Saturday, July 21, 2018

Reuters — U.S. launches campaign to erode support for Iran's leaders

More brilliant thinking from the folks in DC and Langley.

U.S. launches campaign to erode support for Iran's leaders
Jonathan Landay, Arshad Mohammed, Warren Strobel, John Walcott

See also

Popular Resistance
Violent Coup Fails in Nicaragua, Us Continues Regime Change Efforts
Kevin Zeese


Noah Way said...

Iran strategy because it worked so well in Russia.

Konrad said...

“The Trump administration has launched an offensive of speeches and online communications meant to foment unrest and help pressure Iran to end its nuclear program and its support of militant groups, U.S. officials familiar with the matter said.” ~ Reuters

Nonsense. Iran is suffering from a prolonged drought, plus severe inequality and extreme youth unemployment. Average Iranians consider both sides of the government (neoliberals on one side, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on the other) to be equally corrupt. Meanwhile half of the clerics are neoliberals, and the other half are useless.

This is why there have been riots and social unrest for the last six months in Iran.

The point is that the USA doesn’t need to foment unrest in Iran. It already exists, big time.

This Iranian garbage, like Russia-gate, is designed to distract the Western masses from their ever-worsening poverty and hopelessness.

Tom Hickey said...

It's standard m. o. to piggyback legitimate dissent to install a US puppet regime. We'll how that goes down in Iran.

BTW that was the m. o. with the former Soviet Union, when the US supported Yeltsin. Yeltsin wised up and put Putin to clean house, which he did. This is why the US elite hates Putin and want to replace him with another puppet government.

Konrad said...

“It's standard m.o. to piggyback legitimate dissent to install a US puppet regime.” ~ Tom Hickey

But in this case the current president, Hassan Rouhani (a billionaire neoliberal) is pro-West. The entire Iranian upper class is neoliberal, and pro-West.

Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was not pro-West. He was a populist anti-neoliberal, and an anti-imperialist. That’s why Ahmadinejad was so reviled in the West, and in Israel. It was during Ahmadinejad’s first term in 2005 that the West began imposing sanctions on the Iranian lower classes, in an attempt to turn them against Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad’s predecessor was Mohammad Khatami, who was yet another neoliberal bastard. He too was pro-West, and was therefore called “enlightened.”

So if he U.S. seeks regime change, then who does the U.S. want to install? Another anti-neoliberal Ahmadinejad? No. Someone from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? Certainly not. The U.S. likes things as they are.

What I’m saying is that Western / Israeli politicians and corporate media outlets attack Iran for their own self-interests. Vilification legitimizes Western and Israeli politicians, and gives the corporate media outlets something to talk about. They have been vilifying Iran to varying degrees for 40 years.

NOTE: The USA did try to engineer a “color revolution” in 2009. Iranian neoliberals ran Hossein Mousavi as a “reformist” candidate (i.e. pro-neoliberal and pro-West). However Ahmadinejad won his re-election bid on 12 Jan 2009, thereby infuriating the West, and outraging Iranian neoliberals.

The West and its Iranian neoliberal allies declared the elections void, and they charged the populist Ahmadinejad with “human rights violations.” For the next 12 months, affluent young Iranians marched in the streets to protest Ahmadinejad’s election victory. This was the so-called “Iranian Green Movement,” which had Western support. Also, the West (that is, the UN Security Council, controlled by the USA) dramatically increased its sanctions on Iran in June 2010 to hurt Ahmadinejad.

By the end of Ahmadinejad’s second term in August 2013, Western sanctions against Ahmadinejad had caused so much suffering among average Iranians that they were ready to take a chance on the neoliberal Hassan Rouhani, who promised to get the Western sanctions lifted. And indeed, the Western Empire began talks with Hassan Rouhani, culminating in the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” of 15 July 2015.

However the U.S. did not live up to its end of the bargain, and on 8 May 2018 withdrew altogether from the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.”

Why? Because most U.S. and Israeli politicians, and all the corporate media outlets, validate themselves by vilifying Iran (and Russia and Venezuela).

The point is that when Washington bureaucrats and politicians talk about regime change in Iran, they are not serious. President Rouhani is a neoliberal, and is pro-West.

Bureaucrats and politicians vilify Iran in order to maintain their own legitimacy. They keep the public in permanent suspense by constantly threatening war, regime change, and so on. They push Russia-gate for the same reason, namely to legitimize themselves. They create fictitious "enemies."

Don’t be deceived by the constant Iran-bashing. It’s all for show. If the USA were to somehow get rid of the pro-U.S. Rouhani, there’s no telling who would take his place.

Libya and Syria were much smaller in area and population, and were open to Western-backed jihadist mercenaries.

By contrast, Wahhabi jihadists would have no chance in Iran, as they are hated by all levels of Iranian society, from the rich to the poor. They are hated by neoliberals and by their competitors, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Tom Hickey said...

