Has the U.S. Played a Role in Fomenting Unrest During Iran’s Election?

by Jeremy R. Hammond

June 23, 2009

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Has the U.S. Played a Role in Fomenting Unrest During Iran’s Election?”.

1 2 3 4 5 6 View All

About the Author

Jeremy R. Hammond

Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent political analyst and a recipient of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism. He is the founding editor of Foreign Policy Journal (www.foreignpolicyjournal.com) and can also be found on the web at JeremyRHammond.com. He is the author of "Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis" and "The Rejection of Palestinian Self-Determination: The Struggle for Palestine and the Roots of the Israeli-Arab Conflict", both available in paperback or Kindle versions from Amazon.com. More...

80 Responses to Has the U.S. Played a Role in Fomenting Unrest During Iran’s Election?

Jeremy R. Hammond

June 29, 2009 at 4:17 am

RobbBlack wrote, “Jeremy does NOTHING that links the CIA to Mousavi and his movement.” That’s right, I don’t. Nor do I claim that the CIA is linked to Mousavi. So the point of the comment???

As for his comment that I have “neo-luddite views of Twitter and other social media”, I challenge RobbBlack to quote a single statement I made that even remotely suggests I’m opposed to new media technology. Really, some of you people need to actually READ before trying to respond, because remarks like this are just asinine.
ChrisE

June 29, 2009 at 12:52 pm

Al,

I too was very disappointed by the appointment of Ross. However, he does not set policy and I have it on good authority that he is backing engagement.

Jeremy,

We clearly have different viewpoints and have both set out positions.

1) Netanyahu opposes Obama’s policy in Iran whilst previously he sang the praises of Bush’s? That speaks volumes.

2) So I’m expected to believe that Obama wants negotiations with the Iranian govt in order to destabalise Iran and affect regime change (as per Bush). Evidence?

3) Where is the evidence of Obama’s sabre rattling? Clearly there is a change in tone re-threats here.

4) I need to provide sources for things Obama hasn’t said?

5) Obama is trying to bring Iran into a long term policy of regional cooperation in Afghanistan. Frankly, he needs to. This means joint govt-govt conferences, summits etc. Please provide me evidence that Bush pursued any similar official initiatives (rather than the very covert and limited cooperation that occured in 2001-2 when Iran was happy to see the Taliban defeated). We are talking political initiative here- not tactical (military or intelligence)

6) the goal is regime change but you provide no evidence (and freely admit that none exists) that the Obama administration is pursuing it. Fine, what an excellent piece of journalism.

Bottom line is that there is no new information in this article. I don’t subscribe to the position that there is a ‘standing operating procedure’ which has established a continous trajectory for US regime change in Iran for ever more. Clearly, you think that this assumption is an effective substitute for actually gathering evidence (or even rumours).

You have obviously gone too far down the road to admit that there may be a new policy in Iran. However, within academia ( not journalism), the vast majority believe that Obama is pursuing a different strategy of normalisation- which Bush plainly did not do (and McCain explicitly said he would not do). You are the one who is isolated here.

Derek W.C,

Firstly, you are an arrogant and racist bigot (actually surprised your comments have not been deleted by moderators…probabaly speaks volumes). Nor am I Australian- not that nationality should influence any argument. Your deranged ramblings were, however, ample evidence of an impoverished mind. The fact that idiots like Derek oppose my point of view is actually intellectually gratifying and hugely reassuring. Never nice to be on the same side as bigots in any debate…
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm
  
  Chris,
  
  1) Netanyahu and Obama clearly came to an understanding on policy towards Iran in their meeting in Washington. Netanyahu backed down from demanding that there be “linkage” between the Iran issue and progress on a two-state solution, and Obama announced a deadline for progress in “diplomacy” (so-called) with Iran.
  
  2) Yes. I’ve written about it elsewhere. Search my articles at FPJ on Iran and you’ll find them.
  
  3) Where did I say Obama was “sabre rattling”? Yes, clearly there is a change in tone. A change in tone does not translate into a change in policy. The goal is the same. Only the strategy has changed.
  
