Prêts pour une guerre contre l’Iran diabolisé?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

CIA Coup Attempt in Iran


1. Iran’s Election

2. CIA Coup in Iran

3. « Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday extended the tenure of Mossad chief Meir Dagan for an eighth year, a testament to the spymaster’s perceived success in waging shadow wars against Iran and its allies. »

4. Zionist tells Iranians: « Time to shift strategies »

Using the tactic of quoting unnamed sources, the

New York Times advises Iranians to go on national strike to damage their nation’s economy:

« …one question political analysts and opposition members were beginning to ask was if it was time to shift strategies, from street protests to some kind of national strike…. a strike would be immune to the heavy hand of the state and could wield leverage by crippling the already stumbling economy… »
–Zionist Michael Slackman, NY Times, June 22, 2009
Reply by Mr. Slackman:
Dear Mr. Hoffman …(T)here is no conspiracy. If you read the story carefully, you will see that Mr. Moussavi is directly quoted as calling for a strike if he is arrested. The analysts were wondering if that would be the case. Thank you, Michael Slackman
Rejoinder by Hoffman:
Dear Mr. Slackman: I did read « carefully » and you are either having a hallucination or your employer, the NY Times, altered your story after I exposed it. Nowherein your original article as it first appeared on the NY Times website* is there any quote attributed to Moussavi calling for a strike. Moreover, Moussavi said nothing about « crippling the Iranian economy. » That was your suggestion and you ought to take responsibility for it. Sincerely, Michael Hoffman


« Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani remains a formidable figure in Iranian politics with a network of well-placed allies straddling the reformist and moderate conservative camps. If any one leader is able to force a re-run of last Friday’s disputed poll, it may be the two-term former president nicknamed the « shark »…The super-rich Rafsanjani, his family, and his supporters in the reformist Kargozaran party make no bones about helping finance and direct Mir Hossein Mousavi’s campaign to topple Ahmadinejad, whom they despise. …Rafsanjani remains unpopular with many Iranians who believe the corruption claims (against him) and blame him for a murderous, covert campaign to silence dissidents at home and abroad during his 1989-97 presidency… »

The Guardian

« …crook, cynic, capitalist and Iran-Contra arms dealer, Hashem Rafsanjani. » –Richard Seymour

*Slackman’s article as it first appeared on the NY Times website:
TEHRAN — A bitter rift among Iran’s ruling clerics deepened Sunday over the disputed presidential election that has convulsed Tehran in the worst violence in 30 years, with the government trying to link the defiant loser to terrorists and detaining relatives of his powerful backer, a founder of the Islamic republic. The loser, Mir Hussein Moussavi, the moderate reform candidate who contends that the June 12 election was stolen from him, fired back at his accusers on Sunday night in a posting on his Web site, calling on his own supporters to demonstrate peacefully despite stern warnings from Iran’s top leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that no protests of the vote would be allowed. « Protesting to lies and fraud is your right, » Mr. Moussavi said in a challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei’s authority. Earlier, the police detained five relatives of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president who leads two influential councils and openly supported Mr. Moussavi’s election. The relatives, including Mr. Rafsanjani’s daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, were released after several hours. The developments, coming one day after protests here in the capital and elsewhere were crushed by police officers and militia members using guns, clubs, tear gas and water cannons, suggested that Ayatollah Khamenei was facing entrenched resistance among some members of the elite. Though rivalries have been part of Iranian politics since the 1979 revolution, analysts said that open factional competition amid a major political crisis could hinder Ayatollah Khamenei’s ability to restore order. There was no verifiable accounting of the death toll from the mayhem on Saturday, partly because the government has imposed severe restrictions on news coverage and warned foreign reporters who remained in the country to stay off the streets. It also ordered the BBC’s longtime correspondent in Tehran expelled and ordered Newsweek’s correspondent detained. State television said that 10 people had died in clashes, while radio reports said 19. The news agency ISNA said 457 people had been arrested. Vowing not to have a repeat of Saturday, the government on Sunday saturated major streets and squares of Tehran with police and Basij militia forces. There were reports of scattered confrontations but no confirmation of any new injuries by evening. But as they had on previous nights, many residents of Tehran clambered to their rooftops and could be heard shouting « Death to the dictator! » and « God is great, » their rallying cries since the crisis began. It was unclear whether protests, which began after the government declared that the conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had won re-election in a landslide against Mr. Moussavi, would be sustained in the face of the clampdown. Amateur video accounts showed at least one large protest gathering, on Shirazi Street, though it was unclear how long it lasted. But in the network of Internet postings and Twitter messages that has become the opposition’s major tool for organizing and sharing information, a powerful and vivid new image emerged: a video posted on several Web sites that showed a young woman, called Neda, her face covered in blood. Text posted with the video said she had been shot. It was not possible to verify the authenticity of the video. The Web site of another reformist candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, referred to her as a martyr who did not « have a weapon in her soft hands or a grenade in her pocket but became a victim by thugs who are supported by a horrifying security apparatus. » Accounts of the election’s aftermath in the state-run press suggested that the government might be laying the groundwork for discrediting and arresting Mr. Moussavi. IRNA, the official news agency, quoted Alireza Zahedi, a member of the Basij militia, as saying Mr. Moussavi had provoked the violence, sought help from outside the country to do so and should be put on trial. The Fars news agency quoted a Tehran University law professor as saying that Mr. Moussavi had acted against « the security of the nation. » State television suggested that at least some of the unrest was instigated by an outlawed terrorist group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, which does not have a strong following in Iran. Mr. Moussavi was not seen in public on Sunday but showed no sign of yielding. In his Web posting, he urged followers to « avoid violence in your protest and behave as though you are the parents that have to tolerate your children’s misbehavior at the security forces. » He also warned the government to « avoid mass arrests, which will only create distance between society and the security forces. » The moves against members of Mr. Rafsanjani’s family were seen as an attempt to pressure him to drop his challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei — pressure that Mr. Rafsanjani’s son, Mehdi Rafsanjani, said he would reject. « My father was in jail for five years when we were young. We don’t care if they keep her even for a year, » Mehdi Rafsanjani said in an interview, referring to his sister, Ms. Hashemi. Mr. Rafsanjani was deeply critical of Mr. Ahmadinejad during the presidential campaign, and is thought to have had a strained relationship with Ayatollah Khamenei for many years. But he remains a major establishment figure, and the detention of his daughter, albeit briefly, was a surprise. In Ayatollah Khamenei’s sermon on Friday, in which he backed Mr. Ahmadinejad and threatened a crackdown on further protests, he praised Mr. Rafsanjani as a pillar of the revolution while acknowledging that the two have had « many differences of opinion. » Last week, state television showed images of Ms. Hashemi, 46, speaking to hundreds of people to rally support for Mr. Moussavi. After her appearance, state radio said, students who support Mr. Ahmadinejad gathered outside the Tehran prosecutor’s office and demanded that she be arrested for treason. Mr. Rafsanjani, 75, heads two powerful institutions. One, the Assembly of Experts, is a body of clerics that has the authority to oversee and theoretically replace the country’s supreme leader. He also runs the Expediency Council, empowered to settle disagreements between the elected Parliament and the unelected Guardian Council. The Assembly of Experts has never publicly exercised its power over Ayatollah Khamenei since he succeeded the Islamic Revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in 1989. But the increasingly bitter confrontation between Ayatollah Khamenei and Mr. Rafsanjani has raised the prospect of a contest of political wills between the two revolutionary veterans. In a sign that the crisis in Iran threatened to spill far beyond the nation’s borders, the speaker of Parliament, Ali Larijani, on Sunday called for reconsidering relations with Britain, France and Germany after their « shameful » statements about the election. State radio reported that Mr. Larijani, who has his own aspirations to one day become president, made his comments in a speech to the full Parliament. Mr. Larijani’s position, which reflects the anti-Western orientation of the hard-liners in charge, could further undermine President Obama’s efforts to reach out to Iran and begin a diplomatic dialogue. The United States severed ties with Iran 30 years ago. In Washington, Mr. Obama resisted pressure from Republicans who have called his response to the Iranian crackdown too timid. On Saturday, Mr. Obama stepped up his criticism of Iran’s government, calling it « violent and unjust, » and said that the world was watching its behavior. Mr. Obama has argued that a more aggressive White House stance against the Iranian government crackdown would be used by Tehran as anti-American propaganda. « The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States, » Mr. Obama said in an interview with Harry Smith of CBS News broadcast Friday. « We shouldn’t be playing into that. » In an interview broadcast Sunday on Iranian television, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said that officials were examining the charge of voting fraud and expected to issue their findings by the end of the week. But like Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Mottaki appeared to have already judged the vote as clean and fair. He said the « possibility of organized and comprehensive disruption and irregularities in the election is almost close to zero, » according to Iran’s English-language Press TV. At the same time, serious new questions about the vote’s integrity were raised outside of Iran. Chatham House, a London-based research organization, released a study done with the University of St. Andrews challenging the Iranian government’s declared results, based on a comparison with the 2005 elections as well as Iran’s own census data. The study showed, for example, that in two provinces where Mr. Ahmadinejad won a week ago, a turnout of more than 100 percent was recorded. The study also showed that in a third of all provinces, the official results, if true, would have required that Mr. Ahmadinejad win not only all conservative voters and all former centrist voters and all new voters, but up to 44 percent of formerly reformist voters. With the police on the streets demonstrating a willingness to injure and even kill, one question political analysts and opposition members were beginning to ask was whether it was time to shift strategies, from street protests to some kind of national strike. It was unclear if the opposition had the support or organization, especially within the middle class, to carry out such a measure, but a strike would be immune to the heavy hand of the state and could wield leverage by crippling the already stumbling economy, analysts said.