Here's the government in exile that the US is backing to take over Iran — initially.

People's Mujahedin of Iran

The people that the US eventually wants to install are Iranian ex-pat supporters of the Shah that are now living in the US and lobbying for this.

Konrad said...

Tom, the People's Mujahedin of Iran (aka MEK) have absolutely no chance of ever taking power in Iran, and the Empire knows it. Like the Wahhabi jihadists, they are hated by all aspects and all levels of Iranian society; rich and poor, nationalist and neoliberal. Any MEK member caught in Iran is subject to summary execution.

During the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88, half a million Iranians killed; many more crippled for life) the People's Mujahedin fought on the side of Iraq against Iran. Nobody in Iran can ever forget this.

The People's Mujahedin even killed Americans, and was included on the E.U. and U.K. list of “terrorist organizations” until 2008 and 2009 respectively, and the U.S. / Canadian lists until 2012. When the Bush administration sought to justify its attack on Iraq in 2003 by accusing Saddam Hussein of being a sponsor of "international terrorism,” one of Bush’s prime examples was Saddam's "sheltering" of the MEK.

The MEK got off the terrorist lists for two reasons. First they literally bought their way off by paying “speaking fees” to people like John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, FBI Director Louis Freeh, Gen. Hugh Shelton, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Lee Hamilton, Fran Townsend, Tom Ridge, Michael Mukasey, Andrew Card, Alan Dershowitz, Elie Wiesel, the Washington Post's Carl Bernstein, the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page – and many, many more.

The MEK sent a private jet to pick up each of them, paid them each $20,000 to speak for 20 minutes, and another $25,000 when each speech was done. Some recipients of these bribes got $100,000 contracts from the MEK.

Since the MEK was on an official list of “terrorist organizations,” all these recipients were guilty of serious felonies for providing "material support" to the MEK. This became such a huge scandal that in 2012 Hillary was obliged to nullify the scandal by taking the MEK off the U.S. terrorist list.

The bribery recipients still give lip service to the MEK today, since they are paid to. But absolutely no one in London or Washington intends to use the MEK for regime change. It is simply not possible.

The MEK is a Marxist / feminist cult. Do you think Washington wants them in charge of Iran? Not likely.

Konrad said...

Incidentally the MEK was enemies of the Shah, not supporters. The MEK participated in the 1979 Revolution, and they sought to take power, but they were outmaneuvered by the clerics.

Enraged, the MEK withdrew to Iraq, and a year later helped Saddam attack Iran.

After the war ended in a stalemate in 1988, the MEK lived in a refugee camp in Iraq for many years under U.S. protection, until the new Iraqi government finally drove them out.

Konrad said...

One further thought:

The U.S. Empire is constantly engaged in regime change operations. No one denies this (although some idiots boast that regime change is always for a “good cause”).

However the corporate media outlets contradict themselves with their lies and omissions, such that average people never know whether unrest in a nation is indigenous, or is the result of U.S. meddling.

Therefore average people assume that all indigenous unrest throughout the world is the result of U.S. meddling.

In some cases this assumption is correct. In other cases it is not.

Nicaragua, for example, is currently experiencing riots. Since the Sandinista government has never been a U.S. ally, average Americans assume that, once again, the riots are caused by U.S. meddling. In reality, the main cause of rioting is severe economic problems. Nicaragua has a huge trade deficit, and is badly in need of foreign currency. The IMF offered a loan to Nicaragua’s government which, as always, came with neoliberal obligations (e.g. radical austerity, mass privatization, etc.). Nicaragua’s government accepted the IMF loan and its terms, but the riots began before that. They were the result of government mismanagement of the economy.

Again, the riots began before U.S. meddling. The Empire cannot infiltrate any nation until a target nation becomes fractious and divided like Venezuela, and now, Nicaragua.

If, however, a nation’s people are united (e.g. Cuba) the Empire cannot defeat it.

It was the same in Syria. A prolonged drought, plus the Syrian government’s neoliberal “reforms,” caused social unrest, which the Empire then exploited, starting in 2011.

Tom Hickey said...

Right, the MEK is a proxy, like Ahmed Chalabi in the case of Iraq. But the US is strongly backing MEK now as it did Chalabi.

It's just necessary to have a focus. MEK for whatever reasons is now that focus. Some of the reason is money. MEK employs Bolton and Guliani, and I kid you not.

Konrad said...

Maybe I was too long-winded or something, but as I explained above, the only reason why some people give lip service to the MEK is that they are paid by the MEK.

This lip service is empty talk. The Western Empire has no intention of trying to use the MEK against Iran, as it would be unfeasible, for reasons I explained above.

The MEK have no allies from any group in Iran. Rich and poor, nationalists and neoliberals, urbanites and rural dwellers, Muslims and non-Muslims -- everyone hates the MEK.

Any MEK member caught in Iran would be summarily executed.