Iran and Leftist Confusion

     Alla Nikonova: Thanks for the link, but I think Stephan Gowans’ point was that economic pressure from many countries with the promise of relief if there is some revolt can provide fuel to the fire of such revolts.  This may be true, but again, this would be one factor among many (possibly a strong factor), and is not the CIA’s action.

      Possibly you were talking of many factors from outsiders (various intelligence agencies, NGOs like NED or IRI, the media, and economic sanctions, etc.) creating a revolt where there would not be one otherwise… not much argument against such from me… you’re probably right (other than to note that North Korea has not had such a revolt that I know of, although all those ingredients are applicable there).

     Alla Nikonov: I am not denying the CIA’s activity—I’m simply pointing out that words like the CIA “MADE” coups, or the CIA “is ALWAYS behind such coups” suggests that they the only ones responsible… and make them out to be more powerful than they are.  Sometimes they may be a crucial and necessary actor for such coups to “succeed”… but in many cases they are just one factor among many, and—this is the local point:  I don’t see how you could see them as a major, let alone even a *deciding* factor in the Iranian protests.  They have too often been agents for unwarranted intervention, but are not the secret operator of all global political turmoil, which you seem to imply.

     (Crimes like torturing and assassinating do not hold that much world historical power in my opinion, as the tortured rarely change history, and the sweep of history simply replaces the assassinated with similar people – e.g. if Saddam Hussein had been assassinated, one of his sons would have taken his place).

     Marc Schuler tried (below) to give some examples of how the CIA could have prompted the Iranian protests, but in my opinion and experience, barring some rare “tipping point,” “subtle” efforts get “subtle” results.  I’ve seen no attempts on your part to explain how the CIA could have ignited the protests in Iran on such a scale—you just assume that the CIA’s far reaching power is common knowledge due to past documented interventions.  I think we might actually agree on much about CIA activity, but not on the degree of power and effectiveness of such efforts.

Reese is on target, and one argument in favor of his case about 'confusion on the left' is in all the comments here. My favorite is the one s that want to ban him as inappropriate to Z-Net, which, as everyone should know, is a project of a libertarian socialist nature. Erlich was one of the Oakland Seven, put on trial for antiwar and antidraft work, and a solid left-progressive independent journalist, with direct experience in Iran, and a book on Iran for those who want to dig a little deeper. Calling him a shill for the CIA tells us more about the knuckleheads making the claim than anything else.

     Marc Shuler: I think I agree with much of what you note—but I think you give the CIA too much credit.  Remember this is the same government that buys $25,000 screws, missed 911, and bungled a bad war in Iraq.  Although the CIA may have “James Bond”/Green Beret types, they are mostly information gatherers and analysts.  And it’s not just the CIA, its various NGO groups as well—very “sexy” to think these folks have power, operating in secret and on the periphery—but as I noted before, and I think you note too: there must be some power struggle with internal “players” to begin with.

      Has the CIA had success with coups?  Yes, but never alone… and I think it would be hubris or paranoia to suggest they are more effective than they are.   (And examine NGO power, think of the centralized organizations that try to grab political power in the US—as centralized units, they are usually quite “impotent”; but it’s those viral, decentralized trends that really have power, and are no easier to organize than it is to start a huge fad, or explode into fame).

There is one thing factually wrong with this piece.  When the author asserts there is no evidence of US involvement in trying to get regime change in Iran, that's just plain wrong and goes against the public record.

In 2006, the US congress passed and the President signed into law the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.  The text of the act can be found at ....  http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-6198

Now, this was passed with the Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bush.  But, as far as I know, this is still the law of the land.  I don't ever remember the Democratic Congress ever rescinding the authorizations  in this act, despite the fact that they've held the majority in Congress for 2 1/2 years since, and the Presidency for the last half year. 

Also, the bill passed in the Senate by 'unaminous consent'.  Which means, every single Senator, Democrat and Republican agreed with the law.  It passed by a voice vote in the House, which means that there was not enough opposition to force even a recorded vote amongst the Democrats in the House.  Obama and the Democrats have never said that this existing act on the US law books is not their policy, and given the overwhelming Democratic support for the bill at the time, its very hard to claim that the Democrats have never supported exactly this policy of overthrowing the government of Iran.

