By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
President Obama called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to control the streets in Tehran. Would Obama or any US president allow protesters to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?
There was more objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two elections than there is at this time of election theft in Iran. But there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit the US government.
On May 16, 2007, the London Telegraph reported that Bush regime official John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”
We are now witnessing in Tehran US “attempts to foment a popular revolution” in the guise of another CIA orchestrated “color revolution.” It is possible that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about by their rival ambitions will aid and abet what the Telegraph (May 27, 2007) reported were “CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth of Tehran have played into the CIA’s hands.
The Mousavi protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet government or for a military strike.
The US intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped out by the western media are so transparent that it is impossible to believe than any informed person or government is taken in. One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.
It has become increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth motivate the western news media. For the record, I would like to point out a few of the most obvious oversights, to use an euphemism, in the Iran reporting.
According to a wide variety of news sources (for example, London Telegraph, Yahoo News, The Globe and Mail, Asbarez.com, Politico), “Before the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself ‘definitely the winner’ based on ‘all indications from all over Iran.’ He alleged widespread voting irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he was ready to challenge the final results.” Other news sources, which might not have been aware that the polls were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed.
Mousavi’s premature claim of victory before polling was over or votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose of which is to discredit any other outcome. There is no other reason to make such a claim.
In Iran’s system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who are put on the ballot. If they don’t like an aspiring candidate, they simply don’t put him on the ballot.
When the liberal reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70 per cent of the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs didn’t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi, who was foreign minister in the most conservative government, and is backed by another establishment figure, Rafsanjani.
As Mousavi was seen as Rafsanjani’s man, why is it “unbelievable” that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?
Neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there was an orchestrated “color revolution” in the works. Before the election, Timmerman wrote: “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Why would protests be organized prior to a vote and announcement of the outcome? Organized protests waiting in the wings are not spontaneous responses to a stolen election.
Timmerman’s organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to Timmerman, NED money was funneled to “pro-Mousavi groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.”
The US media has studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. The media is not reporting or providing objective analysis. It is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the Iranian government.
We know that the US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are responsible for bombings and other violent acts. It is likely that these terrorist organizations are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in Tehran.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi, @IranRiggedElect, and @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that On June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
One wonders why the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.
The unexamined question is Mousavi and his motives…… Why would Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously being used by a hostile West to discredit the government of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet government? Are these the actions of a “moderate”? These are the actions of a disgruntled man who kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street protests? Mousavi is being manipulated by organizations funded with US government money.
John Bolton laid out the US strategy….. First we try to destabilize the regime. …. Failing that, we strike them militarily. As this strategy unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration.

Mustafa Hamido| 24/06/2009| mustafahamido@gmail.com  

The happiness of some of “moderate Arab states ” about what is happening in Tehran and the arise of the opposition against the regime there and which is reflected on their media is not understood. They consider the protestors there as “warriors for democracy ” . What they are trying to hide and is clear for every one is the ideological background for those or at least for a part of them which want to overthrow “the Islamic Republic ” regime.

It is clear that the biggest part of them is either nationalists or Liberals. In both cases the Arabs are the losers.

(1)

Arab states and a wide spectrum of its people consider the current regime as the problem of this region. They used to call it ” The Mallaly’s Regime “. They had pushed Saddam to fight Iran to ” Save The Arab Eastern Gate”. This was popular in the Arab media literature in 1980’s. That war put the end of Saddam’s regime. It was a disaster for Saddam and the region.

Iraq has been debited and the region has collapsed after Saddam’s adventure in Kuwait. We should know here that the Iraqi’s invasion of Kuwait was a consequence of the 10 years war between Iran and Iraq. Kuwait has debited Saddam to help him in his war and ask for its debit directly after the end of the War although it was eulogizing him and describing him as ” the Arab hero ” and “The Arab Defendant “. It was an ugly years. Some of Arabs want to regain that period. What they lack is a character like Saddam who is ready to kill his people for his own fake glory.

