Iran News and Discussions

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jun 2009 22:04

Guys:

As I mentioned before, India doesn't have a dog in this fight, but what interests me once again, is the manner in which US media is in synch with US govt and the phony show of neutrality they put out. I was launging my butt listening to a so called 'debate' on NPR, as usual between a republican mouthpiece and a deomcrat mouthpie. The debate was about USA's 'neutral' stand. The rep was saying they should be on the side of the people, while the dem was saying they are despite public pronouncement; and the overwhelming consensus, unchallenged by the news reporter was that US is this passive observer. And left unsaid is how much CIA and other subversive were working overtime supporiting the opposition. This is quintessential USA in operation. What is up for debate is some silly little issue beaten to death by respective mouthpieces, while the system takes care of the supreme national interests. Contrast this with DDM and govt of India.

Omar · Post by **Omar** » 21 Jun 2009 22:13

And left unsaid is how much CIA and other subversive were working overtime supporiting the opposition.

So US State Department telling Twitter to postpone their schedule maintenence to continue receiving live feeds from Iranian protestors is working overtime?

But seriously, the State Department and CIA could be doing a lot more such as developing contacts w/in Revolutionary Guards who are sympathetic to US, etc. We probably won't know about that sort of thing until someone publishes a memoire after retirement.

Link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10266360-36.html

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 21 Jun 2009 22:47

Omar:

Indeed, 20 yeears from now, "recently released documents" will show US role in "promoting democracy" in Iran. Of course, now the drumbeat is that US is neutral and a passive observer

.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 22 Jun 2009 05:13

CRamS wrote:Guys:

As I mentioned before, India doesn't have a dog in this fight, but what interests me once again, is the manner in which US media is in synch with US govt and the phony show of neutrality they put out. I was launging my butt listening to a so called 'debate' on NPR, as usual between a republican mouthpiece and a deomcrat mouthpie. The debate was about USA's 'neutral' stand. The rep was saying they should be on the side of the people, while the dem was saying they are despite public pronouncement; and the overwhelming consensus, unchallenged by the news reporter was that US is this passive observer. And left unsaid is how much CIA and other subversive were working overtime supporiting the opposition. This is quintessential USA in operation. What is up for debate is some silly little issue beaten to death by respective mouthpieces, while the system takes care of the supreme national interests. Contrast this with DDM and govt of India.

Certainly it's in India's interests to see the Ayatallah thugocracy overthrown, although we shouldn't get involved directly, since we need good relations with whoever is in charge of Iran.
But would India benefit from the ouster of the mullahs? You bet it would.

Pakistan's whole claim to strategic leverage is due to its monopoly on transit into Afghanistan and Central Asia. If Iran were to become pro-Western again, then it would be an ideal route for the West into the region. Pakistan's strategic leverage would be badly compromised.

Anybody who doesn't see that isn't in tune with our national interests.

I for one am not interested in seeing Pakistan's strategic monopoly continue, if it can be removed.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 22 Jun 2009 07:07

An elementary appraisal of history will show that India had far worse relations with the Shah's pro-Western Iran than the post-revolution IRI. From providing a safe harbour to Pakistani subs after operations against the IN, to serving as a conduit for "embargoed" American munitions and F-104 Starfighters to the Pakistanis during 1971... the Shah and the TSPA were thick as thieves.

Our relationship with Iran vastly improved after the '79 revolution; they needed all the friends they could get and were not about to rely on the Pakis. We collaborated with the Teheran regime against the Taliban, and have a solid trade relationship with them. The very fact of our investing in building an Afghan highway through Zaranj-Delaram and a port at Chahbahar evinces a behind-the-scenes Kabul/Teheran/New Delhi strategic understanding of no small import.

Having a pro-Western Iran didn't make the US any less supportive of their client state of Pakistan before, and it won't today. Pakistan has more strategic utility to Washington than a pro-Western Iran could replace in itself... and that goes beyond whatever may be happening in Afghanistan right now. On the contrary, having an implacably anti-Western Iran closer to Russia and China serves our long-term strategic purposes much better. In such a situation, India capitalizes on an enhanced capacity to swing the strategic equation by playing both sides.

It is certainly preferable from the Indian point of view that the Imams continue to rule in Teheran.

ChandraS · Post by **ChandraS** » 22 Jun 2009 07:07

Sanjay M wrote: Certainly it's in India's interests to see the Ayatallah thugocracy overthrown, although we shouldn't get involved directly, since we need good relations with whoever is in charge of Iran.
But would India benefit from the ouster of the mullahs? You bet it would.

Pakistan's whole claim to strategic leverage is due to its monopoly on transit into Afghanistan and Central Asia. If Iran were to become pro-Western again, then it would be an ideal route for the West into the region. Pakistan's strategic leverage would be badly compromised.

Anybody who doesn't see that isn't in tune with our national interests.

I for one am not interested in seeing Pakistan's strategic monopoly continue, if it can be removed.

I don't have a personal opinion on the mullahcracy in Iran. But I do not agree with your assertion that it is in India's interest to overthrow the current dispensation, no matter how covertly we may do it. Pakistan's strategic leverage will not end with Iran becoming pro-West. It will only be redefined/restructured to solely be the cat's paw for the three and half friends of Pakistan against us. They will readily accept it since it's their raison d'etre anyways. This certainly will not be in our interests. As long as Pakistan (or even the idea of Pakistan) exists, they will have strategic leverage for use against us in the Great Game. For our interests to be served, Pakistan has to cease to exist physically and mentally. The resulting states can be leveraged by us to be in our circle of influence keeping them in congruence with our interests.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Jun 2009 07:15

Ayatollahs should learn lessons from history

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Jun 2009 07:25

CRamS: BingO !!! Watching US TV or reading some of the news makes one pity the aam admi of USA. Except discerning citizens, others have really no chance with the way media is run here. Be it Brzezinski or Wolfowitz all talk about how Obama is handling the issue. They all pretend they don't want to interfere in Iran; but it makes creepy TV because they know more than us and yet go about discussing totally stoopid issues. This is real time drama. Also several of them have taken their own kool-aid.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 22 Jun 2009 15:20

Rudradev wrote:An elementary appraisal of history will show that India had far worse relations with the Shah's pro-Western Iran than the post-revolution IRI. From providing a safe harbour to Pakistani subs after operations against the IN, to serving as a conduit for "embargoed" American munitions and F-104 Starfighters to the Pakistanis during 1971... the Shah and the TSPA were thick as thieves.

I'm well aware of this history, and yet an elementary analysis will reveal that India's security situation was far better pre-1979 than post-1979, and that this is highly correlated to Iran.

Once Iran left the American orbit, then Pakistan was the only game in town for the Americans.
And you can see what the results of that were. Pakistan was pumped up with military aid, it nuclearized, and was able to pursue rampant terrorism against India. An elementary analysis would tell you that the removal of the Shah and his pro-Pak tilt was not a good trade-off for India, considering the liabilities we suffered in return.

