Undermining the Regime

As the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia fall, and fighting breaks out across Libya, billionaire philanthropist and investor George Soros saw it fit to provide his insight into the situation. Iran will be overthrown “in the bloodiest of revolutions,”[1] Soros says of the turmoil fueled by economic inequality and government corruption. At a glance, he has hit the nail on the head. Since early February, remnants of the 2009’s Green Movement, inspired by the cries for democracy in Iran’s neighboring countries, have taken to the streets in a series of protests. Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition candidate in the widely contested election of 2009, has stood firm in his support of the protestors, despite calls for death from more hard-line members of the Iranian parliament.

George SorosTellingly, a little under a year ago, Iran’s Intelligence Ministry issued a decree banning some sixty organizations from the country, including the state department-funded Freedom House, Soros’ own Open Society Institute (OSI), and the Soros-financed Human Rights Watch (HRW).[2] These three organizations, along with the US’s Voice of America (VOA) radio program, and the Amsterdam-based Radio Zamaneh, all stand accused by the regime as being part of a campaign to incite unrest in the country, with the eventual goal of regime change. Western media latched onto the issue, using the banning of human rights organizations as yet another example of the regime’s despotism and ruthlessness. Tini van Goor, a Dutch NGO specialist, told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) that “it is simply nonsense what they say that we have an agenda of regime change or whatever.”[3] However, the media neglects to mention the role of Soros and his Open Society Institute in various examples of US-backed regime change around the world.

Soros’ cooperation with US foreign policy dates back to at least the 1980s, when Poland’s grassroots Solidarity trade union began its fight for freedom against the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic economic model. Seeing a perfect medium for waging a proxy war against the communist power, the United States began to funnel money into the uprising by way of the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the AFL-CIO labor union.[4] Soros and the young OSI assisted in the effort, granting $3 million a year to the dissidents.[5] Direct financial support to Solidarity aside, Soros would take a closer interest in the events; in 1989, the philanthropist would bankroll a small team consisting of Jeffery Sachs and several IMF economists.[6] With the newly liberated country flailing in financial free-fall, the Sachs team sought to help Polish policy makers formulate an economic reform plan to quell the unrest and effectively modernize the country.

Throughout its struggle, Solidarity had adhered to a strict socialist platform, calling for participatory democracy, worker’s rights, and a transformation of the large state-run enterprises into smaller worker cooperatives managed by organized councils.[7] By the time Sachs’ Soros-backed team was through with the country, none of these dreams were to be realized. The final nail in Poland’s utopian coffin was when Sachs arranged a $1 billion IMF loan to the nation, replacing worker’s cooperatives with capitalist-oriented private enterprise, and traded protectionist trade policies with borders open to foreign competition and investment. The result was skyrocketing unemployment levels and unemployment, eventually leading to an incredible backlash where the population took the streets, demanding a halt to the liberalization of their economy.

Soros and the OSI’s continued work with the State Department is far more recent. The “color revolutions” of Eastern Europe—2003’s “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and 2004’s “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine—attracted funding for the youth-based protests from NED, mainly through its National Democratic Institute and Freedom House. The OSI also distributed significant funds to the protest movements: Soros reportedly spent $42 billion in Georgia,[8] while in Ukraine, the OSI provided financing, training, and networking opportunities to the activists. In both cases, the revolutions were successful, heralded around the world as a “new wave in democracy.”

Shades of the aftermath of Poland’s Solidarity can be seen repeating in the wake of the Rose and Orange Revolutions. The IMF described the events in Georgia as “a corporate governance revolution aimed at boosting economic revival through zero tolerance of corruption, fast-track economic reform, privatization and the prioritization of foreign direct investment.”[9] The result of the pro-western government’s new economic stance was a rapid rise of the price of living, and by 2006, Georgia saw the highest unemployment rates in the former states of the Soviet Union. Similarly, the World Bank handed recommendations to the new Ukrainian government for neoliberal market reforms, citing Swedish economist (and close friend of George Soros) Anders Åslund’s calls for “re-privatization.”[10]

