Last night I did a post stealing Antony Loewenstein's view (and Mohammad of Vancouver's) that it is naive to believe that the U.S. had no hand in the Tehran uprising, especially given the use that neocons are now making of it to try and pave the way for bombing Iran. While I'm agnostic on the question (it's my position on all matters I haven't felt for myself), I recognize the skepticism as healthy; and later that night my friend Peter Voskamp, an editor/musician who grew up partly in Houston and can tell you about the funny connections between the Bay of Pigs and Dallas and Watergate, a post I keep meaning to do, and who got my wife going about Jack Ruby last year (what was that mobster doing in the police station, she asks anyone), offered this antidote to credulity:
While I disdain fascist crackdowns and thuggery as much as the next
enlightened member of the free world, I found myself very much on the
sidelines during the post-election events in Iran. I simply didn't
trust it. Not that the people in the streets weren't real, or their
passion fabricated… I just wonder who was behind the marketing
campaign. I've got a new theory term that I'm loosely applying to all sorts of situations: political movement ala Malcolm McClaren.You
remember the British impresario McClaren who "discovered" the Sex
Pistols and unleashed them and "punk rock" onto the world?Well,
he manufactured the Sex Pistols, and much of their seemingly heartfelt
rebellion was shtick. But they inspired the real thing.
The Clash, for example, were the real thing– true jihadists.Perhaps a few Mclaren-esque rainmakers were strategically poised to get things going in Iran.
I
get annoyed about all the double standards in the reporting, which you
have written about. Iranians killed: shock, horror! Three hundred
children slaughtered in Gaza…"well, it's complicated. They started
it!"
Loewenstein, on cowbell:
Necessary skepticism about foreign resistance suggests both the power of the US….and weakness of indigenous uprisings.
Just read the comments by the tribal Jews and ZioBots via megaphone on Blumenthal's blog post on Neda vs. Bassem (I think that's his name).
Necessary skepticism about foreign resistance suggests both the power of the US….and weakness of indigenous uprisings. Pretty close to my basic argument on Patrick Lang's blog. None of the Iranians I met over the last decades fits the image of the mass led by whatever propaganda. I once exaggerated it slightly but quite a few Iranians read your blog, Phil. What do you think that means? the U.S. had no hand in the Tehran uprising, especially given the use that neocons are now making of it to try and pave the way for bombing Iran. They will fit whatever reality into their larger power-of-the-will scenario, absolutely no doubt about that. The big question is, will it work again in the US? I somehow doubt. Although the critiques of the US media still are a lonely crowd. I thought about "balance" and Richard Witty while reading this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/02...
When you question the source of the dissent, he/you are saying that the sentiments of the 500,000 on the streets weren't real. Its nearly certain that there were individuals that were "stirring up trouble". But, if a few individuals could stir up that kind of response, then the feeling itself was real. There is NO rational progressive response to the Iranian electoral practise, which according to the numbers reported (or not), were that "we didn't bother to count the votes", and "shut up if you don't abide by it". The current response is to arrest (kidnap in the language of the Gaza boaters) British embassy staff on espionage charges, punishable by death. They didn't expel the diplomats, they kidnapped them. You are watching this Phil and Antony. You are adults. Please don't go the rationalization route.
