Iran Contra

To understand why negotiations with Iran represent a historic opportunity, it is instructive to recall events that defined U.S.-Iranian relations since the 1950s.

In 1953, the American CIA and British MI6 intelligence forces instigated the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddegh, Iran’s first duly elected Prime Minister. Mosaddegh’s policy goals were the establishment of a constitutional democracy and the nationalization of Iran’s oil resources. Nationalization of the oil industry was the singular event that angered American and British interests in the region and inspired the coup against Mosaddegh.

In effect, Mosaddegh’s removal ended Iran’s first – and last - fully democratic government and gave unprecedented power to the Pahlavi monarchy, which ruled Iran in oppression and brutality through a secret police network known as Savak.

The U.S. role in Mosaddegh’s overthrow was kept secret for many years. In retrospect, it is now widely regarded as “paranoid, colonial, illegal, and immoral” and the leading cause of national resentments culminating in the Iranian Revolution of 1979 led by Ayatollah Khomeini.

In essence, it was a seriously misguided policy decision that created generations of Iranian enmity towards the U.S.  We overthrew their government. We did this to them.  We brought this anger and resentment upon ourselves. And you can better understand Iranian attitudes against this backdrop of history.

Most importantly, current negotiations give us an opportunity to right a historic wrong and work towards normalizing U.S.-Iranian relations.

Since the 1950s, Iranian demographics have changed dramatically. The current population is young, Internet savvy, and Western-oriented in terms of aspirations. More to the point, younger generations do not carry the historical baggage and resentments of their forbearers. In time, this generation will take over Iran and alter the future course and direction of the country. That is why it is vitally important to pursue a peaceful resolution to Iran’s nuclear program. Any military option would seal the enmity of the Iranian people through the end of time.

Netanyahu is a neo-conservative and a militarist whose views of history are simply counter-productive. Perhaps Shimon Perez said it best: “The people of Iran are not Israel’s enemies, and the people of Israel are not Iran’s enemies.” This time, I hope the voices of reason prevail.

Developments in Iran

There's a little story out there which isn't getting a lot of play in the American press, possibly because the corollary to the journalistic axiom would be "if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead." It's not a story of death, or destruction, or anything other than a possible hope for the future.

See, there's this country called Iran, and the Iranian president for the last eight years has been a fiery little Holocaust-denier named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now, a lot of people don't understand how little power (comparatively) the Iranian president has, but he does have a certain amount of influence, and Ahmadinejad is now out of office.

His replacement is a reform-minded moderate named Hassan Rouhani, who, from 2003 to 2005 under former President Mohammad Khatami, was chief nuclear negotiator with the European Union. He campaigned on promises to improve human rights in Iran, restore the economy, and improve relations with the West.

Now, there are certain factions in America (and Israel) who believe that it's in their best interests to keep stirring up fear of Iran, and who will never believe that there are peaceful Muslims - Fox "News," for example, is trying to spin him as a Smiling Warmonger on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

One of the fears that the Islamophobic crowd wants to keep alive is the terror of a "nuclear Iran!" Because that would lead to immediate nuclear annihilation of Israel!

(Despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency has found no evidence that Iran has been building nuclear warheads, but that they have a history of "failure in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement... with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material had been processed and stored...")

Despite the strident screams of the Rush Limbaugh's and Pam Geller's of the world, the White House today declared that they're willing to engage with Iran "to resolve the international community's deep concerns over Iran's nuclear program."

So, we might just be seeing the Middle East inching toward peace - expect the right wing to start pushing back against it as hard as they can.

Act Now! No Time to Lose!

Henry Kissinger -- the name could be a metonym for dishonest defense of imperialism and reckless disregard for the consequences of military action, and so it's no surprise to hear him tell us to ignore the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies that there is no evidence Iran is building or is about to build nuclear weapons.

Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!

On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.

“I am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don’t know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”

I think it is disputable in the extreme, considering that we're listening to a war criminal involved in and culpable for massacres, invasions and genocides in Indochina, East Timor, Chile, Cyprus and Bangladesh talking about fomenting yet another dubious and probably disastrous war.

Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.

Iran and the Phantom Menace

Perhaps I've oversensitive about talk of going to war with Iran. After all, I remember all the talk about Iraq and nuclear/chemical/biological weapons from a government that knew damn well Iraq didn't have them or the facilities to make them. Everyone who doesn't have the excuse of being a Republican or having been trapped in a cave for most of this century remembers the war that broke the bank and destroyed Iraq to make it "free."