  4) I didn’t ask you “to provide sources for things Obama hasn’t said”. I asked you to source your assertion that Obama had cut funding for Iranian opposition groups. In fact, USA Today reported that Obama was continuing funding through USAID.
  
  5) Obama wants Iran’s cooperation on Afghanistan. So did Bush, and he got it. I don’t know what more there is to say.
  
  6) Nowhere did I say that there is no evidence that the Obama administration is pursuing regime change.
  
  “Bottom line is that there is no new information in this article.” Yes. It’s a background piece.
  
  You may not “subscribe to the position” that there’s a SOP, but that remains a fact of history. I cited examples, just a tiny tip of the iceberg.
  
  I’m perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there may be a new policy on Iran. It’s just that so far, I’ve seen no evidence that that is the case.
  
  Finally, I don’t know what you’re trying to insinuate by saying that the fact I didn’t delete a bigoted comment (and, yes, it is a bigoted comment I also find repulsive) “probably speaks volumes”. I invite you to just come out and say whatever it is you’re trying to imply. Really, please do. Let’s hear it.
Chris

June 29, 2009 at 4:14 pm

1) Obama has not established a deadline for negotiations. In fact , he has resisted Israeli pressure to do so. I really don’t know what more to say than find me a source (cause I have no idea where you get your information from).

Here is the text of the Obama-Netanyahu press conference:

Q Mr. President, you spoke at length, as did the Prime Minister, about Iran’s nuclear program. Your program of engagement, policy of engagement, how long is that going to last? Is there a deadline?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I don’t want to set an artificial deadline. I think it’s important to recognize that Iran is in the midst of its own elections. As I think all of you, since you’re all political reporters, are familiar with, election time is not always the best time to get business done.

Their elections will be completed in June, and we are hopeful that, at that point, there is going to be a serious process of engagement, first through the P5-plus-one process that’s already in place, potentially through additional direct talks between the United States and Iran.

Plus, Obama very publicly gave the cold shoulder to Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli army chief of staff, who had travelled to the US to warn against Iran’s alleged nuclear threat.

2) Not much I can say to that.

3) An end in making threats means an end to an overtly threatening posture. That’s a change in policy. That is, unless you can find evidence of non public threats or covert ops. The whole point of me entering this discussion is that you can’t.

4) You can read Timmerman’s disgust at the end of funding for opposition groups here: http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Obama_Democracy_Iran/2009/06/19/227155.html

Some important information regarding the USAToday story:

a) It is not confirmed and nor do you know what the money may be spent on.
b) Regardless, it will NOT be used to fund Iranian opposition groups. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said, “Let’s be clear: The United States does not fund any movement, faction or political party in Iran”
c) Even if true, a $15 million boost for the entire Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative (of which Iran is just a part) is token. In 2006 Congress approved $66 million just for Iran (but again, most when on Radio Farda/RFE or was returned- very little made it to Iranian groups).

I don’t see how you think this token gesture, even if true, could be desribed as a genuine effort to change the regime.

5) So you’re saying that one off covert intelligence sharing for very limited objectives is the same as a high level political/diplomatic initiative which draws Iran into a long term regional framework and possibly even the use of its facilities? Again, an isolated opinion but I appreciate you sticking to your guns.

6) Then please provide sources from post January 2009.

Simply saying something is ‘fact of history’ doesn’t win an argument. You could drive a truck through your SOP thesis- which, as I said, reduces US policy to be on a continous trajectory towards regime change for the rest of history.

On your last point, I apologise and retract any insinuation that this is a bigotted site. It is an obviously biased one, but that is all (and we all have our own bias). I was initially surprised that such comments are allowed- but at least it stands to simply ridicule/discredit Derek publicly.

I think I will now probably bow out of what has been an interesting and useful debate. I regret the tone of my first two posts, but considered the insinuation (without proof) that America was meddling in the current unrest highly irresponsible. I’m afraid I still feel that way. However, I also repeat my belief that the failed policies of the Bush admin (and before) deserve to be chronicled. You do a good job of doing so here.

Cheers
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 30, 2009 at 1:40 am
  
  Chris,
  
  1) You left out where Obama said: “My expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there’s a good faith effort to resolve differences. That doesn’t mean every issue would be resolved by that point, but it does mean that we’ll probably be able to gauge and do a reassessment by the end of the year of this approach….
  
