Two top Honduran coup leaders trained in the School of the Americas

This blog entry was originally posted at AllVoices.

Two important military leaders of the coup are graudates of the School of the Americas: Gen. Romeo Vasquez head of the armed forces and Gen. Luis Suazo head of the Air Force. Zelaya had earlier clashed with Vasquez over distributing ballots for a referendum and ended up dismissing him.
As this article notes the School of the Americas as it used to be called was infamous for training Latin American dictators. Several graduates of the School had earlier been military dictators of Honduras responsible for many human rights abuses.
I notice that so far there has not been much coverage on CNN and Fox news of demonstrations against the regime. On CBC the one shot I saw of a demonstration was of a pro-coup crowd! There have been a number of injuries as the pro-Zelaya demonstrations have been broken up but very little is being reported and certainly there is not the twittering that one heard during the demonstrations in Iran.

This is from Southernstudies:

Over the last week, Zelaya clashed with and eventually dismissed General Romeo Vasquez -- who is now reportedly in charge of the armed forces that abducted the Honduran president.According to the watchdog group School of Americas Watch, Gen. Vasquez trained at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at least twice -- in 1976 and 1984 -- when it was still called School of Americas. The Georgia-based U.S. military school is infamous for training over 60,000 Latin American soldiers, including infamous dictators, "death squad" leaders and others charged with torture and other human rights abuses.
-------
According to SOA Watch, the U.S. Army school has a particularly checkered record in Honduras, with over 50 graduates who have been intimately involved in human rights abuses. In 1975, SOA Graduate General Juan Melgar Castro became the military dictator of Honduras. From 1980-1982 the dictatorial Honduran regime was headed by yet another SOA graduate, Policarpo Paz Garcia, who intensified repression and murder by Battalion 3-16, one of the most feared death squads in all of Latin America (founded by Honduran SOA graduates with the help of Argentine SOA graduates).General Vasquez isn't the only leader in the Honduras coup linked to the U.S. training facility. As Kristin Bricker points out:
The head of the Air Force, Gen. Luis Javier Prince Suazo, studied in the School of the Americas in 1996. The Air Force has been a central protagonist in the Honduran crisis. When the military refused to distribute the ballot boxes for the opinion poll, the ballot boxes were stored on an Air Force base until citizens accompanied by Zelaya rescued them. Zelaya reports that after soldiers kidnapped him, they took him to an Air Force base, where he was put on a plane and sent to Costa Rica

Afghan anti-terrorist group act like terrorists!

This entry has also been submitted to AllVoices:

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3568785-counterterrorism-afghan-guards-act-like-terrorists

The group that killed the police chief of Kandahar and other officers was a US trained unit that was employed by the US in counter-terrorism work. The song and dance performed by US authorities is truly pathetic. Everyone wants to distance themselves from the group but clearly the US hired them and trained them. One would expect that the Afghan government should have been aware of the unit but perhaps not. The guards were actually arrested and disarmed on a military base just outside of Kandahar according to another report. One wonders if they operated out of that base.
Surely these criminals should be handed over to Afghan authorities. If they have no connection to the operation of coalition forces why on earth would they face a military trial. They should be handed over to Karzai authorities immediately. In this case Karzai is right and has a legitimate complaint against the occupation authorities.
These criminals are hired by the US to engage in shadowy counter-terrorist operations. If they kill police chiefs in the clear light of day imagine what they do at night while engaging in counter-terrorist operations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/kandahar-police-chief-killed-in-shootout/article1200349/
Officials in Washington and Kabul distanced themselves from the shootings by pointing fingers at one another. Within hours, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said the gunmen were U.S.-employed private security contractors. Pentagon spokesmen claimed the shooting was “purely an Afghan-on-Afghan incident.”
The Canadian military characterized the gunmen more precisely: “An Afghan special unit that supports U.S. counterterrorism” but which acted “on their own volition, without orders.”
That portrayal speaks to a clandestine squad trained to operate in the shadows, but that ended up achieving global notoriety for gunning down police in public.
Now, the world will be watching to find out more about these men, how they were trained and why they may have acted so contemptuously toward law enforcement. None of the suspects have been identified. It is anticipated they will face a military trial.
--------------------
In the aftermath of the shootout, Kandaharis slyly gossiped that the gunmen were likely denizens of “Mullah Omar’s house,” a reference to a compound that used to belong to the fugitive Taliban leader, but now is populated by Western intelligence agencies
__________
The U.S. military took pains to say it had no direct involvement in the shootings, even though spokesmen refused to spell out any relationship with the gunmen.
The Canadian Forces, which NATO placed in charge of Kandahar Province, reacted in several stages. First, officials imposed an unexplained but short “communications lockdown” on reporters as soldiers secured the crime scene and helped make arrests.
Then, the Canadian commander, Brigadier-General Jonathan Vance, made a statement: “These were not [NATO] security guards in any way, shape or form,” he said, adding they didn’t fall under the U.S. military umbrella, nor were they private security.
Brig.-Gen. Vance simply called them “Afghan security forces.”
Hours later, his officials clarified that the suspects were “41 members of an Afghan special unit that supports U.S counterterrorism.”

Rafsanjani makes peace with Khameni

While Mousavi continues to challenge the establishment and demand a new vote altogether, Rafsanjani one of his richest most powerful supporters has distanced himself from him and even moreso from the protesters. Some of Sanjani's relatives were involved in the demonstrations and were even briefly arrested. The family patriarch has no doubt laid down the law rather than joining them in a direct confrontation. None of the defeated candidates have chosen to bring their complaints before the official body.

These quotes are from PressTV.

"The developments following the presidential vote were a complex conspiracy plotted by suspicious elements with the aim of creating a rift between the people and the Islamic establishment and causing them to lose their trust in the system," Rafsanjani said Sunday. "Such plots have always been neutralized whenever the people have entered the scene with vigilance."

...............................................

Hashemi-Rafsanjani urges fair vote probeSun, 28 Jun 2009 18:22:44 GMTHead of Iran's Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani has called for a "fair and thorough" study of the legal complaints made about the disputed presidential election. "The developments following the presidential vote were a complex conspiracy plotted by suspicious elements with the aim of creating a rift between the people and the Islamic establishment and causing them to lose their trust in the system," Rafsanjani said Sunday. "Such plots have always been neutralized whenever the people have entered the scene with vigilance." Following the June 12 election, which saw President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected to a second four-year term, Iran became the scene of rallies with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi rejecting the result as fraudulent and demanding a re-run. In his Sunday remarks, Rafsanjani praised the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei for extending by five days the Guardian Council's deadline to review issues pertaining to the elections and removing the ambiguities surrounding it. "This valuable move by the Leader to restore the people's confidence in the election process was very effective," he said. He expressed hope that "those who are tasked with this issue (election) can thoroughly and fairly review and study the legal complaints." On Saturday, the Expediency Council called on all defeated candidates in the disputed presidential election to legally pursue their complaints through the proper channels. “As the best and most appropriate way, the Expediency Council asks all to observe the law and resolve conflicts and disputes [concerning the election] through legal channels,” the council said in a statement. The statement came after the Guardian Council on Thursday announced that it would form a special committee to investigate the June 12 election. Mousavi has rejected the offer of a partial recount, refusing to cooperate with the Guardian Council's special commission. Karroubi has also refused to send a representative to the commission. He has criticized what he considers the "lack of impartiality" among the group's members, some of whom have publicly supported President Ahmadinejad. The third candidate, Mohsen Rezaei, will not be sending a representative to the commission either. SF/HGH
window.print();

Over one third of Americans think that Jews are partly responsible for the economic crisis.

It would seem that even though the US political establishment bends over backward to support Israel and Israel receives lots of US taxpayer money, over a third of U.S. citizens see Jews as partly causing the economic crisis. Pro-Israel groups spend a lot of time and effort in providing positive information on Israel and criticising critics but a lot of Americans still hold views which one can only describe as not just critical of Jews but anti-semitic prejudices. One thing is sure Madoff is responsible for the financial crisis of many Jewish organisations that invested with him! Although it could very well be that many Jews are involved in institutions that were partly responsible for the crisis this does not mean that Jews as a group were responsible for it.


This is from the jewishweek.

An online poll on anti-Semitic attitudes in the wake of the Bernard Madoff scandal suggests more than a third of Americans blame “the Jews” to some degree for the economic crisis.The poll, by two professors at Stanford University, did not distinguish between financiers, corporate CEOs, economists, government officials or others who are Jewish, but simply inquired “How much to blame were the Jews for the financial crisis?” Five answer categories ranged from “a moderate amount” to “a great deal,” with 24 percent giving the strongest answer, and a total of 38.4 percent attributing at least some blame for the biggest financial crisis since the Depression on “the Jews.”

Iran claims FBI blocking Web Sites.

This is from UPI.

I have tried to find other articles about this with little success. Any search seems just to bring up articles about the Iranians blocking web sites! However, it is quite possible that the Iranian claims are true but it would be good to get some confirmation or disconfirmation.


Iran claims FBI blocking Web sites
Published: June 26, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Iranian broadcasters claim the FBI ordered the disruption of Internet servers that host Iranian Web sites in the wake of Iran's election fallout.The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting network claims the FBI ordered Washington to disconnect 80 news, social networking and other Web sites, including the Beirut bureau of Press TV, because of depictions of government protesters.IRIB claims the FBI disconnected the servers because one of the Web sites had published photos of demonstrators in a manner that those involved were readily identifiable.IRIB counters that this comes as amateur Web resources and unverifiable accounts published thousands of pictures in which individuals are easily identified.The Iranian broadcaster complains international regulations require advance notification of any disruption to allow owners to provide for backups.The FBI had no information on Iranian Web activity.Several of Iran's English-language news services were either overwhelmed or otherwise affected in the wake of the disputed June 12 presidential election.Bloody demonstrations followed official determination that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won a second term in office. Iranian authorities claimed foreign media outlets were misrepresenting the situation on the ground in the wake of the election, making any claims difficult to verify.Foreign media are banned from covering the demonstrations.Tehran also blames the CIA and foreign dissidents for stoking the violence in Iran.© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Manila selling land to foreigners: Philippines

Unlike many countries the Philippines has long reserved the right of land ownership to its own citizens. However with the rise of globalisation and integration of the Philippines with the world market, many of the Philippine business and governing elite such as Arroyo the president would like to remove those restrictions. She would be well rewarded no doubt. This article shows how the Arroyo govt. is already at work trying to please foreign investment by alienating Philippine land.

This is from this site:


Manila selling land to foreigners
By Gerry Albert CorpuzColumn: Politics in Command
Published: June 22, 2009
Font size: Manila, Philippines —
Last week Philippine President Gloria Arroyo announced that her government will allow the Japanese investor Pacific Bio-Fields Holdings to acquire 400,000 hectares of land in northern Luzon for the production of biodiesel products intended for the Japanese market in the next five years.
During her state visit to Tokyo, Japan, Arroyo confirmed that the agreement between the United Kingdom-based Japanese firm and its local counterpart, Bio-Energy NL, will be signed sometime in August.
The agreement will allow both companies to utilize forest area to plant coconut trees for a reasonable fee, provided that 60 percent of the biodiesel products will be acquired by the Philippine government and the remaining 40 percent will supply biodiesel fuel to Japan for Japanese users in five years.
However, the Japanese investor maintains that all the products will be shipped to Japan, contrary to previous reports that 60 percent would be made available for the use of Filipinos, and 40 percent for Japanese car users. Based on the existing agreement, the Manila government will charge standard fees for the lease of 400,000 hectares of land for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years.
A separate memorandum of agreement between the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the Philippine Coconut Authority had been clinched to facilitate the takeover of the land by the two firms.
Agrarian reform advocates in Manila denounced the agreement. One of the groups, the fisherfolk umbrella alliance Pamalakaya, called on members of Parliament to stop the deal. Pamalakaya national chairperson Fernando Hicap lamented that while seven out of 10 Filipino farmers and fishermen are landless people, the Philippine government is giving away 400,000 hectares of land.
“In exchange for 400 nursing and caregiving jobs in Japan, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will allow the corporate exploitation of 400,000 hectares of Philippine agricultural lands to foreign groups identified with and serving at the pleasure of Japanese carmakers,” Hicap said.
Prior to the announcement in Tokyo, the Philippines government came under fire from critics after news reports in Manila alleged that the European Union was interfering in local politics by pressing Arroyo to revise the Constitution and lift the ban on foreign ownership of land in the country.
Ambassador Alistair MacDonald, the EU Commission’s ambassador to Manila, denied the report, saying there was no formal request from European states to revise the Philippine charter.
But despite the denial, anti-charter change groups are still convinced the European Union is after Philippine lands.
Human rights lawyer and agrarian reform activist Jobert Pahilga, executive director of Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo, appealed to the European Union to spare the country’s agricultural lands from EU takeover.
The controversy was sparked by former Foreign Affairs Undersecretary Merlin Magallona, who warned Filipino lawmakers that calling for the removal of nationalist economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution could be playing into the hands of the European Union.
Magallona, also former dean of the University of the Philippines’ College of Law, said that the 27-member European Union had formally requested the Arroyo government, under World Trade Organization rules, to remove the ban on foreign land ownership.
The European Union also requested the government to allow foreign nationals, particularly lawyers, to be allowed to practice in the Philippines, according to Magallona, who was a guest speaker at a forum on charter change at the UP College of Law last week.
Agrarian reform activists do not want to see agricultural lands sold to foreign economic powers like Japan and the European Union. Their message is that their country is not for sale; that the land should be reserved for the people.
--
(Gerry Albert Corpuz is a correspondent of Bulatlat.com, an alternative Philippine online news site. He is also head of the information department of Pamalakaya, a national federation of small fisherfolk organizations in the Philippines. His website is www.pampil.wordpress.com, and he can be contacted at themanager98@yahoo.com. ©Copyright Gerry Albert Corpuz)

Obama moves to Fund Iranian Dissidents..

This just confirms the postion of the Iranian government that the protests are generated by western interference in Iran. The policy negates any positive effect that Obama's earlier attempts at neutrality might have generated. Of course as this article points out the funding of dissidents has been going on for some time under Bush. As is the case with many other US policies Obama is following in Bush footsteps.

Obama Moves to Fund Iranian Dissidents
Posted By Jason Ditz On June 26, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Despite President Barack Obama’s persistent claims that the United States is not meddling in the post-election furore in Iran, the administration is moving forward with plans to subsidize Iranian dissident groups to the tune of $20 million in the form of USAID grants.
The program is not new, and the solicitation for the grant applications actually came under the Bush Administration. But with the deadline for submissions just four days away, the administration has a convenient excuse to subsidize opposition and dissident groups under the guise of promoting “the rule of law” in Iran.
The White House and the State Department both defended the program, insisting it did not run counter to the administration’s pretense of neutrality. The administration declined to provide details of exactly which opposition figures it had been funding, however, citing “security concerns.”
There is considerable criticism for this program, not just from the perspective of getting the US involved in the internal affairs of Iran, but also for the taint it places on various opposition groups and NGOs, whether they received any of the grant money or not.
Copyright © 2009 News From Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.

Daniel Pipes: Eating your cake and having it too..

Daniel Pipes is a well known so-called expert on the Mid-East. He is usually on the right. In the case of the Iranian elections he takes a position that supports boldness in criticising the Iranian govt. and also supporting the demonstrators and even the MEK who are on the US terrorist list:

http://www.danielpipes.org/6422/american-boldness-in-iran

Instead, flux in Iran should invite boldness and innovation. It is time, finally, for a robust U.S. policy that encourages those yelling "Death to Khamene'i" and that takes advantage of the hyperbolic fear the MeK arouses in Iran's ruling circles (first step: end the MeK's preposterous listing as a terrorist organization).
As Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Republican of Michigan) notes, regime change in Iran becomes the more urgent if the mullahs will soon deploy nuclear weapons. The vital and potentially victorious movement building both on the streets of Iran and in the halls of Europe better represents not only Western values but also Western interests.Instead, flux in Iran should invite boldness and innovation. It is time, finally, for a robust U.S. policy that encourages those yelling "Death to Khamene'i" and that takes advantage of the hyperbolic fear the MeK arouses in Iran's ruling circles (first step: end the MeK's preposterous listing as a terrorist organization).
As Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Republican of Michigan) notes, regime change in Iran becomes the more urgent if the mullahs will soon deploy nuclear weapons. The vital and potentially victorious movement building both on the streets of Iran and in the halls of Europe better represents not only Western values but also Western interests.
---------------------------------------------------------
However at the same time he claims that he would vote for Ahmadinejad and it would be good if he wins:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/06/rooting-for-ahmadinejad.html

Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.
And so, despite myself, I am rooting for Ahmadinejad.
I realize that this pragmatic view shocks the tender sensibilities of left-wingers such as Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and Rachel Maddow, but this is hardly the first time leftists think with their hearts, nor the first time that their unthinking sentimentality might lead to disaster
---=-----------

So how do you square those two positions? It doesn''t matter if you are a mid-east expert and have taught at Harvard.

The debates about Iran vote rigging.

Those who have been following the debate on the evidence for vote rigging should find this article interesting as it is critical of the analysis of Chatham House which has been at the forefront of those providing evidence for vote rigging. Of course most of the media never bother to look at so sophisticated a source as Chatham House, they can do with sound bites from the protesters and supporters or simplistic bits such as that concerning voting of over 100 per cent in some areas. As if the Iranian authorities themselves would admit this if it showed in itself that there were vote rigging!

This is from AsiaTimes


Jun 26, 2009

COMMENT Crunching the numbers
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
A few days ago, just as the "color" movement's ferocious struggle to overturn the results of the 10th Iranian presidential elections was fading, it received a new lease of life via the publication of a British study [1] that casts serious doubt on the official results that saw President Mahmud Ahmadinejad re-elected. "Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran's 2009 Presidential Election" was published by Chatham House and the Institute of Iranian Studies, University of St Andrews, and edited by Iranian political scientist Professor Ali Ansari, director, Institute of Iranian Studies. The report has received a lavish reception in the Western media as a "sweeping condemnation" of the June 12 election results, by

virtue of repeatedly using such terms as "implausible" and "highly doubtful" in reference to aspects of the returned numbers from the nearly 40 million votes that were cast. The report identifies the "massive increase from 2005" as one of a "number of aspects" of the election as being "problematic". The authors question that the incumbent president could win 7 million more votes than he received the last time. Yet they overlook that his votes were extremely close to his voting percentage in 2005. One of the problems could be that the main author has no background in quantitative analysis as he is a qualitative political scientist. Compare this with another political scientist, US statistician Professor Walter Mebane, a leading expert on election fraud, who has made a similar statistical analysis of the Iranian election. He concluded that there is "no solid evidence of fraud". Another US statistic guru, Nate Silver, has concluded that the voting result was "valid based on statistical analysis". According to Mebane, who compared 366 district results with those for the 2005 elections, the "substantial core" of posted results are in line with the basic statistical trends. One of Mebane's conclusions is that "Ahmadinejad tended to do worst in towns where the turnout surged the most". Ansari reaches the opposite conclusion in making the same comparisons. Mebane has made the observation that "a model can never prove fraud - it can identify places where there may be fraud". Ansari's report presents his charts and figures as definitive statements on the election result. This raises questions over the timing of Ansari's report, in light of allegations by Iran of British meddling in the post-election turmoil in Iran sparked by supporters of the losing candidates. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday Iran may downgrade ties with Britain, accusing London of meddling. The announcement came a day after British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said two Iranian diplomats had been expelled in a tit-for-tat move after Tehran ordered two British diplomats to leave. The Ansari study appears to want by the sheer force of its charts and figures to establish beyond doubt the fact of an election fraud, even though after two weeks the disgruntled candidates have failed to provide any tangible evidence. This despite the fact that the leading losing candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, had some 40,676 observers at the ballot boxes, and none has provided a formal complaint. At the outset of the study, the authors cite the abnormality of two areas having excess votes of more than 100%. Iran's Guardians Council, which has oversight of the elections, has identified some 50 towns which had more votes cast than their registered voters. The council points out that in some areas, such as Shemiranat, Mousavi won and that most of the towns are in the Caspian Sea resort, meaning the discrepancy could be attributable to heavy summer tourism combined with the result of a bureaucratic glitch with the Census Bureau. Having found no evidence of "major irregularity", the council has all but rejected the idea of annulling the votes. The Chatham House study says Iranians voted according to ethnic identities, claiming that this has been the case with the Azeris in all past elections. Yet in the 2005 elections, an Azeri candidate, Mehr Alizadeh, received only 28% of the votes in the province of East Azerbaijan. A weakness of the report is that that despite the lack of specific rural voting data in previous elections, remedied this year for the first time, the study claims privileged knowledge that neither in 2005 nor in 2009 did Ahmadinejad carry rural Iran. This year, Ahmadinejad did better than his reformist rivals in the "deprived" provinces of Chahar Mahal, South Khorasan and Kerman. Absent in the study is any reference to related works and findings, such as pre-election opinion sampling by pollsters Ballen and Doherty, who found that Ahmadinejad would win by a two to one margin and that only 16% of Azeris would vote for Mousavi. "Election results in Iran may reflect the will of Iranian people," they have written in the Washington Post.

Sectarian Strife in Iraq

The entire article is here.

Since the US stopped paying the Awakening militias it would seem some of the Sunnis have returned to opposition and the remnants of Al Qaeda are probably able to survive and even prosper in some areas. Statements such as this going unchallenged in Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia can only make the situation worse.

BAGHDAD (AFP) — Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Thursday criticised Arab and Muslim countries for their silence on calls by a senior Saudi cleric for Shiite scholars to be killed.
The Iraqi leader made the remarks a day after a massive bomb in the predominantly Shiite neighbourhood of Sadr City in northeastern Baghdad killed 62 people and wounded 150.
"We have observed that many governments have been suspiciously silent on the fatwa provoking the killing" of Shiites, Maliki, who is also Shiite, said in an e-mailed statement.
He was referring to comments made by Mecca Mufti Sheikh Adil al-Kalbani last month to the BBC that "Shiite clerics are infidels."
"The Shiites have no right to be represented in the (Saudi) senior scholarly committee," Kalbani said.
"The Shiite public, it's a matter of discussion (as to whether they are infidels). Shiite clerics are definitely infidels, without question."
According to Islam, it is permitted to kill infidels and not have to pay the victim's family blood money.

Iran claims US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots..

The MEK or MKO is a Marxist group that has a very long history of trying to overthrow several Iranian govts. During the Iran war they aided Saddam Hussein and amassed a considerable array of weapons. After the US invasion they were disarmed but have been protected from the wrath of the Iraqi govt. by the US even though the group is on the US terrorist list. The group are very good international lobbyists and have managed to get themselves off the European terror list. They renounce the use of violence a number of years ago. However, some think that they are still recruited by the US and others to carry out clandestine sabotage in Iran.
The group is more or less like a sect and totally committed to their goals. An interesting account is found here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/103/story/58809.html

The MEK has a front website at:

http://www.ncr-iran.org/

The Website looks rather professional. The group has supporters among US politicians some of whom want it removed from the terror list and to be more openly supported. I have seen almost nothing about the Iranian charges or the MEK recently in the mainstream press.


This is from presstv.


Iran finds US-backed MKO fingermarks in riots
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:36:40 GMT
Font size :
MKO Leader Maryam Rajavi has called the MKO as the real winner of Iran's election.
The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran. Iranian security officials reported Saturday that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved in recent riots in Iran's capital. According to the security officials, the arrested members had confessed that they were extensively trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf to create post-election mayhem in the country. They had also revealed that they have been given directions by the MKO command post in Britain. Street protests broke out after defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi rejected President Ahmadinejad's decisive win in the June 12 election. His supporters have staged a series of illegal rallies ever since. Iran's deputy police commander, on Saturday, warned against the mass gatherings, asserting that those who engage in any such actions would be severely reprimanded. Earlier on Saturday, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi had supported the recent wave of street violence in Iran during a Saturday address to supporters in Paris. Rajavi had reportedly described the MKO terrorists as the real winners of the Iranian election. The Mujahedin Khalq Organization is a Marxist guerilla group, which was founded in the 1960s.In the past two decades, MKO leaders have been resettled in the northern outskirts of Paris. The terrorists are especially notorious for taking sides with former dictator Saddam Hussein during the war Iraq imposed on Iran (1980-1988). The group masterminded a slew of terrorist operations in Iran and Iraq -- one of which was the 1981 bombing of the offices of the Islamic Republic Party, in which more than 72 Iranian officials were killed. A 2007 German intelligence report from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution has identified the MKO as a "repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of [MKO leaders] Maryam and Masoud Rajavi". Anne Singleton, an expert on the MKO and author of 'Saddam's Private Army' explains that the West aims to keep the group afloat in order to use it in efforts to stage a regime change in Iran. "With a new Administration in the White House a pre-emptive strike on Iran looks unlikely. Instead the MKO's backers have put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. These groups will be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot," she explains. "The role of the MKO is to train and manage these groups using the expertise they acquired from Saddam's Republican Guard," Singleton added. A May 2005 Human Rights Watch report also condemns the MKO for running prison camps in Iraq and committing human rights violations. According to report, the outlawed group puts defectors under torture and jail terms.

The US has a long history of intervention and campaigns to destabilise governments. There is a good article on this by Jeremy Hammond in a recent Foreign Policy Journal including parts that deal with Iran. Here are a few snippets:
A former specialist on the Middle East from the National Security Council, Raymond Tanter suggested the U.S. could work with an Iranian opposition group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK). “If we are serious about working with groups from within,” he said, “it will have to be with the MEK, because there’s no other opposition force the regime cares about.”
Mehdi Marand, a spokesman for the Council for Democratic Change in Iran, similarly said that some in the Congress were ready to remove the MEK from the terrorist list. “If the US really wants to help the democratic forces inside Iran,” he said, “the only way is to remove restrictions from the opposition.”[21]
The problem is that the MEK is on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Based in Iraq, the group came under the sway of the U.S. after the 2003 invasion that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein.
According to former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was among a few lone voices pointing out prior to the invasion of Iraq that there was no credible evidence the country still possessed weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. was already working with the MEK. Well prior, in 2005, Ritter wrote that the Bush administration had authorized a number of covert operations inside Iran. “The most visible of these”, he wrote, “is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.” The MEK’s CIA-backed operations within Iran included “terror bombings”, Ritter charged.[22]
__________
In July, Seymour Hersh repeated in an interview with NPR that the U.S. was supporting anti-regime terrorist groups including the MEK, Jundallah, and the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK). “The strategic thinking behind this covert operation is to provoke enough trouble and chaos so that the Iranian government makes the mistake of taking aggressive action which will give the impression of a country in acute turmoil”, Hersh said, in order to give the White House a casus belli.[38]
In a July 29 article, Scott Ritter wrote that “American taxpayer dollars are being used, with the permission of Congress, to fund activities that result in Iranians being killed and wounded, and Iranian property destroyed…. The CIA today provides material support to the actions of the MEK inside Iran. The recent spate of explosions in Iran … appears to be linked to an MEK operation….”[39]
Hersh wrote another article in the New Yorker in November noting that the Pentagon was increasingly conducting covert operations that had traditionally been the CIA’s domain and giving further details about its activities in Iran. “In the past six months, Israel and the United States have been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan”, which has conducted raids into Iran. He repeated that the “Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Balochi tribesman, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime’s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.”[40]

------------
When asked whether the OIA was intended to promote regime change, a State Department senior official told CNN it was “to facilitate a change in Iranian policies and actions” before acknowledging, “Yes, one of the things we want to develop is a government that reflects the desires of the people, but that is a process for the Iranians.”[27]
Then US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton acknowledged in October 2006 that regime change was the “ultimate objective” of the U.S. sanctions policy, and adding that it “puts pressure on them internally” and “helps democratic forces” within the country and amongst the Iranian diaspora.[28]
Administration officials told the New York Times that then Vice President Dick Cheney was promoting the “drive to bring Iranian scholars and students to America, blanket the country with radio and television broadcasts and support Iranian political dissidents.” The program was to be “overseen by Elizabeth Cheney, a principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, who is also the vice president’s daughter.”[29]

Netanyahu and head of Mossad at odds on Iran

I suppose Netanyahu must take the moral highground while the head of Mossad takes the realistic low ground! Apparently being frank has not made Dagan any friends among the politicians. He in effect concedes that Ahmadinejad won and downplays any effect of cheating.



This is from Fox News.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that the Iranian regime's repressive nature has been "unmasked" by the turmoil over the country's disputed election last week.
He spoke as the official death toll in Iran rose to at least 17, as protesters continued to march in the streets and clash with regime forces.
"You see a regime that represses its own people and spreads terror far and wide," Netanyahu said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "It is a regime whose real nature has been unmasked and it's been unmasked by an incredible act of courage by Iran's citizens. ... You see the Iranian lack of democracy at work."
Israel considers the Iranian regime, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president and hard-line clerics at the top, as a monumental threat. Ahmadinejad, known for his bellicose rhetoric, has called for the destruction of Israel and is suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons technology.
Netanyahu declined to predict where the protests would lead, but said they represent a "fundamental" event for the country.
"I cannot tell you how this thing will end up. I think something very deep and very fundamental is going on," Netanyahu said. "There is an expression of the deep desire amid the people of Iran for freedom. ... This is what is going on."
Though President Obama has come under criticism in the United States for not being more forceful in his support for the protesters, Netanyahu said he would not "second guess" the American president.
"I know President Obama wants the people of Iran to be free," he said.

This is from presstv.


In Israel, Mossad head talks about Iran election
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:21:36 GMT
Head of Mossad Meir Dagan says that a Mousavi win in Iran's presidential election would have spelled bigger problems for Israel. Speaking to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of Knesset (Israeli parliament) on Tuesday, the chief of Israel's national intelligence agency said, "The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad." "If the reformist candidate [Mir-Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived in the international arena as a moderate element," he added. "It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran's nuclear program when he was prime minister." The Zionist spy-master, meanwhile, predicted that the street protests in Iran over the disputed election results would die out soon. "Election fraud in Iran is no different than what happens in liberal states during elections," he told committee, Haaretz reported. "The struggle over the election results in Iran is internal and is unconnected to its strategic aspirations, including its nuclear program."

Philippines Posts Budget Deficit as Spending Rises

This is from Bloomberg.

The Philippines is facing the same sort of problems as the US and Canada but on a smaller scale and it still is not in recession. However growth is approaching zero. Interesting that the government will be issuing bonds in Japanese yen. I wonder why that is?


Philippines Posts Budget Deficit as Spending Rises (Update1)
Karl Lester M. Yap [] and [bn:PRSN=1] Max Estayo []
June 23 (Bloomberg) -- The Philippines posted a budget deficit in May as the government increased spending and revenue faltered amid slowing economic growth.
The shortfall of 11.4 billion pesos ($234 million) widened the five-month deficit to 123.2 billion pesos, Finance Secretary Gary Teves told reporters in Manila today. Spending increased 15.8 percent in May from a year earlier and revenue fell 2.5 percent, Teves said.
Economic growth slowed to a decade low of 0.4 percent last quarter, hurting businesses and consumers and crimping tax collection at a time when the government is trying to spend its way out of the slump. The Philippines on June 10 widened its 2009 budget-deficit forecast a third time this year to 250 billion pesos from 199.2 billion pesos.
“The government needs to maintain its spending to boost the economy but there is a cost to it,” said Arlene Agustin, treasurer at GE Money Bank Inc. in Manila. “We are prepared for a risk of yields on government bonds going up” as the nation raises more debt.
The Philippines may sell as much as $1.5 billion of yen- denominated bonds to fund the government’s widening deficit, Teves said on June 17.
The government plans to spend 1.489 trillion pesos in 2009, less than the 1.495 trillion pesos it estimated earlier, according to a summary of the government’s fiscal program provided by Finance Undersecretary Gil Beltran on June 11.
To contact the reporters on this story: Karl Lester M. Yap in Manila at kyap5@bloomberg.net; Max Estayo in Manila at mestayo@bloomberg.net Last Updated: June 22, 2009 23:23 EDT

Iran: The Over 100 per cent voting phenomenom.

This is from presstv. Some bloggers and news media pick this up without explaining the context. On the face of it the fact over 100% voted shows fraud but as the article explains people can vote in areas other than where they are registered or eligible. As a result some areas may have considerable numbers of voters who would be registered elsewhere. As the Guardian Council put it for this to happen is normal. With the added voters the tally can easily go over 100 per cent of those eligible in an area particularly when there is a very high turnout-- as both sides agree there was. Nevertheless over 100 per cent in 50 cities seems a lot but the number of votes involved is not sufficient to give Mousavi a win. But all this assumes the Guardian Council is not fudging the figures itself or the alternative explanation could be that there was over 100 percent because the ballot boxes were stuffed! In fact both could be true. My own view of the election is that there was no doubt some cheating but that from the polls before the election Ahmadinejad probably won anyway.


Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:33:38 GMT
Font size :
The Guardian Council Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei
Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas. The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election. "Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said. Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute. According to the Guardian Council spokesman, summering areas and places like district one and three in Tehran are not separable. The spokesman, however, said that the vote tally affected by such issues could be over 3 million and would not noticably affect the outcome of the election. He, however, added that the council could, at the request of the candidates, re-count the affected ballot boxes, and determine " whether the possible change in the tally is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline. Three of the four candidates contesting in last Friday's presidential election cried foul, once the Interior Ministry announced the results - according to which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with almost two-thirds of the vote. Rezaei, along with Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, reported more than 646 'irregularities' in the electoral process and submitted their complaints to the body responsible for overseeing the election -- the Guardian Council. Mousavi and Karroubi have called on the council to nullify Friday's vote and hold the election anew. This is while President Ahmadinejad and his Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli have rejected any possibility of fraud, saying that the election was free and fair.

Two contrasting viewpoints on Iran.

These two viewpoints are both from Asia Times.



Bhadrakumar has from the beginning downplayed the significance of the demonstrations and seen the whole affair as a tempest in a teapot and as a fractious bit of infighting between members of the Iranian elite. His viewpoint will be found wildly different from most of the commentary and reportage in most western mainstream media.
The US media for example does not find it even worth taking notice of what Saudi Arabia might be saying about what is happening! What is significant is its own reactions to all the twitterings from Iran.
Bhadrakumar looks to Israeli commentary to confirm his view that the "twitter revolution" as he calls it has fizzled. The head of Mossad obviously has decided that Ahmadinejad is winning and is quite ready to deal with him. As a matter of fact his winning is a plus for Israel because he is already demonised and Israel can argue even more strongly for an attack on the madman dictator's nuclear programme if diplomacy fails. Of course if Mousavi won then the US and Israel might be able to come to some accommodation since Rafsanjani might favor this. But as Bhadrakumar puts it what the head of Mossad says shows that he accepts that Ahmadinejad will win the struggle.
Bhadrakumar feels that Mousavi could not make the concessions that the US might demand but I don't really understand that. Giving up the nuclear program would pave the way to opening up the economy and withdrawing sanctions that would very much benefit many of the people who support him. Bhadrakumar claims that Mousavi does not have a genuine constituency. Surely he does but it may not be as powerful at the moment as Ahmadinejad has.
Bhadrakumar goes into detail on the background connections of Mousavi with the west, material you just don't find in other accounts of what is happening.
While Bhadrakumar is right that Khameni did not accuse Rafsanjani of corruption in his speech his remark about the possibility of legal proceedings against his relatives was a strong rebuke of Ahmadinejad for publicly charging Rafjani's relatives in a speech he had made. He also had high praise for Rafsanjani which might explain why the Assembly of Experts that Rafsanjani heads supported his remarks! The relationship between Khameni and Ahmadinejad does not seem all sweetness and light.
Note that Bhadrakumar praises Obama for his handling of the situation. However, there are strong pressures both within the Democratic Party and without for him to take a stronger position siding with the protesters. Note too that since Bhadrakumar wrote this Iran has specifically criticised CNN coverage.

'Color' revolution fizzles in Iran

By M K Bhadrakumar
Israelis are realists par excellence. This is why it is always gainful to buttonhole an Israeli counterpart over a single-malt on the diplomatic circuit. He will invariably weave into the tapestry of the plain tale a nylon thread until then obscure to the naked eye. Thus, the first warning that the adventurous project to mount a "Twitter revolution" in Iran was doomed to fail had to come from the Israelis. It meshes well with the indications that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's capacity to command the seemingly explosive political situation was never really been in doubt, no matter the hype in the Western media that Tehran was on the 'knife's edge". If any doubt lingers, that also is dispelled by the fury in the state-controlled Saudi Arabian media's unprecedented, vicious personal
attack on both Khamenei and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad - of a kind alien to the culture of ta'arof (politesse) or even taqiyah (dissimulation) in that part of the world. Riyadh's fond hopes of witnessing the Iranian regime debilitated by a protracted crisis have been dashed. Its principal interlocutor, former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has vanished from the chessboard. Riyadh seems bracing for Tehran's wrath. Israel's faultless prognosis In an extraordinary media leak at the weekend, just as Khamenei's historic speech at the Friday prayer meeting in Tehran ended, Meir Dagan, head of Israel's Mossad, let it be known that a win by Iranian opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in the presidential election on June 12 would have spelled "big problems" for Israel. Israelis have a way of saying things. It was a subtle acknowledgement of political realities in Tehran. Speaking to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of the Knesset (parliament) last Tuesday, Israel's spymaster could foresee that the protests in Iran would run out of steam. According to Ha'aretz newspaper, Dagan said: "Election fraud in Iran is no different than what happens in liberal states during elections. The struggle over the election results in Iran is internal and is unconnected to its strategic aspirations, including its nuclear program." He explained: "The world, and we, already know Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem, because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived in the international arena as a moderate element. It is important to remember that he is the one who began Iran's nuclear program when he was prime minister." The assessment is faultless, perfect. By a masterstroke in "back-channel" diplomacy, Israel signaled to Tehran it had nothing to do with any "color" revolution. It was a timely signal. Indeed, divisions have come to surface that have existed for years within the Iranian regime. But it is very obvious that there is no scope for a "color" revolution in today's Iran. Even a trenchant, relentless critic of the regime like veteran author Amir Taheri admits:
The regime's base has benefited from Ahmadinejad's largesse, and the rest of Iranian society is not sure anyone could do better. Ahmadinejad's principal weakness is his failure to bring the rich and corrupt mullahs to justice, as he had promised. His supporters say that would be the priority in his second term. ... Today, he is the authentic leader of the Khomeinist movement in a way that Mousavi, or [former President Mohammad] Khatami, or any of the other half-way-house Khomeinists could never be. Mousavi's limitations Nonetheless, Mousavi kindled hopes in the West - notably London, Paris and Berlin - and some "pro-West" Arab capitals. But then, that was because he was a known factor as foreign minister and then prime minister during 1981-89. The issue was never that he was a modernist or reformer. To quote Taheri, the well-informed chronicler of the Middle East, Mousavi when he was in power, "developed a wide network of contacts in the US, Europe and the Arab countries". Taheri, who rubs shoulders with the Arab and Western political elites with elan, offers insights into the Mousavi camp. He recalls that the man who led the lengthy Algiers talks, which resulted in the release of the American hostages in 1981, Behzad Nabvi, is still assisting Mousavi. So is Abbas Kangarioo who held secret negotiations with the Ronald Reagan administration in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra deal. Kangarioo, a key advisor and friend of Mousavi, also has the distinction of having "developed a network of contacts in intelligence and diplomatic circles in Europe and the US". Unsurprisingly, Taheri estimates that while Mousavi's fame might have spread far and wide in the Western intelligence circles, his principal appeal at home is confined to the urban middle classes who wish the "Khomeinist revolution would just fade away ... People like Mousavi and former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani have long ceased to be regarded as genuine revolutionaries". From another direction, Taheri came to virtually the same definitive conclusion as the Israeli intelligence chief reached. Namely, that a weak interlocutor without a "Khomeinist base" like Mousavi could never make concessions that the US, the Europeans and the Arabs demanded, whereas Ahmadinejad can afford a softening of position as it will only seem a clever maneuver. Paradoxically, negotiating with Ahmadinejad might prove easier for the West, as he has a genuine constituency. Looking back at the past four years, the fact remains that Ahmadinejad restored the connectivity of the regime with the radical populist discourse. "Four years ago", Taheri writes, "the image of the regime was one of a clique of mid-ranking mullahs and their business associates running the country as a private company in their own interest. The regime's 'downtrodden' base saw itself as the victim of a great historic swindle. Under Ahmadinejad, a new generation of revolutionaries has come to the fore, projecting an image of piety and probity, reassuring the 'downtrodden' that all is not lost." Ahmadinejad's populism is a double-edged sword. If carried too far, it may undermine the legitimacy of the regime, which included corrupt sections of the clerical establishment. But Ahmadinejad is a clever politician. He has certainly grown while on the job these past four years. Although he self-portrayed with gusto as a locomotive that charges ahead without brakes or reverse gear, he knew where to stop and when to glance over his shoulder. Thus, he hit at many corrupt practices and threatened to bring key figures to justice, but stopped short of landing the big catch. The big question is whether Ahmadinejad will cast his net wide in his second term. Rafsanjani outmaneuvered However, Khamenei remains the ultimate arbiter. Ahmadinejad publicly acknowledged the locus of power by expressing in a formal letter "his gratitude" to Khamenei for his "helpful remarks" at the Friday prayers. Last week's power-play showed that Khamenei effectively thwarted Rafsanjani's attempt to rally the clerical establishment in Qom. The turning point was reached on Thursday when the majority of the 86 members of the powerful Assembly of Experts (which Rafsanjani headed) openly rallied behind Khamenei. The Assembly of Experts is the most powerful organ of the regime, invested with the authority to elect and dismiss the supreme leader and to supervise his functioning. Around 50 members of the Assembly of Experts said in a statement that "enemies of Iran" were masterminding the "unrest and riots" over the presidential vote through its "hired elements". Rafsanjani conclusively lost the war when the majority of the members of the Assembly of Experts expressed confidence that with the "sagacious directions of the [Supreme] Leader", the machinations of Iran's enemies will be defeated. Armed with this decisive support, Khamenei came to deliver his historic Friday prayer speech where he ruled out any rethink about the election result. Rafsanjani failed to show up at the prayer meeting, even as Khamenei made clear his support for Ahmadinejad, stressing how closely their viewpoints coincided. Significantly, Khamenei referred to Rafsanjani by name even in his absence. The message was loud and clear: Khamenei's supremacy is unchallengeable. Most ominously, while Khamenei graciously absolved Rafsanjani of any personal corruption, he left open the possibility of legal proceedings being initiated against his family members. Rafsanjani will now need to weigh his options very carefully. He cannot but factor in the Sword of Damocles hanging over his family members who have allegedly amassed huge wealth through corrupt practices. Also, Khamenei made no effort to specifically contradict the grave charge leveled by Ahmadinejad during the election campaign that Rafsanjani conspired with the Saudi regime to overthrow his government - an allegation that the president couldn't have made without input from Iranian intelligence, which comes under the supervision of the supreme leader. On Saturday, the Assembly of Experts went a step further by expressing its "strong support" for Khamenei's speech. It called on the nation to obey Khamenei's guidelines. Also on Saturday, the Iranian armed forces headquarters and the Qom Seminary Teachers Society and several influential voices in the regime publicly rallied behind Khamenei. The so-called reformist clergy aligned with Khatami changed their mind and called off their planned demonstration on Saturday. The hard reality, therefore, is that Khamenei's awesome powers are in no way under challenge. He can afford to let demonstrations by Mousavi's middle-class followers continue to let off steam, as he has the authority to command the situation in a holistic way. That is to say, even if protests may continue for a while - which seems improbable as Mousavi finds himself in a tight spot - that does not erode state power. As Taheri put it, "So-called 'Iran experts' did not realize that Mousavi was a balloon that a section of the Iranian middle class inflated to show its anger not only at Ahmadinejad but also at the entire Khomeinist regime. Otherwise, there is nothing in Mousavi's record ... to make him more attractive than Ahmadinejad." At the end of it all, the international community can only heave a sigh of relief that while this complex and extremely confusing political drama unfolded, George W Bush was no more in the White House in Washington. United States President Barack Obama could grasp the subtleties of the situation and adopted a well-thought-out, measured policy and broadly stuck to it despite apparent pressure from conservatives. His remarks have not even remotely called into question Ahmadinejad's locus standii, let alone Khamenei's, to lead the country. Nor has Obama identified himself with Mousavi's call for a new poll. If anything, he ostentatiously distanced himself from Mousavi. Certainly, not once did Obama threaten to go back on his offer to directly engage Iran in the near future. Meanwhile, Obama has just done some thoughtful fine-tuning in the lineup of the Iran hands in his administration, as the countdown begins for the commencement of direct talks. He shifted Dennis Ross to the National Security Council as special advisor for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia instead of appointing him as the special envoy to Iran on the lines of George Mitchell's portfolio covering the Palestinians and Israel. Tehran will no doubt welcome the shift, given Ross' hawkish views. Now, it will be the right thing to do if Obama asks Richard Holbrooke, special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to hold additional charge of Iran. Clearly, the Iranians took note that Obama's statements remained carefully modulated, although Voice of America might have meddled in the turmoil, as Tehran alleges. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's broadside on Saturday in Tehran singled out Britain, France and Germany, but omitted any reference to the US (or Israel). Among European countries, Tehran trained its guns on Britain. Mottaki said British forces in Iraq trained saboteurs and infiltrated them into Iran. But even then, it is a measure of Tehran's self-confidence that he elected to mock, saying it's time London forgot the adage that the "sun never sets on the British Empire". Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.


Now a quite different viewpoint by Pepe Escobar also in Asia Times.

Escobar is a regular contributor to Asia Times and his remarks are almost always interesting and often incisive as well. Escobar sees the protests as a powerful example of people power. However he is also aware of the struggle at the top. But he never discusses the relationships of those in the Mousavi camp to the interests of the US. His analysis is punctuated with paeans to people power. Somehow or other Rafsanjani and Mousavi et al whom he recognises as accepting the system are to be swept away in the amazing flood of people power. But then to a large extent it is these very people who are orchestrating events.
It is interesting that Escobar should call Ahmadinejad the Shah. There is at least one minor difference. The Shah was placed in power with the help of the US. and was subservient to US policy. Ahmadinejad on the other hand is a demonised opponent of US policies and the US is trying to help remove him.




THE ROVING EYE

Meet Shah Ali Khamenei
By Pepe Escobar
Amid blood in the streets, cries in the rooftops and daggers drawn at silky corridors, the 30-year-old Islamic Revolution in Iran has a date with destiny: the challenge is to finally celebrate the marriage of Islam and democracy. Former president Mohammad Khatami, the man of the dialogue of civilizations, revealed once again his moral stature when he praised the massive silent street protests (before the bloody repression); and stressed that almost 40 million Iranian voters, including those who dispute the final, "official" result, are "the owners" of the revolution. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on the other hand, preferred to brand the sea of protestors as "terrorists". Khatami also brushed off the leader of the Guardians Council, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad-friendly Ahmad Jannati, as "a
referee who is under suspicion and complaint". The "only solution", said Khatami, to "settle the crisis in the best interests of the Iranian people and the principles of the revolution" would be for an impartial commission to fully examine the evidence for ballot rigging. Losing presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, for his part, depicted the work of such a commission as "a given right", capable of "achieving a new type of political life in the country". As it stands, there's no evidence the theo-political oligarchy which has just solidified its power in Iran will even contemplate the possibility of appointing such a commission. Montazeri to the rescue The key move for the next few days revolves around Grand Ayatollah Husayn Montazeri's call for three days of mourning for the dead, from Wednesday to Friday. The progressive view in Tehran - and among the exiled Iranian intelligentsia - is that this is a very sophisticated, back to 1979, civil disobedience code, suggesting citizens should go indefinitely on strike. To strike is safer, and much more subversive, than hitting the streets and being bloodied by the paramilitary Basiji. Strikes were a fundamental element for the success of the revolution 30 years ago. Montazeri is also subtly signaling the strategy to seduce Iran's silent majority - which may hover around 30% to 40% of the total population. This strategy, judiciously applied over the next few days and weeks, may expand the people power river into a formidable ocean. It's as if an irresistible force might be whispering in his ear - "Mr Montazeri, tear down this [Islamic] wall." Meanwhile, at street level, people power will be grieving the dead but at the same time fighting the state's implacable crackdown on all forms of modern technology by resorting to ... paper. Welcome to the 21st century return of the samizdat (distribution of government-suppressed literature or other media in Soviet-bloc countries). In only one week, the green revolution, then people power, in Iran, has morphed into an entity way beyond Mousavi. The anger, rage, sense of having suffered a tremendous injustice (never underestimate this feeling in a Shi'ite society), the pent-up resentment; these emotions were so phenomenal, the regime so lost control of the arena of political debate, and the repression has been so brutal. A very simple idea underneath it all has finally revealed itself: we are fed up. You are liars. Death to the dictator. Allah-O Akbar. And we will cry every night, across our rooftops, at the top of our lungs, and we will not be silenced, until you get the message. Blame foreign "terrorists", blame the United States, Britain, France and Germany - the theo-political oligarchy's panicky reaction is totally beside the point. As are vast, proselytizing sectors of the Western progressive left - bound by the iron chains and faulty logic of "everyone fighting US imperialism is my friend". They have been duped - uncritically swallowing regime propaganda, blind to the complexities of Iranian society, and unable to identify a completely new political equation for what it is. To believe that "Western puppets" are crying Allah-O Akbar all over Iran's rooftops, or being shot at by Basiji in the streets, is criminally absurd. Mousavi, Khatami, Montazeri - they are not neo-revolutionaries (much less counter-revolutionaries). They are all accepting the principles and institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Basiji, but criticizing "deviations and deceptions", in the language of Mousavi and Khatami. They want nothing else but the "return of the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution". And they are keen to stress this implies every single form of freedom of expression. People power in Iran now dreams of a constant, no-holds-barred dialogue taking place within civil society. And this step ahead does not necessarily have to do with Iran adopting Western liberal democracy. Persians are way too sophisticated; the whole thing goes way, way beyond. It's as if a road map was being laid out not only for Iran's post-modern remix of the French Revolution, but for Islam's Reformation as well. This is as serious as it gets. Rafsanjani's Qom game Meanwhile, mundane palace intrigue goes on. Not surprisingly, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani's whole game is taking place in Qom. He may not co-opt the IRGC - which fears and hates him - but he may well unbalance many an influential ayatollah and have a go at illlegitimizing Khamenei. Niceties apart, it goes without saying that the supreme leader's entourage has told Rafsanjani that if he keeps on scheming, he and his whole family will land in deep trouble. Qom is being microscopically monitored by the supremacist Khamenei Leader/Ahmadinejad/IRGC faction. They all know that many important ayatollahs have traditionally promoted their leadership as vehicles for wider social grievances. The "papacy" in Qom supports mostly pragmatic conservatives and reformists. People like Mousavi and Khatami. Definitely not people like Ahmadinejad. The widow of Mohammad Rajai, a former prime minister assassinated in the beginning of the revolution, went to Qom to talk to some key ayatollahs. Not surprisingly, she was arrested. According to the informed Iranian blogosphere, there are quite a few ayatollahs under house arrest and practically incommunicado. It's easy to forget in the West that millions of Iranians do not fundamentally agree with political power submitted to religion. Public pronouncements of ayatollahs in favor of the separation of church and state may not be too far away. Rafsanjani wants an emergency session of the 86 clerics-strong, no women, Council of Experts. Another crucial point: Qom as a whole is also not very fond of Khamenei. Khamenei was and remains an ultra-minor scholar; he was a mere hojjatoleslam when, through a white coup, he was installed as the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's successor. He's not a revered marja (senior spiritual leader) or a source of imitation. The problem is Rafsanjani is fighting a formidable foe - the apocalypsist, Mahdist Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor who lost influence to - who else? - Rafsanjani in the last election for the Council of Experts, in late 2006. So this, once again, is an (invisible) battle between the "shark" and the "crocodile", as Rafsanjani and Yazdi, respectively, are known in Iran. Al-Arabiya is relying on sources according to which Rafsanjani is trying to come up with a collective leadership to replace the supreme leader. No Iranian blogger has confirmed the possible emergence of an ayatollah politburo. Meet Shah Ali Khamenei For now, the theo-political oligarchy (Khamenei/Ahmadinejad/IRGC) that has solidified its power and privilege has made it abundantly clear it wants an Islamic government where popular sovereignty is reduced to zero. The divine legitimacy of power is self-sufficient. That's the meaning of Khamenei's speech last Friday. This oligarchy won't let go of their power - not by a long shot. But amid all the crackle and static coming out of Iran, one thing is certain. It's too late to turn back now. All the evidence points out to people power hanging in for the long haul, no matter how desperately violent the scruffy working-class Basiji, despised by the Iranian-educated, urban middle and upper middle class, behave. The key message will remain simple and modest. And cracks at the top are bound to emerge. The other option is an illegitimate, brutal military dictatorship of a (fractured) mullahtariat, supported by legions of Basiji. This arrangement can't possibly last. There are insistent rumors in Tehran that the theo-political oligarchy supremacists are receiving crack counter-insurgency help from both Russia and China. Khamenei/Ahmadinejad/IRGC can always insist on turning Tehran into Tiananmen and prevail - for now. But Iran in 2009 has nothing to do with China in 1989. As for Mousavi, hurled in spite of himself into the eye of this historic hurricane, he now follows the human flow. The human flow has indicated that the supreme leader is illegitimate. His credibility as a religious scholar was and remains shaky. Now his credibility as supreme leader is shaky as well. Khamenei's central thesis of velayat-e-faqih (the rule of jurisprudence) was never a divine revelation (by the way, it was influenced by Khomeini's reading of human, oh-so-human Plato and Aristotle). It's just a particular Shi'ite interpretation of political Islam, according to which an Islamic jurisprudent has divine powers and rules absolutely surrounded by guardians. (Influential ayatollahs in Najaf, for instance, simply don't buy it). Now people are saying, "We have had enough of guardians". And they're also saying that the answer, my friend, is blowing in the rooftops. That's what people power is collectively thinking: if God is great, he's got to allow us democracy within Islam. As for the supreme leader, he is now naked. Mousavi may not be Khomeini. But Khamenei increasingly is remixing himself as the shah. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

Iranian Communist Party statement on the Iranian protests..

This is from this website.

This is pure rhetoric completely lacking in any analysis of the social forces behind the two opposing groups. Rafsanjani does not enter the picture just the '''people''. There is no US meddling or anything of that sort no struggle among the mullahs just the heroic people being drenched in blood with all the bad guys on the other side.l
The Tudeh party should know about being drenched in blood since it was bloodied by the Shah and then by the mullahs. There is very little left and it is banned in Iran. But the remnants can now at least comfort themselves by being on the side of democracy and US imperialism. This should make all those western liberals and conservatives applauding the protesters take note. You are all commie sympthasizers it would seem;)
The party no doubt thinks that it can join in the protest and push it in a progressive direction.
If they had bothered to look at the forces behind the protest they should see that they could very well again be hammered on the head once those behind the protest take power, that is if they dont get hammered on the head first by Ahmadinejad, with his militia and the Revolutionary Guards.
There is no mention of the working class in this rhetoric, a very strange omission for a communist declaration. Probably the working class is on the wrong side. The right side is Rafsanjani and his allies being supported by US imperialism,the side of the people.

22 June, 2009
STATEMENT BY IRANIAN COMMUNISTS (TUDEH PARTY)
Filed under: Iran — Andy Newman @ 2:18 pm
The Communiqué of the Central Committee of the Tudeh Party of Iran- Number 5
The language of force and threat will not stop people in their rightful struggle!
The Vigilant People of Iran!
Amid the escalation of the protest movement in the recent days and the continuing mass demonstrations in large and small cities in Iran, in this week’s Friday mass prayers in Tehran (19th June) the Supreme Leader (Velayat-e-Faqih) not only distorted the truth and openly defended the coup d’état of his own puppets and overtly supported Ahmadi-Nejad’s administration, but also threatened the people and the presidential candidates of the 10th elections. His position and his emphasize on this point that the election and its outcome is considered the “absolute victory” of the regime and “illegal novelties” are not allowed [referring to the call for annulment of elections], indicate the fact that the powerful movement of people has seriously petrified the regime, and the regime is exploiting all it resources and power to curb this movement. What Ali Khamenei stated in the Friday’s prayers in Tehran as the official policy of the Velayat-e-Faqih regime, was not unexpected. This policy has in fact been followed and meticulously implemented since the first day of mass protests and demonstrations. Bloody suppression of people, vast and purposeful arrests, attempts to weaken the strength of the movement in various ways, and efforts to divide the reformist and freedom-fighters and to disconnect the resistant pro-reform individuals from the popular movement, are various elements and parts of the aforementioned policy.
Reform seeking, Freedom-loving and Progressive Parties and Forces!
The current powerful protest movement has challenged the ruling reaction and despots. The eternal power of people is the most Significant support for realizing the people’s demands, i.e. to annul the election outcome and to scrap “approbation supervision”. It was for a reason that in his sermon on Friday the Supreme Leader stressed on this factor, i.e. the power of people, more than anything else, and by openly threatening the pro reform leaders asked them to part themselves from the people and send them home. There is a very important point in this stance, or devious tactic of the Supreme Leader, which could not be neglected. The goal of the perpetrators of the coup d’état under the leadership of the Supreme Leader is to create a divide between the reform seekers who by their splendid resistance so far, have effectively helped to reinforce the popular movement and to defeat the plots of the ruling reaction. That’s why the people and millions of perturbed Iranians rightfully call for perseverance and unity and strengthening of the alliance and solidarity among the pro reform forces and freedom fighters. Any divisive action must be avoided by all means; calls for demonstrations or any shape and form of protest must be coordinated and united, and any kind of dispersion must be confronted with.
The power of the movement is in its united action. The plot of the Supreme Leader to divide the pro reform forces and to distance them from each other could only be defeated by coordination, unison and united action. The seemingly tough plots of the Supreme Leader and the coup d’état perpetrators under his leadership must be defeated vigilantly and by relying on the power of the masses. It is this relentless and powerful presence of masses in protest to the clear violations of the laws and rights by the regime that will force the regime to retreat. The piercing voice of rightful protest of the people movement is echoed more than ever, both internally and across the world.
The will of our combative people calls for this voice to be resonated louder and louder.
The Combatant People of Iran,
The Supreme Leader has threatened to suppress. These types of threats are not new to our people. They know the true suppressive nature of the regime and it is with this knowledge that they have stepped into this struggle for rights. The experiences of all the nations around the world in struggle, including the heroic people of Iran, prove that suppression, killing, and using force is not an indication of power. By using violence and killing people, dictators show their weakness. The official position and policy of the Supreme Leader which was outlined in this Friday’s prayers is not an exception to this point. The Supreme Leader threatening to suppress the people and the reformist candidates (Mousavi and Karrubi) in no way stems from a strong position. The position of the Supreme Leader and the coup d’état agents, despite the vast resources that they have in their disposal against the powerful wave of people, is extremely weak.
Therefore, with a combination of peaceful struggle and resistance through various avenues, including demonstrations and sit-ins that are rooted in the popular and revolutionary traditions of our nation, the reaction could be forced to retreat.
Hand in hand and united we will continue the struggle and confrontation with the Supreme Leader and dark-minded coup perpetrators to demand the annulment of the recent presidential elections, scrapping “approbation supervision”, freedom of those who were arrested in the recent events and also other political prisoners, trial and punishment of those who ordered the killing of people and those who executed the killings, and reporting and putting to trial of those who planned and executed the elections coup.
Central Committee of Tudeh Party of Iran19th June 2009

Philippine appeals court overturns US Marine's rape conviction, orders his immediate release..

This was long a cause celebre among many activisits in the Philippines. The alleged victim managed to completely ruin any case against the US marine by changing her testimony. Now conveniently she emigrated to the good old USA. The court claims however that it was not influenced by her change of testimony. All along the Arroyo govt. did whatever the US wanted as is shown by the details in the article.



Philippine appeals court overturns US Marine's rape conviction, orders his immediate release

By: TERESA CEROJANO Associated Press06/20/09 7:10 PM EDT
MANILA, PHILIPPINES — A Philippine court overturned the rape conviction of a U.S. Marine whose case became a rallying point for activists demanding American forces leave the country. Protesters said the decision underscored their government's subservience to an old colonial master.
Three years ago, Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for raping a Filipino woman after a night of drinking. The emotional case soon turned into a political tug-of-war between the government — keen on maintaining smooth relations with its key ally — and nationalist, left-wing and women's rights activists eager to showcase that the Philippines can do without U.S. protection.
Just hours after the Philippine Appeals Court overturned Smith's 2006 conviction, more than two dozen activists marched to the U.S. Embassy in Manila but were stopped by riot police. They peacefully dispersed after the hourlong protest.
"We are outraged," said Renato Reyes of the prominent left-wing group Bayan.
The woman accused Smith of raping her in a van in the presence of other Marines, after the two met in a bar at the former U.S. Subic Bay Naval base in 2005, while Smith was on leave after taking part in military exercises.
The Philippine Senate in 1991 voted to close down two main U.S. bases in the Philippines — Subic and Clark Air Base. Eight years later, Manila and Washington signed the Visiting Forces Agreement that allows U.S. forces to conduct war exercises in the Philippines, an American colony from 1898 to 1946, and provide counterterrorism training for Filipino soldiers battling al-Qaida-linked militants in the volatile south.
During a dramatic yearlong trial at a suburban metropolitan Manila court, the woman broke down and said she was too drunk to stop Smith's assault. At one point, she attacked him with fists while walking to the stand.
Smith, 23, of St. Louis, Missouri, insisted the sex was consensual, telling the court: "I think it's horrible what I've been accused of. This place has taken a year off of my life that I can never get back."
After Smith was convicted, he was initially taken to a Philippine jail, but the U.S. argued he should be kept in American custody, citing the Visiting Forces Agreement.
Washington said the accord entitles any accused U.S. service member to remain in American hands until all judicial proceedings are exhausted.
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo backed the U.S. position, but the Philippine Supreme Court ruled in February he should serve his sentence in a Philippine prison and asked the government to negotiate his transfer with Washington. The negotiations were under way when the appeals court ruled Thursday.
"No evidence was introduced to show force, threat and intimidation applied by the accused," the appeals court said in its 71-page decision, which is final.
It ordered the immediate release of Smith from his detention at the U.S. Embassy in Manila.
Smith's lawyer, Jose Justiniano, said his client "got the justice that he deserved."
But leftist groups condemned the decision saying it was proof of Arroyo's subservience to the United States.
"This denial of justice can only be blamed on Mrs. Arroyo, whose subservience to the U.S. and veneration of the VFA knows no bounds," Reyes said, referring to the Visiting Forces Agreement.
Activists protesting at the heavily guarded U.S. Embassy late Thursday held up posters that read, "Smith's acquittal, a Philippine-U.S. government connivance."
The case also sparked protests condemning a Philippine government decision to allow Smith to be detained at the U.S. Embassy instead of a local jail.
Another twist came in March when the woman suddenly reversed her testimony and emigrated to the United States, saying in a court affidavit she was no longer certain a crime took place.
The woman initially said she and Smith were drinking, kissing and dancing at a bar before moving to a van, where she originally told the court she was raped while she fell in and out of consciousness.
The woman's turnabout shocked her supporters. Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said she could be charged with perjury.
The court said Thursday its decision was not influenced by her reversal, and described the encounter between Smith and the woman as "the unfolding of a spontaneous, unplanned romantic episode with both parties carried away by their passions."
___
Associated Press writers Jim Gomez and Oliver Teves contributed to this report.

Beijing's Cautions US over Iran...

This is from the AsiaTimes.

Obama's first reactions were almost exemplary even though it is clear that behind the scenes there was much support probably being given by the US for the opposition. The State Dept even asked Twitter not to close down for maintenance in the interests of advancing the opposition. Former US officials, such as Brzezinski, have also warned the US to lay low. Of course in the US media what China might have to say about Iran is of no interest. It is twitters and liberal experts on Iran who count.
However events have forced Obama's hand to some extent. Clinton and Biden for example want him to intervene on the right (opposition) side in the confrontation. Meanwile the media is almost an official voice of the opposition about as neutral as the Tehran Times.