And this isn't ancient history from the Republican congress.  The section on Supporting Democracy in Iran specifically says that the authorizations within are valid until Dec 31, 2011.  Again, the Democrats have never repealed or changed this.

So, the following is on the record as the official law and policy of the US.  Please don't try to claim that there is no evidence that this isn't US policy when its clearly written that it is.

-------------------

Text of the section on Supporting Democracy....

Authorization-

I'm tired of this false argument that says it has to be either a popular uprising that deserves support or a CIA-NGO color revolution plot.  The whole argument is a phony premise.  And I'm really tired of each side trying to push their argument by refuting what's falsely presented as its opposite. 

The key is to realize that it can be both a CIA color revolution plot and a legitimate populare revolt all at the same time. The world is more complex than these simple arguments. 

In fact, it is very likely to be the case that its both at the same time.  Think about it this way. If you were tasked with going in and starting a 'color' revolution, what you would look for is popular movements that you could latch onto and support.  You wouldn't try to create a new 'opposition' from nothing. Instead, you would support existing opposition movements.

So, Iran has a very long tradition of a more modern, urban based type of movement that wants a more open and free country.  This was  a large part of the 70's revolt against the shah, even if the Ayatollahs ended up with the power afterwards.  This movement has been there ever since, with periodic signs of conflict as it either comes more to life or is repressed over the years.  Thus, anyone plotting a 'color' revolution would look for exactly this existing opposition and use it and build it.

The support would be subtle.  Its not going to be something where everyone on the streets knows about it and is a part of it.  Especially in a country where the US is viewed as the Great Satan which means any open connections or support from the US would be the kiss of death to any opposition movement.  Somewhere some money changed hands. Somewhere, some of the opposition had access to better funding than you'd expect.  That's about all you'd see, and then you'd have to be a spy in the right room at the right time to see it.  If you talk to the protestors on the street, they'd never know about it.

The rest of the support comes from the noise machine.  News broadcasters who would try to avoid at all costs any fair reporting of an anti-war or anti-globalization protest are now leading every broadcast with the latest from Iran.  Or the right-wing talk hosts who probably wanted anti-war protestors like me shot in the streets on the air decrying Iranian violence.  The hypocracy is deep in the coverage of this.

But the key is to realize that all of this can be happening at the same time. There can be sincere and dedicated protestors in the streets of Tehran who don't know that all those nice banners were funded by some western government with money laundered through some NGO, while christian-fascists on the radio who hate all things muslim cheer on the bravery of these muslim protestors.

This means that i have to stop and think about myself.   I support anyone, anywhere who wants freedom from governments and religions that try to limit everyone's freedom.  I don't care if its the Ayatollah in Iran, or McCain\Palin\Gingrinch working with Pat Robertson in the US to force their religious rule on people, or if its Obama-Pelosi expanding the US police state and the spying and repression in the US.  I live in Denver, so just last year I saw Democratic pepper spray and billy clubs being used on political protestors.

Of course, the whole debate is meaningless.  There ain't much we can do in a country where ties to the west would discredit any movement for change.  And, its not like we control millions of dollars we can give them to help.  That's the CIA, not us.

What I would hope far from someone lik Z-Mag that they let as many different and diverse voices from Iran have some space out here. Then, maybe by hearing all those different voices to get some idea of what's going on.  That's the only way to understand a complex situation.

But, pieces that try to lecture me into saying I have to support some imaginary side in some fictional debate between two phony alternatives that are presented as some either-or choice that doesn't really exist. 

      Alla Nikonov: this is not 1953, and as I understand it, the CIA usually works with establishing or established organizations filled with people already with a predisposition “agreeable” with US policy.  Where is the “organization” behind the protests?  I understand it to be highly decentralized (i.e. with cell phones, etc.)  There is no central CIA switchboard to organize yelling from rooftops.

      Are you suggesting that central organizing figures like Mousavi are in bed with the CIA?  Why would they need to be… what would they gain with that support at this point?  Remember, Mousavi too was vetted by the Guardian Council; and although not favored by them, was not perceived as too much of an outsider, or danger.

     Thinking the CIA is behind every “coup” (is this a coup?) is ridiculous paranoia.  Yes, they may too often provide funding, training, logistics, and possibly subversive implementation of limited objectives—but again there always have to be “insiders” in the situation striving for their own power positions that the CIA can facilitate.  Coups were happening before the CIA was established… how could this be so by your account?