Those who are describing themselves the “Moderate Arabs” are not ready to fight by themselves. They used to deploy intermediates to fight for their account and to use their fight and blood in compromise.

(2)

The Shah of Iran was ruling the Persian Gulf region during the 1960’s and 1970’s . He was the king of the region taking the advantage of the western support for him and his nation. He was the sincere guard for the western interests in the region. The west was in no need to use his direct force to save these interests. The Shah huge military force was enough. It seems that Arabs are really favoring that period. We should remember here that Saudi Arabia wasn’t a key player in the region as it is now. Although it has played a certain rules, however, it was totally controlled by a tight system taking in its consideration some Arab sensitivities toward Iran and its clear coalition with Israel, the x-enemy of the moderate Arabs and the enemy of the most of Arabs.

(3)

The Arab Moderate states don’t know its real interests. It had been used to overthrow Saddam Hussein and it is in a real need for some one to play his rule nowadays. Iraq which they were considering him the defender of their interests opposite the Iranian spread has been lost and become split between either an Iranian loyalty or an American one without a real key rule for those “the Moderate Arabs” .

Loosing Iraq has not awakened them. They are blind followers for the Americans, favoring the American Interests over their own interests. Wes should know her some fake facts, which they used to propagate as real ones. The problem of the moderate Arabs with Iran is not in fact with the current Iran . It is a historical clash between the uncivilized Bedouin who were living on the southern coast of Iran and on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf . As tribes, those Bedouins have given their loyalties for those who are paying . Some time they were loyal to Portuguese and sometimes to British and some times to the Iranians themselves. The rule was : The more you pay , the more loyalty you get . According to those historical events, we can find easily immigrations between the northern and southern coast of the Persian gulf. The Moderate Arab Media is focusing on the Emirates three Islands, which are occupied by Iranians from early 1970’s. These Islands has been occupied during The Shah period . It is not an occupation by the current Iranian regime. It is a historical matter can be solved easily .I can’t see a real Arab interest in antagonizing Iran . What they say about spreading the Shiites in the region is a way of trying to persuade Arab people that there is a real danger from Iran on their faith. Those who are worries on Sunnis are in fact neither Sunnis nor Shiites. They have their own believe and almost they are anti-religions and extremist seculars .

(4)

The last note here is a trial to clarify. The Iranian nationalists are in fact anti-Arabs and even in some times anti- Islam. They have their own view for the region excludes the Arab states, which they in fact don’t consider them as real states. They consider it as followers for the strongest in the region. One of the candidates to the last election blamed Ahmadinajad , the Iranian elected president , for his visit to UAE and participating in the Arab Gulf states council summit.

Moon of Alabama

There is a full effort of the “western” media and some expatriate Iranian organizations to de-legitimize the Iranian election despite the absence of any real evidence of voting fraud. These events show all characteristics of an engineered “color evolution”. 

As said before I find the reelection of Ahmadinejad quite plausible. He has done a lot for the poor and the elections were for a decent part class based. As Robert Fisk relates from someone not-regime-friendly in Tehran:

But I must repeat what he said. “The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad.”

My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. “You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad’s supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad.”

The myth in the “western” media is that Ahmadinejad is a “right-wing hardliner”. While he asserts nationalism and sovereignty as any president should do, in interior politics and economics, dominant in elections everywhere, his position is more to the left of the typical “western” right-left scale.

The argument favored by Juan Cole and others that high inflation and high unemployment numbers should have favored Mousavi and the ‘reformers’ backed by Iran’s richest man Rafsanjani. But those numbers, as asserted in the “west”, are not what they are said to be.

Unfortunately the myth that is currently created, will likely be used to favor the agenda of the war mongers. We will all be in trouble if their argument wins. This whole issue will do wonders for oil speculators and thereby snuff up any “green shots”.

