The UK government has frozen $1.6 billion of Iran’s assets. British officials made the announcement on Thursday and claim that the money was frozen under international sanctions imposed over Tehran’s nuclear program. You know, the nuclear program which Iran has every legal right to pursue under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
UK freezes $1.6 billion of Iran's Assets | Charting Stocks
Looks like they're ramping up the offensive against Iran.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.'' ~ J. Edgar Hoover
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You on the other hand don't want to consider that such a thing might be possible, despite the fact that such things have been proven to have happened before in similar circumstances.Originally Posted by khavakoz
What "story is demonstrably false"? I've said enough times that she may have been killed by Iranian forces or militia, but the evidence is not there to establish who killed her. It is not certain that she was killed by basij: do you not agree? How many women have been shot by snipers in Tehran walking along the street or demonstrating peacefully ?
The reaction to the election results and the belief that they were faked has gone far beyond the Mousavi "Green movement" supporters. Mousavi has not supported the more recent demonstrations or taken part in them. The situation has got out of the box of which faction of the theocracy would rule. Greenleft are providing as good an analysis as I can find anywhere:
Green Left - Iran: Protests shake regime
I think the statement is worth reading in full.Despite savage repression, including mass arrests, beatings of protesters, attacks on universities and at least 22 deaths, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets daily.
The protests started in Tehran on June 13, but have spread throughout the country. The protesters have been calling for a re-run of the election, claiming that Mir-Hossein Mousavi won the elections despite the official results giving Ahmedinejad 64%.
The protests are occurring despite both Ahmedinejad and Mousavi emerging from within the same undemocratic regime and holding similar positions on many issues. Mousavi is presented in the Western media as a “reformer”, however he was prime minister during the 1980s when the regime committed some of its worst atrocities.
Nonetheless, the breadth of the protests, and the willingness to risk death, indicates widespread anger. — potentially more anti-regime than pro-Mousavi.
In Iran, public executions and flogging are common. A regime that violently represses trade unions, curbs the rights of women, gays and lesbians, national minorities and other oppressed sectors inevitably builds up grievances over time — anger that can explode onto the streets. The post-election protests reflect this.
Ahmedinejad has traditionally had support from sectors of the poor, and has relied on populist anti-imperialist rhetoric. That this is still able to mobilise sections of the oppressed has been shown by the counter-protest rally of Ahmedinejad supporters on June 14 that the British Guardian said the next day involved tens of thousands.
The June 18 Guardian said a June 15 rally supporting new elections “estimated by Tehran's mayor, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, to be as many as three million-strong”.
Mobilisations on this scale have not occurred in Iran since the 1979 revolution, in which a mass uprising toppled the US-back Shah dictatorship.
The desired scenario of regime change by "colour revolution" hasn't come about because the much wider population of Iran have become involved in this and their agenda is not restricted to the agenda of Mousavi's followers.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
Full: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 the Blotter on ABCNews.com.
The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.
"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.
Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran - The Blotter
We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb - TelegraphMr Bolton said: "It's been conclusively proven Iran is not going to be talked out of its nuclear programme. So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure.
"If we can't get enough other countries to come along with us to do that, then we've got to go with regime change by bolstering opposition groups and the like, because that's the circumstance most likely for an Iranian government to decide that it's safer not to pursue nuclear weapons than to continue to do so. And if all else fails, if the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
Full:Recent events in Iran are being generally perceived through an emotive or subjective lens, while the protests are invariably being coloured by the Western media in line with the foreign policy leanings of their respective countries.
Most individuals, including myself, will automatically align with people they believe are oppressed. Most of us side with revolutionary forces, especially when we don't approve of the regime.
Most of us are viscerally in sympathy with demonstrators prepared to risk their lives in the name of justice or freedom. And as human beings it is in our nature to champion the underdog.
Who, but those with the hardest of hearts, wouldn't flinch after viewing the shocking killing of a young woman called Neda, whose death has been captured on video by a citizen journalist?
I suspect that most on the outside looking in genuinely believe that the recent Iranian elections were rigged - after all, more than a million ordinary Iranians on the street are saying just that, so it must be true. But is it really? And even if it isn't, do most observers even care?
In reality, whoever nominally leads Iran takes his marching orders from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Even if opposition leader Mir Hussain Mousavi were elected president he would merely represent a softer face on an existing hard-line system.
We shouldn't forget too that Mousavi was formerly considered a staunch conservative. This is no longer about which would-be president received the most votes. This is a potential anti-government revolution.
From a personal perspective, I have no interest in defending the Iranian government, especially since it has taken to shooting down its own people and stifling reporting.
Moreover, I do believe that there is a groundswell of young people in Iran who are yearning for a more open and liberal way of life for which opposition leader Mousavi has become a symbol.
But while interpreting what's happening in Iran, it's worthwhile momentarily setting aside emotion in order to take a fresh look at facts and other possible scenarios.