Beijing cautions US over Iran
By M K Bhadrakumar
China has broken silence on the developing situation in Iran. This comes against the backdrop of a discernible shift in Washington's posturing toward political developments in Iran. The government-owned China Daily featured its main editorial comment on Thursday titled "For Peace in Iran". It comes amid reports in the Western media that the former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is rallying the Qom clergy to put pressure on the Guardians Council - and, in turn, on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - to annul last Friday's presidential election that gave Mahmud Ahmadinejad another four-year term. Beijing fears a confrontation looming and counsels Obama to keep the pledge in his Cairo speech not to repeat such errors in
the US's Middle East policy as the overthrow of the elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq in Iran in 1953. Beijing also warns about letting the genie of popular unrest get out of the bottle in a highly volatile region that is waiting to explode. Tehran
on Friday saw its sixth day of massive protests by supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, whom they say was cheated out of victory. A parallel with Thailand Meanwhile, China's special envoy on Middle East, Wu Sike, is setting out on an extensive fortnight-long regional tour on Saturday (which, significantly, will be rounded off with consultations in Moscow) to fathom the political temperature in capitals as varied as Cairo and Tel Aviv, Amman and Damascus, and Beirut and Ramallah. Beijing also made a political statement when a substantive bilateral was scheduled between President Hu Jintao and Ahmadinejad on Tuesday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Yekaterinburg, Russia. Conceivably, Hu would have discussed the Iran situation with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev during his official visit to Moscow that followed the SCO summit. Earlier, Moscow welcomed Ahmadinejad's re-election. Both China and Russia abhor "color" revolutions, especially something as intriguing as Twitter, which Moscow came across a few months ago in Moldova and raises hackles about the US's interventionist global strategy. China anticipated the backlash against Ahmadinejad's victory. On Monday, The Global Times newspaper quoted the former Chinese ambassador to Iran, Hua Liming, that the Iranian situation would get back to normalcy only if a negotiated agreement was reached among the "major centers of political power ... But, if not, the recent turmoil in Thailand will possibly be repeated". It is quite revealing that the veteran Chinese diplomat drew a parallel with Thailand. However, Hua underscored that Ahmadinejad does enjoy popularity and has "lots of support in this nationalist country because he has the courage to state his own opinion and dares to carry out his policies". The consensus opinion of Chinese academic community is also that Ahmadinejad's re-election will "test" Obama. Thus, Thursday's China Daily editorial is broadly in the nature of an appeal to the Obama administration not to spoil its new Middle East policy, which is shaping well, through impetuous actions. Significantly, the editorial upheld the authenticity of Ahmadinejad's election victory: "Win and loss are two sides of an election coin. Some candidates are less inclined to accept defeat." The daily pointed out that a pre-election public opinion poll conducted by the Washington Post newspaper showed Ahmadinejad having a 2-1 lead over his nearest rival and some opinion polls in Iran also indicated more or less the same, whereas, actually, "he won the election on a lower margin. Thus, the opposition's allegations against Ahmadinejad come as a trifle surprising". The editorial warns: "Attempts to push the so-called color revolution toward chaos will prove very dangerous. A destabilized Iran is in nobody's interest if we want to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East, and the world beyond." It pointedly recalled that the US's "Cold War intervention in Iran" made US-Iran relationship a troubled one, "with US presidents trying to stick their nose into Iran's internal business". Theocracy versus republicanism Beijing understands Iran's revolutionary politics very well. China was one of the few countries that warmly hosted Ruhollah Khomeini as president (in 1981 and 1989). In contrast, India, which professes "civilizational" ties with Iran, was much too confused about Iran's revolutionary legacy to be able to correctly estimate Khamenei's political instincts favoring republicanism. Most of the Indian elites aren't even aware that Khamenei studied as a youth in Moscow's Patrice Lumumba University. Be that as it may, the Hu-Ahmadinejad meeting in Yekaterinburg on Tuesday once again shows Beijing has a very clear idea about the ebb and flow of Iran's politics. Hu demonstrably accorded to Ahmadinejad the full honor as Beijing's valued interlocutor. Chinese media have closely followed the trajectory of the US reaction to the situation in Iran, especially the "Twitter revolution", which puts Beijing on guard about US intentions. Indications are that the US establishment has begun meddling in Iranian politics. Rafsanjani's camp always keeps lines open to the West. All-in-all, a degree of synchronization is visible involving the US's "Twitter revolution" route, Rafsanjani's parleys with the conservative clergy in Qom and Mousavi's uncharacteristically defiant stance. Obama faces multiple challenges. On the one hand, as Helene Cooper of The New York Times reported on Thursday, the continuing street protests in Tehran are emboldening a corpus of (pro-Israel) conservatives in Washington to demand that Obama should take a "more visible stance in support of the protesters". But then, a regime change would inevitably delay the expected US-Iran direct engagement and upset Obama's tight calendar to ensure the negotiations gained traction by year's end, while Iran's centrifuges in its nuclear establishments keep spinning. Also, a fragmented power structure in Tehran will prove ineffectual in helping the US stabilize Afghanistan. However, top administration officials like Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would like the US to "strike a stronger tone" on Iran's turmoil. Cooper reported they are piling pressure on Obama that he might run the risk of "coming across the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran". A Thermidorian reaction No doubt, the turmoil has an intellectual side to it. Obama being a rare politician gifted with intellectuality and a keen sense of history would know that what is at stake is a well-orchestrated attempt by the hardcore conservative clerical establishment to roll back the four-year-old painful, zig-zag process toward republicanism in Iran. Mousavi is the affable front man for the mullahs, who fear that another four years of Ahmadinejad would hurt their vested interests. Ahmadinejad has already begun marginalizing the clergy from the sinecures of power and the honey pots of the Iranian economy, especially the oil industry. The struggle between the worldly mullahs (in alliance with the bazaar) and the republicans is as old as the 1979 Iranian revolution, where the fedayeen of the proscribed Tudeh party (communist cadres) were the original foot soldiers of the revolution, but the clerics usurped the leadership. The highly contrived political passions let loose by the 444-day hostage crisis with the US helped the wily Shi'ite clerics to stage the Thermidorian reaction and isolate the progressive revolutionary leadership. Ironically, the US once again figures as a key protagonist in Iran's dialectics - not as a hostage, though. Imam Khomeini was wary of the Iranian mullahs and he created the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps as an independent force to ensure the mullahs didn't hijack the revolution. Equally, his preference was that the government should be headed by non-clerics. In the early years of the revolution, the conspiracies hatched by the triumvirate of Beheshti-Rafsanjani-Rajai who engineered the ouster of the secularist leftist president Bani Sadr (who was Khomeini's protege), had the agenda to establish a one-party theocratic state. These are vignettes of Iran's revolutionary history that might have eluded the intellectual grasp of George W Bush, but Obama must be au fait with the deviousness of Rafsanjani's politics. If Rafsanjani's putsch succeeds, Iran would at best bear resemblance to a decadent outpost of the "pro-West" Persian Gulf. Would a dubious regime be durable? More important, is it what Obama wishes to see as the destiny of the Iranian people? The Arab street is also watching. Iran is an exception in the Muslim world where people have been empowered. Iran's multitudes of poor, who form Ahmadinejad's support base, detest the corrupt, venal clerical establishment. They don't even hide their visceral hatred of the Rafsanjani family. Alas, the political class in Washington is clueless about the Byzantine world of Iranian clergy. Egged on by the Israeli lobby, it is obsessed with "regime change". The temptation will be to engineer a "color revolution". But the consequence will be far worse than what obtains in Ukraine. Iran is a regional power and the debris will fall all over. The US today has neither the clout nor the stamina to stem the lava flow of a volcanic eruption triggered by a color revolution that may spill over Iran's borders. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany
, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

The IRGC shakes its iron fist...

This author is obviously opposed to Ahmadinejad. What is helpful in the article is his description of the power of the IRGC and how it is involved in the economy. Of course no mention is made of Rafjansani on the other side. No doubt he would love to get control of some of these IRGC assets. The article is also prophetic. The ruling of the Council has come in and some recounts will be made but there is nothing about a new election. Even the Assembly of Experts has met and they approved Khatemi's guidelines even though Rafsanjani was head of that group.
Although Rafsanjani was praised to the skies in Khatemi's speech some of Rafsanjani's relatives were briefly arrested but then let go it would seem. It is hard to know what is going on at the top. They do not send twitter messages to CNN.

This article is also prophetic in that the IRGC has made it clear that it will act forcefully against any opposition rallies.


The IRGC shakes its iron fistBy Shahir Shahidsaless The disputed presidential election in Iran is transforming into a ferocious struggle between religious radicals and reformists. This has been a historical battle in Iran which has been going on for the past 100 years between tradition and modernity. Behind the scenes there is another story - the fight is also over large sums of money. Reformists claim the 125,000-member Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), or Sepah, controls as much as half of the total imports in terms of value through illegal jetties, and governs almost one-third of the whole economy. From engineering and construction to oil, wherever huge sums of money are involved, openly or covertly, the IRGC's presence is apparent. Despite the massive amount of money flowing into the organization, there are no reports or rumors inside Iran claiming

that the funds are used for personal gain by IRGC commanders. This leaves the logical assumption that the relentless efforts by the IRGC for having access to a large amount of capital, beyond its official budget, is to finance its vast operations inside and outside the country. The striking influence that the IRGC gained beyond Iran's borders in the four years of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's presidency, especially in Iraq, is arguably one the main factors that established the position of Iran as a decisive player in the region, threatening the authority of the United States. In March 2008, after a fierce fight broke out between the Mahdi militia and the Iraqi army in Basra, the second-largest city in Iraq, Iraqi lawmakers traveled to Iran to win the support of the Quds force commander to stop the military operations of Muqtada al-Sadr. Ghasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds force, an offshoot of the IRGC responsible for overseas operations, brokered a truce within 24 hours. The IRGC's intelligence operations, as well as allegedly equipping, organizing and financing Islamic movements in the region, demand a considerable amount of money. In terms of ideology and personality, Ahmadinejad was an ideal character to assist the IRGC in materializing its ambitions. His stubborn determination, ideological conviction, populist and fanatical appeal, and his welcoming of confrontation made him a candidate worthy to invest in. From his rise to power in 2005, up until the current election, Ahmadinejad had the persistent, overt and obvious support of the IRGC. In February, 2009, a National Audit Office report revealed that US$1 billion of oil money was missing. Reformist opponents of Ahmadinejad have estimated the missing oil dollars could be as high as $46 billion. Some observers have assumed that the Islamic Republic of Iran, through the IRGC, has spent a good portion of these missing billions in Iraq and Lebanon. Interestingly, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrollah was the first foreign political figure to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his re-election. Thanks to the efforts of the IRGC during his first term, Ahmadinejad dramatically changed Iran's position in the region. It is widely believed that only an exclusive group of individuals, including the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, have been in the loop of dealings with the IRGC's finances. This would make it very costly for the IRGC if an outsider came to power. It could not only jeopardize their alleged control over oil revenue, but also hundreds of projects - including oil and gas - that are granted to companies affiliated with the organization. Khamenei's support of Ahmadinejad during the 2005 presidential elections was revealed by Mehdi Karrubi, ex-chairman of Majlis (parliament) and a reformist candidate in last week's presidential vote. In an open letter, Karrubi, referring to illegal interference of "a network", explicitly accused Mojtaba Khamenei - Khamenei's son - as one of the conspirators. Khamenei's support of Ahmadinejad was also evident during the recent election. In its wake, the defeated candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi unhesitatingly said he wouldn't accept the results. Khamenei, snubbing the legal process, declared Ahmadinejad the victor. According to the law, the Electoral Commission is to wait for three days before certifying the results of the election. The candidates can file complaints outlining specifics of the irregularities to the Guardians Council, the body tasked with supervising the electoral process. The supreme leader should sign off on the process only after the Guardians Council gives the results a clean bill of health. In an unprecedented move and well before the three days deadline expired, Khamenei endorsed and sealed the process by asking all Iranians as well as defeated candidates to support the elected president. Chaos erupted in Tehran's streets within hours of the televised broadcast of the statement. No one knows better than the exclusive group which deals with the secret projects of the IRGC, how costly and risky it would be to let a team of strangers take over the administration. More importantly, if a new team were to discover the magnitude of the missing dollars, and how and where they were spent, the results would be utterly unpredictable. Mousavi's intention to focus on national issues was made clear during his presidential debate with the incumbent president. He attacked Ahmadinejad for giving priority to foreign policy matters such as Palestine and Lebanon over Iran's national interests. This could have meant trouble for the IRGC. It is safe to assume that prior to the elections, the IRGC - as the principle center of authority in Iran - was well aware of what could lie ahead. Heading into election day, independent analysts inside Iran almost unanimously believed that Mousavi was the favorite to win. In turn, the IRGC made an alarming and meaningful statement. Yadollah Javani, a top official and political brain of the Sepah, two days prior to the election day, accused reformist opponents of Ahmadinejad of trying to launch a "velvet revolution" - a reference to the former Czechoslovakia's non-violent revolution that ousted the communist government in 1989. Javani said that the IRGC would crush a possible post-election attempt to shape such a revolution. Where to go from here?Mousavi is facing a disturbing paradox. During his presidential debates, he repeatedly accused Ahmadinejad of being a "lawbreaker". In fact, condemning Ahmadinejad's administration as a "threat to the establishment" shaped the core of his campaign. Mousavi would say: "If the law is bad we have to change it, but we cannot ignore it." Now Mousavi has filed a complaint (See Mousavi states his case, Asia Times Online, Jun 18) regarding the outcome of the election, and Khamenei has ordered the Guardians Council to investigate claims of voting irregularities. Knowing that the Guardians Council is led and controlled by Ahmadinejad's allies, namely Ahmad Jannati, the chairman of the council, the outcome of the investigation seems predictable. The ruling will likely be: Yes, there have been some irregularities, but nothing major to drastically change the fate of the election. If this scenario happens, it would put Mousavi in an awkward situation where he is doomed if he objects to the ruling, as it would be against the law, and is doomed if he doesn't. On the other hand, Mousavi's opponents are facing a complex dilemma as well. If, as requested officially by Mousavi, the election is declared null and void - which would mean that new elections must be held - it would be the first time since the 1979 revolution that people would gain victory against the government through a nationwide uprising. This could set a trend threatening the future of the Islamic Republic. Such a surrender would expose Khamenei to more challenges by the encouraged and energized masses that are ultimately seeking his fall. At the moment, the protesters are testing their chances and limitations. A new election is also problematic, as the difference between the second and first election would fatally and permanently damage the regime's credibility nationally and internationally. Evidence is mounting that there has been some big fraud involved. There have been claims that in many cities the number of votes exceeded the eligible voters by as much as 40%. Vote aggregation has been conducted by computer for the first time in the history of the Iranian elections. The results of the vote counts, which were announced in 10 different stages, showed a linear correlation between the total votes of Ahmadinejad and Mousavi from the very first to the last announcement. An iron fist is the most probable alternative; and also has its own limitations. So far, protesters who are holding huge demonstrations daily don't show any sign of retreat. For the next 10 days, until the Guardians Council announces its ruling, it is expected that the streets of Tehran and other large cities will remain chaotic and restless. With or without Mousavi, if the demonstrations linger after the Guardians Council's ruling, it is logical to expect the IRGC will intervene. As Javani, Sepah's top official stated, their troops would crush what he likened to the "velvet revolution". Beating and killing protesters will critically damage the legitimacy of the regime. The government will get by for the time being, but as a Persian saying holds, it will "push the fire under the ashes". A volcano will be formed; a volcano that will eventually erupt. Shahir Shahidsaless is a Canadian-Iranian political analyst writing mainly in Farsi. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering, and has devoted the past 10 years predominantly to researching and writing about the Middle East and international affairs for Farsi-speaking magazines, papers and news websites. He has authored a book, which has been published in Iran and Germany.

Are the Iranian Election Protests Another US Orchestrated Color Revolution?

Of course it is impossible to know the extent of US involvement in the Iranian situation but it is clear that the mainstream media are supporting the opposition to the hilt. There is no need for secret operations to be involved in this nor in enlisting the support of US liberals for the opposition for this support almost comes by nature. Support for US imperialism is bipartisan. Those who are critical of this support are few and far between but are on both the right and the left.
However, Roberts is no doubt right that there is also clandestine support for the opposition involving funds put aside for destabilizing the regime. News reporters often cite official Iranian complaints of foreign interventions as if they were just to be dismissed as propaganda when the facts show as this article points out that the US has made it an explicit policy to destabilise the regime! Of course the Iranian response is almost automatic and used as a tool but it also happens to have considerable truth in it.


Are the Iranian Election Protests Another US Orchestrated ‘Color Revolution’?
By Paul Craig RobertsJune 20, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --
-A number of commentators have expressed their idealistic belief in the purity of Mousavi, Montazeri, and the westernized youth of Terhan. The CIA destabilization plan, announced two years ago (see below) has somehow not contaminated unfolding events.The claim is made that Ahmadinejad stole the election, because the outcome was declared too soon after the polls closed for all the votes to have been counted. However, Mousavi declared his victory several hours before the polls closed. This is classic CIA destabilization designed to discredit a contrary outcome. It forces an early declaration of the vote. The longer the time interval between the preemptive declaration of victory and the announcement of the vote tally, the longer Mousavi has to create the impression that the authorities are using the time to fix the vote. It is amazing that people don’t see through this trick.As for the grand ayatollah Montazeri’s charge that the election was stolen, he was the initial choice to succeed Khomeini, but lost out to the current Supreme Leader. He sees in the protests an opportunity to settle the score with Khamenei. Montazeri has the incentive to challenge the election whether or not he is being manipulated by the CIA, which has a successful history of manipulating disgruntled politicians.There is a power struggle among the ayatollahs. Many are aligned against Ahmadinejad because he accuses them of corruption, thus playing to the Iranian countryside where Iranians believe the ayatollahs' lifestyles indicate an excess of power and money. In my opinion, Ahmadinejad's attack on the ayatollahs is opportunistic. However, it does make it odd for his American detractors to say he is a conservative reactionary lined up with the ayatollahs.Commentators are "explaining" the Iran elections based on their own illusions, delusions, emotions, and vested interests. Whether or not the poll results predicting Ahmadinejad's win are sound, there is, so far, no evidence beyond surmise that the election was stolen. However, there are credible reports that the CIA has been working for two years to destabilize the Iranian government. On May 23, 2007, Brian Ross and Richard Esposito reported on ABC News: “The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell ABC News.”On May 27, 2007, the London Telegraph independently reported: “Mr. Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.”A few days previously, the Telegraph reported on May 16, 2007, that Bush administration neocon warmonger John Bolton told the Telegraph that a US military attack on Iran would “be a ‘last option’ after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed.”On June 29, 2008, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker: “Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.”The protests in Tehran no doubt have many sincere participants. The protests also have the hallmarks of the CIA orchestrated protests in Georgia and Ukraine. It requires total blindness not to see this.Daniel McAdams has made some telling points. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027782.html For example, neoconservative Kenneth Timmerman wrote the day before the election that “there’s talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” How would Timmerman know that unless it was an orchestrated plan? Why would there be a ‘green revolution’ prepared prior to the vote, especially if Mousavi and his supporters were as confident of victory as they claim? This looks like definite evidence that the US is involved in the election protests. Timmerman goes on to write that “the National Endowment for Democracy has spent millions of dollars promoting ‘color’ revolutions . . . 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’s own neocon Foundation for Democracy is “a private, non-profit organization established in 1995 with grants from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to promote democracy and internationally-recognized standards of human rights in Iran.”

The US has been trying to destabilise Iran for some time.

This is part of an article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker about a year ago. Now certainly one way to destabilise the leadership is to foment splits such as that between Rafsanjani and Khatemi and Ahmadinejad. Of course all of this is done. Obama can make it look as if the U.S. is not interfering at all by his very cautious statements that at first did not directly criticise the govt. However the Republicans and even some Democrats have encouraged him to be more critical not caring it seems that this will just help the hardliners and confirm what should already be known that the US is working behind the scenes to help get Ahmadinejad out. They want the rich, accommodating, economically liberal and purportedly corrupt Rafsanjani to be more powerful. The US and western media in general need no direction from the CIA or special ops because on their own they have become cheerleaders for the reformers and want to steal the election from Ahmadinejad. The State Dept. did its part by asking Twitter not to go down for maintenance but keep up the good work by helping the reform cause.


Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
By Seymour M. Hersh
29/06/08 "New Yorker" -- -- Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

The Nation Magazine and the Iranian election.

This is from the WorldSocialistwebsite.

Although this is a few days old, the media coverage continues to reflect the pro-Mousavi position as this article notes. The article also notes the connection of Mousavi to Rafsanjani. It is is interesting that most Republicans and conservatives also support the position outlined in the Nation except that many want Obama to take a much harder line against the Iranian regime. '
This article points out the class or at least economic divisions among supporters of Mousavi versus Ahmadinejad. The article could have referred to the pre-election poll taken by a western group that showed Ahmadinejad winning by a margin larger than the actual official results. Also, he should note that Rafsanjani owns many of the institutions from which the student protesters are coming!
The last few sentences are rather wishful thinking. The mullahs destroyed any competing working class movements such as the Tudeh.

The Nation magazine and the Iranian election
By Joe Kishore 16 June 2009
The Nation magazine, the voice of left-liberal supporters of Obama, has quickly weighed in to support charges of vote-rigging and a “coup d’état” in Iran. The magazine has also given its full support to the candidacy of Mirhossein Mousavi, the principal rival of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In doing so, the Nation is joining hands with the rest of the American media, which has abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity in reporting the election. The allegations of fraud have been repeated without any independent investigation.
Robert Dreyfuss, the Nation’s chief commentator on foreign policy and national security, posted a blog entry under the headline, “Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s A Coup.” The article is dated June 13 and is time stamped at 7:24 AM—that is, about half a day after Iranian authorities released preliminary results from the election.
Mousavi had already declared the official results, showing a lopsided victory for Ahmadinejad, to be a fraud. Dreyfuss obviously accepted this claim uncritically. He could not possibly have conducted any independent investigation before he posted his blog. Nevertheless, the prominent link to Dreyfuss’ entry on the front page of the Nation’s web site is categorical, declaring, “A Rigged Election.”
In his opening paragraph, Dreyfuss writes, “It’s Saturday afternoon in Tehran, and the streets are generally quiet. But the aftermath of Iran’s rigged election, in which radical-right President Ahmadinejad and his paramilitary backers were kept in office, has left Iran’s capital steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness.”
The reference to the “radical-right” president is intended to give the impression to Nation readers that somehow Mousavi is a “left” figure. In fact, Mousavi’s main position on economic policy was to denounce Ahmadinejad’s limited handouts to poor and rural Iranians. Like Ahmadinejad, Mousavi is part of the Iranian establishment, representing a faction of the ruling elite that favors closer relations with the United States, free market policies and an opening of Iran to foreign investment, and reductions in state subsidies to the poor.
Dreyfuss’ uncritical backing for the Mousavi camp is summed up when he writes that he went to see Ibrahim Yazdi “to get some perspective on the crisis.”
He then provides the text of an interview with Yazdi, a major figure in the so-called “reformist” movement in Iran and the country’s foreign minister in the first few months after the 1979 revolution. Yazdi resigned to protest the taking of US hostages after the revolution, and he favored a general amnesty for members of the Shah’s regime. He is presently the head of the Freedom Movement of Iran, which the Iranian regime has banned for alleged links to the CIA.
Yazdi states that “the election was rigged,” citing the existence of many mobile polling places and the control of the Interior Ministry over the counting process. From this, the former foreign minister declares, “A coup d’etat? They’ve already made one!”
Exposing his class and political loyalties, Yazdi goes on to regret the fact that former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani—the richest man in Iran, who is widely seen as extremely corrupt—has been losing influence. Rafsanjani is one of the major backers of Mousavi.
“In years past, [Rafsanjani] was influential, perhaps even more influential than the leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei],” Yazdi sates. “Now, with the slogans being used at Ahmadinejad’s rallies, things like ‘Death to Hashemi!’, they have created a deep rift.”
Yazdi concludes by emphasizing his conservative positions, positions shared by Mousavi. He declares, “We are not after subversion. We do not want to change the Constitution. We do want to create a viable political force that can exert its influence.”
The promotion by the American media of Mousavi has been closely linked to the foreign policy interests of the Obama administration, which the Nation magazine has consistently supported. This is documented in the writings of Dreyfuss himself over the past week and a half, beginning with a June 4 article written from Cairo entitled, “Obama Hits a Home Run.”
The “home run” refers to Obama’s speech that day in the Egyptian capital. The main aim of the speech was to provide a new face for American imperialism, one that would be better able to advance US interests in the Middle East. Dreyfuss declares, “Based on early returns from a decidedly unrepresentative sample of Arab public opinion, Obama hit a home run. I agree.”
On June 5, as he headed for Tehran, Dreyfuss penned another piece under the headline “Three Tests for Obama after ‘The Speech.’” The three tests were the Lebanese elections (held on June 7, which led to the victory of a US-backed coalition), the Iranian elections, and the future of Hamas and the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
On June 8 (“Iran’s Green Wave”), Dreyfuss openly solidarized himself with the development of a “color” revolution in Iran, a reference to the various US-backed movements in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union that have been aimed—sometimes successfully, sometimes not—at installing governments more amenable to US interests.
“For years, the hardline clergy and their allies, including Ahmadinejad, have feared nothing more than an Iranian-style ‘color-revolution,’” Dreyfuss wrote. “Now, Mousavi—with solid establishment credentials, an Islamic revolutionary pedigree second to none, and an outspoken pro-reform message—finds himself at the head of a green parade.”
On June 9, the Nation followed its promotion of the “Green Wave” with an article on “Ahmadinejad’s Red Tide.” Dreyfuss wrote of “the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting President Ahmadinejad.” The reference to imminent fascism in Iran echoes the theory of “Islamo-fascism,” used by sections of liberals to justify their support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and US intervention in the Middle East.
The article reports on a rally for Ahmadinejad attended by what Dreyfuss estimates at “tens of thousands” of people. Other media reports put the figure at perhaps half a million. Dreyfuss nevertheless acknowledges the deep social divide in Iran, noting that after the rally, demonstrations by Ahmadinejad supporters brought the entire city of Tehran to a standstill for several hours.
In a passage that reveals more about the social outlook of Dreyfuss than it does about Ahmadinejad’s supporters, dripping with contempt for the working class, Dreyfuss compares the participants at Ahmadinejad’s rally to those he found much more likeable at a rally held by Mousavi:
“Instead of ‘Death to America!’ the green-clad Mousavi supporters chant: ‘Death to potatoes!’ ridiculing Ahmadinejad’s practice of giving out sacks of potatoes to his poor supporters. The women at the Mousavi rally are sheathed in scarves, but their stylish hair is visible underneath, they wear attractive makeup and pink lipstick, and below their short outer garments are visible jeans and, in many cases, high heels. At the Ahmadinejad rally, the women—in the thousands—are segregated from the men, and they are dressed head to toe in all-covering black.”
In the days leading up to the election, Dreyfuss penned several other columns favoring the candidate of choice for the “high-heeled.” These included one on June 10 (“Iran’s Vote, Obama’s Challenge”) in which he praised the “powerful and wily” former president Rafsanjani and his “blistering letter attacking Ahmadinejad”; one on June 11 (“Iran’s Election Tension”), in which he declared, “There’s no denying the political and social movement that is building against the president, mostly around Mousavi’s brilliant campaign”; and a final article on June 12 (“Iranians Poised for Change”).
In this last article on the election itself, Dreyfuss contradicted his previous account of Ahmadinejad’s “Red Tide” by declaring that he was now seemingly unable to find a single supporter of Ahmadinejad anywhere in Tehran. “I went off in search of Ahmadinejad voters today in Tehran. They are not easy to find.”
This shift—from masses of “red-armband-wearing virtual fascists” to a complete absence of support—helps explain the post-election analysis. If everyone supported Mousavi, his defeat, ipso facto, was a fraud and a coup.
There are certain parallels between the social milieu for which Dreyfuss speaks in the US and the main social base of support for Mousavi. Through the vehicle of the Obama administration, a layer of the complacent middle class around the Nation has made its peace with American imperialism.
Individuals such as Dreyfuss are working actively to promote the foreign policy interests of the American government, now with its new face. Through the promotion of illusions in Obama, the Nation and similar publications have facilitated the carrying out of extremely right-wing policies, including the continuation of the Iraq war, the expansion of the war in Afghanistan, and the multi-trillion dollar bailouts to the banks.
Similarly, Mousavi’s main base of support—as the American media itself has been compelled to recognize—comes from the upper-middle classes of the urban centers. Their opposition to Ahmadinejad is centered largely on cultural or lifestyle issues. To the extent that they have economic differences with the clerical regime, they are of a fundamentally reactionary character, hostile to the working class.
To recognize this fact is not to give any support to Ahmadinejad or the clerical establishment. There is widespread and justified hatred of the regime, particularly among Iranian youth. However, a progressive solution to the crisis in Iran will not come from the social forces represented by Mousavi. It can come only through the independent intervention of the Iranian working class on the basis of its own, socialist, program.

The power struggle in Iran and Rafsanjani

Behind all the twitters and wall to wall coverage of each cell phone image by CNN is the reality of a power struggle among elites. Rafsanjani is arguably the richest person in Iran and he hates Ahmadinejad because among other things he has accused his family of corruption. Khameni is playing both sides and recently in his speech has high praise for Rafsanjani and criticised Ahmadinejad for his accusations against Rafsanjani's family. As a reward the Assembly of Experts that Rafsanjani heads supported the guidelines in his speech. But now it seems that Ahmadinejad has moved against Rafsanjani's family. This will create a crisis and Khameni might very well decide to turf Ahmadinejad and support Rafsanjani: This is from Yahoo.

State-run Press TV reported that Rafsanjani's eldest daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, and four other family members were arrested late Saturday. It did not identify the other four.Last week, state television showed images of Hashemi, 46, speaking to hundreds of supporters of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. After her appearance, hard-line students gathered outside the Tehran prosecutor's office and accused her of treason, state radio reported.Rafsanjani, 75, has made no secret of his distaste for Ahmadinejad, whose re-election victory in a June 12 vote was disputed by Mousavi. Ahmadinejad has accused Rafsanjani and his family of corruption.The influential Rafsanjani now heads two very powerful groups. The most important one is the Assembly of Experts, made up of senior clerics who can elect and dismiss the supreme leader. The second is the Expediency Council, a body that arbitrates disputes between parliament and the unelected Guardian Council, which can block legislation.His daughter's arrest came as something of a surprise: Just Friday, Khamenei had praised Rafsanjani as one of the architects of the revolution and an effective political figure for many years. Khamenei acknowledged, however, that the two have "many differences of opinion."

-----------

Rafsanjani is probably the richest man in Iran. As this article points out he owns many educational insitutions including university campuses. The press never seems to think this of importance or that Rafsanjani might be using his power to generate student activists. Rafsanjani favors freer markets and accomodation where possible with the West. He is just what the West ordered and the media cheerleaders go along with great enthusiasm both on the left and right.

This is from Wikipedia:

Many believe Rafsanjani to be the richest man in Iran due to his deep involvement in various Iranian industries, including the oil industry, as well as his ownership of many properties throughout the country. There have also been allegations that some of his wealth has come from arms deals made after the Revolution.[27] His wealth has earned him the nickname of Akbar Shah in Iran.[33] The Rafsanjani family own vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran, known as the "Islamic Azad University" which has 300 campuses spread all over the country. The Islamic Azad University campuses not only have large financial resources, but also a cadre of student activists numbering around 3 million.[34]The American business magazine Forbes has included Rafsanjani in their list of richest people in the world. In 2003 Forbes described Rafsanjani as the real power behind the Iranian government, and asserted that he "has more or less run the Islamic Republic for the past 24 years." [35] His son Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani is the head of the state-owned company Gaz'>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaz_Iran&action=edit&redlink=1">Gaz Iran.Many believe Rafsanjani to be the richest man in Iran due to his deep involvement in various Iranian industries, including the oil industry, as well as his ownership of many properties throughout the country. There have also been allegations that some of his wealth has come from arms deals made after the Revolution.[27] His wealth has earned him the nickname of Akbar Shah in Iran.[33] The Rafsanjani family own vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran, known as the Islamic Azad University, which has 300 campuses spread all over the country. The Islamic Azad University campuses not only have large financial resources, but also a cadre of student activists numbering around 3 million.[34]The American business magazine Forbes has included Rafsanjani in their list of richest people in the world. In 2003 Forbes described Rafsanjani as the real power behind the Iranian government, and asserted that he "has more or less run the Islamic Republic for the past 24 years." [35] His son Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani is the head of the state-owned company Gaz'>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaz_Iran&action=edit&redlink=1">Gaz Iran.

Khameni praises Rafsanjani

The Supreme Leader Khameni is covering all the bases just in case and it has already paid off handsomely. He praised Rafsanjani fulsomely in his speech but at the same time criticised Ahmadinejad who accused Rafsanjani's relatives of corruption--probably rightly! If things go wrong and the establishment regards the death toll and bad press as too damaging then Ahmadinejad can be sacrificed and turfed out by the Supreme Leader while he himself survives.

Here is a section of Khameni's speech from this site: (ha, ha, my post)

[02:11] (A. K.) Some important figures of the state were mentioned[02:11] (A. K.) People who have spent their lives for the state[02:11] (A. K.) I have never have mentioned names during prayers on Friday before but I have to now[02:11] (A. K.) Rafsanjani and Nateq Noori's names have been mentioned[02:11] (A. K.) These gentlemen have not been accused of financial misdoings[02:12] (A. K.) But their relatives.[02:12] (A. K.) If you have anything against them, prove them legally through the courts[02:12] (A. K.) Unless it is proven, no one can be accused.[02:13] (A. K.) I have known Rafsanjani for a long time[02:13] (A. K.) he is one of the most prominent members of this revolution[02:13] (A. K.) he was one of the major fighters before the revolution[02:13] (A. K.) after the victory,[02:13] (A. K.) he was one the most influential members of the Islamic state[02:13] (A. K.) still is[02:13] (A. K.) he walked with the Imam[02:13] (A. K.) Still walking with him[02:13] (A. K.) he was almost martyred several times[02:14] (A. K.) he spent all his money on the revolution,[02:14] (A. K.) they young people should know about this fact[02:14] (A. K.) he has had many responsibilities now[02:14] (A. K.) president, leader of parliament[02:14] (A. K.) he has not made money out of the revolution for himself.