Iran would certainly be a natural target for those wishing to spread free-market capitalism: the Islamic Republic centrally plans large portions of its economy, has an expansive public sector, implements price controls, and provides food subsidies for the poorest citizens. Most significantly, perhaps, is that Iran’s powerful oil industry is nationalized, placed in the hands of the state. Before the ill-fated elections of 2009, Mir Hossein Mousavi opposed the country’s quasi-socialist model, calling for the privatization of state-run industry and the abandoning of their “alms-based economy”—a stark contrast to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who would carry the votes of the poorer sections of the population because of his social safety net programs.[11]

Following Mousavi’s supposed defeat, the youth of the country took to the streets as part of Green Movement, accusing the regime of rigging the election in Ahmadinejad’s favor. Notoriously brutal against dissidents, the government unleashed a violent crackdown on the protestors, resulting in many dead and many more imprisoned. One individual in the multitude of protestors that wound up in Iran’s jail system was Kian Tajbakhsh; he would subsequently be charged for multiple counts of espionage and is now facing a twelve year prison sentence. The media passively reported that Tajbakhsh was not only a consultant for the Open Society Institute, but a subscriber the Gulf/2000 Project mailing list. Described as “an international research project on political, economic and security developments in the Persian Gulf,” the Gulf/2000 Project was established by former Deputy Director for International Affairs at the Ford Foundation, and HRW director Gary Sick. The project operates out of Columbia University and receives funding from familiar grant-making apparatuses such as the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the OSI.

There are other shadowy traces of the OSI to be found in Iranian unrest. As the protests of 2009 escalated and the subsequent crackdowns becoming increasingly more violent, dissidents downloaded 3,487 Farsi translations of the seminal “From Dictatorship to Democracy” from the internet, an activist’s training manual written by Harvard professor Gene Sharp.[12] The manual, utilized by the protestors in the Rose and Orange revolutions for its pragmatic instructions on how to stage effective, non-violent coups, is distributed by Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution, itself a recipient a funds from NED and it’s conservative-leaning subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI).[13] Sharp has admitted that his institute received financing from the OSI for the translation of “From Dictatorship to Democracy” into multiple languages.[14]

Following the distinctive pattern that can be seen here—a youth-based, nonviolent revolt with a color code-name, the aura of capitalist-style market reforms, and the presence of the OSI—it is not surprising that in Iran, like Poland, Georgia, and Ukraine, the close proximity of NED can be found. “There’s talk of a ‘green revolution in Iran,'” wrote conservative journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman in an op-ed just several days before the election results were to be announced.[15] He continued:

The National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting “color” revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques.

Some of that money appears to have made it into the hands of pro-Mousavi groups, who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy funds.

Timmerman holds a special interest in Iran—he’s the executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, a “US-based Iranian dissident organization” that incidentally receives funding from NED.

In 2009 alone, NED had set aside $674,506 in grant money for Iranian activities (though in previous years, it had granted as much as $4,898,000).[16] NED receives the money from United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which “for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to ‘promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran,’ according to documents on the agency’s website.”[17] In 2008, the majority of USAID money designated for Iranian ‘democracy building’ that flowed to through the Endowment went to the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Chamber of Commerce’s free market development foundation. Other portions of the money went to the “Research Initiative for Contemporary Iran,” the “Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation,” and the “Association for Civic Society in Iran.”

In June of 2010, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain gave a rousing speech before NED, identifying the “character of the Iranian regime” as a “deeper threat to peace and freedom in our world.” McCain elaborates on what he believes the solution to this crisis to be: “I believe that it will only be a change in the Iranian regime itself—a peaceful change, chosen by and led by the people of Iran—that could finally produce the changes we seek in Iran’s policies.”[18] McCain is no stranger to speaking out against the Islamic country. During a stop on the campaign trail in 2008, McCain indulged in a grotesque parody of the Beach Boys by changing the lyrics of “Barbara Ann” to “bomb, bomb Iran.” Earlier still, John McCain’s name can be found on statements issued by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a war advocacy group known for their relentless lobbying for the toppling of Saddam Hussein. In a report titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” the Project showed their thoughts on Iran:

Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region.[19]

When he’s not busy running for president or hawkishly parodying pop songs, McCain chairs the IRI, the conservative program of NED. As to be expected, the IRI has many ties to groups and individuals opposing the Iranian regime. William Nojay, who was dispatched by the Institute to monitor the 2004 elections in the Ukraine (just before the breakout of the Orange Revolution) is the secretary and treasurer of the aforementioned Foundation for Democracy in Iran. David M. Denehy, a “democracy specialist” from the Institute, was slated to head up the Bush administration’s “Office of Iranian Affairs.” Though very little is known about this secretive program, it would appear to have been tied to Condoleezza Rice’s 2006 request from Congress for $75 million in funding to “promote freedom and human rights in Iran.”[20]