  “The important thing is to make sure that there is a clear timetable of — at which point we say these talks don’t seem to be making any serious progress. It hasn’t been tried before so we don’t want to prejudge that, but as I said, by the end of the year I think we should have some sense as to whether or not these discussions are starting to yield significant benefits, whether we’re starting to see serious movement on the part of the Iranians.”
  
  3) I disagree on your interpretation of what constitutes policy as opposed to a strategy that is part of that policy. The Obama administration is using different tactics, but the policy remains the same. It still insists that Iran suspend enrichment, and that is the still the basis of the proposed talks.
  
  4) Timmerman is executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a recipient of NED funding. He also wrote BEFORE the election that there was talk of a color revolution, and he said that money from NED “appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups”.
  
  http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Iran_election_Reformists/2009/06/11/224025.html
  
  a, b) The USA Today story clearly states the money will fund Iranian dissident groups, so I don’t know why you’re denying that:
  
  “The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President Bush.”
  
  c) Also, you’re wrong on where the $66 million went. In fact, the money that was CUT from the funding was money earmarked for VOA/Radio Farda. We don’t know how much made its way to opposition groups, but that part of the budget was not cut.
  
  You say you don’t see how support for dissident groups “could be described as a genuine effort to change the regime.” Well, sure, taken alone. The U.S. also had a policy of regime change in Iraq. Part of the policy included funding dissident groups. I documented other cases in my article. Just a tiny sampling, the tip of the iceberg.
  
  d) I don’t know where you’re getting this idea about the level of cooperation Obama wants with Iran on Afghanistan. What I’ve seen proposed wouldn’t be much different than the cooperation Bush sought. The use of Iran’s facilities? By the U.S.? Source, please?
  
  6) What post?
  
  So, just to be clear, you deny that the U.S. has repeatedly sought regime change in other countries, and in many cases succeeded, including through interference in elections? Do you want more examples than the ones already listed? I’ll give you a whole book. Read “Killing Hope” by William Blum. Or “Legacy of Ashes” by Tim Wiener.
  
  This kind of activity is SOP. I’ll say it again: That’s a fact of history.
  
  It’s very possible that the U.S. interefered in Iran. I fail to see how acknowledging that very plausible scenario is “highly irresponsible”. I think it’s highly irresponsible that journalists with more resources than I haven’t investigated that question. I simply don’t have the resources to do so properly, but it’s a good question and it deserves investigation. All I did with my article was raise the question and bring the topic to the table for discussion and investigation. Nothing more.
JOHN CHUCKMAN

June 29, 2009 at 6:29 pm

AHMADINEJAD WON INDEED AND THE REAL SOURCE OF INTERFERENCE IN IRAN’S ELECTION IS LIKELY THE UNITED STATES

John Chuckman

A recent article called “Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over It” by Flynt and Hillary Leverett is not the only source with serious credentials offering reasonable, non-sensational explanations for events around Iran’s presidential election.

Kaveh Afrasiabi, a scholar who once taught at Tehran University and is the author of several books, says many of the same things.

Close analysis of the election results gives absolutely no objective basis for making charges of a rigged election. Mousavi’s expected win – expected, that is, by the Western press and by Mousavi himself – never had any basis in fact.

Afrasiabi also tells us that Ahmadinejad is extremely popular with the poor in Iran, a very large constituency, and he tells us further that Ahmadinejad spent a great deal of time traveling through the country during his first term listening to them. Ahmadinejad is himself a man of fairly humble origins with a good deal of genuine sympathy for the poor.

Of course, the public in the West has been treated to a barrage of propaganda about Ahmadinejad, conditioned by countless disingenuous stories and editorials to regard him as the essence of evil, ready to stir up trouble at a moment’s notice. These perceptions, too, have no basis in fact.

Ahmadinejad is a highly educated man, ready and willing to communicate with leaders in the West, although given to poking fun at some of the shibboleths we hold to. His office as president is not a powerful one in an Iran where power is divided amongst several groups, just as it is in the United States. He has no war-making power.