So there is Khameni praising his enemy who is head of the Assembly of Experts or Ass as it is affectionately known to those who oppose the theocracy. And guess what the Ass people have just gone and done? Approved the position of the Supreme Leader rather than turfing him out.
If Rafsanjani has not made any money out of the revolution for himself it is strange that he is one of the richest people in Iran and has all sorts of properties including private educational insitutions that guarantee him lots of student demonstrators should he need them.


Assembly of Experts expresses strong support for Leader’s guidelines Tehran Times Political Desk
TEHRAN -- In a statement issued on Saturday the Assembly of Experts expressed its “strong support” for the Supreme Leader’s statements on the presidential elections on Friday.
The 86-member assembly stated in the statement that it is hoped that the nation would realize the current condition and by sticking to the Leader’s guidelines preserve their patience and manifest their unity. The Qom Seminary Teachers Society also issued a statement on Saturday declaring strong support for the guidelines of the Supreme Leader. “The Qom Seminary Teachers Society… announces its strong support for his valuable guidelines and invites all (groupings) to maintain unity, abide by the law, and refrain from any action which leads to tension,” the statement said. Addressing hundreds of thousands of people at the most recent Friday prayers in Tehran, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei urged all groupings to end their street protests and to pursue their complaints through legal channels. Ayatollah Khamenei said the time for rivalry is over and everyone should unite and line up behind the president-elect. -----------Cleric praises Leader’s remarks In a letter sent to the Supreme Leader on Saturday, Ayatollah Hossein Nouri Hamedani said the Leader’s remarks showed the significant role of the velayat-e faqih (rule by the supreme jurisprudent) in the Islamic system. Ayatollah Hamedani expressed hope that all groupings make the guidelines their priority. --------- Leader’s guidelines guarantee a better future MP Sharif Hosseini stated on Saturday that the Supreme Leader’s guidelines announced at Friday prayers guarantee a better future for the nation. “The remarks showed the Iranian people the path toward a better future under the law without any rift or schism,” he told the Mehr News Agency. The MP added, “All political groupings and the people should prioritize unity and heed the words of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution.” ------- Leader’s guidelines are a road map In a letter to the Supreme Leader on Saturday, Ayatollah Abbas Ka’bi of the Guardian Council said the Leader’s speech has outlined a road map for the nation. Ayatollah Ka’bi added that the GC will spare no effort to safeguard the nation’s votes. “The council will seriously and meticulously examine the protests and the complaints of the candidates through the legal process and will safeguard each one of the nation’s 40 million votes,” he said. ---------- Following the Leader is a religious duty MP Hashem Hashemzadeh said that following the Leader’s guidelines is a religious duty. “The remarks of the Leader of the revolution were definitive… and obeying the orders of the velayat-e faqih (supreme jurisprudent) is a religious duty for everyone,” he told MNA. --------- University chancellors vow to follow Leader In a statement issued on Saturday, university chancellors have emphasized that they will follow the decisive orders of the Supreme Leader. “We regard the maximum presence of the people at the ballot boxes as the most valuable political and social asset for the Islamic system… and urge all the elites of Islamic Iran to do their best to safeguard this asset,” part of the statement said. ---------- Armed forces urge people to follow the Leader The Iranian Armed Forces Headquarters has issued a statement urging all people to follow the definitive guidelines of the Supreme Leader. The statement added that the nation should be wary about the enemies’ plots. “The victory of the great Iranian nation in the tenth presidential election… is a glory which should safeguard the country’s security magnificently. Thus, we should not be unaware of the enemies’ plots to destroy this unique capability,” it added


Copyright © 1998-2007 The Tehran Times Daily Newspaper, Tehran-Iran All Rights Reserved.Email : Info@tehrantimes.com

McChrystal Looks to Spin Afghan Civilian Deaths Problem

As the article mentions the real war is shifting to public relations. More and better intelligence gathering may help but probably not much. The Taliban do not wait around apart from civilians to be bombed. Usually they are among the population and often indeed hoping that they will not be bombed because they are with civilians--but to no avail. The public relations will be to blame the Taliban and go ahead and bomb them.
Another aspect of the situation is that msm is basically an entertainment medium. When there is little immediate interest in an issue or it has little effect on most citizens it will disappear off the radar screen. Right now for example much foreign affairs coverage is concentrated upon Iran and this ensures that issues such as the bombings of civilians are below the radar screen and thus create little problem for the military.
So far there does not seem much criticism of the Afghan war in the US whereas citizens in countries allied with the NATO effort almost all have majorities opposed to their involvement.

- Antiwar.com Original - http://original.antiwar.com -
McChrystal Looks to Spin Afghan Civilian Deaths Problem
Posted By Gareth Porter
At his confirmation hearings two weeks ago, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said reducing civilian deaths from air strikes in Afghanistan was "strategically decisive" and declared his "willingness to operate in ways that minimize casualties or damage, even when it makes our task more difficult."
Some McChrystal supporters hope he will rein in the main source of civilian casualties: Special Operations Forces (SOF) units that carry out targeted strikes against suspected "Taliban" on the basis of doubtful intelligence and raids that require air strikes when they get into trouble. But there are growing indications that his command is preparing to deal with the issue primarily by seeking to shift the blame to the Taliban through more and better propaganda operations and by using more high-tech drone intelligence aircraft to increase battlefield surveillance rather than by curbing the main direct cause of civilian casualties. U.S. officials at a NATO conference in Brussels last Friday were telling reporters that "public relations" are now considered "crucial" to "turning the tide" in Afghanistan, according to an AFP story on Jun 12. CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus also referred to the importance of taking the propaganda offensive in a presentation to the pro-military think tank Center for a New American Security (CNAS) Jun. 11. "When you’re dealing the press," he said, "when you’re dealing the tribal leaders, when you’re dealing with host nations… you got to beat the bad guys to the headlines." The new emphasis on more aggressive public relations appears to respond to demands from U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan to wrest control of the issue of civilian casualties from the Taliban. In a discussion of that issue at the same conference, Gen. David Barno, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, said, "We’ve got to be careful about who controls the narrative on civilian casualties." U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan "see the enemy seeking to take air strikes off the table" by exaggerating civilian casualties, Barno said. He objected to making civilian casualties an indicator of success or failure, as a CNAS paper has recommended. The U.S. command in Afghanistan has already tried, in fact, to apply "information war" techniques in effort to control the narrative on the issue. The command has argued both that the Taliban were responsible for the massive civilians casualties in a U.S. air strike on May 4 that killed 147 civilians, including 90 women and children, and that the number of civilian deaths claimed has been vastly exaggerated, despite detailed evidence from village residents supporting the casualty figures. Col. Greg Julian, the command’s spokesman, said in late May that a "weapon-sight" video would show that the Taliban were to blame. However, Nancy A. Youssef reported Jun. 15 in McClatchy newspapers that the video in question shows that no one had checked to see if women and children were in the building before it was bombed, according to two U.S. military officials. The Afghan government has highlighted the problem of SOF units carrying out raids which result in air strikes against civilian targets. Kai Eide, the chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has now publicly supported that position, saying in a video conference call from Kabul to NATO defense ministers meeting in Brussels Jun. 12 that there is an "urgent need" to review raids by SOF units, because the civilian casualties being created have been "disproportionate to the military gains." But McChrystal hinted in his confirmation hearing that he hoped to reduce civilian casualties by obtaining more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. Petraeus confirmed that approach to the problem in remarks at the CNAS conference last week, announcing that he was planning to shift some high-tech intelligence vehicles from Iraq to Afghanistan. Petraeus referred to "predators, armed full motion video with Hellfire missiles," "special intelligence birds," and unmanned intelligence vehicles called Shadows and Ravens, which fly 24 hours a day. Although such intelligence aircraft may make U.S. battlefield targeting more precise, Petraeus’s reference to drones equipped with Hellfire missiles suggests that U.S. forces in Afghanistan may now rely more than previously on drone strikes against suspected Afghan insurgents. Given the chronic lack of accurate intelligence on the identity of insurgent leaders, that would tend to increase civilian casualties. Petraeus’s past reluctance to stop or dramatically reduce such SOF operations, despite the bad publicity surrounding them, suggests that high level intra-military politics are involved. The Marine Corps Special Operations Command (MarSOC) has been involved in the most highly publicized cases of massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan. It was established by the Marine Corps only in February 2006, and the first MarSOC company arrived in Afghanistan just a year later. MarSOC was unable to recruit the more mature officers and troops needed for cross-cultural situations, and its recruits had only a few months of training before being sent to Afghanistan. The unit’s commanding officer had been warned by one participant in the training before the unit had arrived in Afghanistan that his troops were too young and too oriented toward killing to serve in Afghanistan, according to Chris Mason, a former U.S. official in Afghanistan familiar with the unit’s history. In March 2007, a company of MarSOC troops which had only arrived in the country the previous month were accused of firing indiscriminately at pedestrians and cars as they sped away from a suicide bomb attack, killing as many as 19 Afghan civilians. Five days later the same unit reportedly fired on traffic again. As a result, a powerful Pashtun tribe, the Shinwari, demanded to the governor of Nangahar province and Afghan President Hamid Karzai that U.S. military operations in the province be terminated. Within a month, the 120-man MarSOC company was pulled out of Afghanistan. Significantly, however, a new MarSOC unit was sent back to Afghanistan only a few weeks later, assigned to Herat province. Last August, a MarSOC unit launched an attack against a preplanned target in Azizabad that combined unmanned drones, attack helicopters and a Specter gunship. More than 90 civilians were killed in the attack, including 60 children, but not a single Taliban fighter was killed in the attack, according to Afghan and U.N. officials. Karzai said the operation had been triggered by false information given by the leader of a rival tribe, and no U.S. official contradicted him. When Petraeus took command at CENTCOM just a few weeks later, Afghans were still seething over the Azizabad massacre. That would have been the perfect time for him to take decisive action on MarSOC’s operations. But Petraeus took no action on MarSOC. Meanwhile, other SOF units were continuing to carry out raids that did not get headlines but which regularly killed women and children, stirring more Afghan anger. Petraeus may have been confronted with the necessity of stopping all the operations if he wished to discipline MarSOC, which would have been too serious a blow to the reputation of U.S. Special Operations Forces. For two weeks, from mid-February to early March, the rate of SOF raids was reduced. But in early March, they were resumed, despite the near certainty that there would be more embarrassing incidents involving SOF operations. The worst case of massive civilian deaths in the war would come just two months later, and involved the MarSOC unit.
(Inter Press Service)
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/06/17/mcchrystal-looks-to-spin-Copyright © 2009 Antiwar.com Original. All rights reserved.

Text of Khamenei Speech

This is from information clearing house ---who are trying to raise funds to keep going by the way.
Interesting that Khamenei mentions Rafsanjani by name and praises him to the hilt. Perhaps this is to fend off any attack by Rafsanjani. A comment on the speech said this:


How can Khamenei keep straight face and say street protess cannot force regime to give in? Isn't that how they did it in 79

Khameni ir irrelavant, has already changed his mind twice. Rafsanjani with Ass Experts working to impeach him.

---
The group referred to irreverently as Ass Experts has the power at least theoretically to turf out Khameni. Rafsanjani just needs to get enough influential mullahs to back him since he is the head of the group.

The speech is replete with references to Zionist forces trying to destroy the Islamic Republic including the US and UK. Both of course have a history of interfering in Iran. At one point there is an interjection F*ck You. I assume this was not the Supreme Leader but the translator!

The situation is clear. Either the opposition stops demonstrations or else they will suffer the consequences. Perhaps Khameni will not directly attack peaceful demonstrations but no doubt there will be arrests afterwards or perhaps even before. Perhaps too Mousavi will ask his supporters to stay off the streets and leave them to be led by those who have absolutely no respect for the system aka officially as hooligans. If the rallies are very large and peaceful the regime will probably not try to stop them in their tracks. The huge rallies the other day were illegal already and they were left alone for the most part. However, raids can be made during the night and anyone responsible for the demonstrations arrested and jailed.


Transcript of Ayatollah Khamenei's SpeechBy NiteOwl
Transcript of Ayatollah Khamenei's Friday Speech,

Hi, this is NiteOwl again. I was listening to Press TV which is government-run and is based in Iran - their translation and various other TVs from minute to minute as well as translating what I could hear in Persian myself: Some parts were a bit cut off because broadcasting stopped. You'd notice in the time stamping.


Brought to you by Anonymous and the Pirate Bay!
My tiwtter for announcements about the Green Brief and Other issues: Iran_Translator
Our forum: http://iran.whyweprotest.net/index.php

(He first started by praying and speaking about purely religious matters and then got to the real point.)



[01:26] (Ayatollah Khamanei) Remember god,
[01:28] (A. K.) Iran has gone through a lot since the revolution
[01:28] (A. K.) Any of them could have put us in turmoil
[01:28] (A. K.) Even from our neighbors
[01:31] (A. K.) (Allah o Amber)
[01:33] (A. K.) Our youth are in a materialistic world
[01:33] (A. K.) In a time of turmoil
[01:33] (A. K.) They don't know what to do,
[01:33] (A. K.) They need to understand spirituality,
[01:34] (A. K.) They need to get back to spirituality,
[01:34] (A. K.) But they don't know how,
[01:34] (A. K.) It's been two centuries since the west has destroyed cultures,
[01:34] (A. K.) But our nation wants to regain that spirituality back.
[01:34] (A. K.) So that the revolution can be regained.
[01:36] (A. K.) I swear to the holy Imams,
[01:36] (A. K.) I ask you O god give us more faith
[01:36] (A. K.) O God, I ask you to give us a calm and peaceful heart
[01:37] (A. K.) O god, these oppressed people, give triumph over the enemy.
[01:37] (A. K.) Protect them,
[01:37] (A. K.) O god we do everything for you and only for you,
[01:37] (A. K.) O God take our Salams and greetings to Mahdi (the hidden Imam)
[01:38] (A. K.) (Praying in Arabic)
[01:39] (A. K.) I would like to say to our dear brothers and sisters,
[01:40] (A. K.) I would like to speak about the issue of the election which is the important issue in our country
[01:40] (A. K.) I have three issues to talk about,
[01:40] (A. K.) In three different parts
[01:40] (A. K.) I do have some things to tell the people.
[01:40] (A. K.) One issue will be for the political members of the politicians,
[01:41] (A. K.) I would like to also talk to the western countries,
[01:41] (A. K.) And the leaders of their media
[01:41] (A. K.) First issue is for the people,
[01:41] (A. K.) I will only thank you,
[01:41] (A. K.) I don't like to talk too much,
[01:41] (A. K.) I don't like to use nice arguments only
[01:42] (A. K.) Even if I do exaggerate, it won't be enough to say what I have to say,
[01:42] (A. K.) The elections of June 12 was a fulfillment of the nation's responsibility
[01:42] (A. K.) It was a proof of participation of the people that was a show of the love towards their system
[01:43] (A. K.) It is similar but better than the democracies in other countries,
[01:43] (A. K.) BUT
[01:43] (A. K.) Those countries don't have a democracy as good as ours.
[01:43] (A. K.) The constitution of 1988
[01:44] (A. K.) This is the largest number of people that have taken part in an election in Iran since the founding of the republic
[01:44] (A. K.) And the passing of the constitution,
[01:44] (A. K.) I would like to deeply thank you
[01:45] (A. K.) The youngsters in our country showed especially,
[01:45] (A. K.) that they are partaking in the political process since the beginning of the revolution.
[01:46] (A. K.) Now we'll see the same responsibilities from them that we saw during the Iraqi Aggression War
[01:46] (A. K.) As for elections some people want one person others want someone else
[01:46] (A. K.) This is natural
[01:46] (A. K.) We saw everyone, men women, the young and the old,
[01:47] (A. K.) People participating from all over the country to make this a success,
[01:47] (A. K.) This election is a political defeat for your enemies,
[01:47] (A. K.) For your friends all over the world a celebration.
[01:47] (A. K.) A historic one,
[01:47] (A. K.) People are showing love and loyalty for their Imam and martyrs
[01:47] (A. K.) And for the system
[01:48] (A. K.) This election was a religious democratic event
[01:48] (A. K.) everyone saw it
[01:48] (A. K.) It was a showing against the dictators and oppressive regime
[01:49] (A. K.) And FOR a show of support for the religion and system.
[01:49] (A. K.) We can see the results of the exams
[01:49] (A. K.) Also another point about the election
[01:49] (A. K.) The election of June 12 showed that people with beliefs and hopes and joys is living in this country.
[01:49] (A. K.) The enemies are using it,
[01:50] (A. K.) If our young didn't have any hope,
[01:50] (A. K.) They wouldn't partake in the election
[01:50] (A. K.) If they didn't feel freedom, they wouldn't vote.
[01:50] (A. K.) Faith in the system has been shown by the massive participation.
[01:50] (A. K.) The enemies target the belief and trust of people on that system
[01:51] (A. K.) This trust is the biggest investment of the Islamic republic
[01:51] (A. K.) They wanted to take it from us
[01:51] (A. K.) They want it to shake our trust in this system
[01:51] (A. K.) The enemies of the people of Iran will succeed when people won't participate.
[01:51] (A. K.) The system will be questioned.
[01:51] (A. K.) Only when no one partakes in it.
[01:52] (A. K.) We couldn't compare that to anything that happens.
[01:52] (A. K.) The enemy wants to make people believe that they have been fooled
[01:52] (A. K.) It started 3 months ago.
[01:53] (A. K.) I have been hearing enemies saying repeatedly that the elections will be fraudulent.
[01:53] (A. K.) They had been preparing months in advance
[01:53] (A. K.) This 30 year old system has not come about without sacrifices and hard work.
[01:53] (A. K.) And people have a firm belief in it.
[01:54] (A. K.) But the enemies want to shake that very belief.
[01:54] (A. K.) The third point is,
[01:54] (A. K.) These rivalries, between different candidates were transparent.
[01:54] (A. K.) They were clean and clear cut.
[01:55] (A. K.) And transparent
[01:55] (A. K.) The enemies are trying through their media - which is controlled by dirty Zionists.
[01:57] (A. K.) The Zionist, American and British radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who support and those who didn't support the state
[01:57] (A. K.) Everyone supported the state
[01:58] (A. K.) I know everything about these candidates
[01:58] (A. K.) I have worked with them.
[01:58] (A. K.) I know all of them
[01:58] (A. K.) I don't believe in everything that they say
[01:58] (A. K.) some of their views and practices can be criticized
[01:58] (A. K.) I believe that some of them are better in serving the country
[01:58] (A. K.) BUT the people have to make the choice.
[01:58] (A. K.) It's not my will
[01:58] (A. K.) My choice wasn't told to people,
[01:59] (A. K.) And they were not asked to follow my views either
[01:59] (A. K.) They decided on their own who to follow
[01:59] (A. K.) So this is a competition within the state
[01:59] (A. K.) It is not acceptable to change the appearance of the issue
[01:59] (A. K.) this is evil if someone does that
[01:59] (A. K.) there is no fight between people and state
[01:59] (A. K.) No revolutionaries and anti-revolutionaries
[01:59] (A. K.) This is between the state parties
[01:59] (A. K.) people voted for these people with belief in the state
[02:00] (A. K.) they came to the understanding that will be better for the state
[02:00] (A. K.) then voted
[02:00] (A. K.) These competitions and debates were very interesting.
[02:00] (A. K.) It was very transparent
[02:00] (A. K.) It was a blow in the face of those who say that this competition is just a formality
[02:01] (A. K.) Forgetting that the candidates actually sat and talked.
[02:01] (A. K.) positive aspect of the debates was that during the debate and TV conversation everyone spoke explicitly and openly
[02:01] (A. K.) saying what they believed
[02:01] (A. K.) Then some criticized the candidates
[02:01] (A. K.) They had to respond to the criticism
[02:01] (A. K.) They began to defend themselves
[02:02] (A. K.) The positions and stances taken by people and groups were presented without any ambiguity
[02:02] (A. K.) So people could hear what every candidate had to say
[02:02] (A. K.) So that people could see all of this
[02:02] (A. K.) So people could judge them all accordingly
[02:02] (A. K.) People felt that in the Islamic state, they are not stranger
[02:02] (A. K.) We don't have US and THEM
[02:02] (A. K.) Everything was open and transparent before the people
[02:02] (A. K.) Everything was presented clearly
[02:03] (A. K.) It became clear that people's vote would rely based on the same judgments
[02:03] (A. K.) People wanted to make their choices willingly
[02:03] (A. K.) And according to their own tastes
[02:03] (A. K.) Thus, the number of votes increased
[02:03] (A. K.) People were able to have a better understanding of the views of the candidate
[02:03] (A. K.) they were able to decide better
[02:03] (A. K.) the debates were even extended to the streets and homes
[02:03] (A. K.) So this added to the power of choice of the people
[02:04] (A. K.) Such debates will strengthen the minds
[02:04] (A. K.) to Help make better choices
[02:04] (A. K.) BUT
[02:04] (A. K.) They shouldn't get to a point where they lead to major differences
[02:04] (A. K.) Otherwise adverse effects follow
[02:04] (A. K.) It would be good to be kept to the extent to which it existed during campaign
[02:04] (A. K.) If it leads further, it will cause problems
[02:05] (A. K.) it will be better to have such debates at the administrative level
[02:05] (A. K.) We should carry these debates
[02:05] (A. K.) to the administrative level
[02:05] (A. K.) They should describe their policies
[02:05] (A. K.) Defend themselves against criticism
[02:05] (A. K.) People will have a chance to do that,
[02:05] (A. K.) But we should try to overcome the negative aspects
[02:06] (A. K.) Criticisms will be heard during the four years of a president's term
[02:06] (A. K.) We should try to address the negative aspects
[02:06] (A. K.) We could see that people became irrational and emotional sometimes.
[02:06] (A. K.) They tried to destroy the other side sometimes
[02:07] (A. K.) Even we saw that the practice of the past was being questioned.
[02:07] (A. K.) rumors were mentioned
[02:07] (A. K.) accusations were leveled
[02:07] (A. K.) Some statements made were not fair
[02:07] (A. K.) government and governments of the past were criticized in an unfair manner
[02:07] (A. K.) the entire 30 years were criticized unfairly
[02:07] (A. K.) people became emotional
[02:07] (A. K.) they said some unpleasant and unacceptable things
[02:07] (A. K.) I watched the debates on TV
[02:08] (A. K.) I enjoyed freedom of speech
[02:08] (A. K.) (YEAH FUCK YOU!)
[02:08] (A. K.) i was happy that Islamic republic was there to help people make this choice
[02:08] (A. K.) YET
[02:08] (A. K.) the negative aspects made me unhappy
[02:08] (A. K.) for their supporters this was also not good and they were disturbed by the unfair criticism
[02:08] (A. K.) We saw this on both sides
[02:09] (A. K.) In this Friday prayer sermon
[02:09] (A. K.) I should mention of the realities of both sides
[02:09] (A. K.) both sides can be criticized for such negative aspects of behavior
[02:09] (A. K.) ON the one side, the president was insulted,
[02:09] (A. K.) EVEN BEFORE the debates, 2, 3 months ago,
[02:09] (A. K.) I used to see insulting statements against him,
[02:09] (A. K.) Accusations were leveled against the president
[02:09] (A. K.) against the legal president
[02:09] (A. K.) he was wrongly accused
[02:10] (A. K.) the president who is trusted by people was accused of lying
[02:10] (A. K.) Are these good?
[02:10] (A. K.) Fake records were made and then distributed around the country
[02:10] (A. K.) we were aware of the situation
[02:10] (A. K.) we knew what was published was not true
[02:10] (A. K.) they insulted the president
[02:10] (A. K.) said he was superstitious
[02:10] (A. K.) they falsely accused the president by such words
[02:10] (A. K.) so they trampled over ethics and fairness [02:10] (A. K.) on the other hand,
[02:11] (A. K.) Similar things were done against the outstanding record of the Islamic Republic
[02:11] (A. K.) Some important figures of the state were mentioned
[02:11] (A. K.) People who have spent their lives for the state
[02:11] (A. K.) I have never have mentioned names during prayers on Friday before but I have to now
[02:11] (A. K.) Rafsanjani and Nateq Noori's names have been mentioned
[02:11] (A. K.) These gentlemen have not been accused of financial misdoings
[02:12] (A. K.) But their relatives.
[02:12] (A. K.) If you have anything against them, prove them legally through the courts
[02:12] (A. K.) Unless it is proven, no one can be accused.
[02:13] (A. K.) I have known Rafsanjani for a long time
[02:13] (A. K.) he is one of the most prominent members of this revolution
[02:13] (A. K.) he was one of the major fighters before the revolution
[02:13] (A. K.) after the victory,
[02:13] (A. K.) he was one the most influential members of the Islamic state
[02:13] (A. K.) still is
[02:13] (A. K.) he walked with the Imam
[02:13] (A. K.) Still walking with him
[02:13] (A. K.) he was almost martyred several times
[02:14] (A. K.) he spent all his money on the revolution,
[02:14] (A. K.) they young people should know about this fact
[02:14] (A. K.) he has had many responsibilities now
[02:14] (A. K.) president, leader of parliament
[02:14] (A. K.) he has not made money out of the revolution for himself.
[02:16] (A. K.) Same with Mr. Nateq Noori
[02:16] (A. K.) he has also served this revolution
[02:16] (A. K.) He has rendered great services
[02:16] (A. K.) there is no doubt about it
[02:17] (A. K.) but the live TV debates are good
[02:17] (A. K.) but these shortcomings should be removed
[02:17] (A. K.) after the debates I talked to the president and warned him
[02:17] (A. K.) he said he will listen to me.
[02:17] (A. K.) the admin has a clear stance on corruption
[02:17] (A. K.) It should be fought anywhere it is found
[02:18] (A. K.) Yes there is corruption within our system.
[02:18] (A. K.) YES there are people who are corrupt.
[02:18] (A. K.) But at the same time,
[02:18] (A. K.) It is one of the one of the healthiest system in the world as well
[02:19] (A. K.) but then accusing the government of corruption because of Zionist reports is not the right thing
[02:19] (A. K.) questioning the credibility of the government is not corrects either.
[02:19] (A. K.) Everyone is obliged to fight corruption.
[02:19] (A. K.) If it is not brought under control, it will spread like it has in some western countries
[02:19] (A. K.) They are up to their ears in this corruption
[02:20] (A. K.) this is part of their scandal
[02:20] (A. K.) it goes way beyond than it is publicized
[02:20] (A. K.) Let me talk to people
[02:20] (A. K.) To make this absolute victory a failure,
[02:20] (A. K.) is some people's goal
[02:20] (A. K.) To not let you enjoy
[02:20] (A. K.) to not let the world register the highest rate of turn out
[02:20] (A. K.) but it has been registered
[02:21] (A. K.) The highest rate of turn out has been registered in your name
[02:21] (A. K.) The race has ended
[02:21] (A. K.) whoever has voted for these candidates will receive divine reward.
[02:21] (A. K.) they all belong to the state
[02:21] (A. K.) they have gotten closer to god by voting, they have
[02:22] (A. K.) there were 40 million votes for the revolution,
[02:22] (A. K.) not just 24 million for the winner
[02:22] (A. K.) The people have trust
[02:22] (A. K.) Their votes will not go in vain by the people.
[02:22] (A. K.) The legal mechanism in our country won't allow any cheating.
[02:23] (A. K.) Those are involved in the election process are aware of this fact
[02:23] (A. K.) Especially if there is an 11 million votes difference
[02:23] (A. K.) If it were little than that, we would say there's doubts,
[02:23] (A. K.) but how can 11 million votes be replaced or changed?
[02:23] (A. K.) At the same time
[02:24] (A. K.) I said this and the guardian council believes that whoever has doubts can present proof to the legal channels.
[02:24] (A. K.) I will not accept any illegal initiative.
[02:24] * A. K. is now known as A. K.
[02:24] (A. K.) Today,
[02:24] (A. K.) If the laws are broken today,
[02:24] (A. K.) No election will be immune in the future
[02:25] (A. K.) in every election,
[02:25] (A. K.) there are losers and winners
[02:25] (A. K.) no other election will ever be trusted if you take other avenues.
[02:25] (A. K.) thus, all legal procedures should be observed
[02:25] (A. K.) If there are any doubts, the issue should be followed by legal procedures
[02:25] (A. K.) we have laws
[02:25] (A. K.) the candidate's representatives had the right to inspect the ballot stations
[02:26] (A. K.) And to make complaints
[02:26] (A. K.) through the legal procedure
[02:26] (A. K.) If they have doubt, it should be recounted - the individual ballot boxes.
[02:26] (A. K.) Today is a very sensitive moment in our country
[02:26] (A. K.) look at the Middle East
[02:26] (A. K.) look at the economic situation in the world
[02:26] (A. K.) look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
[02:27] (A. K.) VERY sensitive juncture in history, we are in.
[02:27] (A. K.) we should be careful to not make mistakes
[02:27] (A. K.) the voters' duty was to take part in the elections in the best possible manner
[02:27] (A. K.) but we have a bigger responsibility
[02:28] (A. K.) political party leaders should be very careful about what they say and do
[02:28] (A. K.) if they do anything extremist, their radical moves will moves will take them to where it won't be solvable
[02:28] (A. K.) we've seen this happen before
[02:28] (A. K.) when extremism is forced upon a society, it leads to another one
[02:28] (A. K.) if political elite want to fix someone at the cost of another thing
[02:29] (A. K.) to BREAK the law
[02:29] (A. K.) they would be responsible for the bloodshed
[02:29] (A. K.) And any form of unrest
[02:29] (A. K.) I would like to advise all these gentlemen,
[02:29] (A. K.) All my brothers and friends
[02:29] (A. K.) Just observe the hands of the enemy
[02:29] (A. K.) They are hungry wolves
[02:30] (A. K.) ambushing and removing the diplomacy cover from their faces
[02:30] (A. K.) Don't underestimate them.
[02:30] (A. K.) I will tell you,
[02:30] (A. K.) diplomats of other countries in the past few days have taken away their masks and showing their true image
[02:30] (A. K.) The most evil of them all is the British Government.
[02:31] (A. K.) I should tell these brothers,
[02:31] (A. K.) you are responsible before god
[02:31] (A. K.) you will be asked questions
[02:31] (A. K.) remember the last will and testament of the late imam
[02:31] (A. K.) the law determines what should be done
[02:31] (A. K.) elections are held so that any difference should be settled at the ballot box
[02:31] (A. K.) it should become clear there.
[02:31] (A. K.) what people want and what they don't want
[02:32] (A. K.) not on the streets
[02:32] (A. K.) if after every election those who haven't gotten votes start to have street camps and invite their followers to come to the streets,
[02:32] (A. K.) And the winners' followers take their followers to the streets,
[02:32] (A. K.) Then why did we hold elections to begin with?
[02:33] (A. K.) what have the people done wrong?
[02:33] (A. K.) They live on these streets
[02:33] (A. K.) That we want to show them we can do such things
[02:33] (A. K.) For terrorists it is different
[02:33] (A. K.) infiltrating terrorist will hide behind these people.
[02:34] (A. K.) if you make covers for them, then who's responsible?
[02:34] (A. K.) people have been killed from ordinary people and the Baseej
[02:34] (A. K.) Who's responsible?
[02:34] (A. K.) The issues is that some people have killed Baseeji forces and killed other people,
[02:34] (A. K.) who should address this issue?
[02:34] (A. K.) Who should react?
[02:34] (A. K.) attack at universities,
[02:34] (A. K.) Good students were beaten up
[02:34] (A. K.) not the ones who were involved in riots.
[02:35] (A. K.) then they chant slogans of supporting the leader.
[02:35] (A. K.) Then you become unhappy and your heart is hurt to see all this.
[02:35] (A. K.) street wrestling is not acceptable after the elections
[02:35] (A. K.) this is challenging democracy and election
[02:35] (A. K.) I want both sides to put an end to this
[02:36] (A. K.) then the responsibility of the consequences should be shouldered by those who aren't putting an end to it.
[02:36] (A. K.) by thinking that by turning out onto the streets that you can pressure the officials your demands is wrong.
[02:37] (A. K.) first of all.
[02:37] (A. K.) it will not be acceptable to submit to illegal demands
[02:37] (A. K.) this would be the start of dictatorship.
[02:37] (A. K.) This is a miscalculation,
[02:38] (A. K.) If there are any consequences, they would directly affect the leaders behind the scene
[02:38] (A. K.) the people would know them in due time as well.
[02:38] (A. K.) I call on all these dear friends, brothers and sister to observe the law
[02:38] (A. K.) to follow the legal code
[02:38] (A. K.) the law welcomes you
[02:38] (A. K.) legal channels are there for you
[02:39] (A. K.) i hope that almighty god will help us all to follow the legal channels.
[02:39] (A. K.) don't allow the enemies to destroy and ruin the celebration of our elections.
[02:39] (A. K.) If there are people who choose other paths, I will come and talk to people even more exclusively.
[02:40] (A. K.) now, third
[02:40] (A. K.) I want to talk to the media leaders and leaders
[02:40] (A. K.) I have witnessed the statements of American and EU countries' leaders and listening to them.
[02:40] (A. K.) I have monitored their actions and reactions in the past few weeks,
[02:40] (A. K.) Before and after the elections,
[02:40] (A. K.) Their behavior was different
[02:41] (A. K.) First, before the elections, their media orientation and their statements made was they wanted to
Cast out the hearts of the people a feeling that the election was useless to cut the turn out,
[02:41] (A. K.) They could guess the results,
[02:41] (A. K.) but they never expected 85%
[02:41] (A. K.) 40 million voted
[02:41] (A. K.) they never believed this
[02:41] (A. K.) after they witnessed this, they were shocked
[02:42] (A. K.) they learned what a great development in Iran has taken place
[02:42] (A. K.) they found out they had to adjust themselves to this new situation
[02:42] (A. K.) to the Middle East, Iran and the world
[02:42] (A. K.) they learned that a new chapter has opened in connection related to the Islamic Republic.
[02:42] (A. K.) This great turn out was observed
[02:42] (A. K.) they reported it time and again
[02:42] (A. K.) they were all surprised since Friday morning
[02:43] (A. K.) some of the reactions and feedback to these correspondents were also noticed
[02:43] (A. K.) when they saw objections by some candidates, they saw an opportunity
[02:43] (A. K.) they used it from Saturday to Sunday
[02:43] (A. K.) their tone changed
[02:43] (A. K.) they slowly saw these protests
[02:43] (A. K.) which were held by the invitation of the candidate
[02:43] (A. K.) they became hopeful
[02:43] (A. K.) their masks were removed
[02:43] (A. K.) they saw a way
[02:43] (A. K.) they revealed their true nature
[02:44] (A. K.) a number of heads of states and other leaders of EU and America made statements that clarified the true nature of those leaders.
[02:44] (A. K.) it was said on behalf of the US president that he was waiting for a day that people came out to streets.
[02:44] (A. K.) Inside the country
[02:44] (A. K.) their agents started their action
[02:45] (A. K.) they started to cause riots in the street
[02:45] (A. K.) they caused destruction
[02:45] (A. K.) burnt houses,
[02:45] (A. K.) theft and insecurity prevailed.
[02:45] (A. K.) the people felt unsafe and insecure
[02:45] (A. K.) this has nothing to do with supporters of the candidate
[02:45] (A. K.) this is the servants of the westerners
[02:45] (A. K.) Zionist agents and their servants.
[02:46] (A. K.) What was clumsily done inside Iran by some, made them greedy
[02:46] (A. K.) they thought that Iran is Georgia.
[02:46] (A. K.) An American Zionist capitalist some time ago claimed that he had spent ten million dollars and created velvet revolution in Georgia
[02:47] (A. K.) They are comparing the Islamic Republic with GEORGIA!?
[02:47] (A. K.) What do you think we are?
[02:47] (A. K.) You don't understand us.
[02:47] (A. K.) What are you talking about?
[02:48] (A. K.) what is the worst thing to me in all this
[02:48] (A. K.) are comments made in the name of human rights
[02:48] (A. K.) and freedom and liberty
[02:48] (A. K.) made by American officials
[02:48] (A. K.) they said that we are worried about Iranian nations
[02:48] (A. K.) WHAT? Are you serious?
[02:48] (A. K.) Do you KNOW what human rights are?!
[02:48] (A. K.) Who did that in Afghanistan?
[02:48] (A. K.) The wars and bloodshed
[02:48] (A. K.) Who is crushing Iraq under its soldier's boots?
[02:48] (A. K.) in Palestine?
[02:48] (A. K.) Who supported the Zionists?
[02:49] (A. K.) even inside America
[02:49] (A. K.) During the time of the democrats
[02:49] (A. K.) Time of Clinton
[02:49] (A. K.) 80 people were burned alive in Waco?
[02:50] (A. K.) Now you are talking about human rights?
[02:50] (A. K.) Well,
[02:50] (A. K.) I believe that the officials of America and EU should feel some embarrassment
[02:50] (A. K.) shouldn't say anything like that
[02:50] (A. K.) Islamic republic supports oppressed people of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine
[02:50] (A. K.) we support all those who are oppressed
[02:51] (A. K.) we are supporting the flag of human rights
[02:51] (A. K.) flag of humans is raised in this country by Islam
[02:51] (A. K.) we don't need advice about human rights
[02:51] (A. K.) My speech about the election is over.
[02:51] (A. K.) (VERY ABRUPTLY!)

