Greenwald: Obama verses the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran

[wkmac]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/12/iran/index.html

 

[wkmac]

Let's for the moment play a little "Sci-fi" game and visit an alternative universe where as it realtes to global power and position, Iran and the US switched places so to speak. Now consider this as a pretext before you shift to that alternate world.

Unfortunately for us, outside our borders U.S. foreign policy isn't judged according to what we know, but according to what our government does and has done. And it is well known in Iran and throughout the Middle East that the U.S. (at the urging of and with the assistance of the UK) organized a coup against the democratically-elected Iranian government of Mohammed Mossaedgh in 1953, in retaliation for Mossaedgh's stubborn insistence that Iran's oil belonged to Iranians. And for the next twenty-five years, the U.S. kept in power a dictatorship in Iran, actions justified in no small measure by the alleged need to protect "our oil" that God had misplaced "under their sand."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/would-it-kill-us-to-apolo_b_163957.html

Now using the above known history and before going forward, if you doubt that statement then let me direct you to several places. First, the 6 minute YouTube piece at the above link is a start or you can view also at YouTube the History Channel's program entitled, "Ayatollah Khomeini Declassified" which cover the Iranian coup of 1953' that was orchestrated by the US and the UK via CIA operatives.

At Wikipedia you can find a lot of good background from footnotes and external links on Operation AJAX and American involvement in bringing down a democratically elected gov't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

Now taking this into consideration, what would you be thinking about now if this was really our reality?

Imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Suppose that in 1953, when someone who is now 65 was 10 years old, Iran, together with the British (something we have in common with Iran is the experience of Britain as a colonial power), organized a coup that overthrew the democratic government of the United States and replaced it with a dictatorship that lasted until 1979, when someone who is 39 today was ten years old. And now comes Iran talking about improved relations. Do you think that no-one in the United States would suggest that Iran acknowledge its role in the coup as a step to improving relations?

Also found at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/would-it-kill-us-to-apolo_b_163957.html

Maybe when you take the old adage of "walking a mile in the other fella's shoes" it can begin to change your perspective a bit. Maybe it's time we started doing that for a change instead of doing what we keep doing.

 

[Jones]

You're making this overly complicated, mac. Everyone knows they hate us because of our freedom.

 

[wkmac]

You're making this overly complicated, mac. Everyone knows they hate us because of our freedom.

Maybe it's time we got a bit complicated because look at us now when we've used simplistic thinking as away of life. I did read one sentnece in the piece and I'm hoping someone will help me to clarify this for my own understanding. Here's the sentence:

There may even be some people who are predisposed to violence and find themselves attracted to extreme religious sects.

I'm not a devotee to a specific religious sect although I enjoy studying about religion (great subject and great moral lessons to live one's life by) but I'm gonna need a bit of help trying to peg down just what extreme religious sects the author might be alluding too. Typically, these people who are predisposed to violence are also very predisposed to using force and especially force to submit to their will of what they believe is right or wrong and what direction larger society as a whole should be headed in. They also like to gather into larger groups or collectives where they feel having numbers around them who feel the same gives them security that they are right in their thinking. They rarely if every do or think in an individual manner outside the larger collective thought. Once the mob effect starts to coalesce, others who lack the will to stand individually but not so much predisposed to violence join the larger group in the hopes of being a part of the winning side but the dominate violent personalities tend to hold powers of leadership in some capacity. The group or sect now takes on a very narrow dogma and demand all around them to conform to that dogma or else. In most cases, a demand of undying loyality to the cause of a single leader is compelled either through physical or in many cases mental pressures and this will insures a compliance on the larger society to root out any and all opposition to the ruling dogma.

My question is, are the extreme religious sects spoken of called democrats and republicans?

You know I'm gonna get in big trouble for that one!

 

[wkmac]

Iran's Fist Is Clenched for a Reason


http://www.antiwar.com/orig/sahimi.php?articleid=14219

 

[wkmac]

Iran and the West: A History of Violence
by Eric Margolis​

Iran is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its historic Islamic revolution after three decades of siege warfare by the western powers. To understand why relations between Tehran and the West are so bitter, we must understand their historical context.