Our relationship with Iran vastly improved after the '79 revolution; they needed all the friends they could get and were not about to rely on the Pakis. We collaborated with the Teheran regime against the Taliban, and have a solid trade relationship with them. The very fact of our investing in building an Afghan highway through Zaranj-Delaram and a port at Chahbahar evinces a behind-the-scenes Kabul/Teheran/New Delhi strategic understanding of no small import.

Who the hell cares how much the mullahs love us, when the mullahs themselves are not loved anywhere? What the hell did we gain from the friendship of these scoundrels? Again, look at the major problems that have occurred for us due to the resultant leverage bestowed upon Pakistan through its transit monopoly into CentralAsia?

Having a pro-Western Iran didn't make the US any less supportive of their client state of Pakistan before, and it won't today. Pakistan has more strategic utility to Washington than a pro-Western Iran could replace in itself... and that goes beyond whatever may be happening in Afghanistan right now. On the contrary, having an implacably anti-Western Iran closer to Russia and China serves our long-term strategic purposes much better. In such a situation, India capitalizes on an enhanced capacity to swing the strategic equation by playing both sides.

It is certainly preferable from the Indian point of view that the Imams continue to rule in Teheran.

It is certainly preferable from the Indian point of view that the mullahs be thrown out. Neither do their people benefit from these autocrats, nor do we. You want us to be gladdened that the mullahs can help us to counter the boosted strategic leverage of a Pakistan that was boosted by the very 1979 revolution that brought those mullahs to power?? What kind of twisted logic is this? "I've found a horseshoe, now let me go buy a horse to go with it"

The removal of the mullahs from Tehran will restore its ties with the wider world back to normalcy, and may even help to increase the momentum for democracy across the entire Middle East. That in turn would increase liberalization and openness, and help to de-Islamize their arrested cultural development, which is frozen in the Dark Ages.

The main benefit would be an Iran that the West could rely upon as a transit route to access the landlocked Central Asian region, including even right upto China's borders. We would benefit from this immensely more than your limited myopic gridlocked solution.

The regressive ideology of the Ayatollahs must be defeated.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 22 Jun 2009 15:32

ChandraS wrote:I don't have a personal opinion on the mullahcracy in Iran. But I do not agree with your assertion that it is in India's interest to overthrow the current dispensation, no matter how covertly we may do it. Pakistan's strategic leverage will not end with Iran becoming pro-West. It will only be redefined/restructured to solely be the cat's paw for the three and half friends of Pakistan against us. They will readily accept it since it's their raison d'etre anyways. This certainly will not be in our interests. As long as Pakistan (or even the idea of Pakistan) exists, they will have strategic leverage for use against us in the Great Game. For our interests to be served, Pakistan has to cease to exist physically and mentally. The resulting states can be leveraged by us to be in our circle of influence keeping them in congruence with our interests.

I don't say that India should take the lead in opposing the Ayatollah regime, since we aren't a very strong country, despite our pretensions to "shooparpawardum". We seem to excel more in putting on airs and portraying our weaknesses as great successes, than in actually projecting power and influence effectively.

Pakistan's reckless ambitions against India make it problematic for the West. Pakistan's simultaneous pursuit of nuclearization and Talibanization send shivers up Western spines, and Pakistan's burgeoning friendship with China also frightens the West. There was a reason why Zia's plane got exploded, and it wasn't because he was reluctant to help contain India.

Ayatollahized Iran is more of a hindrance than a help to us in containing Pakistan, because it is the internationally antagonistic outlook of the Ayatollahs themselves which has helped to bestow a windfall upon Pakistan. When the Pied Piper is the one who brought the rats to town in the first place, then you shouldn't feel gratitude to him for helping you contain the rats.

If Iran's Ayatollahs are stripped of political power, then India's fortunes will rise, even as Pakistan's fortunes sink.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jun 2009 16:14

The equations in Tehran which are of interest to India, are not only pro-US or anti-US, but also pro-India or pro-PRC.

If Iran feels too much pressure from the West, than Iran tends to get cozy with the only other superpower (PRC) that can stand up to the West, (but usually doesn't, if it is not in their vital interest). This little strategic competition as projected in the media between Washington and Beijing comes in really handy for Beijing to get partners in all the places where Washington begins to pee, Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, North Korea and even in Pakistan, which likes to play both sides of the game, which too is all one-sided, considering that Washington and Beijing often do things in cahoots.

So we want Iran to normalize relations with USA, but does not succumb to American diktat. Normal relations between Iran and USA would mean, that Iran does not need to run to China for everything, and secondly India, which has started to become overly considerate and accommodating of American strategic interests, can take the relations with Iran to their full potential.

It was good when Khatami was the front face of Iran. India could have good relations with him, and there was no danger that the 'reformist' forces in Iran would succumb to American overlordship because the Iranian conservative establishment ensured that that does not happen. That is what we want. We want an Iranian face for whom we do not need to be embarrassed of when dealing with them. Ahmadinejad went too far in his denials of the Holocaust, and wiping off Israel off the map of the world. We want an Iranian face somewhat less provocative towards Israel.

Moussavi in that sense would be India's preferred choice. He would not need to look for legitimacy and security in the arms of Moscow and Beijing. But if his ascent is not possible, then we should accord Ahmadinejad full respects.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 22 Jun 2009 16:31

I don't know what American diktat you don't want Iran to succumb to.

Abandonment of its nuclear weapons program? I don't see how that harms us. I for one don't like more Islamic missiles that could be pointed at us one day.

Transit route into Central Asia? I think that will make the US far less dependent upon Pakistan, and will shrivel up Pakistan's strategic leverage with the US. Central Asia would be opened up wide, even right upto China's borders.

Iranian support for more democracy in the Middle East? I don't see how India will be harmed by that, since these religious police states are what keep sectarian nationalism on the boil over there. Pak only thrives off that indirectly, obtaining support from others there.

What diktat do you think an American puppet in Iran would pursue against us? F104 Starfighters? Iran and Pak would be natural rivals for influence with post-Soviet CARs, and not allies. China's influence in CentralAsia would be radically reduced.

In the post-Soviet world, your fears about a pro-Western Iran are just a mirage. Vast resources would be opened up to us all from Central Asia, and this would help in our economic growth. Once CentralAsia is opened up to the West, then there would be more competition between the West and China over that region. There would be less deference shown by the West to China.

I don't see where your fears are.

The only thing that I might be concerned about, is that Beijing and Moscow would be forced into tighter cooperation, in order to thwart Western designs on CentralAsia.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Jun 2009 16:59

@Sanjay M ji,

It is not a question of fears, but rather a question of the right-mix of conservative-reformist power in Iran, so that India's freedom to exert influence is maximized.