A Conservative take on the Iran elections..

This is from the American Conservative. (via Information Clearing House).

The polls that I posted in an earlier listing support Larison's viewpoint. What is really interesting about this article is his point by point comparison with US reaction to the Lebanese election. Hizbullah if they had copied the Iranian opposition should have been out in the streets instead of accepting the results! Hizbullah had seemed poised to win but when there was a high turnout that in this case supported the ruling group no one in the west cried foul!

The “Coup” in Iran? By Daniel LarisonJune 17, 2009 "The American Conservative" - Why were the Lebanese elections regarded as a “crushing defeat” for Hizbullah and FPM and their allies? It was not because the final count of seats was substantially different from what it had been before, but because pre-election hype had made it seem as if the opposition was going to sweep into power. When the government retained its majority amid high turnout, this was declared to be a wonderful thing and proof of the vibrancy of Lebanese democracy, such as it is, even though in terms of the sheer number of votes cast the opposition garnered more support. Because of the sectarian balancing act that is required in Lebanese government, the larger vote tally won by the opposition translated into a minority of seats because of where those votes were cast. In the parallel universe in which most Western commentary on such things is written, this was a repudiation of the opposition and a triumph for freedom, etc., rather than being seen as something of a fluke of Lebanese parliamentary politics. I suppose flukes don’t lend themselves very well to propagandistic uses. It is apparently far better to celebrate a biased, inherently rigged system as pure democracy in action. Unless the biased, inherently rigged system is Iranian, in which case it is nothing but an enormous sham.
Now let us turn to Iran. The pre-election hype was that the opposition candidate was enjoying a surge in support in the final weeks and stood a chance of forcing a run-off, if not actually beating the incumbent outright. Then, amid record-high turnout, the incumbent won handily and the opposition complained that it had been robbed. In other words, the hype in Lebanon was just hype and was shown to be such on election day, whereas it was God’s own truth in Iran. As the Leveretts argue in Politico today, Ahmadinejad’s official percentage of the vote is very close to his 2005 total against Rafsanjani. As it happens, this is true. Of course, this result was from the head-to-head run-off between two candidates, rather than the multi-candidate first round, but it is not necessarily impossible that a comparable percetange of a larger electorate backed Ahmadinejad in the first round as turnout increased. This does not rule out the use of fraud. Fraud may have been widespread as well, but what we do not know as yet is how significant the effect of this fraud was.
Given all of this, the readiness with which almost everyone in the West seems to be accepting the “coup” explanation is rather worrisome. It is similar to the lockstep consensus on the “Iraqi threat” six years ago that made war all but inevitable, and it is similar to our political class’ certainty last year that Georgia was merely an innocent victim of “Russian aggression,” which has been found again and again to be false. The “coup” in Iran is becoming one of those things that “everyone knows,” and as we have seen more than a few times in the past the things that “everyone knows” are not always true. Moreover, this thing that “everyone knows” about the Iranian election is based on partial, sketchy and biased information–sound familiar? There may be elements of the “coup” story that hold up under scrutiny. It is true that the Revolutionary Guards and Basij militia are loyal to Ahmadinejad and had a significant role in all of this, but how much of that role was illegal under Iranian law remains to be seen.
Part of the “coup” argument is that America must not side against the Iranian people, and it is taken for granted that the people are on Mousavi’s side, because Mousavi’s claims of representing the majority are taken at face value and Mousavi’s side is sometimes simply identified as the side of The People. Were the situation reversed and Ahmadinejad supporters were the ones rioting, it is all but certain that no one would believe a word of their complaints. It is being called fascism when the police attack pro-Mousavi protesters, but you know that it would also be called fascism if it were Ahmadinejad’s people rioting in the streets rather than Mousavi’s, even if the positions of the two candidates were reversed exactly and their actions were identical. (Of course, if Mousavi were the incumbent, he might very well win, because no incumbent has ever lost in any Iranian presidential election–why exactly do we think that anything has changed this time?) If Ahmadinejad’s supporters were the ones in the streets, we would hear all about how they need to accept defeat and acknowledge the validity of the election, and if they refused to do so they would be charged with subverting the democratic process.
The “coup” argument is a consensus view that fits a lot of existing prejudices, allows us to reaffirm pleasant myths about the virtues of popular government (which we are supposed to believe would have yielded a good result, were it not for those meddling fraudsters), and provides an excuse for moralistic posturing in which we get to flaunt our enthusiasm for democracy mostly for our own satisfaction. I am increasingly skeptical that it describes the events of the last few days.

Even the BBC shows a glimmer of understanding of the power struggle in Iran.

This is from the BBC. This should be contrasted with CNN in its Iran 101 a supposed intro lecture on what is happening. CNN does not even mention the power struggle between Khameni and Rafsanjani and does not even have a profile of Rafsanjani as if he is of no importance! As this article points out Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts who elect, surpervise and can theoretically dismiss the Supreme Leader. I do not even see this group mentioned in the CNN coverage. I didn't look at Fox News if anyone knows if they have done a better job let me know! The United States would no doubt like Rafsanjani to win out. He is corrupt, rich, and for accomodation with the West if it will make him even richer and more powerful! Obama is rightly being very subdued in his reactions although the State Dept. asked Twitter not to shut down for maintenance in order that protesters could continue using it. Of course the standard refrain in the western media is that Ahmadinejad stole the election rather than that Mousavi having lost is now trying to steal it through demonstrations and his ability to rally large numbers of people, at least in Tehran.

Deep rivalry
Meanwhile, a separate power play is going on at the top of the political system.

Former President Rafsanjani is backing the opposition
Ayatollah Khamenei has staked his political life on his unequivocal support for President Ahmadinejad's re-election victory.
He has many cards in his hand. He is the supreme commander of the armed forces. He is also loyally supported by the Guardian Council, which is reviewing the election result. Until now , no-one ever dared question his authority - at least openly.
But on the other side is former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been backing the opposition campaigns.
As the election began, it became clear he wanted revenge against President Ahmadinejad, who beat him in the presidential election four years ago.
And there is probably a deeper rivalry with the supreme leader himself, whom Mr Rafsanjani helped to power when he succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989.
The rivalry really erupted when President Ahmadinejad accused Mr Rafsanjani's family of corruption during one of the televised presidential debates.
They may be arguing over a disputed election. But they are really arguing over the future of the country. A momentous, titanic struggle, whose outcome no-one can predict
It is an accusation many Iranians might suspect is true, but the manner in which it was made caused outrage.
Mr Rafsanjani wrote an unprecedented letter to the supreme leader, calling him to act, and issuing a remarkable threat.
If nothing was done, "the volcanos fed inside burning chests will appear in society, as exemplified by gatherings we have seen in streets, squares and universities".
The flames, Mr Rafsanjani warned, would spread "through the elections and beyond".
Mr Rafsanjani has some powerful tools.
He heads the Assembly of Experts, the body of clerics in charge of electing, supervising and dismissing the supreme leader.
For them to take action would indeed be unprecedented. But Mr Rafsanjani recently won re-election with a big majority. And Ayatollah Khamenei has many enemies amongst the clerical establishment.
Mr Rafsanjani also heads the Expediency Council, which mediates on disputes between other organs of government. Not to mention his almost legendary wealth.
Do not underestimate the fervour of supporters on both sides.
There may be government supporters encouraged or bussed to demonstrations, but there are many who also genuinely adore Mr Ahmadinejad.
And for the opposition, the disputed election has unleashed years of frustration over a system that prevents them from meeting their aspirations.
They may be arguing over a disputed election. But they are really arguing over the future of the country. A momentous, titanic struggle, whose outcome no-one can predict.

Khameni rides a storm in a tea cup: Bhadrakumar.

What I like about Bhadrakumar is all the background information that he presents on the issue. In most western media reports this is sadly lacking. As can be seen Mousavi and Rafsanjani have in the past been bitter enemies but Mousavi is now allied with him against Khameni and Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani is pro-western at least in the sense he would like to have better relations with the west to make more money! Mousavi on the other hand was very much anti-western.
Bhadrakumar for some reason very much downplays the siginificance of the protests and seems to think that Rafsanjani and Khatami have lost and this is all as he puts it a tempest in a teapot. However, that remains to be seen. Rafsanani also has connections to the Guardians Council. It is always possible that the mullahs and legal experts may decide that Ahmadinejad needs to go to quiet the situation.

Khamenei rides a storm in a tea cup
By M K Bhadrakumar
Western capitals must make a difficult choice: how long to pin hopes on the eruption of a "color" revolution in Tehran? The burden falls almost entirely on Europe, since Washington has different priorities. The United States cannot afford to be spotted in the barricades on the frontline of any attempt to prise open the Iranian regime at this delicate point in Middle Eastern politics. Tehran will not forgive for another quarter century at least any such American folly, and the Barack Obama administration has no intentions of committing hara-kiri, either. Within Europe, it is unclear who is spearheading the charge of the
light brigade. No country seems to want to be seen up front - except the Czech Republic, which has no choice, since it currently chairs the rotating European Union presidency. But then, most European countries would probably seldom fail the chance to be Tehran's bete noire, but will, true to a pattern, swiftly fall back the moment they estimate that the law of diminishing returns is at work and continued tirades might jeopardize lucrative commercial interests in Iran. Tens of thousands of supporters of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi planned to keep up their street protests in Tehran on Wednesday, even though the authorities have promised a partial recount of Friday's vote that saw incumbent Mahmud Ahmadinejad win another four-year term. No scope for a color revolutionEurope has no real experience in staging color revolutions. This has been the forte of the Americans - conceptualized in the post-Soviet space in Eurasia by the Bill Clinton administration and subsequently grasped by the neo-conservatives in the George W Bush team. Europeans were curious bystanders in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. France to some extent might have been on the inside track over Lebanon, but then the result turned out to be a mish-mash. At any rate, to borrow Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin's famous words in a philosophical context, staging a color revolution in Tehran is not like breaking an egg. The signs are that the color revolution struggling to be born on the streets of Tehran has had a miscarriage. Ahmadinejad's participation at the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at Yekaterinburg, Russia, on Tuesday was possible only with the tacit acquiescence of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It was an important decision to take at a critical juncture. Earlier reports in the Western media speculated that Ahmadinejad might stand down in view of the developing political situation. Evidently, the regime decided that Tehran should not in any way project an atmosphere of crisis as that would only play into the hands of the proponents of a color revolution within Iran and abroad. To quote well-known Iranian dissident Ibrahim Yazdi, "Certainly, the gap inside Iran, politically, will be widened. Our main concern is how to keep the enthusiasm that was created for the election alive, in order to monitor and constrain the power of the government. The only way to counter it is the power of the people. We need to organize them." How is the regime coping? Clearly, Khamenei is in the driving seat and is in control of the state apparatus. He is skillfully navigating the regime through the choppy waters. Khamenei's meeting with the principal opposition candidate in the election, Mousavi, merits attention. The official statement makes out certain key points. First, Khamenei indicated unambiguously to Mousavi that the regime would not tolerate any street protests and he must therefore "channel protests through legal bodies". It now becomes extremely difficult for Mousavi to be seen as defying the Supreme Leader's diktat. Second, Khamenei suggested that there was nothing extraordinary about the present situation, insofar as "in previous elections also, there were some people and candidates who had some problems". But they pursued the matter through the Guardians Council, which in any case has to approve the conduct of the presidential election in Iran. Mousavi's existential choiceHowever, it is the third point made by Khamenei that is most crucial. He pointed a finger at the "enemies' provocative actions" as well as "certain behind-the-stage plots" which aimed to "create chaos in Iran". Khamenei then went on most meaningfully to remind Mousavi that "your [Mousavi's] character is different from such people and it is necessary that you pursue the problems through calm". The highly personal remark had a touch of admonition, but also the hint of a fulsome invitation to reasoning that could open up doors leading into pleasant pathways along which the two interlocutors known to each other for long, after all, could take a stroll. It was a very Persian remark. Khamenei virtually reminded Mousavi of their old association, when the latter served as Iran's prime minister under him and the two were not only close comrades-in-arms for the preservation of the Iranian revolution through the critical years of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s but also worked together to frustrate the cunning ploys of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who as the powerful speaker of the Majlis (parliament) constantly conspired to arrogate state power. During that period, Rafsanjani constantly sniped at Mousavi and tried to undercut him, although he enjoyed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's endorsement. On numerous occasions, Rafsanjani gave him hell on the floor of the Majlis, embarrassing him when he sought parliamentary approval for his moves, whittling down his authority to execute his policy and systematically undermining his political standing in public opinion. Rafsanjani had already begun jockeying for position in expectation of the post-Khomeini era. As Khomeini fell ill, Rafsanjani became more assertive. Mousavi, in fact, found himself identifying with the Iranian revolutionaries (like Ahmadinejad), who were appalled by Rafsanjani's suggestion to Khomeini to "drink from the chalice of poison" and order a ceasefire to end the Iran-Iraq war that effectively meant allowing Saddam Hussein the escape route. Those were tumultuous times when the fate of the Iranian revolution of 1979 hung by a thread. The main sticking point was the economic policy of the Mousavi government. Rafsanjani sought a policy that catered to the Tehran bazaar, which would benefit his family members as well as large sections of the corrupt clergy, who were aligned with him. But Mousavi opted for state control of the economy and insisted he was acting in accordance with the ideals of the revolution and Khomeini's wishes. What Rafsanjani proposed during those difficult years was to have the latitude for his clan and other hangers-on to do some war profiteering. Mousavi's answer was a firm "no", and he stuck to the austere economic policy. When the eight-year war with Iraq ended in August 1988, Rafsanjani proposed that Iran should dilute its revolutionary ideals and take Western help for reconstruction. (The Rafsanjani family initially made its fortune by exporting Iranian products such as pistachio nuts and carpets to the US.) But Mousavi firmly disagreed and refused to go against the grain of the revolution. Finally, when the levers of power were passed into his hands as president, Rafsanjani's wrath knew no bounds. Vindictive by nature, he literally drove Mousavi into political exile. The ex-prime minister summarily abandoned politics and returned to his profession of architecture and teaching. Thus, Khamenei all but jogged Mousavi's memory at their meeting in Tehran by suggesting that the latter should not join hands with Rafsanjani against him. He suggested that Rafsanjani and his circles are simply using him as a political ladder. Khamenei virtually reminded Mousavi of his old constituency. Indeed, as prime minister (1981-89), Mousavi had an impeccable reputation as a hardliner - every bit as much as the "international community" regards Ahmadinejad today. In a memorable article penned in 1988, the Economist magazine described him as a "firm radical". Khamenei folded up his conversation with Mousavi by "admiring" the massive turnout in Friday's election and "once again underlining its healthy and calm nature". In a subtle way, he allowed Mousavi to have a peep into his thought processes about the current situation.

Page 2 of 2Khamenei rides a storm in a tea cupBy M K Bhadrakumar Meanwhile, Khamenei has directed the Guardians Council to review the appeals about the election and to give its opinion within a week to 10 days. He also held a joint meeting with the representatives of the four candidates in the election and officials from the 12-member Guardians Council and the Interior Ministry. At the meeting, Khamenei used harsh language describing the street protesters as "vandals" for damaging state property. He told the candidates' supporters to distance themselves from the "vandals" and to support peace in the country as the election "should not cause divisions". Khamenei added, "If the election result had been different, even then such incidents would have occurred" as "some people" are against the unity of the Iranian nation and the solidarity of the
Islamic system. He offered that a partial recount of the votes in the elections could be arranged, if necessary. But he concluded by passing his own judgment, "Those in charge of supervising the elections are always trustworthy people." Tehran rebuffs Europe Alongside, Tehran has rebuffed European attempts to interfere. This has been done at the appropriate diplomatic level with the Foreign Ministry calling in the envoys of Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Besides, a "unity rally" held in Tehran by supporters of Ahmadinejad condemned "enemies, particularly the US, Britain and Israel ... [for] interfering in Iran's internal affairs, plotting against the government and giving media support to the enemy groups, rioters and social and political hooligans who are trying to fuel chaos in the Islamic Republic". All in all, therefore, Western capitals will take note that the hope that a color revolution might overturn Ahmadinejad's victory or in a best-case scenario lead to the toppling of the Iranian regime is far-fetched and almost fanciful. The extent of the street protests has come down in Tehran, although uncertainties remain. The hope that there would be a countrywide popular uprising seems also to be far-fetched. If Rafsanjani's astute political temperament is any guide, he will lie very low and generally avoid being noticed for a while. Meanwhile, he will do some intense networking with his contacts in the power apparatus, putting out his extraordinary political antennae and making a careful assessment as to the scope for compromise with the powers that be and when he should make his move. He should first live to fight another day. That may require making compromises. After all, politics is the art of the possible. So, without batting an eyelid, he may turn his back on Mousavi and former president Mohammed Khatami, who were, after all, his temporary allies in the recent saga. Will he get another chance? That is a big question. Time seems to have run out for Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly projected an "anti-corruption" drive as a major plank of his new presidency. Was that mere election rhetoric, or will he go for the Rafsanjani family, which has many skeletons in its cupboard? Everything depends on what Khamenei thinks. He may assess that this time the "Shark" went too far to plot a lethal attack that might have succeeded. Or, he might let bygones be bygones. Rafsanjani is undoubtedly the West's favorite poster boy - and of the "pro-West" Arab authoritarian rulers in the region. The difficult choice for European capitals is how much propaganda mileage to extract at this stage before moving on. Once US-Iranian engagement begins, European companies will scramble for oil contracts. If the European Union's ill-starred Nabucco gas pipeline project has a fighting chance to materialize, that will depend primarily on gaining access to Iranian gas. Also, European capitals will have noted that there is great reticence on the part of Middle Eastern countries to point fingers at Tehran for not practicing Western style democracy. Autocratic Arab regimes will be nervous that if the contagious disease of the color revolution were to appear in Iran, it might eventually spread on the Middle Eastern political landscape. Unsurprisingly, the lone exception has been Israel (and its media friends), which has a vested interest in scuttling US-Iran engagement and will not easily pass up an opportunity to malign Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, three important neighbors of Iran - Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan - promptly greeted Ahmadinejad, quite ahead of protocol requirements to do so. Ahmadinejad was warmly greeted at the SCO summit, too. "Iran, Russia and China are three major economic and political poles attending the [SCO] summit ... [They] play important roles in dealing with the world's current and upcoming developments," Ahmadinejad was reported as saying in the People's Daily and it also highlighted Ahmadinejad's tirade against the "unipolar world order" in his speech. On its part, Moscow said in a structured statement, "The Iranian elections are the internal affair of Iran. We welcome the fact that elections took place, we welcome the new president on Russian soil and see it as symbolic that he made his first visit [as newly-elected president] to Russia. This allows hope for progress in bilateral relations." Russian President Dmitry Medvedev scheduled a bilateral with Ahmadinejad at Yekaterinburg. Khamenei has made it clear in recent weeks that the Obama administration will meet a resolute interlocutor when US-Iran direct negotiations begin shortly. No amount of Western pressure tactics on the democracy plank is going to soften up Khamenei. With Ahmadinejad continuing as president for a second term, Khamenei has his chosen team in position. The Obama administration faces difficult choices. The stir in Tehran is fast becoming a "Twitter revolution". No such thing has ever happened there, despite the best efforts of former US vice president Dick Cheney and his covert team for well over four years for triggering "regime change". The US is sensing the potential of a "Twitter revolution" in Iran. Earlier, in Moldova, the potential of Twitter to trigger convulsions in popular moods was studied. The US State Department confirmed on Tuesday it had contacted Twitter to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut daytime service to Iranians. But a department spokesman denied that the contacts with Twitter amounted to meddling in Iran's internal affairs - US sensitivity about causing annoyance to the Iranian regime is self-evident. At the same time, Obama has to worry that unrest in Iran may scuttle his plans to commence direct engagement with Tehran within the coming days or weeks. On the contrary, he must face the music from the influential Israel lobby in the US, which is unhappy that Washington is not pressing the pedal hard enough on a color revolution in Iran. But Obama is treading softly. He said late on Tuesday there appeared to be no policy differences between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States." That's a cleverly drafted formulation. Prima facie, Obama pleases the regime in Tehran insofar as he appears "stand-offish" as to what ensues through the coming days by way of the street protests or out of the deliberations of Iran's Guardians Council. Fair enough. But, on the other hand, Obama also is smartly neutralizing any allegation that the Rafsanjani-Khatami-Mousavi phenomenon is in any way to be branded by the Iranian regime as "pro-US". Obama's remark helps the Iranian opposition to maintain that its motivations are purely driven by Iran's national interests. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

Rafsanjani's gambit backfires.

This is an interesting take on the Iranian election. Even though it would seem that Bhadrakumar may be quite wrong about Rafsnjani's being defeated he gives a lot of background of the kind that is missing from most western mainstream articles. It would seem that the action on the street is actually just a colorful backdrop that can be blown out of all proportion by the western media which loves demonstrations especially when combined with government violence.
The important conflict is within the elites backstage as the Shark Rafsanjani the huge power broker has assembled a motley coalition including Mousavi to dislodge both Ahmedinejad and Khatemi from power. It remains to be seen who will win but as far as US policy is concerned Mousavi may be only slightly more open to compromise than Ahmedinejad. Earlier in his career Mousavi was a hard liner and very anti-western as the article shows. No where else I have seen these details about his early career.


Rafsanjani's gambit backfires
By M K Bhadrakumar
Iranian politics is never easy to decode. The maelstrom around Friday's presidential election
intrigued most avid cryptographers scanning Iranian codes. So many false trails appeared that it became difficult to decipher who the real contenders were and what the political stakes were. In the event, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei won a resounding victory. The grey cardinal of Iranian politics Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been dealt a crushing defeat. Is the curtain finally ringing down on the tumultuous career of the "Shark", a nickname Rafsanjani acquired in the vicious well of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) where he used to swim dangerously as a political predator in the early years of the Iranian Revolution as the speaker? By the huge margin (64%) with which President Mahmud Ahmedinejad won, it is tempting to say that like the great white
sperm whale of immense, premeditated ferocity and stamina in Herman Melville's epic novel Moby Dick, Rafsanjani is going down, deeply wounded by the harpoon, into the cold oblivion of the sea of Iranian politics. But you can never quite tell. The administration of President Barack Obama in the United States could see through the allegorical mode of the Iranian election and probably anticipate the flood of destruction that would follow once vengeance is unleashed. It did just the right thing by staying aloof, studiously detached. Now comes the difficult part - engaging the house that Khamenei presides over as the monarch of all he surveys. First, the ABC of the election. Who is Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmedinejad's main opponent in the election? He is an enigma wrapped in mystery. He impressed the Iranian youth and the urban middle class as a reformer and a modernist. Yet, as Iran's prime minister during 1981-89, Mousavi was an unvarnished hardliner. Evidently, what we have seen during his high-tech campaign is a vastly different Mousavi, as if he meticulously deconstructed and then reassembled himself. This was what Mousavi had to say in a 1981 interview about the 444-day hostage crisis when young Iranian revolutionaries kept American diplomats in custody: "It was the beginning of the second stage of our revolution. It was after this that we discovered our true Islamic identity. After this we felt the sense that we could look Western policy in the eye and analyze it the way they had been evaluating us for many years." Most likely, he had a hand in the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ali Akbar Mohtashami, Hezbollah's patron saint, served as his interior minister. He was involved in the Iran-Contra deal in 1985, which was a trade-off with the Ronald Reagan administration whereby the US would supply arms to Iran and as quid pro quo Tehran would facilitate the release of the Hezbollah-held American hostages in Beirut. The irony is, Mousavi was the very anti-thesis of Rafsanjani and one of the first things the latter did in 1989 after taking over as president was to show Mousavi the door. Rafsanjani had no time for Mousavi's anti-"Westernism" or his visceral dislike of the market. Mousavi's electoral platform has been a curious mix of contradictory political lines and vested interests but united in one maniacal mission, namely, to seize the presidential levers of power in Iran. It brought together so-called reformists who support former president Mohammad Khatami and ultra-conservatives of the regime. Rafsanjani is the only politician in Iran who could have brought together such dissimilar factions. He assiduously worked hand-in-glove with Khatami towards this end. If we are to leave out the largely inconsequential "Gucci crowd" of north Tehran, who no doubt imparted a lot of color, verve and mirth to Mousavi's campaign, the hardcore of his political platform comprised powerful vested interests who were making a last-ditch attempt to grab power from the Khamenei-led regime. On the one hand, these interest groups were severely opposed to the economic policies under Ahmadinejad, which threatened their control of key sectors such as foreign trade, private education and agriculture. For those who do not know Iran better, suffice to say that the Rafsanjani family clan owns vast financial empires in Iran, including foreign trade, vast landholdings and the largest network of private universities in Iran. Known as Azad there are 300 branches spread over the country, they are not only money-spinners but could also press into Mousavi's election campaign an active cadre of student activists numbering some 3 million. The Azad campuses and auditoria provided the rallying point for Mousavi's campaign in the provinces. The attempt was to see that the campaign reached the rural poor in their multitudes who formed the bulk of voters and constituted Ahmadinejad's political base. Rafsanjani's political style is to build up extensive networking in virtually all the top echelons of the power structure, especially bodies such as the Guardian Council, Expediency Council, the Qom clergy, Majlis, judiciary, bureaucracy, Tehran bazaar and even elements within the circles close to Khamenei. He called into play these pockets of influence. Rafsanjani's axis with Khatami was the basis of Mousavi's political platform of reformists and conservatives. The four-cornered contest was expected to give a split verdict that would force the election into a run-off on June 19. The candidature of the former Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Mohsen Rezai (who served under Rafsanjani when he was president) was expected to slice off a chunk of IRGC cadres and prominent conservatives. Again, the fourth candidate, Mehdi Karrubi's "reformist" program was expected to siphon off support from Ahmedinejad, by virtue of his offer of economic policies based on social justice such as the immensely popular idea of distributing income from oil among the people rather than it accruing to the government's budget. Rafsanjani's plot was to somehow extend the election to the run-off stage, where Mousavi was expected to garner the "anti-Ahmedinejad" votes. The estimation was that at the most Ahmedinejad would poll in the first round 10 to 12 million votes out of the 28 to 30 million who might actually vote (out of a total electorate of 46.2 million) and, therefore, if only the election extended to the run-off, Mousavi would be the net beneficiary as the votes polled by Rezai and Karrubi were essentially "anti-Ahmadinejad" votes. The regime was already well into the election campaign when it realized that behind the clamor for a change of leadership in the presidency, Rafsanjani's challenge was in actuality aimed at Khamenei's leadership and that the election was a proxy war. The roots of the Rafsanjani-Khamenei rift go back to the late 1980s when Khamenei assumed the leadership in 1989. Rafsanjani was among Imam Khomeini's trusted appointees to the first Revolutionary Council, whereas Khamenei joined only at a later stage when the council expanded its membership. Thus, Rafsanjani always harbored a grouse that Khamenei pipped him to the post of Supreme Leader. The clerical establishment close to Rafsanjani spread the word that Khamenei lacked the requisite religious credentials, that he was indecisive as the executive president, and that the election process was questionable, which cast doubt on the legality of his appointment. Powerful clerics, egged on by Rafsanjani, argued that the Supreme Leader was supposed to be not only a religious authority (mujtahid), but was also expected to be a source of emulation (marja or a mujtahid with religious followers) and that Khamenei didn't fulfill this requirement - unlike Rafsanjani himself. The debunking of Khamenei rested on the specious argument that his religious education was in question. The sniping by the clerics associated with Rafsanjani continued into the early 1990s. Thus, Khamenei began on a somewhat diffident note and during much of the period when Rafsanjani held power as president (1989-1997), he acted low key, aware of his circumstances. The result was that Rafsanjani exercised more power as president than anyone holding that office anytime in Tehran. But Khamenei bided his time as he incrementally began expanding his authority. If he lacked standing among Iran's clerical establishment, he more than made up by attracting to his side the security establishment, especially the Ministry of Intelligence, the IRGC and the Basij militias. While Rafsanjani hobnobbed with the clergy and the bazaar, Khamenei turned to a group of bright young politicians with intelligence or security backgrounds who were returning home from the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war - such as Ali Larijani, the present speaker of the Majlis, Said Jalili, currently the secretary of the National Security Council, Ezzatollah Zarghami, head of the state radio and television and, indeed, Ahmadinejad himself. Power inevitably accrued to Khamenei once he won over the loyalty of the IRGC and the Basij. By the time Rafsanjani's presidency ended, Khamenei had already become head of all three branches of the government and the state media, commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and even lucrative institutions such as Imam Reza Shrine or the Oppressed Foundation, which have almost unlimited capacity for extending political patronage. All in all, therefore, the power structure today takes the form of a vast patriarchal apparatus of political leadership. Thus, perceptive analysts were spot on while concluding that Ahmadinejad would never on his own volition have gone public and directly taken on Rafsanjani during the controversial TV debate on June 4 in Tehran with Mousavi. Ahmadinejad said, "Today it is not Mr Mousavi alone who is confronting me, since there are the three successive governments of Mr Mousavi, Mr Khatami and Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani] arrayed against me." He took a pointed swipe at Rafsanjani for masterminding a plot to overthrow him. He said Rafsanjani promised the fall of his government to Saudi Arabia. Rafsanjani hit back within days by addressing a communication to Khamenei demanding that Ahmadinejad should retract "so that there would be no need of legal action". "I am expecting you to resolve the situation in order to extinguish the fire, whose smoke can be seen in the atmosphere, and to take action to foil dangerous plots. Even if I were to tolerate this situation, there is no doubt that some people, parties and factions will not tolerate this situation," Rafsanjani angrily warned Khamenei. Simultaneously, Rafsanjani also rallied his base in the clerical establishment. A clique of 14 senior clerics in Qom joined issue on his side. It was all an act of desperation by vested interests who have become desperate about the awesome rise of the IRGC in recent years. But, if Rafsanjani's calculation was that the "mutiny" within the clerical establishment would unnerve Khamenei, he misread the calculus of power in Tehran. Khamenei did the worst thing possible to Rafsanjani. He simply ignored the "Shark". The IRGC and the Basij volunteers running into tens of millions swiftly mobilized. They coalesced with the millions of rural poor who adore Ahmadinejad as their leader. It has been a repeat of the 2005 election. The voter turnout has been an unprecedented 85%. Within hours of the announcement of Ahmadinejad's thumping victory, Khamenei gave the seal of approval by applauding that the high voter turnout called for "real celebration". He said, "I congratulate ... the people on this massive success and urge everyone to be grateful for this divine blessing." He cautioned the youth and the "supporters of the elected candidate and the supporters of other candidates" to be "fully alert and avoid any provocative and suspicions actions and speech". Khamenei's message to Rafsanjani is blunt: accept defeat gracefully and stay away from further mischief. Friday's election ensures that the house of Supreme Leader Khamenei will remain by far the focal point of power. It is the headquarters of the country's presidency, Iran's armed forces, especially the IRGC. It is the fountainhead of the three branches of government and the nodal point of foreign, security and economic policies. Obama may contemplate a way to directly engage Khamenei. It is a difficult challenge. Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey. (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Polls before the Iran election.