Iran’s jagged relations with the West began during World War II. In 1941, the British Empire and Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied the independent kingdom of Persia, as it was then known. This oil-motivated aggression was every bit as criminal as the German-Soviet occupation of Poland in 1939, but has been blanked out of western history texts.

The Allies deposed Iran’s ruler, Reza Shah, and installed his weak, pliant son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, on the throne as the latest puppet ruler in the British Empire.

But in 1951, a highly popular Iranian democratic leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, became prime minister and promptly nationalized Iran’s British-owned oil industry, ordering its profits be used to lift Iran from poverty rather than enriching Britain. The Shah and his entourage of western advisors fled.

Two years later, US and British intelligence mounted a coup that overthrew Mossadegh, ending Iran’s first democratic government. The Shah was restored to the Peacock Throne. Iran’s oil wealth returned to British and, now, US control. Washington and London proclaimed they had won an important victory against "Communism."

Washington and London set about turning Shah Pahlavi into the "gendarme of the Gulf" to protect their oil interests. The Shah quickly blossomed into a megalomaniac, styling himself the "Shah of Shahs," and "Imperial Light of the Aryans" (Iranians are an ancient Indo-European people), comparing himself to the ancient Persian emperors, Darius and Xerxes.

The Shah’s relatives and Iran’s tiny ruling, western-oriented elite looted the nation, living like pre-Revolution Russian royalty. Wives of the elite flew to Paris to have their hair done for gala parties. The nation’s oil revenues went to buy large amounts of US and British arms and build gaudy palaces. The rest of Iran remained mired in abject poverty as the nouveau riche royal court flaunted its wealth.

Iran’s elite put on European airs and dismissed Islam as a backwards faith of superstitious peasants. In this sense, they much resembled today’s so-called "secular" Turks who bitterly oppose Islam.

Iranians who objected to the court’s lurid ostentation, Iran’s status as a Western puppet, or the looting of its oil wealth, were branded Communists or Islamic fanatics.

Savak, the vastly powerful security agency, imposed a reign of terror on Iran. American and Israeli experts advised and taught Savak. Real and imagined opponents of the Shah, the Shia clergy, and leftists all fell victim to Savak, whose tortures and brutalities were legendary, even by brutal Mideast standards.

Iran and Israel, both hostile to their Arab neighbors, became very close allies, to the fury of deeply religious Iranians and the Shia clergy, which strongly supported the Palestinians. The Shah even negotiated to buy Israeli missiles with nuclear warheads in exchange for a steady supply of oil. Washington offered to sell Iran 26 nuclear reactors.

By the late 1970’s, the Shah’s imperial pretensions, the arrant corruption of his corrupt family, and the elite’s scorning of Islam brought Iran to a boil. In 1979, an exiled Shia religious leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, returned from exile in France and led a popular revolution that quickly overthrew the hated Shah. The US was caught flat-footed by Iran’s revolution. It had relied entirely on Savak for political information.

Popular fury quickly turned against the Shah’s primary supporter, the US. Mobs stormed the US embassy, taking hostages and bringing the two nations close to war. The shredded CIA documents patiently pieced together by Iranian women showed the amazing extent of the CIA’s influence over Iran. All the CIA’s networks were rolled up.

Ayatollah Khomeini proclaimed his nation’s oil wealth would be devoted to social programs. He called on the US-backed Arab oil states to follow the Koran’s teachings and share their wealth with poor Muslims everywhere. He called for the overthrow of other Mideast rulers, whom he damned as illegitimate apostates and western puppets.

Washington and London immediately began planning the overthrow of Iran’s new revolutionary Islamic government which directly threatened the Anglo-American domination of the Mideast – what I call in my new book, American Raj. The CIA sought to mount a number of military coups. Forty percent of Iran’s government leaders were assassinated by the Marxist "People’s Mujahidin." [/FONT]

In 1980, when these efforts failed to overthrow the Islamic regime, the US, Britain and their Arab oil clients got another US "gendarme" – Iraq’s Saddam Hussein – to invade Iran.

The resulting bloody, eight year Iran-Iraq war cost Iran one million casualties, half of them dead. Iran suffered more dead in this war than the US did in World War II. So violent and desperate was the World War I–style trench fighting that 12-year old Iranian boys and old men went forward to clear Iraqi minefields with their bodies.