We need a strong Shiite power in the Middle East to counter the gathering storm of Salafism. What we do not need is another power trying to contest for the supremacy of Islam by supporting all sorts of quasi-Islamic causes. Both Shia and Sunni Islam will either come out together out of the darkness, if at all or the other will take over all of Islam.

As and when the schism between Shia and Sunni widens, partially because of the Salafist takeover of the Pakistan, India would need a strong Shiite power to impress on the Shiites of Pakistan to fight back. India cannot do that, because we are Qufr.

Nuclear proliferation is of course not desired by established nuclear weapon powers like India, but a Shiite nuclear weapon would first and foremost be directed against the Sunnis, then the Israelis, then the West, then the Russians and only then India or PRC. So I would like to know, why it is okay to tolerate Pakistani nuclear weapons, that too sponsored by PRC, and not to accept a Shiite counterfoil to that.

The Iranian Mullahs have not done India any major harm, so I don't know what you have against them. In fact should our relations with Iran be the best possible, the whole of Central Asia becomes our playing field. Any access through Pakistan and Afghanistan is simply not viable, considering the amount of Jihadism and anti-Indian feelings amongst the Pakis and the residents of AfPak.

It will be best if America is thrown out of this region completely. Any presence of America in this region means more dollars in the pockets of those in Pakistan who wish ill of us. It is one thing that Indians have started to feel an ideological pull from the much pronounced American values. It is quite another thing, that we are on the same page as far as our strategic interests go. We should never mix up the two.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Jun 2009 18:15

Iran is no longer going to be pro-west. What the younger Iranians are looking for is a greater freedom to pursue modern "happinesses". They will remain strongly nationalistic and in fact any overthrow of the Ayatollahs will lead to a stronger nationalistic reconstruction of the foundational values of Iran as a replacement for the "binder" of Ayatollahaic Islamic authority.

The Islamic clergy already senses the change on the mood of the younger generations and they have begun to hedge their bets as Islamic theologians always do historically. They try to dissociate in factions away from established but doomed or unpopular Islamic regimes so that the theologians ultimate hold on the population does not come under attack. In time they will grow back again in military and political power if they manage to survive with their ideological "sanctity" undamaged.

The pvotal changing years in Iranian history in the modern period have been 1919 (post WWI British+US penetration and disruption of Ahmad Sha's hold - leading to the Pahlavi coup in 21-25), 1949 - the post WWII start of the replacemnet by a younger Pahlavi more likely to be open to western manipulation - leading to the upheaval of 51-53, 1979 - the Iranian "revolution" led again by "modernizers" and "leftists" giving vent to popular generational anger aaginst the Shah's regime and its western counterparts but taken over by the Ayatollahs because of their wider support base in the countryside and among rural populations. This was followed by the typical period of crisis from 1981-1983 when Iran won the psychological warfare with USA with perhaps secret Reagan help but forced to compromise and get mauled by Iraq. This 30 year generational cycle comes back in 2009. So the processes that started post WWI will start unravelling in the next 30 years.

India should cultivate "nationalism" in Iran, and be firmly on the side of democracy. Look for future populations who are going to increasingly take over the country and not bank calculations solely on the current short term adhoc approach so typical of the Congress type of politics. The US influence in that region is on the wane. Do we want Russia and China to step in completely and fill in the blanks? A cautious but firm ideological commitment tos ee democracy in Iran cannot harm Indian interests. It hold out hopes to the future generations, It does not immediately threaten the Ayatollahs. But be very very careful about being seen by the Iranians to be dealing with the "devil" - that is something that will be remembered.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 22 Jun 2009 19:59

SwamyG wrote:CRamS: BingO !!! Watching US TV or reading some of the news makes one pity the aam admi of USA. Except discerning citizens, others have really no chance with the way media is run here.

Why does one have to pity the aam admi in US? A casual look around the country, especially the middle class and upper; you see only happy faces; the malls are full, the bars/restaurants/nightclubs are full, sports events are in full throttle, socialist engineering through massive govt-aided stimulus money is kicking in (of course, that won't stop state dept from lecturing to India on removing subsidies etc

); and I can bet you, you can count on your fingers the # of aam admi who a) have an interest in Iran, and b) even fewer who can talk intelligently. But this is precisely my point, why should the aam admi care 2 hoots when he is well taken care of? The only thing he hears is some feel good, "we are supporting democracy & freedom" crap.

Guys: I have noticed one things. All the expatriate Iranians the moutpiece media put out, sound like Iranian versions of Pankaj Mishra, A'Rou, Dhuppata etc. US would love those clowns in drivers seat. Once again, my sampling may be unscientific, but many of the Iranians I see in US are the TFTA variety. Thats why I say India has no dog in the Iran fight except to sit back and watch like me, and see the US side of the subterfuge play out.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Jun 2009 20:45

Pity is one of the natural emotions when one sees people being deceived. Be it domestic or foreign issues. For any "adventure" there needs to be public support, and media is shaping lots of the thoughts. Like you said when the public is well-fed mentally and physically (with credit cards and national debt) you still need to convince them constantly how great the country is and how other countries do not have 'democracy'. When aam admi feels the country is doing the 'righteous' things, then he will not get down to the streets to protest 'adventures'; he will go about looking at the Brackets and Spring/Fall trainings.

Looks like we both think there is the "foreign hand", like you said it will take 20 years for some confession

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 22 Jun 2009 22:09

Sanjay M wrote:Rudradev wrote:
An elementary appraisal of history will show that India had far worse relations with the Shah's pro-Western Iran than the post-revolution IRI. From providing a safe harbour to Pakistani subs after operations against the IN, to serving as a conduit for "embargoed" American munitions and F-104 Starfighters to the Pakistanis during 1971... the Shah and the TSPA were thick as thieves.

I'm well aware of this history, and yet an elementary analysis will reveal that India's security situation was far better pre-1979 than post-1979, and that this is highly correlated to Iran.

Once Iran left the American orbit, then Pakistan was the only game in town for the Americans.
And you can see what the results of that were. Pakistan was pumped up with military aid, it nuclearized, and was able to pursue rampant terrorism against India. An elementary analysis would tell you that the removal of the Shah and his pro-Pak tilt was not a good trade-off for India, considering the liabilities we suffered in return.

Sorry, this is completely specious. You claim India's security situation was "better pre 1979", by what yardsticks exactly? And then you peddle this as "highly correlated" to Iran. "Correlation", even if you can establish it exists (which you haven't), does not imply causation.

You seem to hear the squawking heads on American news channels justify their relentless patronage of Pakistan by describing it as "the only game in town", and regurgitate that tripe here as if it actually meant a damn thing. In fact, the US has backed Pakistan regardless of whether Iran was on its side or not. It would be thoroughly numbskulled to imagine that just because Washington had a compliant Iran, they would abandon a rentier Pakistan that serves some overlapping but many unique strategic interests.