Perhaps I'm oversensitive but when I read Dennis Ross, who served two years on Obama’s National Security Council and a year as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special adviser on Iran telling us that the President is "ready to strike" if Iran begins the nuclear beguine, I have no problem remembering that Leon Panetta, who should know a bit about the subject, told us all yesterday that Iran is not working on developing a bomb. Is Ross just shooting his mouth off or is he just tough talking for the benefit of the President and his campaign? And why is Panetta telling us there is no threat requiring such bellicose bravado or is it just a "slip" like Dick Cheney's slip when he mentioned that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

the United States, being what it is, doesn't seem to have tired of tough talk, or at least our candidates don't think so. To me, it's a sign of weakness and perhaps a bit of arrested development and although we have a ways to go in the down direction to get back to the point of having a "War President" parading around in combat gear and calling himself the "Commander Guy" any step in that direction worries me.

Off with his hair!

Yes, it's hard to get behind anything the government of Iran does: stoning people to death, building nuclear weapons and all that, but to give credit where it's due, they do have the same lack of tolerance for certain hairstyles that I do and when it comes to demonstrating intolerance, Iran has few equals.

Yes, I'm all for freedom of expression, but there are limits and the mullet haircut is beyond that limit. As I'm concerned, ponytails on anyone over 60 and greasy spikes or Mohawks on anyone of any age are an abomination unto the Lord. So yes, I'd be right at home in the Islamic Republic and they certainly agree with me over there about what needs to be stomped out if the human race is to avoid divine retribution. Police in Iran can lop off that ponytail and that mullet can earn you jail time -- and rightly so. As I said, there are limits.

Of course, being a land of compassionate conservatism, Iran has provided an illustrated compendium of hairstyles that, according to Jaleh Khodayar, the man in charge of the government- backed Modesty and Veil Festival, are acceptable in light of "Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law." See for yourself:

Iran Explodes -- with Culture

This is an amazing video.


On the one hand, the blending of electronica dance rhythms and traditional instruments, along with all the pageantry you see in this video, tell us that a gigantic cultural explosion has been building up behind the firewalls of Islamist statehood.

It happened because of the internet. It happened because students explored a virtual world and became aware of the truth about their regime. When the regime reinstituted cultural oppressions, the people awoke to form a movement so democratic it's practically anarchist.

I've opened a liveblog on my website because the news coming out of Iran shows the people are winning. The state has brought power to bear and Iranians have thrown themselves at the state without hesitation. They have overpowered Basiji, who are now the ones concealing their faces. They have beaten riot squads into submission. They have rescued two men from death by strangulation and sent security forces running away...on camera.

And they have done it all without a real leadership, while having evolved into...this. This beautiful, suddenly-tolerant...culture.

I'm making a prediction: if the regime falls, invest in Persian carpets. I have one I can sell you...

AN INK-THE-AQUARIUM SPECIAL EDITION: WHAT MAKES (O)CT(O)PUS LIVID !!!

(O) (O) MICHAEL JACKSON ON CNN (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) MICHAEL JACKSON ON MSNBC (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) ABC HAS MICHAEL JACKSON (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) CBS HAS MICHAEL JACKSON (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) BOUGHT A NEWSPAPER (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) JACKSON HERE (O) (O) (O) (O) JACKSON THERE (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) MICHAEL JACKSON EVERYWHERE (O) (O) (O) PLEASE! (O) (O) (O) (O) (O) ENOUGH ALREADY! (O) (O) (O) (O) NO MORE MICHAEL JACKSON NEWS !!!

The Torturer of Tehran

Saaed Mortazavi is sometimes called the “Torturer of Tehran” but probably not to his face. The man also known as “Butcher of the press” has been given authority by the Iranian government to "interrogate" people involved, or said to be involved, in the demonstrations in Tehran. Mortazavi earned his nicknames for his role in the death of a Canadian-Iranian photographer who was tortured, beaten and raped during her detention in 2003 says the Times Online. The TOT was behind the detention of more than 20 bloggers and journalists in 2004, held for long periods of solitary confinement in secret prisons, where they were allegedly coerced into signing false confessions.

I expect to be hearing a great deal about how Iranian concern over the strange results of the recent election are the products of American propaganda and the protest sponsored, choreographed and financed from Washington, DC.

Of course such things are more effective in terrorizing the locals than in convincing them that these confessions don'e have more to do with cattle prods and genitals than with American interference, but isn't it too bad that the US has lost any ability to deplore enhanced interrogation? Isn't it too bad that the US must remain silent about starting wars and killing people based information extracted by torture?

Thank you George W. Bush and all the other cowards who dragged our proud country down to the level of these savages!

Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something

Iran Elections: Quit Turning Your Twitter Avatars Green And Do Something - Air America Media - Kase Wickman

(The whole article is damned good and well worth reading, but I'm only reposting the "here's what you can do" paragraphs (the meat) below. I'm also leaving my twitter avatar green because, while it's usefulness pales in comparison to the suggestions in the post, I do think that little green tag makes a psychological difference. YMMV...)

So instead of empty gestures and hashtags, why don't we actually engage in some activism and help, instead of whispering about this like some kind of neighborhood scandal that will never catch up to us because it's an ocean away?

There's always the option of an online donation to a relief agency like Red Crescent, for something immediate and helpful. The world runs on money and blood (as the events in Iran over the last week and a half have so morosely reminded us), and America is too far away to donate the blood that the wounded in Iran so desperately need.

You can also make donations to those covering the ongoing protests and violence, like Tehran Bureau, which is run by an Iranian-emigre out of a house in Newton, Massachusetts and is in need of financial support to keep the site live and bandwidth plentiful. Reliable information is harder and harder to come by, already 24 journalists have been arrested in Iran, and the majority of the rest have been forced out of the country by expired visas and government intimidation.

Don't have cash? There are ways you can help for free without ever leaving your computer. You can create a proxy or Twitter relay to help keep those ever-important Iranian Twitterers connected and informing the world about the situation in Iran. Or change your location and time zone to match Iran, in hopes of tripping up government censors looking for active sources.

If you're more diplomatically-inclined, and looking toward the long term, write a letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council and urge them to take action on international election standards and protection for citizens.

Above all, the thing you must do before any difference can be made is to inform yourself. The term "knowledge is power" wouldn't be repeated so much if it wasn't true. So spend some time reading the news, know what the hell you're talking about, and go out and tell someone else about it, and how they can help.

If anyone has any further suggestions or links to sites & or other things worth doing, please add them in the comments. I'd prefer that this post stay as non-partisan as possible. We all know that "that" side sucks, but wingnuts, moonbats, partisans of all other stripes... ...this isn't about us here in the US.

h/t Twitter / @DivadNhoj1981

Maybe Something About Foreign Policy, Too...

"Whether you golf or not, go to a driving range and hit a bucket of golf balls. Begin by hitting everything as hard as you can; gradually decrease your power until near the end, you're barely swinging. Notice that as you decrease the power of your swing, your accuracy improves. There's a lesson about life, here." - The Check Book - Nicholaus & Lowrie

(X-post @ Wingnuts & Moonbats)

We're so vain, we probably think Iran is about us

Back in the day -- the 60's that is -- conservatives fostered and circulated the idea that the people who were opposed to continued armed interference in Vietnam were all but on the payroll of Chairman Mao. Mumblings about "front" organizations and accusations of treason were commonplace even without anything resembling the internet to make it easy. One of the planned results of the strategy was to make it easier to continue the war indefinitely, violate the civil rights of objectors and easier to get conservatives to support the violation. Suggestions that Ho Chi Min preferred the Democratic candidate was heavy ammunition against him.

Now of course the Mullahs of Iran are far smarter than the average American -- who isn't? -- and if Barak Obama were to take on the traditional Republican role of moral bloviator and condemn the crackdown in Iran, they would be delighted to have the excuse that the thousands in the streets are foreign agents, motivated and backed and perhaps even paid by the United States. Any kind of violence could then be justified against these "enemy combatants" on religious and political grounds. Our open support of the protests in Tehran would effectively taint the movement which could be discussed as a Western incursion and not an Iranian movement by Iranians to take back control of Iran from a corrupt government.

Our Average American however, never can seem to resist a chance proudly to display anger and even more so when he can pretend it's moral outrage. CNN's current poll shows 76% in favor of having the President "condemn" the government of Iran as though he were himself an Ayatollah pronouncing a fatwah. Of course he has expressed sympathy for those seeking democracy and there is no one in the world who would think that we would support Khamenei anyway, but the contest between statecraft and soul satisfying, but counterproductive, rage has a predictable outcome.

I have severe misgivings and doubts about the way in which our economic predicament is being addressed, but when it comes to handling touchy and dangerous world affairs, Obama seems almost a genius compared to the man the Republicans would have had as president, strutting about a stage like an overweight, underpowered Mick Jagger, singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

Pete Hoekstra - hero of the revolution

Believe it or not, very few Americans voted for Barak Obama. The 9 million or so difference between the count for McPalin and Obama was the result of election tampering by ACORN. This notion seems to be part of the ever-changing catechism of the Republican faithful because I've been hearing it over and over again and so it's not all that surprising that congressman Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) would feel encouraged to tell us that the internet activity and the massive street protests since the Iranian election was

" similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House."