1953: The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets paulcraigroberts3 Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran?

By Paul Craig Roberts

This powerful article by Paul Craig Roberts shows (once more) how America and the Western world are being manipulated by the Zionist dominated media and government influence. War with Iran is at the top of the agenda of Israel and Jewish extremist power around the world. They are using every trick in the book to create another catastrophic war in much the same pattern that the Jewish extremists in the American government manufactured the war in Iraq out of sheer lies and disinformation. Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. –David Duke

How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina, or any other country, get from the US media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France, and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan, or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the US media.

The US media’s demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The President of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran’s rulers, the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded “revolution.”

Iranians have a bitter experience with the United States government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the US government. The US government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The US “superpower” has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the US puppet government and held hostage US embassy personnel, regarded as “a den of spies,” while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America’s complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled US corporate media, a Ministry of Propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with non-stop reports of violent Iranians protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even thought there is no evidence whatsoever. The US media’s response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush/Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. The discredited British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, expressed his serious doubt about Ahmadinejad’s victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington’s instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the US Government.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand “more transparency” on the elections.

Even the American left-wing has endorsed the US government’s propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about “the illegitimate election,” terming it “a coup d’etat.”

What is the source of the information for the US media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

However, there is hard evidence to the contrary. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi “by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award.”

You can find their report here.

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

“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 Mousavi, 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, Mousavi 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 Mousavi.

“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 Mousavi 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.”

There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower’s ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government’s inherent immorality.

Pakistan’s former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. “The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election.”

The success of the US government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the US media treating it as an indication of US omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of US interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mir Hossein Mousavi is a bought and paid for operative of the US government.

We know for a fact that the US government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the US and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither myself nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country was under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the US and Israel, would you desert your country’s best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the US and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure, and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The US government is taking advantage of these westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington’s psychological warfare and declared : “Iran election result makes Obama’s outreach efforts harder.” What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for “diplomatic failure,” leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the US government, I believe that the purpose of the US 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 US government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the US government is creating another “oppressed people,” like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on US television.

There is no end of “experts” to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

“If they’d been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent,” Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government’s assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote, “is not credible.”

“I think,” continued Sick, “it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored.”

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

Internet freedom for Iran but not for the West?