This is from the Washington Post. I have not seen any reference to this poll elsewhere. It shows that Ahmadinejad could very well have won with a large majority. In fact the poll shows a margin a bit larger even than the official results. Western media tends to concentrate on the large demonstrations of Mousavi supporters in Tehran where he is supported by young people from the university and better off families. This is why they are so adept at using media to promote their cause and spin the news in their favour. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi proclaimed victory rather early after the polling was over but the MSM simply notes that Ahmadinejad did this and take it as a sign that the election was rigged. So what does Mousavi's similar move signify? Below this article is another article by Robert Fisk.
Fisk in his inimitable style gives a graphic description of what he saw with his own eyes in Tehran as far as police treatment of protesters are concerned. These were probably demonstrations a couple of days ago as yesterday the police seemed to more or less avoid confrontation for the most part even though the demonstration was illegal.
The brutality of the police towards the demonstrators is perhaps partly explained by the fact that many of the protesters are young well off university students whereas the police no doubt come for the most part from less well off circumstances. No doubt there is no love lost between the two groups and the demonstrations give the police a chance to show their contempt for the students and exert power over them.
The behavior of Khameni is a bit puzzling. At the end of the election he was quite supportive of Ahmadinejad but now he has ordered an investigation into the election. Is he preparing for a possible jettisoning of Ahmadinejad in favor of Mousavi to defuse the opposition. Perhaps but Mousavi supporters want the supreme leader to be elected. I doubt that Khameni wants that but I could be wrong.


The Iranian People Speak
By Ken Ballen and Patrick DohertyMonday, June 15, 2009
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.
Independent and uncensored nationwide surveys of Iran are rare. Typically, preelection polls there are either conducted or monitored by the government and are notoriously untrustworthy. By contrast, the poll undertaken by our nonprofit organizations from May 11 to May 20 was the third in a series over the past two years. Conducted by telephone from a neighboring country, field work was carried out in Farsi by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award. Our polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
Indeed, and consistently among all three of our surveys over the past two years, more than 70 percent of Iranians also expressed support for providing full access to weapons inspectors and a guarantee that Iran will not develop or possess nuclear weapons, in return for outside aid and investment. And 77 percent of Iranians favored normal relations and trade with the United States, another result consistent with our previous findings.
Iranians view their support for a more democratic system, with normal relations with the United States, as consonant with their support for Ahmadinejad. They do not want him to continue his hard-line policies. Rather, Iranians apparently see Ahmadinejad as their toughest negotiator, the person best positioned to bring home a favorable deal -- rather like a Persian Nixon going to China.
Allegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world. Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted.
Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The groups' May 11-20 polling consisted of 1,001 interviews across Iran and had a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
For more on polling in Iran, read Jon Cohen's Behind the Numbers.

------------------------------------------------------

Robert Fisk: Iran erupts as voters back 'the Democrator'
A smash in the face, a kick in the balls – that's how police deal with protesters after Iran's poll kept the hardliners in power
Sunday, 14 June 2009

First the cop screamed abuse at Mir Hossein Mousavi's supporter, a white-shirted youth with a straggling beard and unkempt hair. Then he smashed his baton into the young man's face. Then he kicked him viciously in the testicles. It was the same all the way down to Vali Asr Square. Riot police in black rubber body armour and black helmets and black riot sticks, most on foot but followed by a flying column of security men, all on brand new, bright red Honda motorcycles, tearing into the shrieking youths – hundreds of them, running for their lives. They did not accept the results of Iran's presidential elections. They did not believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won 62.6 per cent of the votes. And they paid the price.
"Death to the dictator," they were crying on Dr Fatimi Street, now thousands of them shouting abuse at the police. Were they to endure another four years of the smiling, avuncular, ever-so-humble President who swears by democracy while steadily thinning out human freedoms in the Islamic Republic? They were wrong, of course. Ahmadinejad really does love democracy. But he also loves dictatorial order. He is not a dictator. He is a Democrator.
Yesterday wasn't the time for the finer points of Iranian politics. That Mir Hossein Mousavi had been awarded a mere 33 per cent of the votes – by midday, the figure was humiliatingly brought down to 32.26 per cent – brought forth the inevitable claims of massive electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Or, as the crowd round Fatimi Square chorused as they danced in a circle in the street: "Zionist Ahmadinejad – cheating at exams." That's when I noticed that the police always treated the protesters in the same way. Head and testicles. It was an easy message to understand. A smash in the face, a kick in the balls and Long Live the Democrator.
Many of the protesters – some of them now wearing scarves over their faces, all coloured green, the colour of Mousavi's campaign – were trying to reach the Interior Ministry where the government's electoral council were busy counting (or miscounting, depending on your point of view) Friday's huge popular national vote. I descended into the basement of this fiercely ugly edifice – fittingly, it was once the headquarters of the Shah's party, complete with helipad on the roof – where cold chocolate lattes and strawberry fruitcake were on offer to journalists, and where were displayed the very latest poll results, put up at 10.56am Iranian time.
Eighty per cent of the votes had been counted and the results came up as Ahmadinejad 64.78 per cent; Mousavi 32.26 per cent; Mohsen Rezai (a former Revolutionary Guard commander) 2.08 per cent; and Mehdi Karoubi (a former parliament speaker) a miserable 0.89 per cent. How could this be, a man asked me on a scorching, dangerous street an hour later. Karoubi's party has at least 400,000 members. Were they all sleeping on Friday?
There were a few, sparse demonstrators out for the Democrator, all men, of course, and many of them draped in the Iranian flag because the Democrator – devout Muslim as he always displays himself – wrapped his election campaign in the national flag. Each of these burly individuals handed out free copies of the execrable four-page news-sheet Iran.
"Ahmadinejad," the headline read, "24 million votes. People vote for Success, Honesty and the Battle against Corruption." Not the obvious headline that comes to mind. But Mousavi's Green Word newspaper allegedly had its own headline dictated to it by the authorities – before they shut it down yesterday: "Happy Victory to the People." And you can't get more neutral than that.
Back on the streets, there were now worse scenes. The cops had dismounted from their bikes and were breaking up paving stones to hurl at the protesters, many of them now riding their own motorbikes between the rows of police. I saw one immensely tall man – dressed Batman-style in black rubber arm protectors and shin pads, smashing up paving stones with his baton, breaking them with his boots and chucking them pell mell at the Mousavi men. A middle-aged woman walked up to him – the women were braver in confronting the police than the men yesterday – and shouted an obvious question: "Why are you breaking up the pavements of our city?" The policeman raised his baton to strike the woman but an officer ran across the road and stood between them. "You must never hit a woman," he said. Praise where praise is due, even in a riot.
But the policemen went on breaking up stones, a crazy reverse version of France in May 1968. Then it was the young men who wanted revolution who threw stones. In Tehran – fearful of a green Mousavi revolution – it was the police who threw stones.
An interval here for lunch with a true and faithful friend of the Islamic Republic, a man I have known for many years who has risked his life and been imprisoned for Iran and who has never lied to me. We dined in an all-Iranian-food restaurant, along with his wife. He has often criticised the regime. A man unafraid. But I must repeat what he said. "The election figures are correct, Robert. Whatever you saw in Tehran, in the cities and in thousands of towns outside, they voted overwhelmingly for Ahmadinejad. Tabriz voted 80 per cent for Ahmadinejad. It was he who opened university courses there for the Azeri people to learn and win degrees in Azeri. In Mashad, the second city of Iran, there was a huge majority for Ahmadinejad after the imam of the great mosque attacked Rafsanjani of the Expediency Council who had started to ally himself with Mousavi. They knew what that meant: they had to vote for Ahmadinejad."
My guest and I drank dookh, the cool Iranian drinking yoghurt so popular here. The streets of Tehran were a thousand miles away. "You know why so many poorer women voted for Ahmadinejad? There are three million of them who make carpets in their homes. They had no insurance. When Ahmadinejad realised this, he immediately brought in a law to give them full insurance. Ahmadinejad's supporters were very shrewd. They got the people out in huge numbers to vote – and then presented this into their vote for Ahmadinejad."
But of course, the streets of Tehran were only a hundred metres away. And the police were now far more abusive to their adversaries. My own Persian translator was beaten three times on the back. The cops had brought their own photographers on to the pavements to take pictures of the protesters – hence the green scarves – and overfed plain-clothes men were now mixing with the Batmen. The Democrator was obviously displeased. One of the agents demanded to see my pass but when I showed my Iranian press card to him, he merely patted me on the shoulder and waved me through.
Thus did I arrive opposite the Interior Ministry as the police brought their prisoners back from the front line down the road. The first was a green-pullovered youth of perhaps 15 or 16 who was frog-marched by two uniformed paramilitary police to a van with a cage over the back. He was thrown on the steel floor, then one of the cops climbed in and set about him with his baton. Behind me, more than 20 policemen, sweating after a hard morning's work bruising the bones of their enemies, were sitting on the steps of a shop, munching through pre-packed luncheon boxes. One smiled and offered me a share. Politely declined, I need hardly add.
They watched – and I watched – as the next unfortunate was brought to the cage-van. In a shirt falling over his filthy trousers, he was beaten outside the vehicle, kicked in the balls, and then beaten on to a seat at the back of the vehicle. Another cop climbed in and began batoning him in the face. The man was howling with pain. Another cop came – and this, remember, was in front of dozens of other security men, in front of myself, an obvious Westerner, and many women in chadors who were walking on the opposite pavement, all staring in horror at the scene.
Now another policeman, in an army uniform, climbed into the vehicle, tied the man's hands behind his back with plastic handcuffs, took out his baton and whacked him across the face. The prisoner was in tears but the blows kept coming; until more young men arrived for their torment. Then more police vans arrived and ever more prisoners to be beaten. All were taken in these caged trucks to the basement of the Interior Ministry. I saw them drive in.
A break now from these outrages, because this was about the moment that Mousavi's printed statement arrived at his campaign headquarters. I say "arrived", although the police had already closed his downtown office – Palestine Street, it was called, only fitting since the Iranian police were behaving in exactly the same way as the Israeli army when they turn into a rabble to confront Palestinian protesters – and Mousavi's men could only toss the sheets of paper over the wall.
It was strong stuff. "The results of these elections are shocking," he proclaimed. "People who stood in the voting lines, they know the situation, they know who they voted for. They are looking now with astonishment at this magic game of the authorities on the television and radio. What has happened has shaken the whole foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran and now it is governing by lies and dictatorship. I recommend to the authorities to stop this at once and return to law and order, to care for the people's votes. The first message of our revolution is that people are intelligent and will not obey those who gain power by cheating. This whole land of Iran belongs to them and not to the cheaters."
Mousavi's head office in Qeitariyeh Street in north Tehran had already been besieged by the Democrator's loyal "Basiji" volunteers a few hours earlier. They had chucked tear gas at the windows. They were still smouldering when I arrived. "Please go or they will come back," one of his supporters pleaded to me. It was the same all over the city. The opposition either asked you to leave or invited you to watch them as they tormented the police. The Democrator's men, waving their Iranian flags, faced off Mousavi's men. Then, through their ranks, came the armed cops again, running towards the opposition. So whose side were the police really on? Rule number one: never ask stupid questions in Iran.
Last night, all SMS calls were blocked. The Iranian news agency announced that, since there would be no second round of elections, there would be no extension of visas for foreign journalists – one can well see why – and so many of the people who were praised by the government for their patriotism in voting on Friday were assaulted by their own government on Saturday.
Last night, the Democrator was still silent, but his ever-grinning face turned up on the posters of his supporters. There were more baton charges, ever greater crowds running from them. Thus was the courage of Friday's Iranian elections turned into fratricidal battles on the streets of Tehran. "Any rallies," announced the Tehran police chief, General Ahmad Reza Radan, "will be dealt with according to the law." Well, we all know what that means. So does the Democrator.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the blacksmith's son and former Revolutionary Guard, who, since his surprise victory four years ago, has seemingly gone out of his way to play bogeyman to the US. In his first term in office, Mr Ahmadinejad became known for his fierce rhetoric against America and Israel, his proud promotion of Iran's nuclear programme and persistent questioning of the Holocaust.
In Iran, he benefited from a surge in petrodollar revenues and has distributed loans, money and other help on his frequent provincial tours. But critics say his free spending fuelled inflation and wasted windfall oil revenues without reducing unemployment. Prices of basics have risen sharply, hitting more than 15 million Iranian families who live on less than $600 a month. He blamed the inflation, which officially stands at 15 per cent, on a global surge in food and fuel prices that peaked last year, and pursued unorthodox policies such as trying to curb prices while setting interest rates well below inflation.
During the campaign, in a series of bitter TV debates with his three rivals, he was repeatedly accused of lying about the extent of price rises. Mir Hossein Mousavi also accused Mr Ahmadinejad, 53, of undermining Iran's foreign relations with his fiery anti-Western speeches and said Iranians had been "humiliated around the globe" since he was first elected.
During Mr Ahmadinejad's first term, the UN Security Council imposed three sets of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme, which the West suspects has military aims.
Mr Ahmadinejad, the first non-clerical president in more than 25 years, basks in the support of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on Iranians to vote for an anti-Western candidate. The Ayatollah ultimately calls the shots in Iran, where the president can only influence policy, not decide it.
Mir Hossein Mousavi
Life for President Barack Obama would be a great deal easier if Mir Hossein Mousavi had won Iran's election. The man who was prime minister during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s says he would seek detente with the West, ask Mr Obama to debate at the UN with him, and floated the idea of an international consortium overseeing uranium enrichment in Iran.
On the domestic front, the 67-year-old architect and painter urged a return to the "fundamental values" of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He advocated economic liberalisation, and pledged to control inflation through monetary policies and make life easier for private business. He has also promised to change the "extremist" image that Iran has earned abroad under Mr Ahmadinejad and has hit out at his profligate spending of petrodollars and cash hand-outs to the poor, which, he says, have stoked rising consumer prices. He also advocated removing the ban on private firms owning TV stations.
Mr Mousavi has been politically silent for the past 20 years, but he broke new ground in Iranian campaigning by having his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a former university chancellor, not only join him on the stump but work for him. The couple even held hands at rallies, rare behaviour for politicians in the socially conservative state. His support was largely urban, and mostly young. He enjoyed also the backing of reformist former president Mohammad Khatami and apparent backing from Mr Khatami's pragmatic predecessor, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
He was widely expected to make a close-run thing of the election. But even as he was claiming a premature victory on Friday night, Mr Mousavi was alleging widespread malpractice in the conduct of the election. Where he goes from here – apart from into history – is far from clear.

Iran Supreme Leader Orders Probe of Election.

I am very suspicious of all this on both sides. No doubt there was some rigging and irregularities in the voting but a lot of the opposition seems the type of orchestrated response that was often Western backed and taught that toppled regimes in Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere. Of course there is also a tradition of protest overthrowing a regime that is anti-western as in the overthrow of the western backed Shah.
It is a bit surprising that the supreme (unelected) leader should order an investigation. Probably this is meant to calm protest but it could make things worse especially if as one would expect the result is to confirm Ahmadinejad. I just wonder if the rigging was necessary at all. Ahmadinejad was after all a former mayor of Tehran so he must have considerable support there especially among the poor and he has lots of support in the countryside. It is interesting how the Western Press chastises Ahmadinejad along with the reformers as a dictator while they say zilch about Khamenei the real power who is not elected at all!

Iran supreme leader orders probe of election
Iran's supreme leader orders investigation into election fraud allegations
ANNA JOHNSON and ALI AKBAR DAREINIAP News
Jun 15, 2009 07:38 EST
Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



State television quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei directing a high-level clerical panel, the Guardian Council, to look into charges by pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has said he is the rightful winner of Friday's presidential election.
The decision comes after Mousavi wrote a letter appealing to the Guardian Council and met Sunday with Khamenei, who holds almost limitless power over Iranian affairs. Such an election probe by the 12-member council is uncharted territory and it not immediately clear how it would proceed or how long it would take.
Election results must be authorized by the council, composed of clerics closely allied with the unelected supreme leader. All three of Ahmadinejad's challengers in the election — Mousavi and two others — have made public allegations of fraud after results showed the president winning by a 2-to-1 margin.
"Issues must be pursued through a legal channel," state TV quoted Khamenei as saying. The supreme leader said he has "insisted that the Guardian Council carefully probe this letter."
The day after the election, Khamenei urged the nation to unite behind Ahmadinejad and called the result a "divine assessment."
The results touched off three days of clashes — the worst unrest in Tehran in a decade. Protesters set fires and battled anti-riot police, including a clash overnight at Tehran University after 3,000 students gathered to oppose the election results.
One of Mousavi's Web sites said a student protester was killed early Monday during clashes with plainclothes hard-liners in Shiraz, southern Iran. But there was no independent confirmation of the report. There also have been unconfirmed reports of unrest breaking out in other cities across Iran.
Security forces also have struck back with targeted arrests of pro-reform activists and blocks on text messaging and pro-Mousavi Web sites used to rally his supporters.
A top Mousavi aide, Ali Reza Adeli, told The Associated Press that a rally planned for later Monday was delayed. Iran's Interior Ministry rejected a request from Mousavi to hold the rally and warned any defiance would be "illegal," state radio said.
But one of Mousavi's Web sites still accessible in Iran said Mousavi and another candidate, Mahdi Karroubi, planned to walk through Tehran streets to appeal for calm. A third candidate, the conservative Mohsen Rezaei, has also alleged irregularities in the voting.
State TV quoted Khamenei urging Mousavi to try to keep the violence from escalating and saying "it is necessary that activities are done with dignity."
Mousavi, who served as prime minister during the 1980s, has also threatened to hold a sit-in protest at the mausoleum of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Such an act would place authorities in a difficult spot: embarrassed by a demonstration at the sprawling shrine south of Tehran, but possibly unwilling to risk clashes at the hallowed site.
Overnight, police and hard-line militia stormed the campus at the city's biggest university, ransacking dormitories and arresting dozens of students angry over what they say was mass election fraud.
The nighttime gathering of about 3,000 students at dormitories of Tehran University started with students chanting "Death to the dictator." But it quickly erupted into clashes as students threw rocks and Molotov cocktails at police, who fought back with tear gas and plastic bullets, a 25-year-old student who witnessed the fighting told The Associated Press. He would only give one name, Akbar, out of fears for his safety.
The students set a truck and other vehicles on fire and hurled stones and bricks at the police, he said. Hard-line militia volunteers loyal to the Revolutionary Guard stormed the dormitories, ransacking student rooms and smashing computers and furniture with axes and wooden sticks, Akbar said.
Before leaving around 4 a.m., the police took away memory cards and computer software material, Akbar said, adding that dozens of students were arrested.
He said many students suffered bruises, cuts and broken bones in the scuffling and that there was still smoldering garbage on the campus by midmorning but that the situation had calmed down.
"Many students are now leaving to go home to their families, they are scared," he said. "But others are staying. The police and militia say they will be back and arrest any students they see."
"I want to stay because they beat us and we won't retreat," he added.
Tehran University was the site of serious clashes against student-led protests in 1999 and is one of the nerve centers of the pro-reform movement.
After dark Sunday, Ahmadinejad opponents shouted their opposition from Tehran's rooftops. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu Akbar!" — God is great — echoed across the capital. The protest bore deep historic resonance — it was how the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini asked the country to unite against the Western-backed shah 30 years earlier.
Amnesty International criticized Iran Sunday for blocking media and Internet sites. It said on Saturday, access to social networking sites was blocked, as was access to a range of online news services. Many of these outlets carried reports which raised concerns that the conduct of the election was flawed and results had been rigged, Amnesty said.
"Instead of instituting an information clampdown, including by blocking video sharing social networking sites like YouTube and Facebook; along with a handful of online news sites, the authorities should openly address the concerns and criticisms clearly expressed by so many," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, the deputy director of Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa Program.
Amnesty called on Iranian authorities to ensure that newspapers linked to other presidential candidates are permitted to carry the statements of those candidates.
In Moscow, the Iranian Embassy said Ahmadinejad has put off a visit to Russia, and it is unclear whether he will come at all. Ahmadinejad had been expected to travel to the Russian city of Yekaterinburg and meet on Monday with President Dmitry Medvedev on the sidelines of a regional summit.
Source: AP News

Record Afghan bombings in May

This is from the impeccable non-left publication Navy Times.

As the article mentions this record comes despite the constant complaints about the bombings and the civilian casualties caused. I have included after this article a recent article in which Gates claims that more care is being taken even as more civilians are killed. There seems a lot more concern about public relations than civilian deaths. Of course the policy probably reduces troop deaths.
Given that there was a peak in May no doubt if the June figures both for bombings and casualties go down this will be taken as proof that there is more concern being shown for civilian deaths even though both figures remain at high levels.

Afghanistan bombings top charts in May
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writerPosted : Friday Jun 12, 2009 16:30:41 EDT

Air Force, Navy and other coalition warplanes dropped a record number of bombs in Afghanistan for May, Air Forces Central figures show.
During May, warplanes released 478 bombs, the highest May count since numbers started being tracked in 2004.
The increase came despite Afghan complaints that on May 4, an Air Force B-1B and three Navy F/A-18s killed dozens of civilians in western Afghanistan when Afghan troops and their Marine advisers were attacked by insurgents hiding in a village. The bombing is under investigation by Central Command.
May also marked the fifth consecutive month of an increasing use of bombs, after a decline that started last July.
The munitions release came during 2,196 close air support sorties.
The actual number of air strikes was higher because the AFCent numbers don’t include attacks by helicopters and special operations gunships. The numbers also don’t include strafing runs or launches of small missiles.
Over Iraq, two bombs were released during 725 strike sorties.
Transport crews airdropped 1.5 million pounds of supplies, mostly in Afghanistan, and tankers flew 4,441 sorties supporting Iraq and Afghanistan operations
Reconnaissance aircraft flew 1,566 missions over Iraq and Afghanistan, a 10 percent increase over April’s flights.

________________________________----

- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -
As Gates Promises to Reduce Afghan Civilian Toll, NATO Kills More
Posted By Jason Ditz On June 12, 2009 @ 5:22 pm
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates today promised that in the effort to win the hearts and minds of the civilian populace of Afghanistan, NATO would put an increased emphasis on reducing the number of civilians being killed by international forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Meanwhile, during fighting in Afghanistan’s Kunar Province NATO forces fired artillery at civilians, killing two and wounding five others. NATO declined to provide further details about the killings, but said it was investigating the matter.
Not long after, a NATO military vehicle crashed into a civilian truck in Khas Kunar, killing four other civilians. The growing number of civilian deaths seem not to be slowing down the repeated promises of Obama Administration officials that they have changed their tactics.
Just days ago a US air strike was reported to have killed 10 civilians in Ghor Province. Earlier in the week it was also reported that a US soldier had thrown a hand grenade into a crowd of civilians in the Kunar Province, though the US is denying this claim.
Copyright © 2009 News From Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.

CIA Secrecy on Drone Attack Data Hides Abuses

Surely the attacks themselves are abuses. The attacks make the US judge jury and executioners with no trial for those killed or maimed and often violate sovereignty--although in the case of Pakistan there certainly may be tacit or unavowed consent.
If you want to get rid of someone in Pakistan no need to hire a hit man. You can identify your target as a terrorist and the US will pay you for eliminating the person. Unless you have independent means of checking on your intelligence then can be very suspect and possibly inaccurate. However, if you had good means of checking the validity of intelligence you could probably collect the intelligence yourself!


CIA Secrecy on Drone Attacks Data Hides Abuses
by Gareth Porter, June 13, 2009
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s refusal to share with other agencies even the most basic data on the bombing attacks by remote-controlled unmanned predator drones in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal region, combined with recent revelations that CIA operatives have been paying Pakistanis to identify the targets, suggests that managers of the drone attacks programs have been using the total secrecy surrounding the program to hide abuses and high civilian casualties.
Intelligence analysts have been unable to obtain either the list of military targets of the drone strikes or the actual results in terms of al-Qaeda or civilians killed, according to a Washington source familiar with internal discussion of the drone strike program The source insisted on not being identified because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. "They can’t find out anything about the program," the source told IPS. That has made it impossible for other government agencies to judge its real consequences, according to the source. Since early 2009, Barack Obama administration officials have been claiming that the predator attacks in Pakistan have killed nine of 20 top al-Qaeda officials, but they have refused to disclose how many civilians have been killed in the strikes.In April, The News, a newspaper in Lahore, Pakistan, published figures provided by Pakistani officials indicating that 687 civilians have been killed along with 14 al-Qaeda leaders in some 60 drone strikes since January 2008 – just over 50 civilians killed for every al-Qaeda leader. A paper published this week by the influential pro-military Center for a New American Security (CNAS) criticizing the Obama administration’s use of drone attacks in Pakistan says U.S. officials "vehemently dispute" the Pakistani figures but offers no further data on the program In an interview with IPS, Nathaniel C. Fick, the chief operating officer of CNAS, who coauthored the paper, said Pentagon officials claim privately that 300 al-Qaeda fighters have been killed in the drone attacks. However, those officials refuse to stipulate further just who they have included under that rubric, according to Fick, and have not offered any figure on civilian deaths. What is needed is "a strict definition of the target set – a definition of who is al-Qaeda," said Fick. Press reports that the CIA is paying Pakistani agents for identifying al-Qaeda targets by placing electronic chips at farmhouses supposedly inhabited by al-Qaeda officials, so they can be bombed by predator planes, has raised new questions about whether the CIA and the Obama administration have simply redefined al-Qaeda in order to cover up an abusive system and justify the program.The initial story on the CIA payments for placing the chips by Carol Grisanti and Mushtaq Yusufzai of NBC News Apr. 17 was based on a confession by a 19-year-old in North Waziristan on a video released by the Taliban. In his confession, the young man says, "I was given 122 dollars to drop chips wrapped in a cigarette paper at al-Qaeda and Taliban houses. If I was successful, I was told, I would be given thousands of dollars." He goes on to say, "I thought this was a very easy job. The money was so good so I started throwing the chips all over. I knew people were dying because of what I was doing, but I needed the money." The video shows the man being shot as a spy for the United States. A U.S. official told NBC news that the video was "extremist propaganda," but a story in The Guardian May 31 said residents of Waziristan, including one student identified as Taj Muhammad Wazir, had confirmed that tribesman have been paid to lay the electronic devices to target drone strikes. The knowledgeable Washington source told IPS the Guardian article is consistent with past CIA intelligence-gathering methods in Afghanistan and elsewhere. "We buy data," he said. "Everything is paid for." The implication of the system of purchasing targeting information for drone strikes is that there is "no guarantee" that the people being targeted are officials of al-Qaeda or allied organizations, he said. Fick, who is a veteran of the post-9/11 military operations in Afghanistan and the early phase of the Iraq war, said that kind of intelligence for targeting is "intrinsically problematic." Although the CNAS paper by Fick, Andrew Exum and David Kilcullen does not explicitly call for ending drone attacks, it is highly critical of the program, charging that the use of drones represents a "tactic… substituting for a strategy."It concedes that, by "killing key leaders and hampering operations," the drone attacks against al-Qaeda and some other militants in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) "create a sense of insecurity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers." But it argues that the drone attacks have also "created a siege mentality among the Pashtun population in northwest Pakistan," and likened them to similar strikes against Islamic militants in Somalia in 2005-2006. The net result of those earlier strikes, the authors assert, was to anger the population and make the Islamic insurgents more popular. The drone strikes in Pakistan are having a similar impact, not only in the tribal areas but in other provinces as well, the paper said. In a panel discussing the paper at the think tank’s annual meeting Thursday, Exum, a former officer in Afghanistan, said, "We are not saying that the drone strikes are not part of a solution, but right now they are part of the problem." The new CNAS criticism of drone strikes is of particular interest because of the close relationship between the think tank and CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, who was the keynote speaker at Thursday’s conference. The new president of CNAS, John Nagl, is a former adviser to Petraeus and co-author of the Army’s counterinsurgency manual. CNAS is widely regarded as reflecting the perspective of the Petraeus wing of the U.S. military. Another co-author and former Petraeus aide, Australian David Kilcullen, who was also a senior fellow at CNAS last year, had already come out strongly against drone strikes as politically self-defeating. However, Nagl himself told IPS that he disagrees with the CNAS paper’s position on drone strikes. He said he believes the benefits of the strikes are greater than have been publicly communicated by the administration, and suggested the failure to release any more figures on the results could be attributed to a "culture of secrecy." Petraeus made no mention of the issue in his presentation to the CNAS conference on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Washington Post reported Jun. 1 that Petraeus wrote in a secret May 27 assessment, "Anti-U.S. sentiment has already been increasing in Pakistan… especially in regard to cross-border and reported drone strikes, which Pakistanis perceive to cause unacceptable civilian casualties

Philippines ready for new talks with Muslim rebels.

Apparently Arroyo seems to know about the process but the MILF leaders do not. What is more apparent is that the AFP has been actively raiding some MILF camps but these are no doubt rebel commanders who reject the peace process. The last agreement was against the Philippine constitution and its demise and the circumstances surrounding the negotiations has made the MILF very sceptical about the Arroyo administration's good faith in negotiations.


Philippines ready for new talks with Muslim rebels
1 day ago
KORONADAL, Philippines (AFP) — The Philippines is using mediation to restart peace talks with Muslim separatist guerrillas in the south, despite recent fighting, President Gloria Arroyo has said.
Speaking at a ceremony marking the 111th anniversary of the declaration of Philippine independence from Spanish rule, Arroyo said the Malaysian government was working to reopen the talks that stalled in August after rebel commanders attacked Christian communities.
"We are awaiting advice from our third party facilitator, the government of Malaysia, on when peace talks will resume," Arroyo said, adding that Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Rajak had given "assurances of his country's support to the peace process" with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
She said a government negotiator was in behind-the-scenes discussions with rebels over the agenda for any peace talks.
However chief MILF negotiator Mohagher Iqbal denied there had been direct contact.
"There?s no direct back-channel negotiations. There?s no feedback too with Malaysia regarding the talks," he said.
"I?m not certain if there will be a resumption of talks under the Arroyo administration because the situation on the ground is fluid. Anything may happen," he told AFP.
The 12,000-strong MILF has waged a long campaign for a separate state in the southern third of the largely-Christian Philippines.
Talks between the two sides began following a 2003 ceasefire, but were suspended last August after the country's Supreme Court blocked a deal that would have given the MILF control of a swathe of land.
In recent weeks, fighting has stepped up in the southern island of Mindanao with three MILF camps overrun and at least 30 rebels slain.