He said, referring to last August when the Speaker adjourned the House before an energy vote. Jon Stewart joked last night about the parallels being eerie: "Not parallels, the perpendiculars” but to a party that has tried to compare the governments we've cobbled together in Iraq and Afghanistan to the formation of our own government, the humor will be written off as liberal meanness or deflected by some tale of an unfair joke about the Palins or Joe the Plumber. No, once again they're posing as victims of a corrupt system and a stolen election.

I can imagine the groans of his staff, who quickly told us what Hoekstra would have said if Hoekstra had been as smart as they are:

"The two situations do share the similarity of government leadership attempting to limit debate and deliberation, and the ability of new technologies to bypass their efforts and allow for direct communication. That’s the only point that he was trying to make."

No it wasn't and of course his party had been doing just that for 8 years. The reaction was swift, according to CNN, and one counter-twitter responded with:

"Except the Democrats didn't come after you with clubs and guns, did they?"

No, they did it with the ballot box and will all allowances made for poetic license, the perpendiculars are striking.

The Right Reaction on Iran

The proper reaction regarding the recent turmoil in Iran is clear, or at least it should be. It's also exactly the reaction President Obama has had so far. The president has been very reluctant to use aggressive language when discussing Iran's election, the subsequent protests, or the seeming illegitimacy of Ahmadinejad's rule (or Khamenei's). He's actually been quite reluctant to say anything at all.

His reasons are many. His doesn't want to anger an Ahmadinejad/Khamenei-run government should the current regime maintain its power - he will, after all, have to work with whatever government emerges from this struggle. He doesn't want to use overly forceful rhetoric only to find that he has to ratchet it up further should the violence become drastically worse. He also doesn't want to risk emboldening Ahmadinejad by giving the Iranian president someone to point the finger at.

But most importantly, President Obama recognizes that this decision needs and ought to be made by the Iranian people. It is a fool's errand trying to sway the politics of a nation in the midst of upheaval. We could only make matters worse. And if we really want genuine change to come to Iran - change that will stick - we need to recognize that that change must come from within; as Sen. John Kerry wrote in a NYT op-ed, "Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America."

Obama has expressed all of this without any of the bombast characteristic of his predecessor (see Evil, Axis of). On Monday, President Obama spoke briefly to reporters about Iran, closing by saying,

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we'll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we've seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

Careful to express that this is Iran's election, Iran's battle, but subtlely showing support for the protesters. Nuanced. Sophisticated. To the point, but full of between-the-lines insight.

Contrast that with this comment from Sen. John McCain on the "Today" show:

He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights.

In speaking with David Gregory, he advised that the United States should

[...] do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights.

To which The Huffington Post bitingly noted,

Ah, yes, because U.S.-Iran relations "throughout the Cold War and afterwards" are such a model of success.

McCain is aggressive. Overly-confident. Ignorant of history and of our potential to influence an election that isn't any of our business. We should not be surprised that the man who jokingly, and irresponsibly, mock-sang "bomb, bomb Iran" would desire such decidedly strict language. McCain's sometimes belligerent nature played no small role in costing him the presidency. We should be thankful that America is awake enough to have recognized that the prudence Obama brings to the table is a far more powerful diplomatic tool than the incitable speech of 43 or the failed-44.

And most important of all, we should recognize that by treating Iran and the rest of the Middle East with respect, Obama has already done more to help spur the change we're seeing than either of these men (or the countless other neoconservative war-mongers) can imagine. No more Axis of Evil, no more distrust of Muslims and Muslim culture, no more overt (very overt in the case of Iraq) aggression in the Middle East. Just an invitation for some honest dialogue with a region of the world we have managed only to alienate in recent years. That is progress, that is how you make a difference.

Update:

Shaw has two posts at her blog that complement this very well.

PIRATES OF THE PERSIAN GULF

Photoshop credit: AZrainman

Latest developments: Iran's Supreme Pirate, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who upheld last Friday’s election, has reversed himself in the face of nationwide protests.  It seems the Supreme Pirate will allow the defeated candidate, Mirhossein Mousavi, to appeal the election before the Guardian Council, which will rule within 10 days on two official complaints received from Mousavi and the another losing candidate, Mohsen Rezaie.  The Guardian Council is chaired by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who endorsed Ahmadinejad before the vote.

How exceptionally kind of the Guardian Council to consider this appeal while Iran's favorite rap group, Syncopated Security, gets ready to release their next smash hits, I’m in the Mahmoud for Love and Bad, Bad Ahmadinejad.

UPDATE (3:39 pm): Hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into the streets today. This protest march in central Tehran is reportedly 5 miles long: