Friday, June 19, 2009

Mixed messages or mexed missages? Is Iran at the end of its twitter?

The occidental media was raving about the possibility a ‘green’ revolution in Iran. Was this another CIA-sponsored postmodern revolution like the colour revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan? The consensus seems to be that the colour was a mere coincidence. It seems that Adhmadinejad chose a red ball when casting his vote while Moussavi chose green. Green is said to be a colour representing Islam but what about red? We know that Athmadinijad was promising to go the Chavez route by taking control of Iran’s oil resources and redistributing the wealth among the poor where his popularity has soared.
But Athmadinejad is no Chavez. His secret police the Bassijis look more like Hitler’s SS and many of the country’s problems are emanating from corruption of the ruling elite. If Athmadinjad has socialist tendencies they are certainly presented in the western media as of the nefarious ‘national socialist’ kind. However, we do not have a clear picture in the West of Iran and its leader.
Iran’s jeuness dorée, the educated bourgeoisie of the big cities took to the streets to express their desire to see an end to Islamic extremism, while the proletariat chanted for Mahmoud, Allah and oil revenue. We know of course that Iran was never particularly Islamic. In fact, one could say that Islamic fundamentalism was thrust upon them in 1979 and it is merely a moment in the complex and profound history of Persian civilisation.

But to come back to all this talk about Green versus Red, what should we make of this? First of all I should point out that Iran’s trouble is pretty much Britain's fault. They were the ones who planned the 1953 coup by convincing the CIA to destroy Iran’s democracy. The CIA duly obliged and Operation Ajax was a success. The Shah was put back in power, the SAVAK, Iran’s secret police, were taught all the newest techniques in covert murder and torture by the CIA; in short, order was restored. However, even the Shah, realising that it was better to be an enlightened and popular despot than a hated one, attempted to build up the country to a certain extent. It was, however, a disaster. His importation of American arms and aristocratic opulence had bankrupted the country. He then made a big career mistake. In order to save the economy he tried to raise the price of oil. “Oh no you don’t “ said Washington.
The Los Angeles Times published an article in October 17th 2008 claiming that recently declassified US State Department documents show that the Ford administration wanted an end to the Shah due to his insistence on raising the price of oil. According to the Arab historian Said Aborish the Muslim Brotherhood had always been an asset of M16 and later the CIA, but we’re not supposed to know that and neither are the Muslims! It seems M16 persuaded the French to shelter Khomeini in Paris before installing him in Tehran. There was even a joke circulating in Iran at the time that Khomeini was ‘made in Britain’. BBC Persia and MI6 flooded Iran with Khomeini’s tapes. Islamic extremists with little economic expertise were always a useful tool of Western imperialists to de-stabilise resource-nationalizing governments so that Standard Oil, PB and others could continue to plunder Middle Eastern petroleum. When the focus of Islamic rebels like Khomeini was on religion and culture they were supported; when their focus was on quasi-socialist economics as in the FLN of Algeria, they were opposed.