Iraqi Sunni Lawmaker Assassinated as he condemns Maliki

Things seem to be heating up in Iraq rather than settling down although the Kurds are carrying on with oil development and now even shipping it out even though there is no federal oil law. The Sunni Shia split may be aggravated by this attack although it may be that it was his criticism of Maliki rather than his being Sunni that led to his demise.

- News From Antiwar.com - http://news.antiwar.com -
Top Iraqi Sunni Lawmaker Assassinated as He Condemns Maliki
Posted By Jason Ditz On June 12, 2009 @ 7:51 am
Harith al-Obaidi, leader of the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF) in parliament, was assassinated today in a Baghdad mosque after delivering a sermon condemning the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for abuses of human rights.

After the sermon at the upscale Sunni mosque, a gunmen entered and opened fire on Obaidi, then threw a grenade into a crowd of worshippers. The attacker was then killed, though it is unclear if Obaidi’s guards killed him or he died when a second grenade detonated. The attack left five killed and 12 wounded.
Fellow MP Ahmed Masuudi, a member of the Shi’ite opposition bloc loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, said “the attack was not a coincidence, it was planned.” He suggested that the attack was retaliation for Obaidi’s campaign for human rights, which the Sadr bloc is also in support of.
So far it is unclear who was responsible for the attack, though the government has blamed Sunni militants who it is speculated may have been upset at Obaidi for taking part in the political process. Still others blamed the government itself, saying that with all the checkpoints set up near the mosque it would be virtually impossible to smuggle a weapon into the area to carry out the assassination.
The killing of the IAF leader is almost certain to strain sectarian tensions in Iraq’s parliament, at a time when Prime Minister Maliki is openly seeking to undermine power-sharing agreements which granted the Sunni minority some measure of say in the actions of the US-backed government.

Ahmadinejad Overwhelmingly re-elected in Iran.

Even if there were some irregularities these results show the election was not even close. The opposition no doubt had some real strength in some of the cities and among younger more westernised voters but this was probably outweighed by support for the president in the rural areas and among the devout--although apparently there was also a conservative challenger as well. The western press covering the elections that I saw seemed to concentrate upon showing the large demonstrations for both sides but one segment did show the strong support for Ahmadinejad in a rural area. He also has strong support among the poor. No doubt the Western media will still often refer to him as a dictator. Strange that the Saudi ruler is never called a dictator even though he was never elected. I wonder why that is !


Govt: Ahmadinejad overwhelmingly re-elected in Iran.


Opposition Contests Results, Complains Not All Were Able to Vote
by Jason Ditz, June 12, 2009

Despite an enormous turnout and a premature declaration of victory from challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi, preliminary results from the election commission say that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won reelection by a wide margin.


Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei voting in today's electionAn official declaration is not expected to be made until some time on Saturday, but with more than 60 percent of the nation’s nearly 33 million votes counted, the incumbent is say to be leading by more than a 2-to-1 margin (66 percent to 31 percent) and is only 2.5 million votes from being guaranteed to obtain the majority needed to avoid a run-off election next week.

Mousavi had previously insisted that he was the “certain winner” of the election, and is now complaining of unspecified widespread voting irregularities. The polls were kept open an extra four hours to accommodate the unprecedented turnout but complaints remain, particularly from the Mousavi camp, that the polls were closed too soon and not everyone was able to vote.

Still, the enormous majority apparently won by President Ahmadinejad seems to have left little doubt that the polls predicting his victory have proven accurate. The ability to maintain that majority even amid a high turnout seen to favor the challenger underscores his popularity, particularly in rural and poorer areas.

Related Stories

US Army holding over 11,000 Detainees in Iraq

This is another expense for the US taxpayer but there is no hurry to relieve them of this burden. Imagine a foreign country holding 11,000 US citizens within the United States! One might get the idea that the United States was not really a sovereign nation if that happened.
Eventually Iraq will take over the prisoners or they will be released without compensation. But even then as the article notes although US combat troops will supposedly be withdrawn many will still remain but under other names.


US Army Holding Over 11,000 Detainees in Iraq
All Will Eventually Be Freed or Handed Over to Iraqi Govt, Statement Insists
by Jason Ditz, June 09, 2009
In a statement released today, the US army said it was still holding 11,057 people in detention in three camps in Iraq, and has insisted that all of them will eventually either be freed or turned over to the Iraqi government, as is required by the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

US fulfillment of the requirement has been continuing at a snail’s pace. Over the past three months, the detainee population has dropped by less than 3,000, from 13,832. The military had previously touted that they were releasing an average of 50 a day, but that number has dropped to more like 30 a day in recent months.
At the current pace, the US will require just over a year to dispose of the remainder of the detainees, roughly the same time the Obama Administration intends to announce the official withdrawal of all combat forces from the nation. Of course it should be noted that US forces will continue combat operations past that date, but they will no longer be called combat forces.
The US currently operates three prison camps in Iraq: Camp Cropper and Camp Taji in Baghdad, as well as Camp Bucca in the nation’s south. The US intends to return Camp Bucca to Iraqi government control once the detainee population drops below 8,000 which will likely be late in the fall.

U.S.: Four Uighur detainees to be resettled in Bermuda

There were groups in the U.S. willing to help with resettlement there but of course that could not be since they are supposedly a threat to security in the U.S. In Palau and Bermuda of course they are not threats at all I assume! Interesting that they cannot be sent to China since they may face persecution there. Perhaps so but there is no mention made that they have already faced years of persecution in Guantanamo at the hands of the U.S. but this apparently gives them no right to refugee status in the U.S. I wonder what sort of deal the U.S. has made with Palau and Bermuda to have them pawned off on them.

Four Uighur detainees to be resettled in Bermuda: U.S.
Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:52am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four Chinese Muslim detainees who had been held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have been resettled in Bermuda, the U.S. Justice Department said on Thursday.
The Obama administration has been under pressure to resettle the detainees, known as Uighurs, as it tries to fulfill its promise to close the controversial prison for foreign terrorism suspects on the U.S. naval base in Cuba.
The announcement comes one day after the tropical Pacific Island nation of Palau agreed to temporarily take in 17 of the Uighur detainees, which the U.S. government worries may face persecution if they are returned to China.
The Uighurs have been cleared of terrorism allegations.

Despite cabinet statement, Iraq Referendum Delay Considered Unlikely

Actually I expect the opposite is the case. The referendum could very well fail, especially since the U.S. is obviously intending to stay in Iraq for years to come with troops in supposedly non-combat roles and also the US has already negotiated exceptions re staying in cities as in the case of Sadr City. No doubt the parliament will make a huge fuss if the vote scheduled for July is postponed but to no avail probably. The parliament seems unable to do much of anything. The oil law is still waiting in the wings and this was a benchmark for progress! The media did not seem to even notice this! Meanwhile the Kurds have their own law and are going full speed ahead.


Despite Cabinet Statement, Iraq Referendum Delay Considered Unlikely
"The Date Was an Essential Part of the Security Agreement," MPs Insist
by Jason Ditz, June 10, 2009

Though yesterday the Iraqi cabinet announced that it intended to delay the referendum on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) until January of next year “to save time and money,” members of the Iraqi parliament say that the delay is unlikely and the government is moving ahead under the assumption that the vote will happen as originally planned at the end of July.
“The date was an essential part of the security agreement” one member of the ruling Dawa Party noted, and indeed the promise of the referendum was likely the only way the government managed to win narrow passage of the unpopular SOFA in the first place.
The referendum was demanded chiefly by the pact’s Sunni opponents, and even though the cabinet seems inclined to delay the vote as long as possible the date change would face a rough road through parliament, who would have to sign off on any delay.
The SOFA, which provides the legal basis for the US military presence in the nation through the end of 2011, has been roundly criticized by the Sunni bloc as well as influential Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The referendum will likely be a very difficult sale in the nation and its defeat could pose a serious challenge to the Obama Administration, which intends to keep troops in the nation indefinitely

Our McMan in Bananastan

Quite a bit of extraneous ad hominem remarks about supposed idiosyncrasies of McChrystal. If McChrystal is interested in shielding Afghans from violence a great way to start would be to stop most of the air attacks. McChrystal was head of JSOC the outfit that has operated outside of the bounds of ordinary rules and simply murdered people thought to be insurgents or whatever. Many of their operations have outraged Afghans and even the Afghan authorities. The JSOC was run under Dick Cheney until the Bush administration was turfed. Now it seems it is answerable to no one. Obama may not be a fawing servant of American warlords. It seems he believes that these warlords are the agents of US imperial humanistic values in the hinterlands of the world.


- Antiwar.com Original - http://original.antiwar.com -
Our McMan in Bananastan
Posted By Jeff Huber On June 8, 2009
Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, our new Bananastan war chief, may be more dangerous and even crazier than his boss, Gen. David Petraeus of Central Command. McChrystal reportedly eats one meal a day and sleeps three hours a night. We can’t know for sure if that’s true, but we can assume McChrystal wants us to think it is because it comes from the New York Times, who almost certainly got it from the press kit McChrystal’s public affairs colonel gave them.
Unconfirmed rumor also has it that McChrystal only drinks rain water to avoid the effects of fluoridation on his precious bodily fluids, and that he takes acai berry purgatives to maintain his purity of essence. However much of this is true or merely legend-crafting, it’s all loony enough to make Petraeus’ one-arm pushup contests with teenage privates look dignified in comparison.
From the sound of McChrystal’s recent confirmation hearing testimony, the insanity is just leaving the station. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee "I believe [the Afghanistan conflict] is winnable, but I don’t think it will be easily winnable.” It won’t be easy to win because it will be impossible to tell when we’ve won. “The measure of effectiveness will not be enemy killed," McChrystal told the SASC, "it will be the number of Afghans shielded from violence." How many shielded Afghans will equate to victory? More importantly, who is going to shield them? Certainly not McChrystal.
As commander of the secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), McChrystal was directly responsible for the assassination strikes that have killed so many innocents in the Bananastans. Paradoxically, those strikes were the reason McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. Mark McKiernan, got the ax. Compounding the irony is the way McKiernan came to be cast as the fall stooge.
Throughout our post-9/11 missteps, the JSOC has largely operated outside the established chain of command; the only authority it appeared to answer to was Dick Cheney. When the Dark Lord left office in January 2009, the JSOC became a free agent. By mid-February the mounting outrage over the collateral deaths from JSOC strikes forced Vice Adm. William McRaven, who had succeeded McChrystal as head of the JSOC in the summer of 2008, to put a temporary halt to them. McKiernan’s spokes-colonel Gregory Julian confessed that his boss had not ordered the stand-down, and a "senior military official" said Petraeus allowed as how throttling back on the baby killing for a couple of weeks was maybe a good idea. Those statements from the four-stars made it clear that the three-star McRaven was running his own program.
When the stand-down story hit the press in March, Petraeus likely determined someone would have to ride the rap for the collateral deaths the JSOC had caused, and he didn’t want it to be McRaven or McChrystal, whom he still had use for. So Petraeus quietly issued an order that put the JSOC under tactical control of McKiernan, which made McKiernan responsible for the McCluster bombs McRaven and McChrystal and their howling commandos had created. McKiernan’s transfer to Fort Palooka came through in short order, and McChrystal became the new McMan in Bananastan. The McHinations didn’t stop there.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he nominated McChrystal because he wanted "new military leadership" to go along with the "new strategy." The new strategy is the one National Security Adviser James Jones and his White House war wonks wretched together. It is a compendium of platitudes, aphorisms, and non sequiturs, a fusty heap of "realistic and achievable objectives" that are delusional and doomed to failure. We will never establish a "stable constitutional government in Pakistan" or a "capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan." If by some miracle we manage to create "self-reliant Afghan security forces," all we’ll have done is organize another armed mob that doesn’t like us. We’re already "involving the international community" for reasons that are difficult to fathom. Gates has forged a hobby career out of alternately begging NATO for more help in Afghanistan and blaming NATO for everything that goes wrong there.
The strategy’s stated aim to "disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan" is as hallucinatory as it is poorly written. You can’t "defeat" a safe haven any more than you can climb a tennis ball; but even if you could, there would be no point in doing it. Modern evildoers can run their operations from the sanctuary of the pockets that hold their Blackberries. Averting "the possibility of extremists obtaining fissile material" is a snipe hunt. Evildoers are about as likely to convert Pakistani nukes into suitcase bombs as they are to find a cure for herpes.
Yet Stanley McChrystal has sworn to Congress that he can accomplish all these things and more if only he can shield enough Afghans from violence. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees had a golden opportunity to decapitate McChrystal and the Pentagon over their Bananastan plan and torture of detainees and the Pat Tillman cover-up and a host of other mortal sins, but they vaginalized it. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) made a show of growling at McChrystal for a few minutes before he rolled over and begged for a tummy scratch.
Nobody in the legislature had the baby-makers to oppose McChrystal’s nomination, because he enjoys the aegis of the most powerful man on earth. As military analyst Andrew Bacevich puts it, “McKiernan’s removal confirms that it’s now Petraeus’ army," and King David’s hand-picked "unconventional warriors" like McChrystal and McRaven are "in the saddle." In 2007, Petraeus purposely misled Congress into believing he was seeking a way to bring troops home from Iraq while he was actually using the surge as a stratagem to buy time to sell the "long war" to the public, and he got away with it. Now he and his protégés McChrystal and McRaven are poised to get away with the same shenanigans in the Bananastans.
And where does our commander in chief Barack Obama stand on all of this? He’s the one who blessed the resumption of the errant air strikes and who nominated McChrystal to take over in the Bananastans. Our self-anointed "agent of change" has changed into what his predecessor was: a fawning servant of America’s warlords.
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2009/06/08/our-mcman-in-bananastan/
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2009 Antiwar.com Original. All rights reserved.

Iraq's New Death Squad.

These are the real forces for building what the US considers democracy in Iraq, special forces engaged in special dirty tricks outside whatever restraints there are on regular Iraqi forces. They are a kind of secret police. You can expect McChrystal in Afghanistan to develop the same sort of special forces since he is an expert in special ops. It will be part of his "holistic" approach to putting down the insurgents. This is the dark side of Obama's new humanistic imperialism beloved by US liberals it would seem.


Iraq's New Death Squad
By Shane Bauer
This article appeared in the June 22, 2009 edition of The Nation.
June 3, 2009
Research support provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, the Center for Investigative Reporting and New American Media.

COURTESY OF SHANE BAUER
The light is fading from the dusty Baghdad sky as Hassan Mahsan re-enacts what happened to his family last summer. We're standing in the courtyard of his concrete-block house, his children are watching us quietly and his wife is twirling large circles of dough and slapping them against the inside walls of a roaring oven. He walks over to his three-foot-tall daughter and grabs her head like a melon. As she stands there, he gestures wildly behind her, pretending to tie up her hands, then pretending to point a rifle at her head. "They took the blindfold off me, pointed the gun at her head and cocked it, saying, 'Either you tell us where al-Zaydawi is, or we kill your daughter.'"
Iraq's New Death Squad
Iraq War
Shane Bauer: America has built an elite and lethal counterterrorism force. But who's calling the shots?

"They just marched into our house and took whatever they wanted," Hassan's mother says, peeking out the kitchen door. "I've never seen anyone act like this."
As Hassan tells it, it was a quiet night on June 10, 2008, in Sadr City, Baghdad's poor Shiite district of more than 2 million people, when the helicopter appeared over his house and the front door exploded, nearly burning his sleeping youngest son. Before Hassan knew it, he was on the ground, hands bound and a bag over his head, with eight men pointing rifles at him, locked and loaded.
At first he couldn't tell whether the men were Iraqis or Americans. He says he identified himself as a police sergeant, offering his ID before they took his pistol and knocked him to the ground. The men didn't move like any Iraqi forces he'd ever seen. They looked and spoke like his countrymen, but they were wearing American-style uniforms and carrying American weapons with night-vision scopes. They accused him of being a commander in the local militia, the Mahdi Army, before they dragged him off, telling his wife he was "finished." But before they left, they identified themselves. "We are the Special Forces. The dirty brigade," Hassan recalls them saying.
The Iraq Special Operations Forces (ISOF) is probably the largest special forces outfit ever built by the United States, and it is free of many of the controls that most governments employ to rein in such lethal forces. The project started in the deserts of Jordan just after the Americans took Baghdad in April 2003. There, the US Army's Special Forces, or Green Berets, trained mostly 18-year-old Iraqis with no prior military experience. The resulting brigade was a Green Beret's dream come true: a deadly, elite, covert unit, fully fitted with American equipment, that would operate for years under US command and be unaccountable to Iraqi ministries and the normal political process.
According to Congressional records, the ISOF has grown into nine battalions, which extend to four regional "commando bases" across Iraq. By December, each will be complete with its own "intelligence infusion cell," which will operate independently of Iraq's other intelligence networks. The ISOF is at least 4,564 operatives strong, making it approximately the size of the US Army's own Special Forces in Iraq. Congressional records indicate that there are plans to double the ISOF over the next "several years."
According to retired Lt. Col. Roger Carstens, US Special Forces are "building the most powerful force in the region." In 2008 Carstens, then a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, was an adviser to the Iraqi National Counter-Terror Force, where he helped set up the Iraqi counterterrorism laws that govern the ISOF.
"All these guys want to do is go out and kill bad guys all day," he says, laughing. "These guys are shit hot. They are just as good as we are. We trained 'em. They are just like us. They use the same weapons. They walk like Americans."
When the US Special Forces began the slow transfer of the ISOF to Iraqi control in April 2007, they didn't put it under the command of the Defense Ministry or the Interior Ministry, bodies that normally control similar special forces the world over. Instead, the Americans pressured the Iraqi government to create a new minister-level office called the Counter-Terrorism Bureau. Established by a directive from Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, the CTB answers directly to him and commands the ISOF independently of the police and army. According to Maliki's directive, the Iraqi Parliament has no influence over the ISOF and knows little about its mission. US Special Forces operatives like Carstens have largely overseen the bureau. Carstens says this independent chain of command "might be the perfect structure" for counterterrorism worldwide.
Although the force is officially controlled by the Iraqi government, popular perception in Baghdad is that the ISOF--the dirty brigade--is a covert, all-Iraqi branch of the US military. That reading isn't far from the truth. The US Special Forces are still closely involved with every level of the ISOF, from planning and carrying out missions to deciding tactics and creating policy. According to Brig. Gen. Simeon Trombitas, commander of the Iraq National Counter-Terror Force Transition Team, part of the multinational command responsible for turning control of the ISOF over to the Iraqi government, the US Special Forces continue to "have advisers at every level of the chain of command."
In January 2008 the US Special Forces started allowing ISOF commanders to join missions with them and the ISOF rank and file. Starting last summer--when Hassan's family was attacked--ISOF battalions began launching missions on their own, without American advisers, in Sadr City, where political agreements forbid the Americans from entering. Accusations of human rights abuses, killings and politically motivated arrests have surfaced, including assaults on a university president and arrests of opposition politicians.
The US government has been focused on turning out "as many men in arms as possible, as quickly as possible," says Peter Harling, senior Middle East analyst at the International Crisis Group. "There has been very little impetus to build checks and controls to prevent abuse. It's been very much about building up capability without the oversight that could prevent some of the units [from] turning into proxies working for some politician."
In Sadr City opposition to the Iraqi government and the US occupation is strong. There is no longer any visible militia presence, but pictures of anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr still stick to the US-built concrete walls that enclose the city, and calls to prayer end with a demand for the hastened exit of "the enemy." There, the ISOF uses a policy of collective punishment, aimed at intimidating civilians, charges Hassan al-Rubaie, Sadrist member of the parliamentary Security and Defense Committee. "They terrorize entire neighborhoods just to arrest one person they think is a terrorist," he says. "This needs to stop."
US Special Forces advisers have done little to respond to allegations of abuse. Civilian pleas, public protests, complaints by Iraqi Army commanders about the ISOF's actions and calls for disbanding it by members of Parliament have not pushed the US government to take a hard look at the force they are creating. Instead, US advisers dismiss such claims as politically motivated. "The enemy is trying to discredit them," says Carstens. "It's not because they are doing anything dirty."
On the same night Hassan Mahsan's house was raided, 26-year-old Haidar al-Aibi was killed with a bullet to the forehead. His family says there was no warning. They tell me how it happened as we drink tea on the floor of their living room, furnished only with thick foam cushions and mournful depictions of the Shiite martyr Hussein. A woman weeps loudly in the corner, the sleeping child of her dead son almost obscured by the folds of her black garments.
Fathil al-Aibi says the family was awakened around midnight by a nearby explosion. His brother Haidar ran up to the roof to see what had happened and was immediately shot from a nearby rooftop. When Fathil, his brother Hussein and his father, Abbas, tried to bring Haidar downstairs, they were shot at, too. For about two hours he lay lifeless on the roof while his family panicked as red laser beams from rifle scopes danced on their windows. "We had tests the next day at the university," Hussein says. "We didn't think he would go like this."
Down the road, around the same time that night, police commando Ahmed Shibli says he was also being fired on. He illuminates two bullet holes in his house with a kerosene lamp as we talk. The men who busted open his front door called themselves the dirty brigade, he says, and they were carrying American weapons, not the AK-47s or PKCs the National Police use. When they entered, they fired immediately. "It wasn't a warning shot. They shot at me like they wanted to kill me as I was getting down on the ground. It was like we were first-degree terrorists." They fired again, he says, fatally shooting his ailing 63-year-old father. As blood poured from the old man's hip, Ahmed says the men held a gun to his little boy's head and forced his wife to search the room for the police-issued weapon he had left at work.
Ahmed and his brother were hauled to the outskirts of the city, along with Hassan, where they were lined up with other men in the dark. Hassan insists on substantiating his story by showing me an official complaint issued by a local army commander named Mustafa Sabah Yunis, alleging that an "unknown armed squadron" entered the area and arrested him.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi Army was rushing in to respond to the gunfire, and according to Hussein al-Aibi, these soldiers were shot at as well. He tells me the army got Haidar off the roof and drove him to the hospital. On the way, Fathil says, the vehicle was stopped by a dirty brigade operative, who asked Iraqi Army Major Abu Rajdi where they were going. According to Fathil, Rajdi told the operative, "This is a college student who has nothing to do with anything, and you shot him recklessly." The operative responded by hitting Rajdi and saying, "Turn around and go back, or we'll shoot him and we'll shoot you too."
At Haidar's funeral, Fathil asked Rajdi to testify. "You are a representative of the government, and you saw it all happen," he told the major. "You saw that he didn't have a weapon in his hand." Fathil says the major declined. "This is the dirty brigade," he recalls Rajdi saying. "We are afraid of them. When we see them, we retreat. If I testify against them, I'll be killed the next day. They kill and no one will hold them accountable, because they belong to the Americans."
Major Rajdi's fear and distrust of the ISOF are echoed by other members of the regular Iraqi Army. "Sometimes we are surprised when the Special Forces enter," says Lt. Colonel Yahya Rasoul Abdullah, commander of the Third Battalion of the Forty-second Brigade in Sadr City. "Bad things happen. Some people steal, and some abuse women. They don't know the people on the streets like us. They just go after their target. We have suffered from this problem."
Accounts of older ISOF operations I heard around Baghdad suggest that the Americans may have knowingly allowed violence against civilians. In Adhamiya, long the stronghold of the Sunni insurgency in Baghdad, two hospital employees described their 2006 run-in with the ISOF to me. According to both witnesses, a self-identified ISOF operative named "Captain Hussam" unloaded his machine gun in the Al Numan Hospital after seeing the body of his superior, who had died under the hospital's care. An American operative with a red beard stood by silently watching. According to one witness, the Iraqi operative demanded his commander's death certificate, threatening to "torture you, kill you and kill the people of Adhamiya" if they didn't comply. The witnesses said the eight operatives who entered the hospital were driving Humvees, vehicles that only the Americans and the ISOF use. The next day, Captain Hussam returned, a witness said, offering a box of bullets as an apology.
The effective head of the American ISOF project is General Trombitas of the Iraq National Counter-Terror Transition Team. A towering man with a gray mustache and a wrinkled brow, Trombitas spent nearly seven of his over thirty years in the military training special forces in Colombia, El Salvador and other countries. On February 23 he gave me a tour of Area IV, a joint American-Iraqi base near the Baghdad International Airport, where US Special Forces train the ISOF. As we walk away from the helicopter, he cracks a boyish smile. Though he's worked with special forces all over the world, he tells me the men we are about to meet are "the best."
Trombitas says he is "very proud of what was done in El Salvador" but avoids the fact that special forces trained there by the United States in the early 1980s were responsible for the formation of death squads that killed more than 50,000 civilians thought to be sympathetic with leftist guerrillas. Guatemala was a similar case. Some Guatemalan special forces that had been trained in anti-terrorism tactics by the United States during the mid-1960s subsequently became death squads that took part in the killing of around 140,000 people. In the early 1990s, US Special Forces trained and worked closely with an elite Colombian police unit strongly suspected of carrying out some of the murders attributed to Los Pepes, a death squad that became the backbone of the country's current paramilitary organization. (Trombitas served in El Salvador from 1989-90 and in Colombia from 2003-2005, after these incidents took place.)
"The standards get looser when the Americans aren't with [the local special forces], and they can eventually become death squads, which I believe actually happened in Colombia," says Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down and Killing Pablo, a book about the hunt for Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar by CIA and US Special Forces. The tactics taught in each country are the same, Bowden says. "They teach the same kind of skills. They use the same equipment."
Trombitas told the official blog of the Defense Department that the training missions used in Latin America are "extremely transferable" to Iraq. Salvadoran Special Forces even helped train the ISOF, he tells me. "It's a world of coalitions," he says. "The longer we work together, the more alike we are. When we share our values and our experiences with other armies, we make them the same."
Trombitas guides me into a warehouse where ISOF operatives, most of them in black masks, have been preparing for our arrival. He walks me through a special display of their American equipment--machine guns, sniper rifles, state-of-the-art night-vision equipment and fluffy desert camo that makes soldiers look like teddy bears. He takes me up a catwalk overlooking a fake house stocked with cartoonish posters of big-breasted women pointing pistols, a couple of real men dressed as "terrorists" with kaffiyehs wrapped around their faces and a 10-year-old boy playing hostage.
As we stand in the observation area, the door explodes. After a minute of constant shooting, the operatives march out with the "terrorists," the boy and a poster of an '80s-style villain, wearing a jean jacket and holding a woman hostage. More than twenty bullet holes are centered on his forehead. "Look at that marksmanship," Trombitas says, smiling proudly.
Trombitas gets to the issue of human rights before I do. He assures me that US Special Forces take allegations of human rights abuses very seriously--two Iraqi men were let go for prisoner abuse since he took over in August last year, he says--but he won't comment on specific cases. I raise the issue of accountability and bring up one well-documented mission that caused waves in the Iraqi Parliament: in August the ISOF raided Diyala's provincial government compound, reportedly with the support of US Apache helicopters. They arrested a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Iraq's main Sunni Arab party. They also arrested the president of the university, also a Sunni, and killed a secretary and wounded four armed guards during the night.
I barely get the word "Diyala" out of my mouth before the American operatives standing around us start to grumble nervously and a translator jumps in. "For the reputation of the ISOF, please, let's cut that off," he says.
Abdul-Karim al-Samarrai, a member of the ruling United Iraqi Alliance and the parliamentary Security and Defense Committee, says that what happened in Diyala was one of many signs of the prime minister's bad intentions for the ISOF. "Politicians are afraid because this force can be used for political ends," he says. In response to outrage from members of Parliament over the arrest of politicians by the ISOF, Maliki, who is officially required to approve every ISOF target, denied any knowledge of the Diyala mission. His claim of innocence raises important questions. If the man who is supposed to be in charge of the ISOF has no knowledge of its missions, then who is ultimately responsible for the force? Was Maliki lying to cover up the fact that he is using the force for political purposes? Or was someone else--namely the Americans--calling the shots?
Diyala was only the first publicized case of possibly politically motivated arrests. In December the ISOF arrested as many as thirty-five officials in the Interior Ministry who were thought to be in opposition to Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. This past March the ISOF arrested at least one leader of the Awakening Councils, semiofficial Sunni neighborhood militias that have been increasingly at odds with Maliki over his failure to keep a promise to incorporate the councils into the military or give them other employment.
The Maliki government has developed a "culture of direct control," says Michael Knights, a Lafer Fellow at the Washington Institute and the head of its Iraq program. Knights visits Iraq regularly and has close contact with the country's security services. He says the people in charge of the ISOF at the regional levels are "personally chosen loyalists or relatives of Maliki. It reminds me of Saddam." Knights says that Maliki is only supposed to approve or reject missions that come to him, but occasionally he will "assert his prerogative as the commander in chief and tell the ISOF to do something or not to do something." Knights raises the possibility that the ISOF will become Maliki's personal death squad. "The prime minister is looking for re-election, and there are not that many restraints on his ability to target political opponents, as [his government] has been doing with the Sadrists for years now."
Samarrai, along with other members of Parliament, is calling for disbanding the Counter-Terrorism Bureau. He says there is no legal basis for an armed brigade to exist outside the control of the Interior or Defense ministry. "People are afraid of the existence of an organization with such dreadful capabilities that reports directly to the prime minister," he says.
Member of Parliament Hassan al-Rubaie is concerned about the close relationship between the ISOF and the Americans. "If the US leaves Iraq, this will be the last force they will leave behind," he insists. He is worried that such a powerful and secretive force that is closely tied to the Americans could turn Iraq into a "military base in the region" by allowing the United States to continue to conduct missions in Iraq with the cover of the ISOF. "They have become a replacement" for the Americans, he says.
President Obama has said he plans to increase reliance on the US Special Forces; Defense Secretary Robert Gates's recent appointment of Stanley McChrystal as commander of Afghanistan suggests that he is keeping his word. From 2003 to 2008, McChrystal was the head of the Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees the Army's most secretive forces and is responsible for the training of special forces abroad. McChrystal was also commander of US Special Operations Forces in Iraq for five years, during which time, according to the Wall Street Journal, he commanded "units that specialize in guerrilla warfare, including the training of indigenous armies."
"The eventual drawdown in Iraq is not the end of the mission for our elite forces," Gates said in May 2008. Gates hasn't spoken on the issue since Obama took office; but Obama says he will institutionalize irregular warfare capabilities, and the White House stresses the need to "create a more robust capacity to train, equip and advise foreign security forces, so that local allies are better prepared to confront mutual threats."
Bowden says those "local allies" are often used for covert operations. "The United States Special Operations Command cultivates relationships with special forces in other countries because it gives the United States the opportunity of intervening militarily in a covert way," he says. "The ideal covert op is one that is actually carried out by local forces."
As I stand on the tarmac with Trombitas in Area IV, waiting for our helicopter to return and fly us back to the Green Zone, I ask him how long the United States will be involved with the ISOF. "Special forces are special because we do maintain a relationship with foreign forces," he says. "Part of our theater-engagement strategy is to maintain a relationship with those units that are important to the security of the region and to the world." As our helicopter appears in the lightly clouded sky, he chooses his next words carefully: "We are going to have a working relationship for a while," he says.

Philippine troops seize Muslim rebel camp, kill 30 guerrillas

One has to take announcements by the AFP authorities with a grain of salt and rebuttals by rebels with several grains of salt. Probably the camp was of a group that has been acting without the blessing of the MILF hierarchy, that is they are rebel rebels! There have been several ongoing battles with groups that have in effect rejected the supposedly continuing ceasefire. With the collapse of an agreement some MILF leaders have simply given up on the peace process.


Philippine troops seize Muslim rebel camp, kill 30 guerrillas
StaffAP News
Jun 06, 2009 05:17 EST
Government troops seized a Muslim separatist rebel camp Saturday following three days of fighting that left 30 guerrillas dead, a Philippine military spokesman said.