First off, I tend not to trust analogies made by people who can't even correctly spell the names of relevant individuals. It's "McLaren", not "McClaren". Second, while McLaren certainly played up the Sex Pistols' rebelliousness as a marketing tool, to suggest that Johnny Rotten's rebelliousness was just "shtick" is inane, nor was the band "manufactured" — a term usually applied to prefab groups assembled by record companies. McLaren was initially a clothing designer and boutique owner who got involved with rock music by designing outfits for bands such as the New York Dolls, and gradually moved from that role into publicity and management. He did not manufacture the Sex Pistols, though he did suggest Johnny Rotten as a possible frontman after being impressed with Rotten's distinctive look and offensive personality. The difference between the Pistols and the Clash is not at all a matter of shtick vs "true jihadists"; it's more a distinction between pure rage and focused, articulated dissent. The latter is probably more effective as a political tool, but the former is no less authentic. The argument here, leaving the badly flawed analogy aside, seems basically to be that anytime seemingly spontaneous protests erupt against a regime that the US doesn't like, the US is to be automatically suspected of acting behind the scenes in some way to stir up the trouble, as if the citizens must be a mass of sheep incapable of acting on their own initiative even when their government's abuses are as blatant as the Iranian election fraud. In the absence of any credible evidence, this cannot be taken seriously, and the argument is really just an insult to the Iranian people.
Phil, can you prove to me that the Intifada wasn't "stirred up" a bit by the KKK? Or maybe the Soviet Union? Isn't it possible that all that rebelliousness was helped a little by some foreign neo-Nazi groups that wanted to see the Jewish state done in? Of course, I know history (and Arabic) and I know that this is ridiculous. But since ridiculous hasn't been stopping us from saying this sort of stuff about Iran, how about we be equal opportunity, huh?
The Salon article you reference about, at best "stenographic news," suggests implicitly that it will work again in the US. However that really depends on how much average Americans equate the Iraq set up and a new set up on Iran. I can see why the article reminded you of Richard Witty's consistent approach on this blog. In 2005 the Egyptian regime cracked down physically hard on its election opponents. I don't remember that ever making the MSM news at all. Congress approved 400 million for infiltrating Iran in 07, if memory serves. So now I tend to think also that it is naive to believe that the U.S. had no hand in the Tehran uprising, especially given the use that neocons are now making of it to try and pave the way for bombing Iran.
Another thing, a lot of the US MSM speculation assuming a rigged/choked-off election result itself assumes a fallacy, that is, that Egyptian votes where the are registered as in the USA, but in fact Egyptians carry vote books and can vote from anywhere in Egypt.
I like your distinction between the Pistols and Clash (loved Clash). On the other hand, maybe US politicians look at voters equally as a mass of sheep, without knowing it echoing Goebbels, Hitler, and Goebbels's mentor, marketing classic king, Bernays. Further, I can't imagine the applicable US government agencies do not constantly try to secretly stir up inside trouble against all regimes the US leaders are unhappy about.
KKK and neo-Nazi groups have not remotely such power to stir things up. What would the USSR have had to gain?
Maybe it was the CIA. The CIA could have instigated relatively peaceful protests in Palestine because they knew Israel would respond with overwhelmingly crushing force, and destroy hope in Palestine for change through non-violence and civil disobedience. Since they knew US media would not cover this in detail, there was little chance for blowback. And then Palestinians would be forced into more guerilla and suicide operations, which would then be heavily covered by US corporate media, and would be used to justify such Israeli actions as the apartheid wall, continued occupation, house demolition, etc.. So you see, the CIA actually had quite a lot to gain in supporting the Intifada while simultaneously ensuring that it would fail. This is *exactly* what I've seen people here propose is happening in Iran. So apply it universally, is all I'm saying.
I wish Philip would quote people who actually know a thing or two about Iran, and there are many such people. Instead we get this superficial BS about how some guy thinks about the Sex Pistols.
It appeared to me that Mousavi and his wife were the driving force behind the demonstrations. Phil and Antony who see a conspiracy everywhere may think the CIA planted them and brainwashed Mousavi to be a willing martyr, but it really doesn't appear credible.
I agree with Phil's wife. There is no way Oswald should have been brought out in a garage with hundreds of people surrounding him. The police didn't worry about security in the 1960's? I will always believe that was a setup.