Top foreign policy-makers Zbigniew Brezinzski of Carter’s administration knew that Khomeini would rebel and foment a form of Islamic nationalism but the Western powers already had an answer for that: send in Saddam! It was a hugely profitable war for the US, who backed both sides. Remember the Iran-contra scandal? The upshot of all this is that it is difficult to determine what the Anglo-American establishment wants Iran to do right now. It is likely that they really want Moussavi as he seems to support neo-liberal economic policies. My suspicion is that the Israeli extreme right probably wants to see a civil war, as that would weaken Iran for the next decade or so.
So who won the election? According to the French daily Liberation June 19 ('left wing' paper now controlled by Edward de Rothshild!) Moussavi clearly won with Athmadinejad coming in third place! The Sociologist Professor James Petras, however, writes in Reseau Voltaire that this is a lie.
The French journalist Thierry Meyssan in his article 'De Mossadegh à Ahmadinejad:La CIA et le laboratoire iranien' ( has pointed the finger at the CIA for the confusion surrounding the Iranian election result, claiming that they manipulated Iranian communications via Twitter and SMS to spread the idea that Moussavi had won. The New York Times and Reuters reported the story of US intervention but with the usual element of spin. The US State Department asked Twitter to delay their planned upgrade of the service so that Iranian communications among protesters would not be disrupted. How thoughtful of them!
Meyssan claims that the US State Department interference with Twitter was so that the CIA could stir up confusion by diseminating anti-Athmadinejad propaganda, leading to protest and chaos, their favourite activities. Many readers on the Reseau Voltaire accussed Meyssan of inveterate'anti-americanism'.His response,however,was cogent:
The Achilles heel for Iranian security in these troubled times is clearly the Baluchistan province to the South of the country. The Baluchistan province forms part of Iran, Pakistan and borders Afghanistan. Baluchistan is rich in oil and natural resources and is a key region for the US who have been lauching drone attacks around the city of Quetta. With reports indicating Pakistani ISI,CIA,MI6, the Mossad and Indian intelligence RAW all operating in the Baluchistani region, covert destabilisation strategies emanating from Baluchistan are an impending nightmare for Tehran. But it is unclear if the CIA and MI6 have the capability or desire to destabilise Tehran right now. They are probably too bogged down in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to contemplate opening up a Persian pandora's box. However, NATO's escalation of violence in Pakistan could have serious implications for Iranian security if the US and Britain continue to use Baluchistani rebels as pawns in their proxy wars. The US army has been well-positioned in Balochistan with bases in Dalbandin and Panjgur. On Baluchistan's importance for the US and Britain, Majeed Javed writes:
'The active involvement of foreign agencies in Pakistan's province of Balochistan has been sufficiently proved. Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence in June, 2006 had accused British Intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran". Also, as per Press Trust of India's press release dated 9 August 2006, Ten British MPs were found involved by the Senate Committee in its closed door session on alleged links of British Secret Service with the Baluch separatists. The British interests in Balochistan were again made conspicuous when its Foreign Policy Centre, sponsored a preposterous one sided propaganda against Pakistan by holding a controversial Seminar in the House of Commons on 27 June 2006. The Centre had collaborated with the so-called Baluchistan Rights Movement then and had invited only anti-Pakistan and self styled activists who only advocated terrorism in the province. No Pakistani scholar or elected representatives from either the central government or the Balochistan province itself, were invited for the seminar'.
The principal geopolitical concern for the US and Britain in Baolochistan is the port city of Gwadar on the Arabian sea. The Chinese in conjunction with the Pakistani government are currently developing this area as it is a key trade route to the Central Aisan republics for the Chinese. The Chinese are also involved in the ambitious gold and copper mining project at Saindak. As Pakistan is a natural ally of China, the US and Britain want to take control of Balochistan. This will inevitably lead to the occupation and disintegration of Pakistan, creating more chaos on the Iran's Eastern border. The key problem here revolves around two proposed pipe lines, namely, the Balochistani Iranian to Pakistani Iranian pipeline proposed by those governments and referred to as the peace line,a plan which is propitious to Chinese interests, or the US backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline; in other words, the war plan. In terms of geography and natural resources Balochistan is the 'black pearl' of Asia, but politically it is a potential nightmare.
The Israeli daily Haaretz published a story on 18-06-09 concerning an alleged CIA/Mossad joint-terrorist operation to place bombs in various election booths and mosques throughout Tehran on election day. The aim of the terror being to destabilise the country.( The CIA have been accused of covertly funding the Baluchistani rebels in the South of Iran since the 1980s.
The Paris-based PMOI were taken off the EU terror list this year. Many US senators and UK lords have been lobbying for the PMOI's removal from American and EU terror lists for years. The French president Nikoloas Sarkozy, succeeded in lobbying the EU this year to have the PMOI removed from its terrorism list. It is still unclear what the US-EU strategy is regarding this group.
To come back to the Iranian election again. Did Athmadinejad win or not? The American pollsters Ken Ballen of the Centre for Public Opinion and Paul Doherty of the New America Foundation conducted a rigorous poll in Iran prior to the election. This is what they have to say about the election result
'Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Moussavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
“The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Moussavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over MoU.S.avi.
“Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
“The only demographic groups in which our survey found Moussavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.”
Former Assistant Director of the Treasury in the Reagon administration Paul Craig Roberts knows a thing or two about US scheming. This is what he has to say on the matter:
"As a person who has seen it all from inside the U.S. government, I believe that the purpose of the U.S. government’s manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people’s will. This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack.'
The problem is we just don’t know what’s really going in Iran. So, now we have complex phenomenon of class and cultural conflict in the midst of an information war. It will probably be enough to stoke Persia’s internal fire for the next few months while Washington and London have a chance to think about the next act in the region's petrodollar tragedy.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Obama Doctrine

Six months ago we were all waxing lyrical about the political possibilities presented by the new emperor laurelled on Capitol Hill. But very few actually predicted what an Obama presidency would be like. Now it looks like new mistakes to cover old ones and monstrous lies to cover them all will continue to define US foreign policy as the permanent war economy gears up for more conflict.

Afghanistan would be a good place to start in our assessment of what the Obama doctrine is likely to be. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisor, coined the phrase ‘ the Afghan trap’. He was referring to the way in which the United States lured the Russians into a war in that country which they couldn’t win. It was, as Brzezinski slyly put it, “to give them their Vietnam”.

Brzezinski was one of Obama’s professors at Columbia University and played a key role in his rise to power. He was also instrumental in Carter’s accession to the White House in 1979. Carter is often presented as one of the better presidents in recent times. What people often overlook however is that Islamic fundamentalism was pretty much the brainchild of the Carter administration. As Brzezinski had played such a key role in Carter’s rise to power, he was able to steer the political gunboat of this fine young man.