Despite McCain’s position as chairman of the IRI, and his apparent commitment to changing the face of Iran, the one-time presidential candidate attempted to market himself as a centrist politician. In 2008, McCain ran ads quoting speeches by Theodore Roosevelt, the founder of the Progressive Party, while seven years earlier he formed the Reform Institute, a “nonpartisan, non-profit educational organization” dedicated to divisive issues such as immigration, economic, and campaign finance reform. While the Institute’s acceptance of funding from American International Group raised a few eyebrows, the fact that the OSI donated over $50,000 was glossed over by the most part in the media.

The “Open Society” and the American Way

Just what is the “Open Society,” the ideal lurking behind the Soros and his institute? Soros adapted the name from the writings of Karl Popper, a well known British philosopher and professor at the London School of Economics. For Popper, the “Open Society” was a politically transparent society built upon the foundation of civil liberty and human rights. It is the natural progression from the traditional closed societies of the past, which Popper equates with cultures based on collectivism, drawing their structure from tribal or magical thinking (according to Popper, the “vulgar Marxists” adhered to the “conspiracy theory” of worker impoverishment being due to the capitalist system[21]). In this theoretical model, the citizens of the “Open Society” would be able to remove their leaders in a series of bloodless revolutions, ensuring a ‘peaceful’ transition of ideas and power.

Popper also found himself closely aligned with the emerging thinkers of free-market theory of his day. In 1947, alongside Walter Lippman, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman, Popper founded the Mont Pelerin Society; the stated goal of the organization was to mount a counterattack against the “state ascendancy and Marxist or Keynesian planning [that was] sweeping the globe.” This very idea alone would have incredible ramifications: Milton Friedman’s ideas would seem to become the domineering norm, the economic model on which America clings to, and so desperately seeks to export worldwide under the guise of “democracy promotion.” But beyond this, certain members of the Mont Pelerin Society could very well shed light on the entire philosophy behind the NED/OSI complex.

Soros and the State Department are following Popper’s ideal for an Open Society – the colors revolutions fit his blueprint calling for leaders that can be ousted in bloodless revolts – but they are augmenting it with the views of Popper’s Mont Pelerin cohort, Walter Lippmann. It was Lippmann, the “dean of American journalism,” who wrote “democracy is far too important to be left to public opinion.” To rectify this problem, Lippmann advocated an enlightened elite to manage the masses, ironing out the problems and quirks of the democratic system. Under this theory, democracy itself is a charade, requiring in itself a hierarchy to manage and manipulate public opinion for the good of all. It is by synthesizing Popper’s and Soros’ “Open Society” with Lippmann’s calls for a specialized class that we reach progressive America’s true modus operandi. The open society is a democracy built on the foundation of capitalism, but true to democracy’s presumed nature, it must be manipulated to ensure its functionality. America, in its thirst for market superiority, has idealized itself as Lippmann’s enlightened elite, taking it upon itself to bestow the gift of “democracy” to wayward countries. Soros himself has acknowledged the necessity of manipulation in realizing Popper’s vision, writing that the “principles of the open society are admirably put forth in the Declaration of Independence. But the Declaration states, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident,’ whereas the principles of the open society are anything but self-evident; they need to be established by convincing arguments.”[22]

This framework also explains Soros’ framework for opposing Bush. “A matter of life and death,” Soros made his opposition to the disastrous foreign policies of the administration the “central focus” of his life.[23] However, Soros certainly has no problem with meddling in the affairs of other countries. He worked hand-in-hand with Bush’s State Department in Georgia and Ukraine. He has also invested some $100 million in the Carlyle Group, a global investment firm that has been referred to as the “military industrial complex” for its dense ties to defense contractors, war profiteers, and the Bush administration.[24] The common ground between Bush and Soros is that they both believe in American-backed regime change to enforce the modernization of a country’s economy; they fundamentally disagree on the process to achieve this end. Bush’s ideological roots are in the neoconservative camp, promulgating the idea of “peace through strength”, utilizing America’s military might to ensure its position as the dominant global superpower. Soros, and large portions of the State Department, see fully the folly of this line of thinking—blowback is inevitable and American will certainly suffer great damage in the long run. For Soros and his partners in NED, the illusionary freedoms of the open society are a far more pragmatic route that the neoconservative’s unwavering dedication to a world of eternal war presided over by the United States, playing the role of an international police force.