What evidence have you, that Pakistan wouldn't have been allowed to build up militarily, or nuclearize, had the Islamic Revolution not taken Iran out of the American orbit? Pakistan was geographically and culturally a far superior staging area for the anti-Soviet Mujahedin than Iran could have possibly been. It had a sizeable Pathan population, and was far more amenable to the radical Sunni Islamization (fueled by Saudi money) than Iran would ever have been.

There is no reason to believe that the Zia government received such favors from the Americans only because Iran had been taken over by the Imams. One might as well blame the Soviets for invading Afghanistan. Both amount to citing circumstances so as to absolve the real culprit.

The truth is that the Americans support Pakistan because Pakistan is their client, and the Americans have always supported Pakistan knowing fully well of Pakistan's hostile intentions towards India; a hundred circumstances have changed, but this American policy has not. If you ascribe it to this "Pakistan is the only game in town" cr@p you're simply swallowing yet another American excuse for financing and shoring up the most rabid security threat India faces.

As for Pakistan's "nuclearization", the Shah's regime certainly funded a good part of the Pakistani nuclear program during its early years, and may well have continued to do so. That at least stopped when the Islamic revolution took place. The Shah provided Pakistan with much-desired "strategic depth", including critical naval basing rights for their submarines when India had Karachi blockaded. Today it is India which is constructing a port at Chahbahar.

So these far-fetched claims that India suffered "liabilities" as a consequence of the Iranian revolution do not withstand analysis of a more rigorous sort than the squawking heads on FAUX news could supply.

Sanjay M wrote:Quote:
Our relationship with Iran vastly improved after the '79 revolution; they needed all the friends they could get and were not about to rely on the Pakis. We collaborated with the Teheran regime against the Taliban, and have a solid trade relationship with them. The very fact of our investing in building an Afghan highway through Zaranj-Delaram and a port at Chahbahar evinces a behind-the-scenes Kabul/Teheran/New Delhi strategic understanding of no small import.

Who the hell cares how much the mullahs love us, when the mullahs themselves are not loved anywhere? What the hell did we gain from the friendship of these scoundrels? Again, look at the major problems that have occurred for us due to the resultant leverage bestowed upon Pakistan through its transit monopoly into CentralAsia?

How much the mullahs "LOVE" us? I haven't based any of my arguments on a sentimental appeal for supporting the Mullahs out of "love". So it's unfortunate that you have to raise a strawman and pretend I did.

On the contrary, I've mentioned the Zaranj-Delaram highway and the Chahbahar port. Did we have such leverage in the Persian gulf, or such a capacity to outflank Pakistan when the Shah ruled in Iran? Why would we expect to have it when another US-friendly regime took office in Teheran? The fact of Iran's Imams needing all the friends they can get is not a sentimental question, it makes for a stronger bargaining position for India. It's the reason why it's easier for us to get more out of them than we could from a US-supported regime.

You ask what we gain from the friendship of the Iranians. Naval (and possibly air) facilities in the Persian gulf on the far side of Pakistan is one substantial gain. Supply lines to our sizeable deployment of diplomatic and reconstruction staff in Afghanistan is another. Not having to rely exclusively on Saudi Arabia or Sunni Arab states for our energy security is a third. A tempering of anti-India OIC resolutions on Kashmir is a fourth (though this may change following the GOI's slavish willingness to censure Iran's nuclear program on Washington's diktats). An ally against the resurgent Taliban (with foreign policy goals independent of the Americans) is a fifth.

It is certainly preferable from the Indian point of view that the mullahs be thrown out. Neither do their people benefit from these autocrats, nor do we. You want us to be gladdened that the mullahs can help us to counter the boosted strategic leverage of a Pakistan that was boosted by the very 1979 revolution that brought those mullahs to power?? What kind of twisted logic is this? "I've found a horseshoe, now let me go buy a horse to go with it"

That follows only from the horse$hit being peddled about "Pakistan being the only game in town because of the 1979 revolution". America made the choice to support Pakistan independently of their relationship with Iran, and long before their relationship with Iran was troubled in any way.

What has stopped the Americans from pursuing better relations with Iran post 9-11? Didn't they pursue a dramatically improved relationship with China (whose posture was at least as virulently anti-American) in 1972? Don't they get into bed with repressive dictatorships everywhere when it suits them? Aren't they the "hyperpower", with more military and economic leverage than anyone else, and pragmatic enough to go in for hard-headed "realpolitik" as convenient?

Why make excuses for America in this one instance? Why should anyone with any common sense accept that in this solitary instance, the hyperpower's hands are tied and their only choice is to pour billions in no-strings-attached funds into terrorist-sponsoring, nuclear-blackmailing Pakistan? That is precisely what you are doing when you claim that Pakistan's strategic leverage was somehow "boosted" by the Iranian revolution. The Americans may have lost direct routes to the Transcaspian and Turkmenistan after the 1979 revolution, but Pakistan doesn't replace those in any case. Access to the strategic center of gravity of Afghanistan, as also to Eastern Central Asia, the Pamirs, and Tajikistan/Kyrgyzistan... where the competition with China for energy resources will be fiercest, is better afforded through Pakistan regardless of whether the Americans have an Iranian ally or not.

And most importantly of all, America's sensitivity to India's security concerns remains completely unchanged in either case. So why wouldn't we want a relatively friendly Imam government in Teheran, as opposed to a pro-US government which is more likely to fall in with US foreign policy and support Pakistan?

The removal of the mullahs from Tehran will restore its ties with the wider world back to normalcy, and may even help to increase the momentum for democracy across the entire Middle East. That in turn would increase liberalization and openness, and help to de-Islamize their arrested cultural development, which is frozen in the Dark Ages.

The main benefit would be an Iran that the West could rely upon as a transit route to access the landlocked Central Asian region, including even right upto China's borders. We would benefit from this immensely more than your limited myopic gridlocked solution.

The regressive ideology of the Ayatollahs must be defeated.

The wider world from California to Britainistan, and a speck of Israel, probably. The rest of the world has no irreconciliable issues with Iran. The nature of the Iranian administration is an internal matter and no one has any right to dictate to them how it should change... least of all a hypocritical hyperpower which generously supports even more brutal religious fanatics in Saudi Arabia and even more prolific terrorist sponsors in Pakistan. As long as the most powerful men in America continue to bow, scrape, hug and fellate the Saudi Monarch and other sunni Sheikhs, believe me, there will be no "momentum for democracy in the Middle East". That's another quivering hunk of FAUX news tripe if I ever heard one.