Tags: Anderson Cooper, Christiane Amanpour, Doug Christie, Ernst Zündel, Fredrick Toben, Internet gate-keepers, Iranian elections, Israeli closed military zonesInternet freedom for Iran but not for the West? U.S. Media’s self-congratulatory campaign for Internet freedom in Iran turns a blind eye to Australia, Canada, Britain and Israeli “closed military zones” By Michael Hoffman It’s embarrassing. The media’s orgy of self-congratulation, that is. Each night on national news shows, foreign correspondents have appeared on screen to breathlessly pledge their undying commitment to reporting the demonstrations in Iran while insisting that the Iranian government must allow for full press and Internet freedoms. Our gorge rises in the face of this nauseating hypocrisy from these pompous gate-keepers. Canada and Australia are sending dissidents to prison for daring to use the Internet to question Holocaustianity, the West’s sacred cow. In Australia, PhD. philosopher Frederick Toben is facing several months in prison for defying the government and publishing his scientific and technical data about Auschwitz on the Internet. In Canada, defense attorney Doug Christie can reel off numerous cases of fines and prosecution for skeptics and dissenters in that nation who used the Internet. In Britain a Catholic group faces prosecution for Internet throught crimes. Canadian resident Ernst Zündel, twice tried in Canadian courts for “Holocaust denial” fled to the U.S. for safe haven against criminal charges he used the Internet to publish revisionist documents on his Zundelsite web. The U.S. deported Mr. Zündel back to Canada where he was imprisoned for more than a year in solitary confinement. The Canadians then rendered him to Germany where he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. In occupied Palestine the Israelis regularly declare Jenin or Gaza “closed military zones” so they can butcher the indigenous people without the inconvenience of reporters and cameras. This horror occurred as recently as last January. The U.S. media routinely complies with this “closure” and apathetically sits by while Israeli atrocities are committed secretly and then denied publicly (a form of holocaust denial which is everywhere legal). If and when the American media report on the Zündel or Toben cases it is with a strong tenor of approval of their repression. In those cases control of the Internet is perceived as a necessary evil, in order to achieve a higher good. (more…) Are the Iranian Election Protests Another US Orchestrated ‘Colour Revolution’? By Paul Craig Roberts June 20, 2009 « Information Clearing House » — -A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events. The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the announcement of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick. As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians. There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs’ lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad’s attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs. Commentators are « explaining » the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad’s win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government. On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.” On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.” A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger 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.” On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.” The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this. Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests. Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.” Timmerman’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.” Halt Cheney’s And Now Obama’s Covert Iran Operations by Allen L Roland (Oped News) In March of 2002 Dick Cheney appointed his own daughter Elizabeth to head a shadow operation (ISOG) whose covert purpose was to fund dissident groups in Iran ~ money which may have been used to fund and arm terrorists. Obama has now evidently picked up where the Cheneys left off : Allen L Roland If you have any doubt that a shadow Cheney presidency existed during the last eight years that cast its evil over everything from the 9/11cover-up to Quantanamo ~ then picture Dick Cheney appointing his own daughter in 2002 to head up a secretive organization in Iran whose purpose was to fund terrorists ~ and which reported directly to Darth Vader himself, Dick Cheney. And why would Cheney appoint his own daughter ? Because she was the only person he could trust on his self-declared journey to the dark side for she certainly would not testify against him. They both are now neck deep in deception and lies which is why they are openly defending their actions together on the mainstream TV circuit. On April 11, 2006 I posted a column entitled CHENEY’S SECRET IRAN OPERATING GROUP ~ in which I summarized How the Office of Special Plans ( OSP ) fed tainted intelligence directly to Dick Cheney in the run up to the war with Iraq with the objective of regime change. How also the Iran-Syria Operations Group (ISOG), was set up by Dick Cheney’s daughter with the same objective of regime change in Iran ~ with a direct line to Dick Cheney. How the real objective of OSP was to justify a war with Iraq which was most likely the case with ISOG ~ to promote a war or regime change with Iran. There can no longer be any doubts as to who was running this country and who George W Bush answered to. I included an article from The American Progress Report which stated ~  » The State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs is disgruntled by the Bush team’s efforts to run its own Iran shop and skirt the traditional bureaucracy. The administration’s pre-Iraq war creations of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) may suggest one possible answer for why the administration feels the need to set up a secretive Iran operating group. OSP was created to cull intelligence to make the strongest possible case for war with Iraq, while WHIG helped market the war based on the selective intelligence the administration collected. Cheney is operating with more than $75 million at her disposal to ostensibly promote democracy in Iran. » Now let’s fast forward to 2009 and ask this question ~ ISOG which was dedicated to regime change in Iran reDid Obama dismantle the notorious and secretive gardless of the methods or consequences ? Of course not, which explains Obama’s present silence regarding Iran , and Steve Weissman,TRUTHOUT, picks it up from there with his timely and perceptive article Iran: Who’s Diddling Democracy? Excerpt:  » Back in 2007, ABC News reported that President George W. Bush had signed a secret « Presidential finding » authorizing the CIA to mount covert « black » operations to destabilize the Iranian government … The plan had the strong backing of Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams. As ABC noted, Abrams had earlier pled guilty to withholding information from Congress about efforts to destabilize the Sandinista government in Nicaragua during the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s… The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh subsequently confirmed the story, reporting that the Presidential finding focused on « on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change. »  » Flash forward to the new presidency of Barack Obama. Did he and his CIA chief Leon Panetta cancel the destabilization program? Not that I can find. The tea leaves are murky, but they suggest that, so far at least, Team Obama remains wedded to the Bush-Cheney-Abrams destabilization of Iran…. According to Ken Timmerman, the executive director of the right-wing Foundation for Democracy in Iran ~ the Persian Service of Voice of America (VOA) clearly sided with the anti-Ahmadinejad candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi against those dissident groups who wanted to boycott the election entirely, the position Timmerman favored… Timmerman also saw the branding of Mousavi’s « green revolution » as evidence that the US government was using its National Endowment for Democracy to support the former prime minister Mousavi . « The National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting ‘color’ revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques, » Timmerman wrote on the right-wing « Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds. » Weissman concludes by writing ~  » Does my reading of the tea leaves prove conclusively that the Obama administration was hell-bent on regime change? Not conclusively, but all the evidence points in that direction, especially now that many extremely reputable scholars are suggesting that Ahmadinejad probably did win more than a majority of the votes cast… Ahmadinejad is a very bad guy, as I have recently written elsewhere. But our opposition to him does not justify meddling in another country’s election while proclaiming « universal democratic values. » So there you have it, Iran was in Cheney’s gunsights for some time and he and his daughter Elizabeth’s covert actions in Iran must be investigated ~ particularly in light of the current chaos in Iran and our part in covertly promoting it under the guise of Democracy. But more importantly, the Obama administration has evidently picked up where the Cheney’s left off ~ and it must be halted immediately. Allen L Roland