This isn’t to say that these two factions are mutually exclusive, for there is significant bleed-over between the two. As noted above, the OSI provided money to John McCain, who had thrown his lot in with hawkish PNAC. In addition to McCain, many other principles of NED, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Francis Fukuyama, and Vin Weber have lent their name to PNAC’s letters and statements. Seventeen members of PNAC would take key positions in the cabinet of President Bush, giving a large voice to the war hawks whose views had largely been pushed aside throughout the 1990s. Bush, however, also saw the benefits of the NED’s methods, and increased the organization’s budget by 150% after 2001.[25] Bush may have been more sympathetic to the aspirations to the ideals of the open society that Soros has given him credit for; after all, an open rift formed inside the administration when Bush disagreed with Vice President Cheney’s push for military action inside Iran.[26] Instead, the President mandated that the CIA to use “non-lethal” methods to destabilize the country.[27]

Iran: The Fundamental Question

It is the very question of Iran that helps examine the deeper ideological divisions in America’s hegemonic struggle. The neoconservative contingent is intimately intertwined with the interests of the pro-Israel lobby, with a great many of their thinkers spending time with hotbeds of Zionism such the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Israel’s policymakers are unequivocally opposed to the power of Iran, which, following the collapse of the regime in Iraq, displays the only real threat to the nation’s geopolitical supremacy in the Middle East. Thus, Israel aims to draw American foreign policy into direct confrontation with Iran. As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write:

Israel and the lobby are fighting to prevent the United States from reversing course and seeking a rapprochement with Tehran. They continue to promote an increasingly confrontational and counter-productive policy instead.[28]

America’s cooperation with Israel has had widespread impact on the global perception of the country; the majority of Middle Eastern nations oppose the United States for their role in the oppression of the Palestinian people. These nations find themselves in agreement on Soros with this issue, as indicated by an article he published titled “On Israel, America, and AIPAC.”[29] Soros calls America’s compliance with the Israeli government a “major policy blunder,” pointing out that a solution to the conflict with Palestine would serve to further contain the geopolitical reach of Iran. As long as America supports Israel’s apartheid, Iran will be able to exploit the situation to its own ends—at the eventual detriment of the United States.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former Secretary of State and principle of NED and Freedom House, readily agrees with this assessment:

These neocon prescriptions, of which Israel has its equivalents, are fatal for America and ultimately for Israel. They will totally turn the overwhelming majority of the Middle East’s population against the United States. The lessons of Iraq speak for themselves. Eventually, if neo-con policies continue to be pursued, the United States will be expelled from the region and that will be the beginning of the end for Israel as well.[30]

Brzezinski, also a board member of the International Crisis Group alongside Soros, has stated that in the event of an Israeli air force attack on Iran, “they have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” Brzezinski holds no illusions about what would have to be done—”we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not.”[31] If these statements make Brzezinski appear as a dove, he is anything but. As indicated by his various affiliations, his views are in alignment with Soros’, never casting aside the ideas of American supremacy or capitalist superiority. Like Soros, he seems to understand the “open society” approach to foreign policy—covert imperialism under the guise of humanitarianism and democracy promotion.

Brzezinski mainly concerns himself with the geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East and Caucus regions, arguing that America should take lengths to ensure that no one country or group takes too much power in Eurasia. By keeping an even balance of power, America would be able to enjoy access to the natural resources of the region. He notes that America’s relationship with Israel does not further this agenda, but “a gradual improvement in American-Iranian relations” would be far more beneficial for the United States’ own ends.[32] It would seem that the OSI and NED are attempting to do just that: Soros’ institute provides grants to the American Iranian Council (AIC), while State Department funds flow through NED to the similarly-named National Iranian American Council (NIAC).

The AIC was founded in 1997 by former World Bank consultant Hooshang Amirahmadi, drawing notable liberal politicians such as Dennis Kucinich and Cyrus Vance to its board with the intent of providing “a sustainable dialogue and a more comprehensive understanding of US-Iran relations.” One Council board member that deserves certain scrutiny is Thomas R. Pickering, a former US ambassador to the United States and board member of the International Crisis Group. Pickering also sits on the advisory board of the bipartisan foreign policy think-tank Partnership for a Secure America alongside Zbigniew Brzezinski. The proximity here to Brzezinski is telling, as the actions of the AIC fit exactly into his ideas of American-Iranian rapprochement; in 2003, the AIC attempted to help establish a “grand bargain” for diplomacy between American and Iran based on the Islamic Republic’s offer to assist in the invasion of Iraq.[33]

The diplomatic overtures made by Iran were revealed by Trita Parsi, the founder of the NED-funded NAIC. Parsi, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Israeli-Iranian relation under the tutelage of Francis Fukuyama and Zbigniew Brzezinski,[34] established the NAIC in 2002 to increase “Iranian-American participation in America civic life.” The organization has taken a very proactive stance condemning military intervention in Iran, stating that such action would ultimately serve to undermine any true democratic movement—truly an interesting statement, given that the same Endowment that has provided grants to the NAIC was already meddling in the country’s affairs by funding their opposition movements.

As expected, a neoconservative backlash against these two organizations has already begun. A Center for Security Policy report titled Rise of the Iran Lobby has charged both councils with “being apologists for the Iranian regime,” systematically infiltrating the American government with the “ominous agenda” of “conciliatory negotiations” between the two nations.[35] Rise of the Iran Lobby acts as a brilliant propaganda piece, simultaneously equating Iran with “Jihadist entities” and attacking the President Obama for allowing his administration to fall prey to the machinations of an Islamic country that is actively seeking nuclear weapons. The report also makes ample mention of NED, indicating that it, to, is oblivious the necessary measures taken to ensure the safety of the American people. What is interesting about the report is that in the bio of the author, Clare M. Lopez, nowhere does it mention that she is a former CIA operational officer, an advisory board member of the radically anti-Islamic Clarion Fund, or a member of the Iran Policy Committee.[36] The Iran Policy Committee’s membership draws from the overlapping worlds of intelligence agencies, defense contractors, right-wing media consultants, and pro-Zionist think-tanks; clearly this organization would have every interest in opposing the methods encouraged by NED, Brzezinski, and Soros.

It would be foolish to classify the neoconservatives and NED/OSI complex into a divisive good-and-bad dichotomy. As noted several times in this article, the two are not mutually exclusive and often overlap. Second, the stated goal of both is the exact same: regime change in Iran towards a pro-Western model built of the foundation of a “liberal democracy.” One seeks to maintain Israel’s position in the Middle East by direct military action, and the other wants to utilize a more covert method, lurking behind innocuous buzz-words like “rapprochement,” “civic engagement,” and “democracy empowerment.” Both operate under the thin veneer of “humanitarianism.” Both understand that Iran presents a fundamental question in US foreign policy, as the country—a place of vast oil reserves and nationalized industry—is the key geopolitical entity in the Middle East. Both neglect the fact that the Iranian people deserve the right to their own sovereignty, their right to protest for their own destiny, and their right to determine their own position in the world. America’s meddling in Iranian affairs in the 1950s sowed the seeds that erupted into the revolution of 1979, putting the current regime in power. Perhaps we should learn from those lessons.

Edmund Berger is an independent researcher and writer. He can be reached at Edmund.B.Berger [at] gmail.com.

Notes

[1] “Oil wealth ‘must be shared’ with citizens, says Soros” BBC News, March 3rd, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12643419

[2] Golanz Esfandari, “Iran Ban Targets Some 60 ‘Seditious’ Western Groups” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 1st, 2010,

[3] Ibid.