Defeating the ideology of the Ayatollahs is a laughably insignificant priority for India. There are far more dangerous ideologies in the much-nearer abroad that we need to contend with. Ironically, we find ourselves pitted against the loud-mouthed bastions of democracy and free-will in combating the ideologies most dangerous to ourselves. Let the Americans prate about "regressive ideologies" all they want... as long as they stand firmly behind the most regressive and cancerous ideologies on the planet, their credibility plus a dollar twenty-five will get you a cup of Dunkin Donuts coffee.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 22 Jun 2009 22:32

You ask what we gain from the friendship of the Iranians. Naval (and possibly air) facilities in the Persian gulf on the far side of Pakistan is one substantial gain. Supply lines to our sizeable deployment of diplomatic and reconstruction staff in Afghanistan is another. Not having to rely exclusively on Saudi Arabia or Sunni Arab states for our energy security is a third. A tempering of anti-India OIC resolutions on Kashmir is a fourth (though this may change following the GOI's slavish willingness to censure Iran's nuclear program on Washington's diktats). An ally against the resurgent Taliban (with foreign policy goals independent of the Americans) is a fourth.

If I might, there could be trade benefits. Indian companies could sell more in Iran. Think of the market Tata Nano can have! As per wikipedia here are the trading partners:

China 14.3%, Germany 9.7%, UAE 9.2%, South Korea 5.8%, Russia 5.3%, Italy 5%, France 4% (2007)

In 2008, the bi-lateral trade between India-Iran was $9billion. Most of it was hydrocarbon imports by India. Trade between Iran and USA - $628 million.

http://newsfromiran.wordpress.com/2009/ ... o-iran-up/

A new report by the Customs Administration shows that last year American exports to Iran increased by more than 231 percent to reach $563.15 million, Moj News Agency reported.

The share of American goods in Iranian imports was 1.01 percent, while in the previous year it was about 0.35 percent and amounted to $170.03 million, the report added.

A friendly country will help ease some of the problems. For example: Iran’s import curbs hurt Indian tea sector

It is a fight between Mullah and Moolah

And here is what Shad did {source:http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_060408.htm}

Shah of Iran was not an Islamist, but he had offered the entire air force of Iran to Pakistan during the Indo-Pak war in 1971 and had threatened India with dire consequences if India would try to take away any more parts of Pakistan after the fall of East Pakistan.

paramu · Post by **paramu** » 23 Jun 2009 06:49

Iran: Who's Diddling Democracy?

khan · Post by **khan** » 23 Jun 2009 08:28

Here is my read on the Iran situation from India's perspective:

Hard-line Mullahs: These are the most Anti-Pakistan guys that we could have in charge. The hard liners view Pakistan from a very secreterian perspective - they claim to lead the Shia and have to give any Sunni country the same treatment. Ironically, they view non-muslim countries with less suspicion then Sunni Muslim countries because of the Shia-Sunni rivalry. Unfortunately, they do not play well with the US and this enhances Pakistan's "strategic" importance.

Moderate Mullahs: Less Anti-Pakistan and might "normalize" relations with the US but will not allow the US to use its soil for supplying Afghanistan. Their main focus will be on the economy and managing social change while holding on to power (think China post Tienanmen). The Shia leadership project will take the back seat. They will be less anti-Pakistan and that will work against India's interest.

Non Religious Political Leadership: Same as the above except that they will be even less Anti-Pakistan. There might be elements in this Government that views Pakistan as part of the "Ummah" and this might cause them to lean towards Pakistan. Unfortunately I do not see them allowing the US to use their soil to supply Afghanistan either - there is just too much baggage between the US and Iran.

Vinod Ji · Post by **Vinod Ji** » 23 Jun 2009 09:23

Rumor has it::::

The question being debated in ghom (qom) are : :

1.Could Khamenei have done anything else?
2. If leader is unseated, will guards accept new leader or leading council ?
3. Highest shia cleric Sistani in iraq has been contacted & is in the loop of the deliberation process.
4. Shark has refused to move till he has 60-65 out of 80 so he is still 10-15 short.
5. whether the the cracks in guards & Military be encouraged or discouraged?
&&&&&&&
Most hot is Why the protest is not catching up in other cities & why the lower strata of the society is not participating??

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2009 10:04

I think they feel that non-violent resistance is the best way. The ones who had come onto the streets over the weekend had gone ahead anyway, out of passion. But the numbers in the street have radically come down, showing that most will go in for non-violent protest and a whispering campaign, rather than be shot in the streets.

These Basij types really seem to be a law unto themselves. They are thugs sent to terrorize the people, in the same way that Musharraf sought to keep people off the streets.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2009 10:27

Rudradev,

The fact is that Pakistan uses its strategic leverage from its transit monopoly to extort many concessions from the United States. This has been made very obvious from the War on Terror.
Deprivation of Pakistan's strategic leverage can only benefit India. This is not a parroting of the US position, but just a critical evaluation of reality.

Again, I repeat that whatever quid pro quo the Ayatollahs are providing us in Central Asia does not diminish the need to change the strategic equation in the region, with respect to transit rights. Why would you feel that a post-Ayatollah Iran would be hostile to India? There's nothing at all to indicate that. A post-Ayatollah Iran would not be in a position of great dependency upon the USA, so that it would be some outright flunky. I'll note that the Congress Party of India is in more of a position of dependency upon the US, whereby it would kowtow to the US in many ways.

The ouster of the Ayatollahs would free up a geo-political logjam in the region. Once the West has suitable access to Central Asia, then its resources will be available to the entire world market, and India will benefit from reduced commodity prices on oil and natural gas. Pakistan's hope to make itself the main route of Central Asian riches to the West would be dashed.

Again, Pakistan's Ahab-like obsession with stalking India has made it a liability to the West, having given rise to things like AQ Khan and N-proliferation, Talibanization, AlQaeda, and global jihad, Sino-Pakistan collusion even to the point of bringing China to Gwadar at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz, etc.

You seem to have some myopic inability to understand there is an opportunity to guide the West away from Pakistan's clutches, so that all will recognize Pakistan as a dead end.
Instead, you want to stubbornly persist with some infatuation with the Ayatollahs and their crazy regressive regime.

Certainly, India has to deal with whoever is in power over their. But I don't for a moment fool myself into believing that all possible dispensations in Iran are equal. The liberal one would be better for us by far.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jun 2009 11:44

Interesting discussion, I have a few summaries take away (based on the discussion and my own thoughts)

1) NO dispensation in Iran can afford be so pro US that the need for Pakistan as a rentier state is obviated.
2) There is no particular reason to indicate that a non Mullah or moderate state will be friendlier to India or will offer us something more that the current regime does not.
3) There is all reasons to indicate that a less hard line state will be pliant to US needs.

So while we don't have a dog in the game -- I don't see how the status quo not help us -- and by status quo I mean that the current positioning of Iran in Geo-pol space.

In fact the harder that Iran stays out of US orbit -- the better for us -- the only thing we want from Iran is trade route and access and the person blocking that is US not Iran anyway so....

Of course this has nothing to do with which of the internal faction comes to power in Iran -- our efforts should be to ensure that we are in a position to work with both of them. The catch word "democracy" can be liberally used as a reason to be close to who ever gets to power "democratically", our effort should be that Iranians reflect more on the Pan-asian brotherhood and otherwise.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2009 11:58

Again, there seems to be a lack of comprehension that relations with Pakistan impose a cost to the US, and this has been seen through the things I mentioned. So our goal should be to change the cost-benefit perspective of the US towards Pakistan. If there are less costly ways that can be provided to the US to meet its goals in the region, then it will automatically turn away from Pakistan. Why would the US blindly pursue a relationship with Pakistan that imposes higher costs on it?