Yes, up to a one-and-a-half million protestors flooded the squares of Tehran but they represent a mere drop in the ocean out of a population of 66.5 million. Secondly, it isn’t inconceivable that President Ahmadinad gained a large percentage of the ballot when, not only does he have a strong following among the poor with 33 percent of Iranians living below the poverty line, in 2005, he grabbed 62 percent of votes against reformist candidate Mohammed Khatami.
As noted in a Financial Times editorial earlier this month, "Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation & Politics in Iran is a lot more about class war than religion".
You may get the impression from Twitter that young Iranians are overwhelmingly in support of the protesters, but only a comparatively wealthy or educated third enjoy computer access.
Moreover, Mousavi began his campaign at a very late stage. In truth, though, we are unlikely ever to know the truth one way or the other.
While the suspicion of opposition supporters is understandable, could there be anything in the government's claims of meddling by the US and Britain? Although US President Barack Obama has taken a verbal back seat throughout, there are certainly numerous precedents.
A few examples of such US interference are Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution and, of course, the CIA-backed overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian president in 1953.
The CIA's record of attempting to change Latin American regimes is also well documented. Furthermore, in this particular case, the US has a very strong motive for fomenting turbulence in Tehran.
Former US assistant treasury secretary and award-winning columnist Paul Craig Roberts makes the case that the US may be escalating discontent in Iran in a recent column titled "Are the Iranian election protests another US orchestrated 'Colour Revolution'?"
He says that while there is no evidence that the election was stolen, there are "credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilise the Iranian government".
To support this assertion, he cites a document signed by George W. Bush "endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs".
Gulfnews: Are Iran's protests manufactured?
Bush sanctions 'black ops' against Iran - TelegraphPresident George W Bush has given the CIA approval to launch covert "black" operations to achieve regime change in Iran, intelligence sources have revealed.
Full:Annals of National Security
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008
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. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Annals of National Security: Preparing the Battlefield: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker
Just like the Iraqis wanted this so called "freedom" you speak of. It worked out so well for them, didn't it?. Now the infrastructure of the Iraqi nation is completely obliterated and there are over one million people dead, but at least they have "freedom" and "democracy" eh?.The Iranians dont want freedom. Go back to bed.
Beware of fearful masters
Or maybe the desired scenario hasn't come about because there was noone pushing the scenario in the first place?
All you are doing here is replying to your own contention with a sneering contempt that it hasn't occurred. It is my, and others, contention that this is not a 'colour revolution', this is something internalised to Iran. The support is not specifically for Mir Hossein Mousavi, rather it is anti-regime. As such it involves a broad church, from mere internal reformists right through to social revolutionaries.
Your prism of the CIA-sponsored thing allows you, for reasons I don't quite understand, to view current events as a failure regardless of outcome. Some of us prefer to look at world events with a bit more contextual detail, and to see in the protests a true shift in Iran, regardless of immediate outcome, which can only be good for the Iranian people in the longer term.
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
War of communication?
Good audio interviews with Iranians in Dublin about dynamics in and out of the country...
RTE Morning Ireland:Evelyn McClafferty gets the reaction of Iranians living in Ireland to the turbulent aftermath of the presidential election
and a summing up from yesterday:
Democracy Now; yesterdays headlines (click link to watch footage)
Iran’s Guardian Council Admits to Vote Irregularities
Iranian authorities have acknowledged some irregularities have been found in Iran’s presidential election results. The influential Guardian Council admitted the number of votes collected in fifty cities surpassed the number of people eligible to cast ballots in those areas. Authorities said the discrepancies could affect as many as three million votes. According to the official results of the disputed election, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beat Mir Hossein Mousavi by about 11 million votes.
Mousavi Calls for More Street Protests
Meanwhile, Mousavi and former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami have defied Iran’s Supreme Leader and urged protesters to continue street demonstrations calling for a new election. Iranian state media reports that between ten and nineteen people were killed during protests on Saturday. Iranian police fired tear gas and water cannons at the protesters. Iranian state radio reported 457 protesters were arrested. On Sunday, Iranian police briefly detained five relatives of former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a close ally of Mousavi. Reporters Without Borders says Iran is now jailing thirty journalists and cyber-dissidents, including Newsweek reporter Maziar Bahari, who has been held since Sunday.
Iran’s Web Spying Aided by European Firms Siemens and Nokia
The Wall Street Journal reports European telecommunications companies have helped the Iranian government develop one of the world’s most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the internet. The monitoring capability was provided at least in part by a joint venture of the German-based Siemens AG and Nokia, the Finnish cellphone company. Using the technology, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities not only to block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes.
Colour revolution hasn't come about - yet. The essence of the colour revolutions was that they forced the system to be more competitive, without completely destroying the former autocrats and their organisation. That could still happen - it is completely dependent on the military at this stage.
I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them. - George Bush
Colour Revolutions have in essence installed US-friendly neo liberal regimes that have ripped off the country's resources. Where these regimes become unpopular, as Sakaashvili's has in Georgia, they reach for the riot police and close down the tv stations.
