra; is the spider carrying a tick?

Can't you, Syd & Majed resist this crap?

It's about as helpful to understanding as this (also shown on Walker's site, as an example of bad propaganda):



.

[John Schröder]

http://counterpunch.org/leupp06232009.html

Time to Worry

Dennis Ross Moves to the White House

By GARY LEUPP

There was a time when the most ridiculous accusations against Iraq as prepared by the White House Iraq Group of neocon-led propagandists were accepted by the entire Washington power elite. Remember? It was not so long ago. Iraq and al-Qaeda were in cahoots and Saddam had weapons of mass destruction powerfully threatening the world. A significant minority of intelligent Americans doubted these charges, the essence of the case for war, and for anyone paying attention, they have long since been exposed as lies. But respectable politicians and leading columnists, makers of public opinion, parroted them for a certain crucial delusion-forming interval as obvious truths.

Now again we have the leadership of both political parties with much of the journalistic establishment in tow promoting what will likely be exposed in the near term as another slough of lies, this time about Iran. At the center of them is this: Iran has a nuclear weapons program threatening Israel with nuclear holocaust.

That’s a staggering allegation, and designed to be so. It’s the son of the earlier allegation born of the White House Iraq Group propaganda team: Let’s not let the “smoking gun” be a mushroom cloud over New York City. Sheer fear-mongering.

Iraq didn’t threaten New York. The U.S. threatened, invaded and occupied Iraq, slaughtering at least tens of thousands in the process. And Iran does not threaten anyone with a nuclear weapon. It should be repeated again and again: the National Intelligence Estimate concerning the question of Iran’s nuclear program, representing the consensus of the 16 different U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 concluded in “high confidence” that Iran does not even have an active nuclear weapons program. (The report appeared after nearly a year’s delay due to apparent obstruction by Dick Cheney’s office, the neocon headquarters).

Unfortunately, regime change in Iran is the single most urgent, outstanding item on the neocon agenda left unfulfilled after eight years of Bush-era empowerment. Its proponents refuse to allow a mere change of administrations to deflect them from their goal. Hence somehow a neocon has insinuated himself into the center of Iran policy, first as a Hillary Clinton advisor and “diplomat,” and now as an advisor to the president working for the National Security Agency.

Dennis Ross is an NIE-denier. With no real expertise on Iran or Persian linguistic competence, and no understanding of nuclear science---but lots of experience in U.S.-Israeli relations and settler advocacy garnering him the nickname “Israel’s lawyer”---Ross was principal author of an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal eight months after the NIE appeared.

Sensationalistically entitled “Everybody Needs to Worry about Iran,” it alluded blithely, offering no evidence, to the Iranian regime’s drive to become “a nuclear state” and announced a drive to “mobilize the power of a united American public in opposition.” Co-signators included Richard Holbrooke, currently Obama’s special envoy to “Af-Pak;” former CIA director and Project for a New American Century operative James R. Woolsey and Mark D. Wallace, a former UN ambassador who heads up with Woolsey and others something called “United Against a Nuclear Iran.” (All were major proponents of the Iraq War.)

This group, in other words, wants to mobilize and unite U.S. public opinion against the consensus of the intelligence community about the nature of empirical reality, substituting for it the need to worry about Iran.

I can’t help but recall the insightful words of Hermann Goering, interviewed during the Nuremberg trials. “The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” It worked very well after 9-11, when the masses could really be terrified and manipulated by the color-coded alerts and grim warnings about mushroom clouds over New York. Bush went to war with Iraq with solid domestic support generated by fear.

The terror mongering strategy may work less well now, after so many lies have been exposed. And the Iran attack advocates are emphasizing Iran’s threat not to the U.S. (that is, you can’t realistically tell Americans the U.S. itself is in danger of Iranian attack) but to (nuclear) Israel. It’s an “existential” threat to Israel which, in their more dramatic moments, the attack advocates embellish into a second Shoah threatening global Jewry.

This is a risky strategy in that it assumes that popular zeal for Israel rooted in the Christian-Zionist community in the U.S. exceeds the domestic inclination towards non-interventionism during this era of military over-extension and global economic crisis, and that the ruling class in general including the intelligence community and Pentagon will go along. It assumes that despite the indignation aroused by the AIPAC spying scandal, the neocon sabotage of the Charles Freeman’s appointment as director of the National Intelligence Council, and Jane Harman’s smug dismissal of her exposure as Israeli agent as normative American political practice the Lobby and its arguments retain their persuasive power over time.

Maybe mounting diversity in this country, growing exposure, lingering images of the Gaza blitz are threatening all that. But maybe such things only increase the Bomb Iran Faction’s desperation.

Ross is known to favor a policy of ultimatums to Iran followed by a naval blockade to prevent gasoline imports, then a blockade of oil exports, then massive air strikes on the nuclear facilities and military facilities. The goal would be not only the crippling of the nuclear program for a few years but the destruction of the military and government.

Ross’s change of jobs was announced in the midst of the street demonstrations following the contested election results in Iran last week. He will now literally move into the White House and provide day to day counsel to Obama on how to “deal” with a leadership he wants to topple.

During Obama’s very first press conference as president-elect November 7, when asked to respond to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s letter congratulating him on his victory, he sidestepped the question but took the opportunity to declare, clearly by scripted forethought: “Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”

George Bush had ignored the NIE, promising Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert he would do so soon after its annoying appearance. Obama has been doing so as well, acting as though an ongoing Iranian nuclear weapons program is an established fact, even while his National Security Advisor James Jones upholds the report. It is as though the new administration has decided it can maybe take on AIPAC on one issue (the West Bank settlements) but cannot challenge it in its drive to use U.S. power to bomb Iran on Israel’s behalf.