The US, Britain, and the oil Arabs financed and helped arm Iraq. Israel sold Iraq a reported $5 billion in US arms and spare parts. Europe supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, food and arms.

After the US Navy entered the war on Iraq’s side, Iran was forced to sue for peace. Iran lay in financial and emotional ruins, with an entire generation killed in battle or horribly maimed by Iraq’s western-supplied chemical weapons that included the burning agents mustard gas and Lewisite, chlorine, cyanide, and a variety of modern nerve gases.

Rightly or wrongly, most Iranians blame the West for their historical suffering. They see the Western powers and Israel continuing efforts to overthrow their government, isolate Iran, and seize its oil. Or even launch a long-awaited air blitz against Iran’s so-far civilian nuclear program.

A former commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Mohammed Ahmadinejad, who led many dangerous missions behind Iraqi lines, is today the president of Iran. While Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei retains the nation’s real executive power, the bombastic, anti-Western Ahmadinejad speaks for much of Iran’s people.
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]President Barack Obama, who says he wants to open serious talks with Iran and establish better relations, will have his work cut out for him.

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/iran-and-the-west-a-history-of-violence.aspx​

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times and Dawn.

He is a regular columnist with the Quebecor Media Company and a contributor to The Huffington Post. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC.

​

 

[diesel96]

A former commander in the Iran-Iraq War, Mohammed Ahmadinejad, who led many dangerous missions behind Iraqi lines, is today the president of Iran. While Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei retains the nation’s real executive power, the bombastic, anti-Western Ahmadinejad speaks for much of Iran’s people.
President Barack Obama, who says he wants to open serious talks with Iran and establish better relations, will have his work cut out for him.

Besides the Grand Wizard Ayatollah, not guaranteed Ahmad will retain power in June 2009 with him driving their economy down the drain and isolation thru the roof.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/mohammad-khatami-slams-pr_n_166315.html

 

[wkmac]

[/size][/font][/b]

Besides the Grand Wizard Ayatollah, not guaranteed Ahmad will retain power in June 2009 with him driving their economy down the drain and isolation thru the roof.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/mohammad-khatami-slams-pr_n_166315.html

Khatami is growing in strength and appears to become a major force against Ahmadinejad which is a good thing IMO for the Persians first and foremost.

Also the veil of Gov't Mythology as it relates to Iran is more and more being exposed to the world, President Obama will likely see huge pressure from the political elites to manipulate more myth about Iran in order to maintain the status quo as it relates to Middle East policy.

 

[wkmac]

Seems the gov't propaganda machin.......oh I mean the American media took a powder on this "shoe throwing" in the Middle East.

Shoe reportedly thrown at Iranian president Ahmadinejad

I guess something like this being reported would tend to disrupt the propoganda purposes of Iran being the center of evil these days. Instead of taking a backseat view as things like this and this show real potential going forward. Instead, we have President Obama renewing US sanctions as his Secretary of State publically declares a lack of faith in diplomacy with Iran, one wonders if her judgement is clouded by her own husband's past actions in this matter? Then again, our new Sec. of State may have past alliegances to protect! Following the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Perle/Wolfowitz doctine are we?

Do you ever get the feeling we are forced to watch the same ole bad movie over and over again? What makes us not realize this fact is that at each showing the actors are different so we never connect the same story and plot being force fed at each showing!

Our new President ran on a platform under the heading of "Change" and most people considered this to mean a change of business as usual in Washington. Instead, we've gotten business as usual as we see the same ole' this and this and most importantly, this this!


But hey, if the masses of Obamaites want to keep repeating like programmed zombies:

"Obama has kept his share of promises more than your led to believe"

then ignore reality and continue forward. Bush kept some of his promises too like tax cuts but what was the final cost in the end? Real change doesn't mean "keeping his share of promises" as all the liars and thieves elected project the illusion of doing that!

Funny how in all the stuff I've posted regarding the BS of Obama, the only response from the Messiah Amen corner I've seen is something about moving me and my kind to Alaska. Again, nothing but force from those who cry change and never asking once did the folks from Alaska want such a condition. I'd bet the moment we decided to do something different with the oil fields, they'd be the one's crying for invasion to stop us!

Meet the new Hypocrite, Same as the old Hypocrite!