Not all colour revolutions have been successful to the same degree, the additional factor being proximity to Europe. Georgia was cack-handed and is the worst of the lot precisely because the leader was selected by the US. I did a thesis myself on the Serbian ouster of Milosevic and one of the follow-up questions coming out of the research was what is the extent of the democratic consolidation that follows a colour revolution. (eg. how successful are they).
My interest was exactly yours, surely democracy is fundamentally crippled if outside interests have been instrumental in bringing it about - in a way it must be prima facie democratically unsuccessful.
In the Serbian case study however the main leaders were indigenous political actors with years of experience in opposition and who clearly had the support of a large proportion of the people. Added to this, the extent of the US influence internally during the run-up to the ouster was on the whole found to be minimal. The main benefits of the US aid in Serbia were to facilitate co-ordination of a fractious opposition. This was key, because for years they couldn't unite, and thus couldn't pose a credible threat to Milosevic's henchmen. Is there an EU neoliberal agenda in Serbia? Yes, that's likely. Is there also a responsive electoral system, a free press and a lively civil society with a fairly stable system of law now? Yes. Will this provide the tools to rid the country of an oppressive level of neolib economics in future? If anything will, it will.
And that to me is better than the other options at the time, a violent military coup or the survival of Milosevic and his cronies.
It's not the exact same scenario as Iran, but I really think you a) overestimate the abilities of the US/West to control what happens inside Iran, b) underestimate the sheer value of introducing more competition, even though it may not be full democracy, into an autocratic system such as Iran's, and c) underestimate the potential devastation that might be wrought by a fullscale violent revolution which would set the country back decades.
I have opinions of my own - strong opinions - but I don't always agree with them. - George Bush
Yet another good piece by Robert Fisk who is showing he is definitely at the top of his game still.
Robert Fisk: Symbols are not enough to win this battle - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent
Interestingly - its those who have lionised Fisk over his courageous reporting over Israel who are now dismissing him as a tool of Western Imperialism because he isn't compliing with their cookie-cutter USA bad/Anti-USA good view of the world - which is why I've always respected Fisk - he calls it as he sees it - a great reporter.Robert Fisk: Symbols are not enough to win this battle
It is indeed an 'intifada' that has broken out in Iran, however hopeless its aims
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
You don't overthrow Islamic revolutions with car headlights. And definitely not with candles. Peaceful protest might have served Gandhi well, but the Supreme Leader's Iran is not going to worry about a few thousand demonstrators on the streets, even if they do cry "Allahu Akbar" from their rooftops every night.
This chorus to God emanated from the rooftops of Kandahar every night after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 – I heard it myself in Kandahar and I heard it last week over the rooftops of Tehran – but it no more stopped the Russians in their tracks than it is going to stop the Basiji or Revolutionary Guards. Symbols are not enough.
Yesterday, the Revolutionary Guards – as unelected as they are unrepresentative of today's massed youth of Iran – uttered their disgraceful threat to deal with "rioters" in "a revolutionary way".
Everyone in Iran, even those too young to remember the 1988 slaughter of the regime's opponents – when tens of thousands were hanged like thrushes on mass gallows – knows what this means.
Unleashing a rabble of armed government forces on to the streets and claiming that all whom they shoot are "terrorists" is an almost copy-cat perfect version of the Israeli army's public reaction to the Palestinian intifada. If stone-throwing demonstrators are shot dead, then it is their own fault, they are breaking the law and they are working for foreign powers.
When this happens in the Israeli-occupied territories, the Israelis claim that the foreign powers of Iran and Syria are behind the violence. When this happens on the streets of Iranian cities, the Iranian regime claims that the foreign powers of the United States, Israel and Britain are behind the violence.
And it is indeed an intifada that has broken out in Iran, however hopeless its aims. Millions of Iranians simply no longer accept the rule of law because they believe that the law has been corrupted by a fraudulent election. The dangerous decision by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to throw his entire prestige behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has erased any chance that he could emerge above the battle as a neutral arbiter.
Relatives of Mirhossein Mousavi's powerful ally Ali Akbar Rafsanjani are arrested then released; Mousavi is threatened with arrest by the Speaker of parliament; yet one of the most socially popular clerics and an ally of Mousavi, Mohamed Khatami, remains untouched.
Mousavi may have been a prime minister, but Khatami was a president. To touch Khatami would take away the future protection of Ahmadinejad. And the latter's powerful political friend Ayatollah Yazdi, who would like to be the next Supreme Leader, is a threat to Khamenei. And while every bloodied body on the streets of Iran's cities will now be declared a "terrorist'" by Ahmadinejad's friends, it will be honoured by his enemies as a martyr.
Mousavi, to win, needs to organise his protest in a more coherent way, not make it up on the hoof. But does Khamenei have a longer-term plan than mere survival?
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote