Iran, Again: Begging for a Smell Test (Sibel Edmonds)

[mmonk]

Okay, I’ve been trying very hard to ignore the latest on Iran: Roxana’s highly publicized and dubiously adventure (begging for a smell test), the pre-elections predictions making their way even onto the Sunday Talk Shows (A great Smell Test Indicator), and of course now, the intense and loud coverage of the post elections drama (The Smelliest of Alll)…

Why would I try to ignore this? Not because I am not interested in Iran, Iran Politics, or Iranians. Hey, I lived there for eight years. I speak Farsi as my second language. I had my primary education there. My Father is half Iranian, and through him, his family and friends, and his activities, I grew up with ‘lots of Iran politics’, not only in talk but in actual life. I witnessed the revolution unfold in 1978-79. In fact, along with my father, I participated in some demonstrations as an eight year old kid whose father was interrogated and tortured by the ruthless monarch, Shah. Contrary to what the US government has lead citizens here to wrongly believe, the regime change in Iran did not occur through only Islamists. In the beginning, the liberals, the social democrats, the communists, socialists…many factions came together, united to get rid of the US-UK planted monarchy.

The country had its chance at having a democratic form of government, via Mossadegh. But hey, back then, the United States, driven by its Cold War, didn’t want democracies in that region. Are you kidding me??! Our business back then was ‘toppling democracies’; and replacing them with puppet monarchists, dictators, and the like. Back then we loved Islamic Fanaticism. It worked magically against the commie Soviets; Right?! So yes, due to my background, experience, education, family, friends, and past activities, Iran is not a subject I would ever ignore.

Back to ignoring the current publicity wave involving Iran. This one is no different than the previous wave towards the end of the Bush Presidency; only a tactic change, and this in a very sneaky and shrewd way. The ‘Nuke Scare’ didn’t quite work for the previous administration; neither domestically nor internationally. With Israel as adamant as ever, with President Obama as eager as his predecessor, only a bit savvier, and with the new neocons under new names and faces leading the way - and let’s not forget several disgruntled Iranian factions actively lobbying - it was about time to see the Iran topic resurface, but a bit differently. Thus, we have the new wave of recent publicity, although much more dangerous than before, since the appearance of the current method and operations do not seem nearly as bold as the old one - and so far it seems to be working and garnering public support for the neocon establishment and their agenda.

A recent survey which was conducted about three weeks before the elections showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin, even greater than his actual margin of victory in Friday's election.

Here is what Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty had to say about the legitimacy of the survey:


“Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.”

Are allegations of election fraud designed to further isolate Iran? Are they meant to be used to massage and shape domestic and international public opinion to lead the way for ‘further action’ on Iran? Let’s face it, the timing and the latest events don’t pass the smell test. We just had the ‘Free Roxana’ episode, with both the mainstream media and the alternative press carrying it as a campaign not dissimilar to Bush’s campaign on ‘Exporting Democracy’ to ‘oil-rich’ regions. This lady never actually denied working for Intelligence (based on my two CIA sources she indeed did), and in fact, in a way, she accepted the espionage charges brought against her by the Iranian government.


http://123realchange.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-again-begging-for-smell-test.html


Read and about it and discuss. What are your opinions on the matter? What is organically occurring and what is not? Will there be a push for the Obama administration to push in Iran?


Go give and take with your synopsis.

[billyoc]

1. Some here have already called for bombing them.

[StateSecrets]

5. K & R

MisterP: Excellent observation, and very articulately put!

[MisterP]

2. even if the protests and violence have no US connection (and they do seem to have autochthonous

triggers), the US coverage is often reminiscent of Bush's farcical "color revolutions": we're expected to stand in awe at these Freedom Fighters, tears streaming down our faces as they face down ZOMO units or Saudi mutaween.
Many on DU, even, can't deal with Iranian conservatives, reformists, and neoliberals on their own (Iranian) terms: they have to be forced into digestible pigeonholes of "Busheviks" (that word alone can cause stroke in Russian studies departments), "Illegitimate, Unpopular Oppressors," or "Backward Homophobic-Sexist Redneck Mullahs." Of course, if anyone realized that the Iranian situation on the ground is more complex and ambiguous than the good-vs.-evil fights of 1968 or 2000 Florida, it makes it harder to see things as a global, binary Us-vs.-Them fight against the "human-rights abusers who hijacked the popular revolution"--a template that was once applied to Nicaragua no less thoroughly than Iran.

[cali]

3. OK, I'm going to say it: For me, Edmunds has never passed my personal smell test

never. Yeah, yeah, the gag order. Still, just don't buy it. She smells like a phony to me.

[ajeffersonian]

6. Back up your statement, please

What is it that you find phony, and what in this piece do you find fault with? By the way, if you're going to criticize you should at least learn to spell her name correctly.

[mmonk]

7. And how long did you live in Iran?

[KittyWampus]

13. she may have been privy to some information at one time. She is no longer and seems to be milking

her 15 minutes for all it's worth.

[ajeffersonian]

23. Relevance to this post?

Her post seems to be well researched and she certainly has the background and credentials to be writing on this subject. Do you have a well researched and thought out response? If so please share it with us, rather than just an empty comment.

[robertpaulsen]

4. To the greatest page!

I always appreciate Sibel's input. Bookmarking for future reference.

[mmonk]

8. Very good.

It's appreciated. Thanks.

[robertpaulsen]

28. My assessment of the situation is pretty much in line with what Sibel Edmonds says.

This definitely reeks of a color revolution, but more to the point it reeks of behind the scenes machinations between the Mousavi/Rafsanjani faction and Disaster Capitalist "shock treatment" privateers as illustrated in Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine. So it wouldn't surprise me to see the usual suspects (CIA, NED) out to exploit protestors who, while genuinely expressing democratic desires, can't see they're being used as pawns to sell off their country to the highest bidders.

[chill_wind]

9. mmonk, here's a little something about TFT and

some rather large caveats about that polling data.

I posted earlier today, FWIW:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5861002&mesg_id=5861645

[mmonk]

10. Thanks. Lots to digest.

[jbnhm]

11. Always good to hear from Sibel

especially given her experience with Iran, having experienced it's history first hand, and her knowledge of Farsi.

[chill_wind]

12. Well here's what she is actually saying in fine print

(apart from her rant in her main text against the "left Ann Coulter" blogosphere, some female LW blogger she's upset with in particular, apparently)

in the comments section.

I am not arguing against 'election fraud;' the very possible rigging. Not at all. If they did, and they probably did, it wouldn't be the first time. I am really angry about how suddenly this becomes a topic of choice for 'certain' people with 'certain' agenda, and how the media & the ignorant bloggers disseminate the propaganda, thus help implement the new 'operation.' The unrest among the youth is not a new phenomena' periodically they've been rebelling. Remember 1998-1999? They are right in wanting the US to butt out; they know their history, and they are wise! Pipeline politics: you bet!

No disagreement there. That the US should stay out of this, politically. But that it shouldn't be a topic in the media or the blogosphere-- or that there won't be a lot of witting or unwitting RW OR LW propaganda to navigate through-- good luck with that.

[mmonk]

15. I was watching one shot from a media source where a group

was chanting we want freedom in unison in English. It was apart from the filming of clashes between police and protesters. The group seemed staged and my first thought was either CIA or US media.

[sufrommich]

17. Odd that Bush didn't use this massive power to get

millions of Iranians to protest their government during his 8 years of trying to find an excuse to invade Iran. Why did we wait so long?

[mmonk]

22. Here is something on clandestine operations.

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/iran-election-protests-part-clandestine-operations-undermine-ahmadinejad-p-3094.html

While there certainly is legitimate protest and concern, it's not all within a vacuum.