Even his infamous statement about Israel – mistranslated consistently to make it sound terrible – was nothing more than the same kind of statement made by the CIA in its secret study predicting the peaceful end of today’s Israel in twenty years or the statement by Libya’s leader, Gaddafi, saying Israel would be drowned in a sea of Arabs. Unpleasant undoubtedly for some, the statement was neither criminal nor threatening when properly understood.

The post-election troubles in Iran definitely reflect the interference of security services from at least the United States and Britain. We have several serious pieces of evidence.

First, Iran discovered and arrested just recently a group with sophisticated bomb equipment from Britain. They were caught red-handed, although our press has chosen to be pretty much silent on the matter. Of course, we all recall the arrest of a group of fifteen British sailors a couple of years ago, an event treated in our press as the snatching of innocents on the high seas when in fact they were on a secret mission in disputed waters claimed by Iran.

Robert Fisk recently wrote an excellent piece about photocopies of what purported to be a confidential official government report to the head of state, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, regarding the election results. It attributed a ridiculously small share of the vote to Ahmadinejad and was somehow being waved by Mousavi’s followers all over the streets. It seems clearly invented as a provocation, much in the fashion of the famous “yellow cake” document before America’s invasion of Iraq.

We know that Bush committed several hundred million dollars towards a program creating instability in Iran and that Obama has never renounced the operation.

Iran, surrounded by threatening enemies and the daily recipient of dire threats from Israel and the United States, has absolutely no history of aggression: it has started no conflicts in its entire modern era, but naturally enough it becomes concerned about its security when threatened by nuclear-armed states.

Such threats from the United States are not regarded idly by anyone, coming as they do, from a nation occupying two nations of Western and Central Asia, a nation whose invasions have caused upwards of a million deaths and sent at least two million into exile as refugees.

It is a nation moreover that definitely threatened, behind the scenes, to use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan immediately after 9/11, helping end that threat being one of the main reasons for Britain’s joining the pointless invasion in the first place.

In assessing the genuine threats in the world, please remember what we all too often forget: the United States is the only nation ever actually to use nuclear weapons, twice, on civilians. It also came close to using them again in the early 1950s hysteria over communism – twice, once against China and once in a pre-emptive strike at the Soviet Union – and again later considered using them in Vietnam.

As for the other regular source of threats against, Israel, it is a nation which has attacked every neighbor that it has at one time or another. In the last two years alone, it has killed more people in Lebanon and Gaza than the number who perished in 9/11. It is also a secret nuclear power, having broken every rule and international law to obtain and assist in proliferating nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are many middle class people in Iran who would like a change of government. Such yearnings are no secret and exist everywhere in the world where liberal government is missing, including millions of Americans under years of George Bush and his motivating demon, Dick Cheney.

But saying that is not the same thing as saying that a majority of Iran’s people want a change in government or that the election was a fraud.

And remember, too, Iran had a democratic government more than half a century ago, that of Mohammed Mosaddeq, but it was overthrown in 1953 and the bloody Shah installed in its place by the very same governments now meddling in Iran, the United States and Britain.
Mostafa

June 29, 2009 at 7:22 pm

We saw two FBI s officers who had interviews with CNN just few days back which very clearly admitted that they have their agents and spies in Iran and are active despite officially they cant come to Iran in answering to the question of the host, And Obama said the protestors that we support you and keep going on your fight,just one month before the election Obama supports Iranians nuclear program in Cairo where there has been too much protests against the present government, and suddenly the motto of CHANGE is getting back to Bush ‘s policies, How come do we say that there is no involvement of US in the recent protests, I v been seeing the protests closely and you could easily realize how the mottos were organized and how people were inviting the street crossers to join them, US, Britain , Italy, Germany were involved during the crises, how funny the opposition leader (Mousavi)is suggesting Ahmadinejad that each candidate to takes his fan and supporters out in a separate area in Tehran and see who has more supporters and then changing the result as per the figures,
Mousavi is just saying there has been fraud with bringing no proof or evidences or even complaining to the Guardian Council,Most of you are out of Iran and just seeing the BBC,CNN,FOX NEWS, and …..but we are here in Tehran and see what s going on, how some abusers are attacking to the shops and ordinary people and killing the innocents people, Who is Iran ‘s biggest Enemy? You very well know and why US is supporting it just like Iraq during imposed war against Iran after the revolution. So please please think twice
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
  