The Egypt example versus Iran can be easily explained by news values theory. Clearly Iran has been hammered into people's minds, resulting in public interest concerning the election (Agenda setting). So Iran has developed quite a bit of "currency" during Bush's reign, scroll a bit down to the news values, it's the blue table about center of the page below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values#Defining... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_values#Defining... ************************************************************** citizen, I am not denying that money may have flowed into Iranian reform quarters. But since Phil's wife uses the PR/marketing analogy, sometimes money is ill spent too. I witnessed huge flows of money into really ill conceived marketing or PR campaigns. There are few really creative minds in the field, much fast copying going on, and the main prerequisite for a real good blueprint is exquisite basic data of the context. There is not much humint on the ground as far as I know. So where exactly did it flow? The argument about US influence basically rests on a known number and takes a free imaginative flight from there. How much of it was diverted for US based well paid media and information campaigns. We simply do not know enough about what exactly was done with the money. In Bush times I witnessed quite a few really odd but US funded and based campaigns. One caught my attention since they somehow used Patrick Lang in a peculiar way. Unfortunately I am not storing these matters. But I expect that the knowledge about a big pot of money will automatically create quite a bit of efforts to tap into it. So to whom did it flow, via whom and how?
"Preparing for regime change from below " "A Steady squeeze on Iran" by A Sandhu ( Asia Times (4,7,07) "Since last year, a newly created office of Iranian affairs led by Elizabeth Cheney is financing a large number of civil-society groups under the Iran Democracy Project that "must outline activities linked to reform and demonstrate how the proposed approach would achieve sustainable impact in Iran". [15] In a repeat of the pattern of the "color" revolutions of the recent past, the United States is funding a number of civil-society groups via the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). The US Congress is increasing funding for the Iran Democracy Project: $66.1 million in 2006; $85 million for 2007; and $100 million for 2008. [16] During 2008, 75% of the fund will be designated for the support of civil-society and human-rights projects in Iran. …The NED-affiliated International Republican Institute has been providing training to groups and individuals from Iran outside the country on what could be called non-violent civil disobedience, but is in fact a preparation for regime change from inside. "
I don't disagree with you. Your ending sentence raises a key question. It would clarify matters. Too bad that information is no doubt security classified.
The same techniques used to manufacture music celebrities were used to create Hagee: RJC and CUFI Incite Islamophobia. Never forget that just as Jewish Zionist operatives with the US government use US power to subvert other nations to the benefit of Zionism, Jewish Zionists use the exact same techniques to subvert the USA.
That is very plausible until you think about whether Israel would allow such intervention; I doubt it–they wish to control anything involving risk management and they are on the ground there.
Truly great detective work, Fineline. Thank you so much! Fineline · 1 hour ago "Preparing for regime change from below " "A Steady squeeze on Iran" by A Sandhu ( Asia Times (4,7,07) "Since last year, a newly created office of Iranian affairs led by Elizabeth Cheney is financing a large number of civil-society groups under the Iran Democracy Project that "must outline activities linked to reform and demonstrate how the proposed approach would achieve sustainable impact in Iran". [15] In a repeat of the pattern of the "color" revolutions of the recent past, the United States is funding a number of civil-society groups via the National Endowment of Democracy (NED). The US Congress is increasing funding for the Iran Democracy Project: $66.1 million in 2006; $85 million for 2007; and $100 million for 2008. [16] During 2008, 75% of the fund will be designated for the support of civil-society and human-rights projects in Iran. …The NED-affiliated International Republican Institute has been providing training to groups and individuals from Iran outside the country on what could be called non-violent civil disobedience, but is in fact a preparation for regime change from inside. "
Substitute "Mossad" for CIA and that's pretty much what occurred. Hamas was largely funded by Sharon's government at the beginning to use as a counterweight to the PLO. The PLO was launching a "peace offensive" at the UN against Israel, was doing such terrible things as engaging in unilateral cease-fires, recognizing Israel and calling for peace deals that Israel desperately needed rescue by Palestinian hardliners to justify its continued repression and land-theft in Palestine. Hamas was Johnny on the spot just when Israel needed a few good suicide bombings to derail the "peace process." http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2477/