Iran Policy Committee: Pentagon mouthpiece, Israeli ally, MEK supporter

By John Stanton Online Journal Contributing Writer

May 21, 2005—The Iran Policy Committee (IPC) has a website up and running at*

The IPC made the news in February when it released a report titled « US Options for Iran. » In that report, the IPC recommended that a terrorist group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK) be removed from the US government’s hit list. The authors of the IPC report equate the terrorist MEK with the African National Congress that fought long and hard against the despicable all-white South African regime and its US supporters so many years ago. Of course, the implication here is that the MEK will somehow produce a Nelson Mandela, or at least is on the same playing field as Mandela’s group was.

Those two wacky thoughts should be enough to dismiss the 11 IPC principals, their mission and their clumsy report as nonsense. But inside the Washington Beltway, it’s never wise to dismiss ignorance until performing background checks on the individuals and their affiliations. The record shows that the IPC operates in very close proximity to the US intelligence community, has the support of 150 members in the US Congress, and is linked to individuals/groups who successfully lied and led the US into another Vietnam-like war, and whose primary purpose is the creation of a US empire that controls the world’s resources and protects a greater Israel. Crazy is selling these days and the loonies are in charge.

The IPC is supported by the neocon all-stars that we’ve come to know and love such as Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Michael Leeden, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et al. But these frontbenchers are running out of political muscle as their war in Iraq continues to drain the resources of the American people on political, economic and military fronts. What’s worse, perhaps, is their « with us or against us » mentality has caused new political and economic alliances to form (example: South America-China-Iran) and has accelerated both conventional and nuclear arms races. Having failed on so many fronts, they recognize that to get the US into Iran, some new faces are needed and that’s where the IPC backbenchers are critical to the forthcoming anti-Iranian/Persian propaganda operations.

The IPC is linked through its purpose and people to the Coalition for a Democratic Iran and the MEK, the Washington PAC, JINSA, AIPAC, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Center for Security Policy, and all the major US intelligence agencies. IPC members are primarily defense and security contractors/consultants and would benefit financially from a war with Iran.

FOX This!

Anyone who can tolerate FOX News—the electronic equivalent of Reverend Moon’s Washington Times—on a regular basis will recognize these IPC members: Lt.Gen. Tom McInerney, USAF (Ret.) formerly of the Business Executives for National Security and member of the Center for Security Policy; Major Gen. Paul Vallely, USA (Ret.); Capt. Chuck Nash, USN (Ret.); and Lt.Col. Bill Cowan, USMC (Ret.). These four folks are frequently seen and heard discussing military matters on FOX. Other IPC heavy hitters include Raymond Tanter, a former staffer at the National Security Council and current member of the Committee for the Present Danger and the Washington Center for Near East Policy; Clare Lopez a former CIA analyst; and Jim Atkins, former US President Richard Nixon’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who is known in some circles as « the westerner who knows the most about the Middle East . . . »

The military heavyweight of the IPC is McInerney. One of the highlights of McInerney’s military career, besides being a top-notch pilot in Vietnam, was assisting Alaska in the clean up of the oil spill caused by the Exxon Valdez when it ran aground in March of 1989. From April to September of that year, McInerney admirably headed the Joint Task Force Alaska Oil Spill while commander of the Alaskan Air Command (then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney argued for a minimalist DoD/federal government role). These days, though, McInerney is busy promoting the neocon cause and dabbling in a host of money-making and influence peddling activities.

You can find him—and fellow IPC cohorts Vallely, Cowan and Lopez—at conferences like Intelcon 2005** as speakers and members of the Intelcon’s Program Advisory Group (Michael Leeden, Frank Gaffney and Daniel Pipes are among them). Former directors of the NSA, CIA and DIA are featured panelists, along with more, yes more, FOX News commentators no doubt opining in conference as on the network with all the volume of an announcer at a Monster Truck bash. Yehoshuah Mizrachi of Operation Shiloh apparently spoke at Intelcon about handling terror like an Israeli (he equates the Battle of Shiloh from the US Civil War with 9–11). Finally, the conference program shows that the standard mix of defense contractors and US government bureaucrats round out Intelcon’s conferees, along with a few token liberals thrown in for what appears to be some sort of balance.

Read the rest here: Proof: Israeli Effort to Destabilize Iran Via Twitter Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran

 La réalité de classe et la propagande impériale Iran : le bobard de l’ « élection volée »

par James Petras | New York (États-Unis) | Focus | L’analyse des résultats de l’élection présidentielle iranienne, au vu des votes précédents et des sondages commandés sur place par les États-Unis, ne laisse pas de doute : Mahmoud Ahmadinejad est largement réélu. Ceci n’est guère surprenant, observe le professeur James Petras : le peuple a voté pour un national-populiste, tandis que seules les élites occidentalisées ont voté pour le candidat libéral, chouchou des médias occidentaux. Le même phénomène a déjà été observé dans d’autres pays.

Exemple de médias mensonge Publié le 19 juin 2009 Image

La BBC prise en flagrant délit de désinformation. La premier image est issue du los angeles times, elle montre un rassemblement pro Ahmadinejad. La BBC a retouché l’image et l’a présenté comme une manifestation pro Mousavi….



Téhéran dénonce la main de Londres 23 juin 2009 – 16:43

23 juin 2009 (LPAC) — Téhéran désigne désormais avec virulence les réseaux d’influence de l’Empire britannique, pris en flagrant délit en Iran, où ses agents s’efforçent de transformerles protestations légitimes contre les élections présidentielles du 12 juinen une« révolution »sanglante.