  Got a link? This assertion (re: FBI spies in Iran) isn’t credible. The FBI is a law enforcement, not an intelligence/spy agency. That aside, if you’ve got information from Iran you’d like to share, please do so (either here in the comments, or email me privately).
P.M.Lawrence

June 30, 2009 at 2:08 am

Jeremy R. Hammond wrote “Actually, it was the Shah that to dismiss him [Mossadegh], but he refused to abdicate [sic], saying only the Parliament could do so. When Mossadegh announced the attempted coup against him by the Shah… I guess that’s what you meant by saying Mossadegh was dismissed by the Parliament.”

If you wish to make that quibble, no doubt from unfamiliarity with the Westminster System of parliamentary government, then by the same reasoning he never had been democratically elected in the first place, even indirectly by the parliament, but only ever appointed by the Shah.

For the benefit of other readers, here is how it works. Parliament is elected democratically. Within that, someone emerges who can obtain a working majority, and approaches the Head of State to say so; this happened to Mossadegh. The latter then appoints him to be Head of Government (Prime Minister) and nominees from his team to other ministerial positions. As, when and if he can no longer command that working majority, the Head of State dismisses him; this happened to Mossadegh. At that point another may emerge with a working majority and the process repeats, or not, and the Head of State dismisses that parliament and calls for further elections to get a new one. Formally, only he can do this.

Mossadegh was lying in his claim that only the parliament could dismiss him. In any case, it was in no position to issue any statement calling for his dismissal, over and above its removal of his working majority, because he had promptly, unlawfully, unconstitutionally and undemocratically dismissed it by force majeure, although only the Head of State had the proper authority to do so, in the circumstances outlined above, and had not in fact done so.

Mossadegh was properly and duly dismissed by the parliament, through the same formal and indirect channels by which he had come to power – but instead of going he made himself a dictator. The only failing in the counter-coup was not that it went through improper channels (given that proper channels had been suppressed) but that, instead of reinstating proper channels and getting democracy going again the Shah became a dictator himself. There is clearly a pattern here of perpetuating a myth in favour of Mossadegh, but it was a situation with no good guys.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 30, 2009 at 2:41 am
  
  Mossadegh was elected by the Majlis. I fail to see how any logic I employed could lead one to another conclusion.
  
  You say under the Westminster System, the head of state could legally dismiss the Prime Minister. Did Iran have a Westminster System of parliamentary government? Not according to this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system. Perhaps there’s been an omission there.
  
  He was elected by the Parliament. He resigned, but was then reappointed by the Shah (hypocritically accepting the Shah’s dismissal of Ahmad Qavam while later protesting the Shah’s power to do this). The Majlis then tacitly confirmed that reappointment by granting Mossadegh emergency powers. Under pressure from the U.S., the Shah then tried to dismiss him. I question your assertion that this was legal. It was not the Parliament that attempted to dismiss him, but the Shah. To say it was the Majlis that dismissed him is simply false.
P.M.Lawrence

June 30, 2009 at 8:34 am

Jeremy R. Hammond wrote “Mossadegh was elected by the Majlis. I fail to see how any logic I employed could lead one to another conclusion.”

As a matter of historical fact, that was not the case, except in the indirect manner I outlined. It is not your logic that is at fault here, but the selective omission of historical facts.

“Did Iran have a Westminster System of parliamentary government? Not according to this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system“.

The wikipedia list is not exhaustive. Iran then had a system on that general model. In the relevant aspects, it was set up as I described. You may find it more helpful to refer to http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Iran_const_1906.doc which was in effect at the time, linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Constitution_of_1906 (particularly note articles 4.46 and 4.67, read together, which support the idea that the approach was broadly a Westminster System in the relevant respects).