Prior to the overthrow of the Shah, he was their main ally in the region, not Zia.

Clearly there was a preference for Iran, given its lesser entanglements and complications. Relations with Pakistan come at the cost of suffering these.

If the old options are returned to the US, then the Pak option will be less attractive to it. 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror have changed the way the US looks at Pakistan. That's the long and the short of it.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jun 2009 12:10

Sanjay M wrote:If the old options are returned to the US, then the Pak option will be less attractive to it. 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror have changed the way the US looks at Pakistan. That's the long and the short of it.

o

Thats a huge assumption -- you are assuming that the advantage that Pakistan brings to table can be negated by the Iranian offering. The Iran-Pak hyphenation is essentially flawed is what I (and many others) would argue.

Pakistan is needed and kept by US and UK (go back to the reasons that it was created for) for reasons that can never be fulfilled by Iran alone even in best case and clearly even in the short term in a practical case Iran will not be able to give even transit rights to US.

All I see for India with US getting a foothold is loose loose (remember Iran staying Mullah also means the democracy in India is more valuable for US)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jun 2009 12:35

Sanjay M wrote:Why would you {Rudradev} feel that a post-Ayatollah Iran would be hostile to India? There's nothing at all to indicate that.

There is nothing to indicate that a post-Ayatollah Iran will not be hostile to India either. However that is not the expectation. But it is definitely an expectation, that a post-Ayatollah Iran will not need India in the least as a strategic partner. They would be looking towards Europe, and selling all their gas to Europe through pipelines through Turkey. India's strategic value to the Iranians is based on their paucity of strategic partners in the world to a large extent. There is a saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"! For India, Iran is not broke.
Right now, Iran is our only route into Central Asia. Instead of worrying about Iran becoming a viable transit route for the West, one should rather focus on a stable transit route for India. Once Iran comes under the sway of Western powers, it is definitely possible that Iran could withdraw India's privileged access rights to Afghanistan and Central Asia, either under coercion or of own volition due to growing perception of the receding of strategic interest overlap with India.

Sanjay M wrote:A post-Ayatollah Iran would not be in a position of great dependency upon the USA, so that it would be some outright flunky.

Any liberal democratic setup that comes piggy-back on American support would become to some extent beholden to America. In Iraq it was because of occupation, in Iran it can simply be because of the provision of social networks bandwidth, daily end to end media focus on Iran, as well as the mobilization of Iranian diaspora for the cause. But American intervention may go further than even this. As of now, all democracies in the world, are in some way or another allied to the US strategic interests. India was the last hold-out, but that too sort of fell in the last Government.

In your reasoning, to bring down Pakistan, you're willing to throw one of the most precious vases in the house at it, without any guarantee, that Pakistan does not duck.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2009 13:20

Bringing down Pakistan is of course of prime importance. Whatever strategic benefits we get from a relationship with Iran are of lesser consideration compared to bringing down Pakistan.

Unfortunately, the Kaangress view of things is to brush off burning hotels in Mumbai, and massacres in Kashmir, in order to think lofty thoughts and focus on some fuzzy goals in the distance. Protecting our people comes last to them, in comparison to being invited to foreign capitals to clink glasses with other elites.

Bringing down Pakistan comes first. It comes ahead of any mandir-building, any LCA-developing, any spy satellite launching. It does no good to be giving the thumbs-up from the top of the mandir, the cockpit of the LCA, or boasting of spy satellites, when your cities are on fire. Yes, yes, I know, the security needs of the common man are a tedious distraction from the lofty ideals, but I feel it's necessary to keep one's eyes on the road immediately ahead, rather than purely on the glowing horizon.

After we bring down Pakistan, then we can worry about who has more leverage over the Middle East.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jun 2009 13:34

Sanjay M wrote: After we bring down Pakistan, then we can worry about who has more leverage over the Middle East.

Fine, but we are not Paki's that we hurt ourselves 400% to hurt them 1%, so a cost benefit analysis has to be seen (and I have NO love lost for congress) in any event -- as Shiv says, if you want to bring down Pakis bring down their backers -- the Pakis are a sick joke, irrelevant by themselves.

What stand we should take with Iran has to do with the real forces behind Pakistan and not merely the geographical boundary of Pakistan.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jun 2009 13:52

Bringing down Pakistan is a big project, especially with its 3½ Friends backing it. How is one going to go about it? By scrubbing one's nose at the doorstep of USA? By importing all our stuff from China imploring them to be our torrel than mountains friends? By claiming that we are 400% more pure than the Pakis in front of the Saudis? By crying out loud to UK, that we are their heirs in South Asia? Obviously Not!

The best friends we can have in this enterprise is the Iranians, and not any Iranians but the Shiite hardline variety. They don't like the Saudis! They don't like the Americans! And they have reason to suspect the Chinese for having provided their Sunni rivals with the Sunni bomb! And certainly they don't give a damn about the Brits!

It is with the help of Iranians, that we can take away Pakistan's strategic depth, because Afghanistan is freed of its dependence on Pakistan for all trade. It is only through the Iranians that we can hope to encircle and overwhelm Pakistan with inimical forces. It is the Iranians who will ultimately be able to mobilize the Shiites in Pakistan to open rebellion. Ultimately all this will help to break up Pakistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Jun 2009 17:40

Iran will still be in competition with Pak no matter who rules in Tehran. This is especially true if Iran becomes the main transit route into CentralAsia.

Ayatollahs are not our taller-than-mountains friends. You feel that just because they have almost no other friends, that this makes them look to us as their closest buddy. We are mainly part of their defensive agenda (fending off Taliban in Afghanistan), whereas they are more consumed by their offensive agenda (destroying Israel, re-shaping the entire Middle East, etc)

You saw how they quickly ran to our CPI-M when we voted against them in the UN. They know how to play us, that's for sure.

We have to go forward with our global growth as a power, and not be shackled to their petty interests even while remaining trapped in conflict with Pak.

At best, I say string them along and milk them for concessions, as the West wears down their regime. The more worn down their regime gets, the more concessions they'll give to us as they desperately try to shore up their international support through people like us. At this point, I think their downfall is inevitable. They're not like China, which can pull a Tiananmen and bounce back by using their leverage as ColdWar ally, while simultaneously distracting the masses thru rampant economic growth. Iran cannot become an Islamic-regime-in-name-only, the way that China has become communist-in-name-only. Iran cannot achieve any rampant economic growth, but only continue backsliding.