[4] Carl Berstein, “The Holy Alliance” Time Magazine February 24th, 1992

[5] Michael Barker, “The Soros Media Empire”, Swans Commentary, July 14th, 2008, and John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World Regnery History, September 23rd 2008, pg. 173

[6] Jeffery Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time Penguin, 2006, pgs. 110-111

[7] Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism Picador, 2007, pg. 218

[8] Alexander Cockburn, “The Soros Syndrome” Counterpunch, October 8th-10th, 2010

[9] “Out of the Shadows: Georgia” CNBC Business, December, 2007, http://www.cnbcmagazine.com/story/out-of-the-shadows-georgia/295/1/

[10] “Analysis of the Situation and Recommendations for Continuing Privatization Process in Ukraine” World Bank Report, May, 2005 http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUKRAINE/147271-1140529183591/20847303/PrivatisationEng.pdf

[11] Edward Duffy “Iran – Who is Hossein Mousavi?” Denver News Examiner, June 20th, 2009, http://www.examiner.com/news-in-denver/iran-who-is-hossein-mousavi-could-he-be-a-game-changer

[12] Scott Peterson “Iran protesters: the Harvard professor behind their tactics” Christian Science Monitor December 29th, 2009 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2009/1229/Iran-protesters-the-Harvard-professor-behind-their-tactics

[13] Michael Barker, “Sharp Reflection Warranted: Nonviolence in the Service of Imperialism” Swans Commentary, June 30th, 2008

[14] Gene Sharp, “A Short History of ‘From Dictatorship to Democracy'”, Albert Einstein Institution http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD_history.pdf

[15] Kenneth Timmerman, “State Department Backs ‘Reformists’ in Wild Iranian Election” NewsMax, June 11, 2009, quoted in Paul Craig Roberts, “Is This the Culmination of Two Years of Destabilization?” Counterpunch, June 19th-21st, 2009, http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06192009.html

[16] “Iran: The Next Domino?” SHOAH, February 24th, 2011 http://www.shoah.org.uk/2011/02/24/iran-the-next-domino/

[17] Ken Dilanian, “U.S. grants support to Iranian dissidents”, USA Today, June 28th, 2009, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-25-iran-money_N.htm

[18] Daniel Halper, “McCain Calls for Regime Change in Iran” The Weekly Standard, June 10th, 2010, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mccain-calls-regime-change-iran

[19] Thomas Donnelly, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century”, Project for the New American Century, September, 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[20] “Office of Iranian Affairs” RightWeb, July 25th, 2007, http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Office_of_Iranian_Affairs

[21] William A. Gorton, Karl Popper and the Social Sciences, State University of New York Press, 2006, pgs. 14-15

[22] George Soros, “Towards a Global Open Society”, The Atlantic, January, 1998 http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jan/opensoc.htm

[23] Julian Borger, “Financier Soros puts millions into ousting Bush” The Guardian, November 12th, 2003 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/12/uselections2004.usa

[24] Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group Wiley, 2004

[25] “Advancing the Freedom Agenda” USAID fact sheet, http://www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2008/fs080724.html

[26] Steve Clemons “Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush’s Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush” The Washington Note, May 24, 2007, http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

[27] Lucas Powers, “Non-Lethal Destabilization OK’d by Bush” Pine Magazine May 27th, 2007 http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/nonlethal-destabilization-okd-by-bush-788

[28] John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007, pg. 286

[29] George Soros, “On Israel, America, and AIPAC” The New York Review of Books, April 12th, 2007, http://www.georgesoros.com/articles-essays/entry/on_israel_america_and_aipac

[30] Daniel M. Pourkesali, “Brzezinski: The Beginning of the End for Israel’, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran” August 3rd, 2006, cited in “Le Cercle and the Struggle for the Eurasian Continent”, Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/miscellaneous/2010_Le_Cercle_update.htm

[31] Jake Tapper, “Zbig Brzezinski: Obama Administration Should Tell Israel U.S. Will Attack Israeli Jets if They Try to Attack Iran” ABC News Political Punch, September 20th, 2009, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/zbig-brzezinski-obama-administration-should-tell-israel-us-will-attack-israeli-jets-if-they-try-to-a.html

[32] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Supremacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives Basic Books, 1998 http://www.scribd.com/doc/52239247/5/Chapter-5-The-Eurasian-Balkans

[33] Nicholas D. Kristof “Iran’s Proposal for a Grand Bargain” The New York Times, April 28th, 2007, http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/irans-proposal-for-a-grand-bargain/

[34] Trita Parsi bio, http://www.tritaparsi.com/

[35] Clare M. Lopez “Rise of the Iran Lobby: Tehran’s front groups move on – and into – the Obama administration” Center for Security Policy Occasional Papers Series, February 25th, 2009 http://www.analyst-network.com/articles/117/RiseoftheIranLobbyTeheransfrontgroupsmoveonandintotheObamaAdministration.pdf