[karynnj]

20. Barak Obama himself has spoken of the dangers of "meddling"

Every administration spokesman, including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, have used moderate words like "concerns". (This DU thread has the NYT article on Obama's reaction. - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3925590 )

As to non-administration Democrats, Kerry, who is the Democratic leader on foreign policy - spoke candidly at the Q & A of a Tom Brokaw moderated speech. Kerry questioned Tom Brokaw's contention that it might be that our diplomats and journalists see only the urban areas and to be less vague on what rises suspicions. Like Obama, he speaks of the fact that the US "meddling" has caused problems in the past. He also makes a plea to continue the diplomatic route - no matter how this ends up. (He speaks also of this as a sign that things are changing internally there.)

This was in the Q&A, which starts about half way through. (If you want to get to just this - it is when Kerry and Brokaw are first seen sitting down - and it is about half way into the time bar.) http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/video.html

It is clear that there is a lot of uncertainty, but that all the Democrats are urging caution - and I like that both Obama and Kerry called earlier meddling - what it was "meddling" and both said it had caused problems. THAT is a major difference from the last 50 years.

[Prometheus Bound]

14. Interesting take on the propaganda. Thanks for posting.

[sufrommich]

16. Yes people, do not believe your lying eyes.

There is no massive movement in Iran against the Iranian equivalent of the Jerry Farwells of America running a country. This is where some on the so called left jump the shark.When you have to twist the truth and make excuses for political regimes in order to cling to your concepts of good guy/bad guy you've reached the point of no longer being rational. I've read some of the apologist for the religious right in Iran here on DU and feel sick.THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN POLICY PRESENT,PAST,OR FUTURE. What is the difference between the apologist here and freepers? I'd like to know.

[mmonk]

18. Who is an apologist?

[sufrommich]

19. Your questioning the use of english in Iranian demonstrations

and attributing it to the CIA and you don't think that's an attempt to discredit protesting Iranians? Here's a clue, they may be using english because they know the world is watching and want to be heard via CNN and the BBC. Attempts to paint this as some kind of CIA led insurrection just absolutely make me sick. Here's a question, if the CIA is capable of bringing millions of Iranians out in the streets to protest their government, why in the hell did they not bring this to fruition under Bush?

[mmonk]

21. Much of the demonstrating is legitimate. I would like to see a new

government there as well. But where do you think $400 million US money for covert operations in Iran went? Do you think we haven't been trying to destabilize the government there? Please don't call me an apologist for the current government there.

[JackRiddler]

24. Yes. There IS a massive movement in Iran against the mullah regime.

This is true. If I were Iranian, I'd be with them.

However, all of the following could also be simultaneously true, and there'd be no contradiction:
- The majority may be with Ahmedinejad.
- The election results were real. (We'll see - I can understand arguments why they were faked.)
- Mousavi and Rafsanjani are corrupt politicians of the old regime and opportunists who took up reform so as to win.
- Mousavi is responsible for far greater atrocities as prime minister (in 1981-89) than Ahmedinejad in his time as president in 2005-2009.
- The CIA/spook agencies have their own agenda in trying to instigate a color revolution (this doesn't mean they created the Iranian movement against the mullahs!).
- 98% of what we get through the Western broadcast media shares that agenda, regardless of whether or not it is true. Truth is strictly incidental to CNN.

The regime are, as you say, counterparts to the Jerry Falwells. The problem is, they may really have the majority, or at least their own Ronald Reagan winning over the majority, in the form of Ahmedinejad.

[mmonk]

25. Thank you for your post.

[StateSecrets]

26. Good Points

Jack Riddler: Nicely organized and presented points. I concur.

[ajeffersonian]

27. What is it you're trying to say?

I've read your comment several times & still don't understand your point. Are you just being sarcastic? Are you saying the author is an "apologist"? Who is "twisting the truth", and what do you believe the "truth" here is? I'm a little slow-witted, so please keep it simple.