Ultimately, in the greater energy equation, Iran is an oil-supplier while we are oil-consumers. Their interest is to reinforce and cement an all-powerful OPEC monopoly that will give them the wealth they cannot achieve thru conventional economic growth due to their repressive social system. Those of us who rely upon the opposite, achieving normal economic growth by cultivating our human capital, will ultimately end up being forced to pay petro-jizya to these burqa-bound towel-headed basketcases, who will have us "over a barrel". They will pull a Gorshkov on us once they're in a position to, and we'll be stuck nervously accepting it, because your blind faith in them will have led us into this corner.

A more liberal Iran will develop a more diversified and natural economy, rather than being a 7th-century basketcase that always falls back on its one big export. It won't be so much about us being forced to rely upon them, as about others not being forced to rely upon Pak. Right now Pak is gaining an extremely disproportionate influence due to its transit monopoly, far beyond what it naturally deserves.

So again, I say string the Tehran regime along and milk it for concessions, as it loses its stability and feels more desperate to seek support from others in the region to shore itself up. But certainly, it's not our job nor in our interest to keep that illegitimate regime alive by seriously propping it up.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 23 Jun 2009 18:07

Sanjay M wrote: because your blind faith in them will have led us into this corner.

Sanjay M, no one quotes blind faith, thats a strawman. Every one is just saying that a anti-west Iran serves Indian realpolitic better than a west friendly Iran

A more liberal Iran will develop a more diversified and natural economy,
as about others not being forced to rely upon Pak.
Right now Pak is gaining an extremely disproportionate influence due to its transit monopoly,

All three above are IMVHO assumptions. The last one is clearly not right. Enabling transit has nothing to Paks value. Its value in hindering transit, which remains the same with or without Iran.

it's not our job nor in our interest to keep that illegitimate regime alive by seriously propping it up.

We should string along all regimes that Iran has, whether illegitimate or not is secondary and IMVHO the current regime is as legitimate as we are likely to get in that place.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Jun 2009 18:32

The Revolution has a very large following in Iran. There will always be sufficient followers of the Revolution amongst the urban lower class, rural areas and outlying townships. The current tug-of-war is between the hardline faction and the moderate faction of the Revolutionaries, where the moderate faction is simply using/abusing the support from the liberal strata, who are more vocal, more tech-savvy, more connected with the rest of the world through relations in the diaspora. Nothing more. Should Moussavi today be crowned President by the Khamenei, he would also willingly show the liberals the middle finger, may be not in rhetoric, but most certainly in deed.

This is an internal power struggle within the Revolution elite, and the stability of the regime is not in doubt. The liberals are just using the opportunity to get a few wet dreams, which are otherwise not allowed.

Sanjay M wrote:We are mainly part of their defensive agenda (fending off Taliban in Afghanistan), whereas they are more consumed by their offensive agenda (destroying Israel, re-shaping the entire Middle East, etc)

Considering that Salafism is on the upswing, and Shiites are being killed daily in Pakistan and elsewhere, their defensive agenda is their only true agenda. Their offensive agenda is for the Ummah galleries, and basically only uses Israel as the bogey-man for their proxy-war against the Sunni domination of Islam. Iran is not consumed by the destruction of Israel, but if you are competing for the beauty-contest in the Islamic World, the more virulent your rhetoric against Israel, the more votes you get. And that is all there is to it. Even if we consider Israel a friend of India, taking over all their enemies is hardly the stuff of strategic politics.

Sanjay M wrote:They're not like China, which can pull a Tiananmen and bounce back by using their leverage as ColdWar ally, while simultaneously distracting the masses thru rampant economic growth. Iran cannot become an Islamic-regime-in-name-only, the way that China has become communist-in-name-only. Iran cannot achieve any rampant economic growth, but only continue backsliding.

Iran has much more keeping the system intact, than China had. You are underestimating the pull of Shia Islam on the momeen. Their economy too wouldn't be collapsing any time soon. Unlike Pakistan, Iran knows how to get along on a shoestring.
Our political systems may be radically different, but what is important is the confluence of strategic interests, especially the 'defense posture'.
The one country which stands out in the way of a possible unbroken Khilafat from Morocco to the borders of India is Shia Iran. Any weakening of Iran can lead to an extremely destabilizing situation for India.

The way to bring Pakistan down is not by bringing Iran down, but by speeding up the natural disintegration of Pakistan through radicalization of its society, attrition of TSPA through Pakiban propaganda, subterfuge, and by keeping it in the economic doghouse.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jun 2009 20:25

A West friendly Iran will let the West have two Islamist dogs in the fight againt India - they will act per uncle's wishes and also per Islamist aims. So its not in Indian interests to have a West friendly Iran. And Iran was the historical gateway for the hordes from Darius times.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2009 02:23

Sanku wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:A more liberal Iran will develop a more diversified and natural economy, as about others not being forced to rely upon Pak.
Right now Pak is gaining an extremely disproportionate influence due to its transit monopoly,
All three above are IMVHO assumptions. The last one is clearly not right. Enabling transit has nothing to Paks value. Its value in hindering transit, which remains the same with or without Iran.

For heaven's sakes, man! That's exactly what I said! How can you differentiate your point based on semantics???
"SanjayM, it's not Pakistan's terrorism that we are complaining about, it's Pakistan's unwillingness to stop its terrorism that we're complaining about"
Give me a break!

We should string along all regimes that Iran has, whether illegitimate or not is secondary and IMVHO the current regime is as legitimate as we are likely to get in that place.

The Ayatollahs carry more baggage with them than any alternative. We should see the problems that propagate to us because of it.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 24 Jun 2009 02:27

ramana wrote:A West friendly Iran will let the West have two Islamist dogs in the fight againt India - they will act per uncle's wishes and also per Islamist aims. So its not in Indian interests to have a West friendly Iran. And Iran was the historical gateway for the hordes from Darius times.

Nah, I disagree. A West-friendly Iran has no interest in causing any problems for India. What problems is Iraq causing to India? None. A West-friendly Iran will let the West into CentralAsia, which will serve our interests. What interest does India really have in keeping the West out of CentralAsia? The only way one can claim this is in our interest is due to the fact that they're trying to get in via Pakistan, thus handing it strategic value. It is in our strategic interest to see that Pakistan is bypassed. I find it amazing that others here can't see this.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Jun 2009 04:19

Sanjay M wrote:What interest does India really have in keeping the West out of CentralAsia? The only way one can claim this is in our interest is due to the fact that they're trying to get in via Pakistan, thus handing it strategic value. It is in our strategic interest to see that Pakistan is bypassed. I find it amazing that others here can't see this.

Why has nobody in the West opted for the Indian route? Why has nobody spoken in favor of India getting PoK back? Why was the division of Pakistan done in such a way, that access to Central Asia was blocked for India?
If it is only a question of having a transit route to Central Asia, India could have provided such, provided these countries had kept good relations with India. But no! The Western countries were interested in having access to Central Asia, but also interested in keeping India out!
So for all these years, whereas the Western countries have tried to keep India out of Central Asia, we on BRF are trying to plead in favor of giving the Western countries access to Central Asia. We are not only pleading in their favor, we are also willing to sacrifice our strategic partner, Iran for the purpose.
If the Western countries want access to Central Asia, they should support India in retaking PoK, Chitral, Baluchistan, etc., and then we will provide them with access to Central Asia. Isn't GoI not doing enough bending on its own, that we on BRF also become dhimmi?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Jun 2009 05:02

The Bush regime declared open war (covert ops) on IOramn some time ago.The Rafsanjani clique represents the faction that the US hopes will "do business" with it.At least it will usher in the downfall of the Ayatollahs.US covert ops can be seen in the Iranian street protests,in similar manner as was arranged in former Eatsren European nations with the "Orange" revolution and others.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/iranian-unr ... dling.html
Iranian Unrest: Evidence Of Western Intelligence Meddling

Current events and historical precedents highlight covert operations

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, June 22, 2009

The following summary, with extensive links, highlights the major evidence that suggests western intelligence agencies are aiding in stirring up unrest inside Iran as part of a “color revolution” to foment regime change.

Current events:

The announcement of the results of the election were planned in advance:

Corporate-controlled media mouthpieces had already declared Mousavi the winner even before the people of Iran had had an opportunity to cast their vote. When the result turned out to be contrary to their perceived wisdom, it was immediately denounced as “rigged”. It seems even Mousavi had fallen for this propaganda because as soon as the polls closed, he told a press conference in Tehran that he had “won”. How he could make such a claim when no results had come in?

CIA/Mossad flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages, Twitter Feeds:

The news of alleged election fraud has spread through Tehran like wildfire, pitching ayatollah Rafsanjani’s supporters against ayatollah Khamenei’s in street confrontations. This chaotic situation is secretly stirred by the CIA which has been spreading confusion by flooding Iranians with contradicting SMS messages and Twitter feeds. The temporary loss of the mobile phone network in Iran during the announcement of the election results, was blamed on the government.

Sophisticated cyber attacks on Iranian government websites:

Sites belonging to Iranian news agencies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were knocked off-line with tools designed to barrage these websites with traffic. The media blamed activists opposed to the Iranian government. The temporary loss of access to websites such as Facebook and Youtube and Iranian news websites, during announcement of the election results was blamed on the government.

Western media focus on opposition rallies, hype protests:

The Western media supported the opposition’s claims by focusing the news on opposition rallies and demonstrations against Ahmadinejad, while ignoring the pro-Ahmadinejad rallies which were on some occasions much bigger. The BBC was so desperate to push the pro-Mousavi cause, it claimed that pictures of a massive pro-Ahmadinejad rally were of a pro-Mousavi rally. A retraction followed after we pointed out the grossly misleading claim. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi, said Monday that some European countries and the US have played a major role in provoking the post-election violence that killed scores of people in the past few days.

CIA has Distributed 400 Million Dollars Inside Iran to Evoke a Revolution:

Former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has distributed 400 million dollars inside Iran to evoke a revolution.

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails:

It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.

Iran finds US-backed MKO/MEK fingermarks in riots

The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran.

Historical precedents:

KEY ARTICLE - CIA Covert destabilization campaign is ongoing:

Military, intelligence, and congressional sources say a secret war is being vamped to bring down the current Iranian leadership. This involves funding anti-government terrorist groups inside Iran, such as Jundullah and the MEK/MKO.

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.”

The U.S. has laid economic siege to Iran for 30 years

Recently, Congress voted $120 million for anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran and $60-75 million in funding for opposition, violent underground Marxists and restive ethnic groups such as Azeris, Kurds and Arabs under the “Iran Democracy Program.”

US Policies May Have Contributed to Iran Revolution, Study Says

A report based on declassified documents suggests that the Nixon and Ford administrations, angry with the shah for his support for raising oil prices, worked to curb his ambitions.

The 1953 CIA coup in Iran:

Recently admitted to by Obama, in 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran’s hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.

The ousting was achieved by means of staged bombings and shootings which were blamed on the Iranian government in order to antagonize the population and enable the coup.

During the coup, the CIA also bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.

Both the US and the UK have given Iran the materials it needs to go nuclear:

After installing the Shah Globalists like Henry Kissinger opened the door for Iran to develop sophisticated nuclear energy programs which laid the foundation for today’s crisis. Twenty three reactors were built with the help of American corporations like General Electric and Westinghouse.

Iranian Professor: US and Israel have Been Trying To Divide Iran For Years:

Prominent Iranian political science professor, Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, has emphasized that Iran and the US signed an agreement in 1978 which allowed Tehran to seek nuclear technology in order to meet its future energy demands but no one now talks about the agreement. He has also asserted that Zionists in Israel in co-operation with neoconservatives in the US have intentionally been trying to divide Iran for decades.

Cheney, Neocons Considered Killing Americans in Pretext to Attack Iran:

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh reveals how the neocons convened around Dick Cheney and brainstormed ways to kick off World War IV, as they fondly call their pet project to take out the Muslims and foment a contrived “clash of civilizations.”

Cheney Call For Iran Attack PR Blitz - 2007:

The New Yorker magazine reported that Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that “instructions” had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.

Baiting Iran with aggressive maneuvers:

U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups are routinely deployed to the Gulf in order to send a clear signal to Iran that they will be crushed if they continue to defy the wishes of the US government by enriching uranium.

Fabricated 2008 Strait of Hormuz incident:

A respected American Journalist accused a Pentagon spokesman of falsifying events surrounding the encounter between Iranian patrol boats and a US navy vessel in the Strait of Hormuz, which was eventually labeled a “provocation” by the White House.

Operation Praying Mantis:

This provocation operation began after a US warship had entered mined Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.

The Shoot down of Iran air flight 665:

The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner.

Listen to Alex Jones break down the evidence for western intelligence meddling in current Iranian affairs:

JohnWalker · Post by **JohnWalker** » 24 Jun 2009 11:03

Friends,

Today I noticed a ticker, with a "Breaking News" tag, on youtube homepage for citizentube channel.
http://www.youtube.com/user/citizentube

Based on the dates in channel homepage and its blog page, this channel was there for sometime.
But why this sudden promotion (i am seeing this channel for the first time) when it is flooded with "suppression of democracy in iran" videos !!!

Does any of our BR gurus think this as the "twitter trick" being played in youtube?

Thanks
JW

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 24 Jun 2009 11:27

Atlantic Monthly has an article on how Iran can save teh Middle East by the national correspondent of the magazine J. Goldberg. it seems the rise of Iran is scaring the Sunni Arbas and this genius is proposing a grand bargain between Israel and KSA led Arabs to settle the Palestine question.

it shows the lack of understanding of the modern ME. KSA is a Wahabi inspired state that wants to restore Islam ot its glory days of Muhhamed who incidentally was responsible for the massacre of the Bani Quraish tribe.