“The Majlis then tacitly confirmed that reappointment by granting Mossadegh emergency powers. Under pressure from the U.S., the Shah then tried to dismiss him. I question your assertion that this was legal. It was not the Parliament that attempted to dismiss him, but the Shah. To say it was the Majlis that dismissed him is simply false.”

This is itself false, not simply but by omission: the omission of the facts I described earlier, that he lost his working majority in the Majlis before the Shah dismissed him on the occasion when he refused to go, and that that was how the system was supposed to work. Compare and contrast this with the Whitlam dismissal crisis here in Australia, if you like.
Chris

June 30, 2009 at 10:40 am

JRH,

I haven’t got a time to go into yet another lengthy point by point rebuttal but I wish to draw attention to something I have just been sent by Richard Sale (Middle East Times Intelligence Correspondent).

“President Obama cancelled any covert action operations against Iran soon
after he came to office, but Farsi anti-regime propaganda programs are
still ongoing.”

So basically money remains for Radio Farda. A good use of money, maybe not. A policy of regime change…clearly not. Ending covert ops not a change in policy…give me a break.

By all means continue, however, to insist that those who doubt that current policy in Iran is regime change via covert of operations are ‘denying facts of history’. Clearly most of the eminent specialists of the region (on both sides of the political divide) are in need of your re-education. I would suggest, however, that you don’t admit to not having enough time or resources to answer your own question before you try and convince anyone.

Sensible journalism requires more than reductionist arguments or unevidenced conjecture. This is especially the case when people’s lives are being lost and the people killing them are essentially using similar arguments (I don’t for a second think you trying to justify the Iranian govt). However, you only need to look at Mostafa’s comments to see why this article is irresponsible.

It is pretty ironic if Mostafa thinks that his govt is not feeding him much more biased and manipulated information than he alleges we are only reading in the West!
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 30, 2009 at 3:46 pm
  
  I’d like to know what evidence Sale knows of that Obama “cancelled any covert action operations against Iran soon after he came to office”. It’s possible that’s the case. But his remark that anti-regime propaganda operations continue clearly reflects a policy of regime change.
  
  As for your “give me a break” remark, when did I ever say ending covert ops would not reflect a change in policy? I said the rhetoric about diplomacy isn’t evidence of a change of policy, and the U.S. position demanding Iran end enrichment is precisely the same as it was under Bush.
  
  Also, when did I ever say that those who doubt current U.S. policy is regime change via covert are “denying facts of history”. What I said was a fact of history is that the U.S. has a long history of employing such means as I’ve outlined to implement policies of regime change.
  
  You’re rather fond of these strawman arguments.
  
  Why would you suggest I not admit to not having time and resources? I don’t have time and resources. Should I pretend otherwise? I run FPJ in my spare time. It doesn’t pay the bills. I do the best I can with what I have, but what I have is limited. My goal with this article was to do what I can to help lay out some relevant background and bring the possibility to the table for discussion. I’ve accomplished that goal (and you are evidence of that).
  
  I disagree with your opinion that it’s “irresponsible” to point out these facts of history and based on this clear modus operandi theorize the possibility of U.S. involvement in this case.
  
  I presume you mean “Mousavi”. Not “Mostafa”.
  
  The bottom line is that you dismiss the possibility and I do not. You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to mine. You want to make suggestions to me; I have one for you. Try to refrain from telling people voicing their opinions is “irresponsible”. It’s what people do in a free society.
chris

June 30, 2009 at 4:30 pm

I would say that the most of Iran’s state run media runs anti-US/UK propaganda. Are we to now believe that this is part of a coherent strategy to bring down Western governments? You cannot tell the difference between public diplomacy (even misguided PD) and regime change? The US broadcasts foreign language programs all over the world- is it policy to bring down all these govt?!!

Would the US, in an ideal world, prefer Iran to not be ruled as it is now. Sure. The reality is that the US admin doesn’t think it can change the regime using TV broadcasting!! It may think it can try and draw the attention of iranians to possible injustices and may even challenge some of the negative portrayals of America inside Iran. It probably won’t achieve this either with TV broadcasts. But it may think it is worth a try. This, and not regime change, is the more plausible aim.