       Maybe you are of the camp that suggests that some outside Iran orchestrated the shooting of the Iranian Neda Agha-Soltan; as if some group could foresee the death of this single woman would cause a stir amongst over another dozen deaths and hundreds injured obviously by the suppression of the protests by security forces.

       I really see too much disorganization in the protests to see how the CIA could be accused of amplifying it to any significant degree, let alone organizing it.

I'm inclined to agree with Reese - the determination of sections of the left to blindly defend the Ahmadinejad regime is extremely disturbing (as, in a slightly different context, is sympathy for the Taliban in Afghanistan or Pakistan, generally on the kneejerk basis that they are viscerally anti-American). They need to be reminded that it's possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. You an be uncompromising in your anti-imperialism without falling in love with vicious reactionary regimes just because they don't see eye to eye with Washington. In the case of the Iranian election, in the absence of substantial evidence, no one ought to be declaring authoritatively that it was stolen. It might have been, but we can't be sure. But if Ahmadinejad won more or less fairly (within the restrictive context of the Islamic republic, that is) it's undoubtedly a shame - and one doesn't have to be fan of Mousavi or Karoubi in order to feel that way.

Mahir

    I think many can support revolt against a repressive regime, as the Iranian government has proven to be in its response to protestors.  And I think it is not the Central Intelligence Agency behind such a “color revolution” but a large vocal minority of Iranians backed largely by a Decentralized mostly “western” view that just about anyone would be better than Ahmadinejad.

       It doesn’t take too much insight to see that the circular power of the Iranian governmental structure is rigged from the start—and one has to wonder how much better the Guardian Council approved opposition, Mousavi would be.

     A two to one victory would be hard to contest, I think—but at LEAST one third of Iran has been disappointed, obviously severely, and the lack of reconciliatory gestures on the part of those in power is more than disappointing, although somewhat to be expected.  Even though in the US, John McCain did not get a post in the Obama White House, opposition Hillary Clinton did.

      I think the Iranian authority has to recognize that too large a portion of their population is in unrest—that to heal these internal wounds, some concessions must be made, especially when the cause is just… the will of the people may often be “divine,” but what to do about a divided will?  Hopefully the revolutionary possibilities in Iran will lead to deep transformations in a seriously flawed power architecture.  But with so much posturing by Ahmadinejad (who compared the revolts to a soccer riot—complete disrespect for the disempowered) and Mousavi (whose righteousness may have lead to some deaths, or at least whose words of “no surrender” seemed to imply some sort of militancy)—I suspect that when the smoke begins to clear, too much may remain the same, even with a revolution.

"Where there are many paths, and we're presented with the chance to choose, something fundamental is forgotten: all those paths lead to the same place. And so, liberty consists not in choosing the destination, the pace, the speed and the company, but in merely choosing the path. The liberty which the Powerful are offering is, in fact, merely the liberty to choose who will walk representing us... The Powers tell us, for example, that we have to choose between being optimists or pessimists. The pessimist sees the glass as being half empty, the optimist sees the glass as half full. But the rebel realizes that neither the vase, nor the water which it contains, belong to them, and it is someone else, the powerful, who fills it and empties it at his whim. The rebel, on the other hand, sees the trap. But he also sees the spring from which the water issues forth... And so, when the rebel faces the option of choosing between various paths, he looks further ahead and he looks twice: he sees that those routes lead to the same place, and he sees that there is no path to the place where he wishes to go. Then the rebel, instead of agonizing over polls which say that one path is better than the other because such and such a percent cannot be wrong, begins building a new path."

I support the side of those who choose the path, not those who choose between the paths provided them by The Powers/Guardian Council.

This glorification and idolization of Mousavi and those he has hoodwinked is pathetic. One doesn't need to be on the side of one corrupt politician simply because the other side is corrupt too.

has a much better piece: $10,000 Reward: Show How the Iranian Election Was "Stolen"

No, Pally.  YOU need to ask yourself why you have chosen to sacrifice your integrity to justify yet another US Color Coup to 'liberalize' yet another economy and subvert and channel yet another population's legitimate desire for freedom.   I wish I had never contributed to Znet, now that I read this kind of shilling and pap.   This is the most disgusting read in a long time.