The Carter Doctrine was proclaimed by the president in his State of the Union Speech in 1980. In this speech Carter articulated what would become US gospel for the next three decades, a policy that would lead to death and torture on a mammoth scale. By this stage Carter had already authorised the CIA and special forces to provoke the Russians into conflict. The Carter Doctrine states:
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.

Next time you hear an idiot say “I don’t think the war is about oil” Ask him/her is they have read the Carter Doctrine and look out for that Sarah Palin vacuity in their eyes!

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, and now the more or less the same in Obama’s regime, was sent to Afghanistan to arm the Mujahedeen, a motley group of illiterate peasants, who might easily have been attracted by Soviet Communism had it not been for Brzezinski’s theological exhortations. “God is on your side” he told them, as the CIA with help from Osama Bin Ladin and Pakistan’s ISI, proceeded to indoctrinate the poor farmers in religious fanaticism. Madrasas were set up throughout the region, where the Mujahadeen were taught to hate the Russians for being non-muslims. They were trained in the use of the latest military equipment while the CIA and Pakstani Intelligence laundered money from the drug harvests of the future Taliban.

The result of the Carter Doctrine was 911 and a Middle Eastern war which has now cost the lives of over a million people. The inclusion of Brzezinski on the Obama foreign policy team is bad news.

In an interview he gave with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 Brzezinski was asked if he regretted his decisions in Afghanistan. He replied “What is most important to the history of the world? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?” Back then he thought the idea of Islamic extremists being a threat to the world was ‘ nonsense’. Now on his advice, President Obama, just like his predecessor, repeats the same phony mantra about US ‘National Security’ and the ‘real threat’ from the Middle East. So what then are the challenges for the Obama presidency? Well one of the problems for the new presidency was outlined by Dr. Brzezinski’s in a chilling remark which he made before a group of elites in Chatam House London on November 2008 “It is easier to kill a million people than to control them”

Resisting technocratic interpellation

I resisted the Credit Card for a long time, until a few months ago, in fact. I used to get friends to book flights for me online but Ryanair put an end to my fiscal simplicity. Ryanair are masters of the art of stealth charges. You are even charged at the airport for the privilege of having booked your flight online! After I had checked in for my Paris-Dublin flight a few months ago I had to queue up again in order to pay my credit card fee of 5 euro.
Having queued up for more than 30 minutes, I finally reached the counter. “bonjour Monsieur” said the pretty lady behind the counter.

“ Bonjour Madame” said I. I reluctantly handed her my five Euro note.

“ sorry, we don’t accept notes, you’ll have to pay with your credit card” she said.

“ I’m sorry madam, I do not have a credit card but I am prepared to pay you with this real money” I retorted, politely keeping my growing frustration in check. Then, predictably, cracks soon appeared in the diplomatic equanimity as negotiation rapidly descended into all out confrontation.
“ I’m sorry but you will have to call a friend and ask them to pay for you as we cannot accept real money” she continued. “ What? This is crazy, you do not accept real money!! What is this, a scene from a Kafka novel? You want me to pay you again for the privilege of paying you invisible money, now I give you real money and you say I cannot board my flight to Dublin unless I pay you more invisible money!”
By this stage I realised I had declared war but I was not prepared to surrender. Meanwhile airport security were beginning to take an interest in the lone protester

“ I’m sorry monsieur", she said coldly, “but I cannot change the system” I was caught in an absurd ideological pincer-grip with airport security slowly advancing. As soon as she mentioned the word system I launched my surface to air missles . I knew I had no chance of winning but I decided to lose all guns blazing. “ change the system you say? Fuck the system” the four letter word is the last resort of the broken man “ and fuck Ryanair and it effing capitalist thuggery, its digital fascism. I’m sick and tired of being treated like cog in the machine, a number in the calculus, a superfluous letter in badly written book. Fuck the whole lot of you, you despicable scum!”

I should point you to you dear reader that I said this in French, so it may have sounded less offensive! By this stage other French customers in the queue behind me began to join in and for a moment I thought “ this could be the storming of the Bastille or a Rosa Parks moment”. Not quite I’m afraid. But they kindly paid the miserable five Euro for me and I boarded my flight.
A few months later, I came back to the same Ryanair counter and met the same lady. This time I decided to take a leaf from President Roosevelt’s book when he said that in negotiation you should speak softly but carry a big stick. My big stick was the threat of another vituperative onslaught. From our initial eye contact I could tell she recognised me. The cashier could probably detect the verbal arsenal behind the clenched teeth of my fake smile. I spoke softly, looked her straight in the eye and whispered “ Madam I do not have a credit card”. Then, as if for the sake of world peace, she took out her own card and paid for my flight herself. I gave her my five euro, thanked her profusely and quietly departed. You might think I was a bit extreme calling Ryanair fascists but aren’t they the airline that taxes fat people and wants to make us pay to use the toilet? Kafka once said ‘in the fight between you and the world, back the world”. I surrendered and now back the banking world by paying them for the privilege of my invisible money!