• Blog Refernce:

For more about Iranian election and for More Info visit: http://djavad.wordpress.com/

From the Editor

We can’t describe what is happening in Iran as a protest against the regime. It is just a real democracy in a region lacks such these practicing and stands surprised about the flexibility of the Iran way of ruling. Some of western commenter are not believing what they see. They are trying to go back to the stereotype and the brain washing which the western media is doing and try to compare between what they are seeing on the ground and what they have heard from their media. It is a totally different image.  We , in this site, published yesterday an opinion of an American commenter describing Iran as one of the most development nation in the Middle East and try to say the the brainwash which the western Media is doing is similar to that it did to the USSR during the Cold War.

He tried to find a similarities between Iran and USSR from the ideological strong base for both regimes , however , he admits that as a nation he describes Iran as a developed state.

the protest in the streets of Tehran is a normal symptoms of democracy . It is an opposition when it feels that its candidate has failed . all democracies have the same symptoms with differences in severity. ere in the middle East our symptoms are acute . We are still beginners in the Democracy as a way of  living.

Endy Bayuni | Jakarta, Indonesia | Golbal Post , The Washington Post | 08/06/2009

Obama Leaves Out Half the ‘Muslim World’
The Current Discussion: What did you think of Obama’s speech in Cairo? What kind of change will, or won’t, it bring?

Can the U.S. craft a foreign policy towards the Muslim world?

Obama’s speech sent a fresh breeze into the relations between the United States and Muslims around the world. It started to clear the air, which has been polluted by tensions, misunderstandings and mutual suspicions for much of the past eight years.

Time will tell whether Obama will be able to walk the talk. But it would be wrong for Washington to translate his speech into U.S. foreign policy towards the Muslim world. There is no such thing as the “Muslim world” except in the minds of those fixated by Huntington’s outmoded view of a world divided by major religions.

Even Obama recognizes the contribution Islam has made to the world of science and culture, including in paving the way for Europe’s Enlightenment. Viewed this way, Islam is part and parcel of a continuum of existing civilization, not outside it.

The Muslim world cannot be defined geographically because the largest Muslim populations are found outside the Middle East, including Indonesia and India. Even America and Europe have growing if not flourishing Muslim minorities through migrations and conversions.

The Muslim world cannot be defined by race or culture either. Non-Arab Muslims, or non-Muslim Arabs for that matter, would be offended by people continually equating Islam with Arab. To do this is to deny the cultural diversity that exists among the more than one billion Muslims around the world.

Obama, a devout Christian, knows about this diversity. He was born to a Muslim father and spent four years in predominantly-Muslim Indonesia, growing up and going to school with Muslim friends.

Even on issues like freedom and democracy, religious tolerance and gender equality, which Obama mentioned as some of the main sources of tensions with the Muslim world, a generalization could be problematic.

The “Muslim world” today comprises emerging democracies like Indonesia and Turkey, where freedom and equality are part and parcel of their values, and military dictatorships and absolute monarchies. And where do we put Muslim minorities in India, China, Europe and America — many of whom embrace universal and local values and principles of the people where they reside – in this so-called Muslim world?

There is not one single Muslim world for the U.S. government to formulate its foreign policy. Instead there are several such worlds and several different policies. How it approaches Arab countries will necessarily be different from how it deals with Turkey, Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and with Muslims in India, Europe and America.

In giving the speech, Obama had the best of intentions with Muslims around the world, but it’s time we move on beyond Huntington’s distorted world view to the real world of hugely diverse people. America under Obama can provide the leadership that seems to be missing.

Here  in Lebanon  , the nation is boiling . It is the hottest period in its history . It is not an internal election . It seems to be one of the world battles on this small nation ground. It is more than a normal battle and less than a war . It is something very complicated and sometimes very difficult to be understood.

• • Simon Tisdall
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 May 2009 19.01 BST

The world is waiting the next coming Lebanese election. It has become an international issue after the lebanese has turned their home into one of the biggest prostitutes market across the time. what the lebanese politicians are doing is closer to the pimping more than a real policy .

Just if you have a cash , tou can have a footstep in Lebanon , even if you were an enemy . It is a cash matter. They are praying for cash and trying to get the biggest amount of this cash.

Lebanon is small in its area . It is nothing . their inhabitants try to convince us that it is the most beautiful country in the world , however , it is not mare than a dirty pop .