Everybody needs to worryabout Dennis Ross having the president’s ear, day to day in the Obama White House, promoting an attack on Iran.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

[AlicetheKurious]

Can't you, Syd & Majed resist this crap?

No.

And "crap" is in the eye of the beholder.



University of Ottawa Bans Israeli Apartheid Week Poster

[American Dream]

[John Schröder]

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22898.htm

Seeing Through All the Propaganda About Iran

By Eric Margolis

June 23, 2009 "Lew Rockwell" -- WASHINGTON – Iran’s political crisis continues to blaze. It’s still impossible to say which leaders or factions will emerge victorious, but one thing is certain: the earthquake in the Islamic Republic is shaking the Mideast and deeply confusing everyone, including the US government.

Highlighting the complexity of this crisis, Meir Dagan, the head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, reportedly voiced his hope that Iran’s embattled president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would remain in office. On the surface, that sounds absurd, since Ahmadinejad is Israel’s Great Satan.

But, according to Dagan, if Ahmadinejad’s supposedly "moderate" rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, came to power, it would be harder for Israel to keep up its propaganda war against Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Besides, added the Mossad chief, the devil you know is better.

Meanwhile, we have been watching an intensifying western propaganda campaign against Iran, mounted by the US and British governments. What we hear is commentary and analysis that comes from bitterly anti-regime Iranian exiles, "experts" with an ax to grind, and US pro-Israel neocons yearning for war with Iran.

In viewing the Muslim world, Westerners keep listening to those who tell them what they want to hear, rather than the facts. We are at it again in Iran.

President Barack Obama’s properly stated he would refrain from being seen to "meddle" in Iran’s internal affairs in spite of calls by hard-line Republicans for American action – whatever that might be. Obama did the right thing by apologizing for the US/British coup that overthrew Iran’s democratic Mossadegh government in 1953.

But that was not the whole story. Washington has been attempting to overthrow Iran’s Islamic government since the 1979 revolution and continues to do so in spite of pledges of neutrality in the current crisis.

The US has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years, blocking desperately needed foreign investment, preventing technology transfers, and disrupting Iranian trade. In recent years, the US Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran, and $60-75 million funding opposition parties, violent underground Marxists like the Mujahidin-i-Khalq, and restive ethnic groups like Azeris, Kurds, and Arabs under the so-called "Iran Democracy Program."

The arm of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remains withered from a bomb planted by the US-backed Mujahidin-i-Khalq, who were once on the US terrorist list.

Pakistani intelligence sources put CIA’s recent spending on "black operations" to subvert Iran’s government at $400 million.

According to an ABC News investigation, President George Bush signed a "finding" that authorized an accelerated campaign of subversion against the Islamic Republic. Washington’s goal was "regime change" in Tehran and installation of a pro-US regime of former Iranian royalist exiles.

While the majority of protests we see in Tehran are genuine and spontaneous, Western intelligence agencies and media are playing a key role in sustaining the uprising and providing communications, including the newest electronic method, via Twitter. These are covert techniques developed by the US during recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia that brought pro-US governments to power.

The Tehran government made things worse by limiting foreign news reports and arresting prominent politicians. Its leadership is increasingly – and dangerously – split over how to handle the protests.

We also hear lot of hypocrisy from Western capitals. Washington, Ottawa, London and Paris piously accused Iran of improper electoral procedures while utterly ignoring the total lack of democracy in their authoritarian Mideast allies such as Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, that never hold elections and throw political opponents into prison and torture them. Compared to them, Iran, for all its faults, is almost a model of democratic governance.

The US, France and Saudi Arabia just cooperated to rig Lebanon’s recent elections, dishing out millions in bribe money to ensure victory of the pro-US faction. France’s President Nicholas Sarkozy had the chutzpah to rebuke Iran for improper election procedures after returning from the funeral of Gabon’s dictator, Omar Bongo, who had ruled for 41 years and supplied France with cheap oil.

When Hamas won a fair and square democratic election in Gaza, the US and Israel swiftly moved to mount a coup against the new Palestinian government.

US senators, led by John McCain, blasted Iran for not respecting human rights. That’s pretty rich after they just voted to bar the public release of ghastly torture photos from US prisons in Iraq, want secret US prisons kept open, and champion torture.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the dimmest bulbs in the weak-wattage Republican ranks, called for US intervention in Iran. Graham was an architect of the Iraq fiasco. Let’s air assault the warlike senator into downtown Tehran.

Über-moral Canada, which backed Pakistan’s military dictatorship under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, accused Tehran of unfair elections.

There are many questions about Iran’s vote, of which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won by 60%.

Voter turnout was an amazing 84%, putting to shame the US and Europe, where less than half of voters exercise their right.

Pre-election polls that showed Ahmadinejad headed for a big win were right. All those foreigners praying for his defeat and the collapse of the Islamic government may be deeply disappointed.

But it also appears there were significant – though as far as we know now – not decisive irregularities. Iran’s government has admitted that some ballot boxes were stuffed, and the speaker of the Majils (parliament), the capable Ali Larijani, rebuked certain unnamed clerics for trying to rig results. This was extremely stupid, as Ahmadinejad was way ahead in pre-election polls anyway, and very popular.

This leaves Washington in a quandary. President Obama sincerely wants to enter into talks with Iran over its nuclear program and try to convince Tehran to give up enrichment. But hardliners in his cabinet and Congress are urging Obama to seize the opportunity to further destabilize Iran.

Bad idea. A stable Iran is essential to a stable Mideast. Mossad chief Dagan knows what he’s talking about. US and British efforts to subvert Iran’s government could yet blow up in our faces. And do we really need another monster crisis after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Palestine?

Meanwhile, other Mideast nations allied to the US will look at Iran and conclude that giving any democratic rights can be downright dangerous and must be avoided at all costs.

Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada. He is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.