You also fail to contemplate that changing policy in Iran faces enormous resistance from sections inside America and Israel. It is very probable that Obama is throwing a token gesture towards the right as a tactic to undermine opposition to his overall policy of engagement.

You have indeed accomplished your goal of promoting debate. But I simply don’t think that was your only goal.

No, I meant Mostafa. A recent contributor on this page who clearly buys the unsubstantiated claims of his govt that the US, Britain , Italy and Germany are organising the unrest in Iran. The Iranian authorities clearly do this to play the nationalist card and justify their increasingly repressive crack down on the protestors. Now if we are insisting on SOPs, Iranian authorities attacking dissent by linking it to foreign interference is the dictionary definition of a SOP.

There is responsible journalism and there is irresponsible journalism. One can be applauded and the other can be criticised (depending on your point of view). I don’t think notions of freedom have anything to do with this observation and I don’t deny your right to your own conjecture. Personally, however, I favour sober analysis and hard facts when interpreting current events.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  June 30, 2009 at 4:45 pm
  
  If Iran broadcasted anti-US propaganda into the United States, yes you could probably make a safe bet that it was part of a larger strategy to affect regime change.
  
  I really don’t know what you find so ridiculous or implausible about my saying U.S. policy towards Iran is one of regime change. I should think that’s hardly a controversial observation. As you said, “Would the US, in an ideal world, prefer Iran to not be ruled as it is now. Sure.” Well, there you have it.
  
  I should hope the administration recognizes broadcasting propaganda by itself won’t bring about regime change. It would be a shame if we had another administration as out of touch as the “we’ll be greeted with flowers” neocon crowd. I don’t the Obama’s team is that stupid or naive.
  
  I agree completely with your point about Iran’s SOP. I’d only add that while we should be extremely skeptical of such claims, neither should we dismiss the possibility that they may actually be correct. After all, as I’ve shown (with sober analysis and hard facts), they would have been correct to do so on many counts in the past.
chris

June 30, 2009 at 5:12 pm

There is an obvious difference between desiring regime change and trying to affect it.

There is an equally obvious difference between deploying propaganda/public diplomacy and actively and realistically pursuing regime change.

I find it ironic that ‘probably’ ‘possibly’ and ‘safe bets’ are all fine when ascribing US interference.in Iran. Would you accept a similar standard of proof from the US in relation to Iran’s ambitions to develop nuclear weapons? I certainly wouldn’t.

I do not dismiss entirely such claims. I remain so skeptical, however, that I would have to see serious and compelling evidence before I entertained writing an article that states it is ‘possibly, even likely, true’. If I did see proof it would be irresponsible for me NOT to write an article about it.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  July 1, 2009 at 1:33 am
  
  Well, hopefully by writing this article and bringing people’s attention to the U.S. role and it’s SOP for dealing with regimes consider unfriendly to perceived U.S. interests, more people will discuss it and investigate it and we’ll be able to answer the question one way or the other. That’s the whole point, Chris.
V. Bidar

June 30, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I am a student living in Tehran.
I took part in most of protest.
Nobody, No man, No country made me to this. I did it because I am not satisfied with our government. I did it because I am sure the result of election is not true, it dramatically ended in fraud.
Every time we show our opposition by demonstration or other kinds of peaceful protest the religious governors say that USA and UK are behind these protests. I am sad about it. I am angry of these lies. Because I am one of the people and I know that we protest by ourselves. No one triggers us. No theory and no political analysis is needed to discover the truth. The truth is that a high percent of Iranians hate the current establishment governing over the country.
Please understand our situation.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  July 1, 2009 at 1:42 am
  
  V. Bidar, nowhere in my article did I suggest that the U.S. made you and other Iranians protest. What I the U.S. likely did, if it was involved, was help spread propaganda about the “fraudulent” elections (there’s still no hard evidence of this), and possibly run covert ops such as sending agent provactateurs in which the legitimate protesters to stir up trouble and provoke a violent response from security services. These kinds of activities would be right out of the U.S. playbook.
  