Après plusieurs jours de manifestations rassemblant les partisans du candidat Mir Hossein Moussavi, déclaré perdant dans ces élections au profit du Président sortant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, l’ayatollah Ali Khamenei, le guide suprême, s’est adressé le 19 juin à la nation lors de la prière du vendredi, pour appeler toutes les parties à la modération. L’opposition est sommé de mettre fin aux protestations et à se contenter d’un simple recours légal pour vérifier la légalité du scrutin.

Khamenei profite de l’occasion pour fustiger l’ennemi historique de l’Iran, la Grande-Bretagne, désigné comme le« plus grand des maux »de toutes les nations. Des agents de l’Empire, indiqua-t-il, comptent faire en Iran ce que les Britanniques (et le milliardaire George Soros, ajouterons-nous) ont fait en Géorgie, en Ukraine et dans d’autres pays, c’est-à-dire à mobiliser des jeunes en colère, par le biais d’internet et des plates-formes de socialisation, pour imposer un changement de régime.

Les jours suivant le discours de Khamenei ont justement vu émerger ce type de contestation. Alors que s’estompaient les grandes manifestations pacifiques, des bandes d’émeutiers violents sont apparues dans les rues de Téhéran. De petits groupes, réunissant jusqu’à cent personnes, commencèrent à brûler des voitures et des bus, et à s’en prendre aux postes de la milice Basij, un ensemble militaire de premier rang qui a juré de défendre l’ordre politique du régime.

Le dimanche 21 juin, le gouvernement iranien a dénoncé la manière dont Londres opère pour plonger le pays dans le chaos et la désintégration, en lançant l’attaque la plus directe et la plus détaillée contre l’Empire britannique faite par un responsable iranien.

Le ministre des Affaires étrangères, Manuchehr Motaki, lors d’un briefing au Ministère des Affaires étrangères devant les diplomates étrangers, a vertement accusé les Britanniques :

  1. Entraînement de terroristes pour monter des attentats sur le sol iranien ;
  2. Implication dans la déstabilisation en cours à la suite des élections ;
  3. Désinformation ;
  4. Ennemi historique de la nation, notamment pour avoir poussé les Etats-Unis à envahir l’Irak sous de faux prétextes et encouragé la production de drogue en Afghanistan dans les régions sous contrôle britannique.

La veille, le ministère iranien du Renseignement avait annoncé l’arrestation de plusieurs membres de l’Organisation des Moudjahidin du peuple iranien (OMPI), impliqués dans les récentes émeutes à Téhéran.

Selon des responsables de la sécurité cités sur le site internet de la chaîne de télévision iraniennePress TV,les membres arrêtés ont avoué avoir été spécialement entraînés dans le camp d’Ashraf en Irak, pour créer des troubles post-électoraux en Iran, et recevoir leurs ordres du poste de commande de l’OMPI à Londres.La télévision nationale iranienne a diffusé des conversations téléphoniques entre une femme à Londres et certains des émeutiers arrêtés, au cours desquelles elle indiquait où, comment et quand attaquer et brûler les cibles.

Quelques heures après les attaques de M. Motaki contre les Britanniques, les autorités iraniennes donnaient à John Leyne, correspondant de laBBC, 24 heures pour faire ses valises et quitter le pays.

Lundi, le porte-parole du ministère des Affaires étrangères, Hassan Qashqavi, a fermement condamné les Britanniques et leurs médias, les accusant de mener une insurrection et des opérations de guerre psychologique contre l’Iran.« Ils [la BBC et la Voice of America] sont les porte-voix de la diplomatie publique de leurs gouvernements. Ils suivent deux grandes lignes à l’égard de l’Iran : intensifier les divisions ethniques et raciales dans le pays, et faire éclater les territoires iraniens. »

En effet, la BBC gère la page d’accueil de son site internet consacré à l’Iran comme une véritable salle de guerre. Les émeutiers utilisent ce site pour se transmettre les coordonnées des émeutes prévues et recevoir des instructions sur les interventions à effectuer.