  There’s been a tendency not only among the mainstream, but also among bloggers, to dismiss this possibility. My article was merely a response to that, intended merely to say that it’s entirely plausible this might have occurred.
P.M.Lawrence

June 30, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Curiously, my full reply has been removed. As I suspected this might happen, I kept a copy. Here it is again, on the off chance it will survive this time:-

Jeremy R. Hammond wrote “Mossadegh was elected by the Majlis. I fail to see how any logic I employed could lead one to another conclusion.”

As a matter of historical fact, that was not the case, except in the indirect manner I outlined. It is not your logic that is at fault here, but the selective omission of historical facts.

“Did Iran have a Westminster System of parliamentary government? Not according to this Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system“.

The wikipedia list is not exhaustive. Iran then had a system on that general model. In the relevant aspects, it was set up as I described. You may find it more helpful to refer to http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Iran_const_1906.doc which was in effect at the time, linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Constitution_of_1906 (particularly note articles 4.46 and 4.67, read together, which support the idea that the approach was broadly a Westminster System in the relevant respects).

“The Majlis then tacitly confirmed that reappointment by granting Mossadegh emergency powers. Under pressure from the U.S., the Shah then tried to dismiss him. I question your assertion that this was legal. It was not the Parliament that attempted to dismiss him, but the Shah. To say it was the Majlis that dismissed him is simply false.”

This is itself false, not simply but by omission: the omission of the facts I described earlier, that he lost his working majority in the Majlis before the Shah dismissed him on the occasion when he refused to go, and that that was how the system was supposed to work. Compare and contrast this with the Whitlam dismissal crisis here in Australia, if you like.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  July 2, 2009 at 1:24 am
  
  Your responses were automatically marked as spam, probably because of having 3 links. Good you kept a copy.
  
  Please source your claim that Mossadegh was legally dismissed by the Majlis BEFORE the Shah issued his order of dismissal.
Jewel

July 2, 2009 at 4:00 am

Seriously….you should read this from someone who’s actually BEEN TO IRAN and researched/knows its people and history!!!
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/28-10

Elementary info on Iran: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text

Elementary evidence of fraud:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf

Let’s hope Mousavi provides you with the rest.

Fortunately we as Iranians don’t need foreign intervention to tell us what’s good for us. We have quite a bit more intelligence and capability than that, thank you very much.
- Jeremy R. Hammond
  
  July 2, 2009 at 4:04 am
  
  Jewel, I never suggested Iranians need foreign intervention to tell them what’s good for them. My article assumes quite the opposite argument.
  
  I’ve read Erlich’s piece. I responded here: http://hammond.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/06/28/reese-elrich-responds-to-fpj-on-iran-election-article/.
  
  So how do you like living in the U.S.? Or are you just visiting?
sinema

July 4, 2009 at 1:26 pm

shame on you does not mind
Muhabbet

July 8, 2009 at 6:58 pm

Thankl youu Alllllllllllllll
sinema izle

July 12, 2009 at 10:14 am

thnaks my brother

http://www.bedavafilmizle.tk
bedava film izle

July 26, 2009 at 10:07 am

thanx admin thank youu
Asghar

July 26, 2009 at 3:19 pm

I’m an electronics engineer in Tehran,
26 years old.

I’m sure there was no effective fraud in election.
Also I participated in most of protests. Real Protests against the regime in Iran are not more than 3 millions but also are less. There was some strikes during the days after the election, especially the 30 Tir strike and trying to blackout the country in that time (July,21) by using high power devices such as iron at 21 o’clock. It was possible in Iran (at middle of summer) if at least 3 millions of people was doing this job. Although there was a lot advertisements for it during 2weeks before 30 Tir, But no type of blackout happened!!

As I searched and fund out the green revolution is going on. But the certain fact is that Ahmadinejad is the real winner of the election with no effective fraud. the fraud (if there has been existed) can not be more than 1.5 million votes.
thomas

August 8, 2009 at 3:15 pm

WOW…..What an article…..especially in this time of two paragraph news stories !!!

Jason Ditz @ antiwar.com… E.G. Thank You Very much for this comprehensive piece.. Also thank you for the ability to comment,,,,,,,, It keeps things HONEST..
sohbet

September 8, 2009 at 11:11 pm

I think that U.S did it. Nobody can play a role in an democratical election!