A lire :Les enjeux stratégique derrière l’élection présidentielle

La CIA et le laboratoire iranien, par Thierry Meyssan Publié le 18 juin 2009 Image

La nouvelle d’une possible fraude électorale s’est répandue à Téhéran comme une traînée de poudre et a poussé dans la rue les partisans de l’ayatollah Rafsanjani contre ceux de l’ayatollah Khamenei. Ce chaos est provoqué en sous-main par la CIA qui sème la confusion en inondant les Iraniens de messages SMS contradictoires. Thierry Meyssan relate cette expérience de guerre psychologique. En mars 2000, la secrétaire d’État Madeleine Albright a admis que l’administration Eisenhower avait organisé un changement de régime, en 1953, en Iran et que cet événement historique explique l’hostilité actuelle des Iraniens face aux États-Unis. La semaine dernière, lors de son discours du Caire adressé aux musulmans, le président Obama a officiellement reconnu qu’« en pleine Guerre froide, les États-Unis ont joué un rôle dans le renversement d’un …

Chavez félicite Ahmadinejad Publié le 17 juin 2009 Image

Le président du Venezuela Hugo Chavez a appelé au téléphone son homologue iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pour le féliciter de sa réélection, saluée comme la « victoire pour un monde nouveau », a annoncé samedi la présidence vénézuélienne dans un communiqué publié à Caracas. M. Chavez, figure de proue affichée contre l' »impérialisme » en Amérique latine, a souligné, lors de cet entretien, que cette victoire démontrait « l’engagement du peuple iranien pour la construction d’un monde nouveau », selon le communiqué. Il s’agit d' »une victoire très grande et importante pour les peuples qui luttent pour un monde meilleur », a estimé le président vénézuélien, qui a connu un fort regain de popularité au Moyen Orient pour avoir expulsé l’ambassadeur israélien à la suite de l’offensive sur Gaza…

Projecting deviance via cyberspace: US-Israeli cyber-warfare targeting Iran

© Unknown

Ramat Hasharon, Israel – In the late 1990s, a computer specialist from Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service hacked into the mainframe of the Pi Glilot fuel depot north of Tel Aviv. It was meant to be a routine test of safeguards at the strategic site. But it also tipped off the Israelis to the potential such hi-tech infiltrations offered for real sabotage. « Once inside the Pi Glilot system, we suddenly realised that, aside from accessing secret data, we could also set off deliberate explosions, just by programming a re-route of the pipelines, » said a veteran of the Shin Bet drill. » So began a cyberwarfare project which, a decade on, is seen by independent experts as the likely new vanguard of Israel’s efforts to foil the nuclear ambitions of its arch-foe Iran. The appeal of cyber attacks was boosted, Israeli sources say, by the limited feasibility of conventional air strikes on the distant and fortified Iranian atomic facilities, and by U.S. reluctance to countenance another open war in the Middle East. « We came to the conclusion that, for our purposes, a key Iranian vulnerability is in its on-line information, » said one recently retired Israeli security cabinet member, using a generic term for digital networks. « We have acted accordingly. » (Read the rest) [youtube=]

Kissinger threatens regime change in Iran if coup fails

Henry Kissinger, president Obama’s “special envoy to Russia”, on BBC Newsnight, 18 June 2009:
“I think regime change can be supported by the United States or can be wished for by the United States. I think when the United States attempts regime change by its own actions and becomes a principal party to the regime change, that it has usually backfired. I am sure that Americans [sic!] would favour the emergence from the present situation of a truly popularly based government and it is very appropriate for the president to make clear that that is what he favours. Now if it turns out that it is not possible for a government to emerge in Iran that can deal with itself as a nation rather than as a cause…, then we have a different situation, then we may conclude that we must work for regime change in Iran from the outside. But if I understand the president correctly, he does not want to do this as a visible [sic!] intervention in the current crisis.“
As to the relevance of Kiss “Dr. Death” aka “”Dr. Strangelove, East” (a Harvard class-mate of Zbig Brzezinski, another of Obama’s “senior advisors”): Council on Foreign Relations, Essential Documents Remarks by National Security Adviser James L. Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy, Hotel Bayerischer Hof, 8 February 2009:

“Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.”

This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.