A rebel spokesman denied any of its camps had been overrun.
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front camp that was taken in southern Maguindanao province housed 20 bunkers that could accomodate about 200 fighters, said Lt. Col. Jonathan Ponce, spokesman for the army's 6th Infantry Division.
Troops recovered ammunition and four improvised explosive devices fashioned from 60-mm mortars, he said.
"This was also a bomb factory," Ponce told reporters in Manila by telephone from the division headquarters about 31 miles (50 kilometers) from the fighting.
The camp was in a remote village in Guindulungan township and was ringed by four outposts with a big hall in the center, Ponce said. It also had foxholes linked to each other by trenches.
He said the rebels were "well-entrenched" and the army had to pound the camp with artillery, bombs and rockets before troops moved in for the final assault early Saturday.
Ponce said at least nine guerrillas were killed Thursday after fighting erupted and five soldiers were wounded. In all, 30 guerrillas were killed and more than 20 others were wounded, he said.
Rebel spokesman Eid Kabalu denied that a rebel camp had been seized, saying the area actually was a Muslim village. He also denied 30 guerrillas were killed in the fighting, saying only nine rebels had been wounded.
He said the 2003 cease-fire between the government and the 11,500-strong rebel group has been undermined.
"In principle, it is still there, but the actual situation on the ground — it is no longer existent. This is a state of war," he said.
The rebels have been fighting the Philippine government since the early 1970s. They had appeared on the verge of signing a formal peace deal with the government last year, until the Supreme Court blocked the agreement and rebel forces attacked civilian villages in response.
Ponce said the guerrillas they had fought with this weeks were believed led by one of the rebels commanders who ordered those attacks, which killed dozens of civilians last year.
Malaysian-brokered peace talks between the government and the rebels broke down last August following the attacks.
The preliminary agreement rejected by the Supreme Court would have expanded a Muslim autonomous region and was to have been part of a settlement of the decades-long struggle for Muslim self-rule.
Source: AP News

Western backed parties win Lebanon parliamentary elections.

No doubt this result will be met with a sigh of relief in the US and Israel although Hezbollah will still be a considerable force in opposition. Hezbollah claims to accept the results. This is from Monsters and Critics.


Lebanese majority wins Lebanese elections (1st Lead)
Middle East News
Jun 7, 2009, 21:28 GMT
Beirut - Lebanon\'s Western-backed majority won Sunday a crucial parliamentary election that pitted them against the Hezbollah-led opposition, a close aide of the head of the majority alliance Saad Hariri told the German Press Agency dpa. An interior ministry source confirmed that the Hezbollah-led opposition, which is supported by Syria and Iran, has lost the elections. A source close to Hezbollah confirmed to dpa that they have lost the elections and they \'will accept the results as it is.\' Telecommunications Minister Jubran Bassil, son-in-law to Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, also confirmed the opposition had lost. \'At the end this a democratic election and we will accept the loss,\' he added. Shortly after the initial results were out, cars carrying the flags of the majority alliance roamed Beirut streets chanting \'God bless Hariri and the ruling majority.\' Interior ministry sources said the turnout was around between 55 and 65 per cent, with polling in Christian areas said to be higher than in Muslim districts. Ahead of the polls Christians feared that their role in the country could be marginalized if the opposition was to win a majority in the 128-seat parliament. Throughout the day long queues formed outside many polling stations. Supporters of rival leaders clad in their different T- shirts handed out lists of candidates and called on voters to cast their ballots. Hezbollah\'s coalition includes the Shiite movement Amal and the group led by Aoun, while the majority is headed by Sunni Muslim leader Saad Hariri, who is allied with several Christian groups and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. The Hezbollah-led opposition is backed by Syria and Iran while the ruling majority is strongly supported by the United States and other western countries as well as Saudi Arabia. The ruling majority won the last elections in 2005 after the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri. The majority has faced difficulties in ruling the country due to the strong opposition of Hezbollah and its allies. Former US President Jimmy Carter, who headed a team of international observers during the vote, called on all Lebanese to accept the result of the vote. \'I don\'t have any concerns over the conduct of the elections. I have concerns over the acceptance of the results by all the major parties,\' Carter said after visiting a polling station in Beirut. Under Lebanon\'s complex power-sharing system, the 128 seats are divided equally between Muslims and Christians. ';
PrintArticle();//-->
Beirut - Lebanon's Western-backed majority won Sunday a crucial parliamentary election that pitted them against the Hezbollah-led opposition, a close aide of the head of the majority alliance Saad Hariri told the German Press Agency dpa.
An interior ministry source confirmed that the Hezbollah-led opposition, which is supported by Syria and Iran, has lost the elections.
A source close to Hezbollah confirmed to dpa that they have lost the elections and they 'will accept the results as it is.'
Telecommunications Minister Jubran Bassil, son-in-law to Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun, also confirmed the opposition had lost.
'At the end this a democratic election and we will accept the loss,' he added.
Shortly after the initial results were out, cars carrying the flags of the majority alliance roamed Beirut streets chanting 'God bless Hariri and the ruling majority.'
Interior ministry sources said the turnout was around between 55 and 65 per cent, with polling in Christian areas said to be higher than in Muslim districts.
Ahead of the polls Christians feared that their role in the country could be marginalized if the opposition was to win a majority in the 128-seat parliament.
Throughout the day long queues formed outside many polling stations. Supporters of rival leaders clad in their different T- shirts handed out lists of candidates and called on voters to cast their ballots.
Hezbollah's coalition includes the Shiite movement Amal and the group led by Aoun, while the majority is headed by Sunni Muslim leader Saad Hariri, who is allied with several Christian groups and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt.
The Hezbollah-led opposition is backed by Syria and Iran while the ruling majority is strongly supported by the United States and other western countries as well as Saudi Arabia.
The ruling majority won the last elections in 2005 after the assassination of former premier Rafik Hariri. The majority has faced difficulties in ruling the country due to the strong opposition of Hezbollah and its allies.
Former US President Jimmy Carter, who headed a team of international observers during the vote, called on all Lebanese to accept the result of the vote.
'I don't have any concerns over the conduct of the elections. I have concerns over the acceptance of the results by all the major parties,' Carter said after visiting a polling station in Beirut.
Under Lebanon's complex power-sharing system, the 128 seats are divided equally between Muslims and Christians.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1481972.php/Lebanese_majority_wins_Lebanese_elections__1st_Lead__#ixzz0HmmXAc2M&D

The Shadow War in Balochistan: Pepe Escobar

Escobar's article shows that the department of dirty tricks is alive and well. No doubt this will become part and parcel of Gen. McChrystal's holistic approach to the Afghan war even though Iran has been helpful to the US in Afghanistan in the past the US is not happy about Iran making pipeline arrangements with Pakistan without approval from the US!


THE ROVING EYE The shadow war in Balochistan
By Pepe Escobar
Just when Iran and Pakistan had reached a key Pipelineistan breakthrough, regional violence exploded involving, once again, "the greatest prize" Balochistan (Please see Balochistan is the greatest prize, May 9, 2009, Asia Times Online.) The key question to ask is, as usual, cui bono?, or "Who profits?" What's behind this new, bloody intersection of Pipelineistan and the former "global war on terror" - a key theme US President
Barack Obama would not dare touch in his Cairo address on Thursday to the "Muslim world"? On May 22 in Tehran, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad finally signed a preliminary agreement, after 14 long years of negotiations, to build the Iran-Pakistan (IP) pipeline, formerly the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI), or "peace pipeline". (The final deal should, in theory, be sealed in less than two weeks.) The decision brazenly defied Washington's diktat. (Please see Pipelineistan goes Iran-Pak, May 29, 2009, Asia Times Online.) On May 28 in Zahedan, in Sistan-Balochistan province in Iran, the Pakistan-based, hardcore Sunni, ultra-anti-Shi'ite outfit Jundallah ("Soldiers of God") claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing inside the Amir al-Momenin mosque that killed 25 people and wounded 125. The timing and the circumstances could not be more suspicious. Tehran simply cannot understand how Islamabad could not contain Jundallah after it has been offered key, on-the-ground intelligence. Tehran had told the Pakistani ambassador, M B Abbasi, that three Pakistanis - Haji Noti Zehi, Gholam Rasoul Zehi and Zabihollah Naroui - had confessed to smuggling explosives into Iran from Balochistan and passing them over to the suicide bomber. The trio was subsequently hanged in public in Zahedan on May 30. As for the Iranian ambassador to Pakistan, Mashallah Shakeri, already on March 20 he had publicly accused Islamabad of allowing Balochistan to be a Jundallah base for the destabilization of Iran. Islamabad said "it ain't so", but facts on the ground spelled otherwise. Now it's even more serious, as the future of the IP pipeline is on the line. How will the Balochis in the Pakistani army react? In Balochistan, the New Great Game in Eurasia is as enigmatic as it gets. There's an enormous discrepancy between some Baloch tribal leaders who live the good life in Karachi (in Sindh) and treat the province as their personal fiefdom, and an extremely destitute population who feels totally alienated by the Punjabi-dominated Pakistani establishment. The shadowy 'foreign player'And what does Jundallah really want? Jundallah, also known in Iran as the Rigi group (after its ringleader, Abdul Malik Rigi), is an outfit of Iranian Balochis, who happen to be Sunni and fiercely anti-Shi'ite, who claim to represent their minority's rights in the Iranian southeast province of Sistan-Balochistan. Their hideout is cross-border, in Pakistani Balochistan. Islamabad has also established they have operating ties with both the ultra-sectarian Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan. Tehran directly blames Jundallah for a series of cross-border guerrilla operations that have been going on since 2003, killing mostly Iranian soldiers and border guards. After the bombing, the diplomatic dance could not but step into overdrive. Islamabad insists it is aligned with Tehran in their regional brand of the war on terror. But Tehran, not beating around the bush, has now explicitly demanded Islamabad to hand over Jundallah supremo Rigi, who is based in Balochistan. Pakistan's Interior Ministry has promised, on the record, to "hunt down" Jundallah. Although still condemning the Zahedan bombing, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry strangely denies that Iran had sealed off its border with Pakistan. The fact is Tehran did close what they call "the zero point" at the tiny town of Taftan, in the Pakistan-Iran border. Bilateral trade is crucial for the tribal, regional livelihood - after all they are all Baloch "cousins". All the food for the Pakistani Baloch side comes from Iran. Crucially, Islamabad's tune also has begun to change, in tandem with Tehran, drifting to the "third party" gambit - a foreign player supporting Jundallah's cross-border destabilization campaign, which sabotages any Pakistan-Iran rapprochement and of course the IP. One does not need to share Tehran's national security worries to identify this foreign player: Washington, which not by accident supports a rival pipeline to IP, the ever-troubled Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, the raison d'etre for the US involvement in Afghanistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said as much, "We consider Rigi's network linked with some foreign forces in Afghanistan." And he added Iran had plenty of "evidence". Both Washington and Islamabad have tended to ignore Jundallah's anti-Iran activities. Well, not really, because under the George W Bush-era Jundallah was co-opted by US intelligence for regime change purposes in Iran. As for the Pakistani angle, will the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) finally move against Jundallah, as it seems to be moving against Baitullah Mehsud's Taliban? In principle, this should be a no-brainer; according to the Fars News Agency, the chief of the Iranian Armed Forces, General Hassan Firouzabadi, informed Islamabad of Rigi's exact location. At a Monday seminar in Quetta, the capital of Pakistani Balochistan, organized by the Awami National Party, influential Balochis made clear they would not allow for Taliban and al-Qaeda to thrive in Balochistan, and they urged Pashtuns living in the province to do the same. One has to wonder whether this show of unity against terrorist tactics applies to the Iranian Balochis of Jundallah as well. It gets much more complicated. Balochistan has been flooded by Pashtun refugees for 30 years (the break-up of the province is now roughly 50/50). Many have been cannon fodder not only for the 1980s jihad in Afghanistan but also for the jihad in Kashmir and of course for the Taliban, in Afghanistan during the 1990s and lately the Pakistani Taliban. Secular Balochis charge that Punjabi-based Islamabad has always encouraged this refugee wave to bolster its own agenda: to undermine secular Baloch nationalism. So, what is now happening in the Pashtun North-West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas because of the Pakistani army onslaught - a powerful sense of alienation - has already happened in Balochistan. Islamabad now has to confront not only Baloch nationalism but Pashtun nationalism as well. All-out shadow war With or without using Jundallah for its own Iran-destabilizing agenda, Washington's "shadow war" is about to hit Balochistan full speed ahead. It will mirror an already ongoing shadow war - which is the ISI war against Baloch nationalists; as Balochistan is virtually controlled by Islamabad's intelligence agencies, Islamabad cannot but systematically turn Balochis into victims of "targeted assassinations". For Islamabad, ethnic-based separatism is - in echoes of Israel - an "existential threat". Islamabad's reckless actions have only managed to turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Instead of watching him meet that paragon of democracy, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, and cozy up with perennial Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, the "Muslim world" would rather benefit from Obama explaining first-hand what a shadow war in Muslim lands is all about. By mid-summer, Obama's Afghan surge in troops will be in position. A new, US mega-base in the "desert of death" in Helmand province, in southern Afghanistan, will be operational. The base happens to be a stone's throw from the Iran-Afghan border, and just across the border from Pakistani Balochistan. It's the ideal, strategic base for an extended, tri-border (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) General David Petraeus-coined counter-insurgency splash. Ultra-shadowy task forces, "Hell from above" drone war, Hellfire missiles, the merciless logic of privatization and "covertization" of war, the Pentagon's "secret operational capabilities" to "locate, target and kill key individuals in extremist groups" - all this cannot but fester in this tri-border area. Philip Alston of the United Nations Human Rights Council has been an almost isolated voice denouncing US shadow, "targeted assassination" teams working out of Afghan bases in Kandahar and Nangarhar, and allied with wily, local militias. The victims are mostly Afghan civilians. In Balochistan, the available "local militia" will always be Jundallah. The base will be in the Afghan "desert of death". In the absence of Taliban or al-Qaeda, victims of "decapitation" are plenty of Iranians across the border. How better to apply Petraeus' tactics than to expand these teams into destabilizing Iran and preventing Iran and Pakistan from closer integration via a key Pipelineistan node - an integration that also benefits China? That is achievable with a Balochistan mired in chaos. From the Pentagon's point of view, China profiting from the Baloch port of Gwadar to be supplied with Iranian gas is anathema. Islamabad may not be allowed by Washington to take out Jundallah after all. Shadowplay rules. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

US Faces Dilemma as Lebanon Elections Loom

The real purpose of aid to Lebanon is made clear in this article: to shore up support for US policies. Since Hezbollah is branded as a terrorist organisation of course military and probably most other aid will be cut off. The US loves rhetoric about democracy but when the reality is that democracy produces regimes inimical to US policy every attempt is made to destroy them. This is evident in the case of Hezbollah in Lebanon and even more so with Hamas in Gaza. The US also remains on friendly terms with autocratic regimes such as Saudi Arabia which also are neanderthal when it comes to women's rights.


US Faces Dilemma as Lebanon Elections Loom
Experts Say US Will Pull Military Aid if Opposition Wins
by Jason Ditz, June 04, 2009
With the Lebanese election just days away, the Hezbollah-led opposition is still seen likely to make major gains, potentially enough to seize power. Should that happen, a US government that has been pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid into the Mediterranean nation will be facing an uncomfortable choice.
Experts say the US will definitely kill off the military aid program in the event of a Hezbollah victory, following through on its pledge that it will have no dealings with Hezbollah. Yet they say the US is unlikely to completely abandon relations with Lebanon in that event, fearing Iran may step in to fill any void left by the US.
Last month, Vice President Joe Biden visted Lebanon, and while he insisted that he “did not come here to back any institution or political party,” he made it very clear that US aid to the nation was contingent on the Lebanese voters not electing the opposition.
While Hezbollah is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the US, and has a reputation as a hawkish Islamist faction, its opposition bloc also includes a good percentage of the nation’s Christian voters, and its campaign has emphasized support for the nation’s religious diversity.

Raimondo: Obama in Cairo: Words, Words, Words

Conservative bloggers often complain that the media are Obama fans. Perhaps this is true of quite a few but there are huge exceptions such as Fox news which often criticizes Obama and so do some commentators on CNN as well. However, to a degree much of the media is supportive of Obama but this is hardly surprising since he is popular and gave people hope of a new progressive direction for America.
A point that Raimondo misses is that much of what Obama said was also said by Bush but to little avail. As Raimondo does note as long as actions do not conform to what is said there will be little change in Muslim attitudes to the U.S. The war in Afghanistan is a weak point in terms of relations with the Muslim world as Raimondo notes. The possibility of mid-East peace seems just as remote as when Bush was in power. Of course this has little to do with Obama and everything to do with Israel; also, the Palestinians are still split into two. Abbas does not represent Palestinians in Gaza.
Obama does seem to be moving away from a total support of Israel no matter what. No doubt the knives will be out and the troops massing for battle within the Israel first forces in the US.


Obama in Cairo: Words, Words, Words
He talks the talk – but will he walk the walk?
by Justin Raimondo, June 05, 2009

The Obama fan club – and by this I mean the media, of course – is already hailing our President’s Cairo speech as the latter-day equivalent of the Sermon on the Mount, and there is no doubt that it was a splendid performance. All the usual superlatives are being unleashed by our love-struck commentariat – soaring, inspiring, intelligent, a triumph – and yet the reality, as the cheers die down, is that his Cairo peroration was just what we have come to expect from this President: pretty words, and even prettier promises. But where’s the action?
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see, now won’t we? Yet even the words – if we look at them on the printed page, stark and bare, without the soaring (there’s that word again!) cadences Obama is so good at, we see … the problem:
"Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire."
Well, yes, we were – note the past tense – born out of an anti-imperialist revolution. That was then, however: this is now. We were a republic, but now we’re well past our prime as an empire. The US military is engaged in a military occupation not only of Iraq and Afghanistan, but is spread throughout the world. Our globe-spanning navy has a presence – a dominating presence – in every ocean. We are, indeed, a self-interested empire – although one wonders, all too often, whether this has anything to do with protecting our real interests.
To point this out is not to nitpick – it is to put the perceptions of the Arab world – and, indeed, the whole world – in their proper context. And at the risk of violating the unspoken precepts of political correctness, there is something to be said for stereotypes: they don’t just fall out of the sky, you know. In order for a stereotype to become accepted, it must have some substantial basis in fact. Obama, of course, knows this, at least when it comes to perceptions of America abroad: that’s why he referred, in his speech, to the history of colonialism in the region, and specifically to the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran.
There were other, more troubling themes, however, quite aside from this, and also quite aside from the worrisome "interdependency" meme he trotted out, which threw in the world economic crisis, Darfur, Bosnia, and this comment: "When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations."
There can be little doubt the President was referring to Iran – in spite of the fact that his own CIA has recently said Tehran shelved its nuclear weapons program years ago. Yet the President, and members of his administration, keep reiterating this propagandistic point, in a replay of the phony "weapons of mass destruction" theme that animated his predecessor in the run up to the invasion of Iraq.
This notion of "we’re all in this together," and "an injury to one is an injury to all" – bromides he didn’t utter, but might as well have – is one of the main causes of war: it means that no "crisis," anywhere on earth, can pass unnoticed, and without US intervention (or "multilateral" meddling). This whole idea of "collective security" sets up a series of tripwires that are easily triggered, resulting in widening rather than containing a conflict that nobody wants and in which everyone suffers. Yet "collective security" has been the linchpin of American foreign policy since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and isn’t likely to change with this President – quite the opposite, in fact. It won’t be challenged, or changed, because it is a key argument in making the case for the wars we are currently fighting, and are not about to disengage from. As Obama put it:
"When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean."
This is just plain untrue. If by "endangered" one means an immediate, palpable, and credible threat to the security of the United States, the American people are not endangered by the Taliban, or even by al-Qaeda, as long as they are isolated in the mountains of Afghanistan or the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Obama has said this kind of thing before, and it is no more convincing today. Al-Qaeda doesn’t’ need a "safe haven" to plot new strikes against America: that is, it doesn’t need to control territory. Why this requires any explanation – especially given what we know about how the 9/11 attacks were actually planned and carried out – is beyond me.
This speech was like a great big ice cream sundae, with all the toppings – and something rather unappetizing at its center, which was this:
"The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America’s goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I’m aware that there’s still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day."
Yes, but the Taliban — did they kill 3,000 people that day? Well, say the Obamaites, the Taliban gave Osama bin Laden a "safe haven," and "we did not go by choice." Yet bin Laden and his cohorts are long gone: we’re still there, however, and in greater numbers than ever. Our government says bin Laden and his lieutenants are – or might be – in Pakistan, and yet in his speech Obama also says al-Qaeda is in "many countries." According to this sort of "logic," therefore, we have the "right" to attack any – or all – of these many countries, and may very well do so at some time in the future.
All the prettiest words in the world, including his expression of respect for Islam, his support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, and, yes, even his implied slap at Israel’s nukes — "Now, I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not" – can’t erase the reality of the ever-widening "Af-Pak" war, and the President’s lame attempts to justify it:
"Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military — we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
"We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case. And that’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken."
How many violent extremists, who want to kill as many Americans as possible, are spread throughout the world? According to the Obama Doctrine – and the Bush Doctrine – we not only have the right but the duty to go in there and wipe them all out, one by one or all at once, whatever it takes. This is our foreign policy, stripped of pretense, pretty phrases, and declarations of our "peaceful" intentions.
Those 46 allied countries, I might add, are largely a delusion: our "allies" are ratcheting down their alleged "commitment" – just as our own commitment is bound to waver over time, no matter what Obama says. Whether we leave because the American people finally rise up and say "Enough!", or due to economic circumstances beyond our control – say the Chinese decide to stop investing in our debt – is a matter of which comes first: bankruptcy, or the awaking of the American people from their decades-long slumber . In my view, it’s likely that these two events will occur roughly simultaneously – in which case Obama’s war, like Bush’s, will become unsustainable.
I have to say, however, that as much as I regard Obama as the smiling face of US imperialism, whose goal it is to prettify the ugly and justify the unjustifiable, his pronouncements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are refreshing, albeit disturbing in a different way.
"Hamas," the President avers, "does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities, to play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist."
To address Hamas – which is, after all, the elected leadership of the Palestinian people, insofar as they have been allowed to express their preferences at the ballot box – as if it were capable of change, as if its leaders could be given a place at the negotiating table, is a qualitative break from the Israel-centric policies of the past eight years.
Now that is some real change. It is also crossing a line, one that has not been crossed since the days of George Herbert Walker Bush – and you can bet the Israel lobby is not going to take this lightly. Expect a full-bore attack from the Israel Firsters, the "liberal" types like Haim Saban & Co., as well as the neocons and the Religious Right. To make matters worse – from the Lobby’s point of view — I think the President has a real understanding of the Palestinians’ plight, as evidenced not only by his denunciation of the "settlements" – an easy target – but his phraseology when he described the conditions under which people must live in the occupied territories.
I take it as a good sign that all the extremists in the region – the crazed Israeli settlers and their American supporters, as well as Osama bin Laden himself – are screeching bloody murder at this aspect of Obama’s policy. That odd confluence is telling: it tells us that these supposed antipodes have more in common than you’d think. The whole force of their hatred is going to be focused on our President on account of his brave stand, and I just hope that he survives the dangers – political and personal – that his stance will conjure. I don’t want to get more explicit than that, except to note that there are monsters in this world, a great many of them motivated by a toxic combination of the religious and the political — and they’re capable of anything.
Finally, I would also note that a speech is nothing but words, as Obama acknowledged in his text. This vision of peace in the Middle East, sincerely held by our President, is achievable only if it is followed by action. Such a comment is, by now, becoming a cliché – only hours after the speech was actually delivered – and yet it bears repeating, especially to my American readers. There are powerful forces in both parties that will do anything – and I do mean anything – to prevent this vision of peace from being realized.
For the President to have explicitly acknowledged Hamas, and seeming to characterize it as a potential partner in the peace process, is worse than heresy in some quarters, and I cannot see how Congress – which is, as Pat Buchanan quite accurately put it, "Israeli-occupied territory" – is going to sit still for it. AIPAC’s gears are already turning, and the propaganda machine is slated to go full blast. What’s significant, however, is that, for the first time in a very long time, the Lobby faces a formidable opponent: a popular American President who speaks with clarity and conviction.
If he follows through on his words with concrete and decisive action – if he threatens, say, to close off the spigot of US tax dollars flowing to Israel if Tel Aviv keeps funding and building settlements with our "aid" money – then the battle is joined, and, believe you me, it is going to be a doozy. The President may have stood aloof from the Charles Freeman fracas, but surely he must have noticed what happened to the poor guy. Of course, Obama went through that particular mill during the campaign, but, in the wake of Cairo, one gets the distinct feeling that was only the beginning.
I have to reiterate, at this point, my belief that all the good generated by Obama’s support for a viable Palestinian state is bound to be tragically undermined by the running sore of Afghanistan. As long as we are fighting what is essentially a war of vengeance against a people that had little to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Obama is fated to repeat the mistakes made by his predecessor that turned Iraq into a bloody quagmire, albeit on a bigger scale.

Agrarian Dystopia in the Philippines

While Adriano points out some of the shortcomings of the CARP program, it still seems to be a good idea and no doubt has helped many in rural areas. It obviously needs to be modified to benefit landless agricultural laborers. The development of co-operatives to take advantage of efficiencies of size would also seem to be a way to improve the program and obviously loopholes that have allowed appropriated land to be sold to developers need to be closed. Given the level of corruption in the Philippines any programme is bound to be perverted in some of the ways Adriano describes but this does not mean it should be scrapped.


Agrarian dystopia in the Philippines

By Joel D Adriano MANILA -

Land reform has been implemented in the Philippines for two decades, with few results, and policy researchers and academic experts have constantly highlighted its failures. So why is it still popular among Filipino leaders and lawmakers? One reason could be attracting votes, as the nation's electorate tends to view populist social programs favorably. Then there is the danger of unrest if the nation's militant landless movement were to get out of hand. A very influential group of prelates and nuns, the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, also wants agrarian reform. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), which aims at allowing the government to acquire and redistribute private and public farmland, started in 1988. It expired in June 2008, but
was extended to December 2008. Failing to enact a new law to replace CARP, Congress issued a joint resolution extending the law for another six months. On Wednesday, the lower chamber of Congress approved a bill to extend CARP for another five years. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had said the extension was urgent. During the six months extension, Congress replaced the CARP provision on the compulsory acquisition of agricultural lands from landlords with an optional one giving them leeway to sell or voluntarily subject their lands for transfer. But Congressman Edcel Lagman has noted that since the CARP extension took effect in January this year, no landowners have applied or petitioned for voluntary land transfer or sale. "This only proves that any agrarian reform program will fail without the provision for compulsory acquisition," Lagman said. Six left-leaning new party-list representatives are calling for the extension of CARP - but with the compulsory land acquisition component. In a statement released last week, they said the House should focus on the CARP extension bill, instead of scrapping protectionist provisions in the 1987 constitution that ban foreign ownership of land. This will only push land prices beyond the means of Filipinos, who can barely afford them now, they argued. Data from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) show that 130 billion pesos (US$2.7 billion) has already been spent on CARP since it was first implemented in 1988 following the ouster of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Philippine agrarian reform involves not just land reform but also support services such as credit, infrastructure, agricultural extension and marketing. Despite coming from a well-to-do and landed family, agrarian reform became a centerpiece of former president Corazon Aquino's tenure. She saw it as a means to redistribute land and to correct the injustice and inequality suffered by poor rural people during the Marcos regime. An additional objective of agrarian reform in the country is political. Agrarian unrest has been one of the main causes of the communist insurgency in the country, so CARP also aims at promoting security and social stability. But though more than 9 million hectares of mostly public land have been distributed to more than 6 million farmers under CARP, poverty remains high in rural areas and farmers and fishermen remain the country's poorest groups, while the threat from communist rebels persists. Senator Miguel Zubiri has blamed the farmers themselves for the failure of CARP. He has said many farmers lost interest in tilling the land granted to them and had sold it to land developers, reducing the program to a farce. Zubiri, who belongs to one of the richest families in Mindanao, said that about 3,000 hectares of agricultural land owned by his family in Bukidnon had been distributed to tenant-farmers. But the ownership of the land had changed already through selling and reselling in flagrant violation of the CARP. Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman has not denied that the illegal sale and transfer of titles of these lands has been rampant - especially during the early stage of the agrarian program. Under CARP rules, land titles can only be transferred to family members of the farmer-beneficiaries. However, farmers explain that because of poverty, many are cashing in on the land bonanza to raise money for their children's education, pay for family members to work abroad or simply to retire early. "Farming is tough and laborious. None of our children want to work on it anymore," said Saro Manzanero, a former farmer who sold his share to developers. Sometimes it is politicians themselves who buy land from the beneficiaries. In the town of Cabuyao, some 40 kilometers south of Manila, most of the plots now belong to local politicians who bought them at cheap prices or are speculating on future land prices. Zubiri abstained in the third and final reading of the Senate bill on Monday, which voted 12-0 on extending CARP for another five years, with only two abstentions. The other senator who abstained is Benigno Aquino III, son of former president Aquino, another landed clan. Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile voted in favor of the bill, despite his earlier reservations on the issue of forced land acquisition and distribution. He has emphasized the need for the government to focus instead on the development of farmland already distributed. According to a working group formed to study the extension, an additional 147 billion pesos is needed by DAR, mostly to pay to landowners. This is on top of over 300 billion pesos that the Land Bank of the Philippines is asking Congress for to fund payments for about 600,000 hectares taken but not yet paid for. According to Fermin Adriano, an agriculture policy expert, one of the program's problems is that it is anchored on the "land to the tiller" concept. This means that those who actually till the lands "should be given the property right to the land they till". However, 70% of the rural labor force is largely composed of landless agricultural workers. Unless they are in plantations, agrarian reform is not relevant to them since they are not entitled to owning a piece of the land. Yet poverty is highest among these landless persons. They have become the hired labor of land reform beneficiaries, who have engaged in non-farming to earn higher incomes. "This arrangement has transformed [the beneficiaries] into petty landlords and the landless workers into sub-tenants." There is also lower farm productivity among agrarian reform beneficiaries compared with local commercial farms or farmers in other countries. For example, rice production
is only a little over three tonnes per hectare among them compared with Indonesia's four tonnes per hectare and South Korea with a rice yield of some six tonnes per hectare. Farmers have learned that they cannot compete with lower-priced imports. Adriano said that the positive impact of the program cannot be realized without adequate services to make land more productive and production efficient. There is also the reality that land is no longer the primary source of accumulating wealth in the Philippines and agriculture is no longer the primary source of livelihood for the masses. The country has become mainly urban and access to jobs is a better way to reduce rural poverty, not land ownership. Joel D Adriano is an independent consultant and award-winning freelance journalist. He was a sub-editor for the business section of The Manila Times and writes for ASEAN BizTimes, Safe Democracy and People's Tonight. (Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)




Power plays in the Philippines(May 13,'09)Fudging figures in the Philippines (Apr 24,'09)Marcos family re-stakes its claims(Mar 26,'09)
1. Wrong venue for Obama's Muslim speech2. Iran wages lonely war on terror3. The shadow war in Balochistan4. The simple solution5. The myth of a 'Muslim world'6. Dollar's fate written in history7. Indian arms spree on the fast track8. Better than war9. Pyongyang better left to its devices10. Hezbollah spices up Israel-Iran mix(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, June 3, 2009)

window.google_render_ad();




window.google_render_ad();
window.google_render_ad();
/* ');/* ]]> */

Afghan war illegal..

This is a very old article but I like to revive it from time to time just so the fact that the Afghanistan war just as the Iraq war was illegal in the eyes of some legal experts. The article is from this site but Mandel has published much on the war.

Say what you want, but this war is illegal
by Michael Mandel
A well-kept secret about the U.S.-U.K. attack on Afghanistan is that it is clearly illegal. It violates international law and the express words of the United Nations Charter.
Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defence under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security.
The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it.
Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defence, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defence. Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defence does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped.
The right of self-defence in international law is like the right of self-defence in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands.
Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." Now it must be clear to everyone that the military attack on Afghanistan has nothing to do with preventing terrorism. This attack will be far more likely to provoke terrorism. Even the Bush administration concedes that the real war against terrorism is long term, a combination of improved security, intelligence and a rethinking of U.S. foreign alliances.
Critics of the Bush approach have argued that any effective fight against terrorism would have to involve a re-evaluation of the way Washington conducts its affairs in the world. For example, the way it has promoted violence for short-term gain, as in Afghanistan when it supported the Taliban a decade ago, in Iraq when it supported Saddam Hussein against Iran, and Iran before that when it supported the Shah.
The attack on Afghanistan is about vengeance and about showing how tough the Americans are. It is being done on the backs of people who have far less control over their government than even the poor souls who died on Sept. 11. It will inevitably result in many deaths of civilians, both from the bombing and from the disruption of aid in a country where millions are already at risk. The 37,000 rations dropped on Sunday were pure PR, and so are the claims of "surgical" strikes and the denials of civilian casualties. We've seen them before, in Kosovo for example, followed by lame excuses for the "accidents" that killed innocents.
For all that has been said about how things have changed since Sept. 11, one thing that has not changed is U.S. disregard for international law. Its decade-long bombing campaign against Iraq and its 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia were both illegal. The U.S. does not even recognize the jurisdiction of the World Court. It withdrew from it in 1986 when the court condemned Washington for attacking Nicaragua, mining its harbours and funding the contras. In that case, the court rejected U.S. claims that it was acting under Article 51 in defence of Nicaragua's neighbours.
For its part, Canada cannot duck complicity in this lawlessness by relying on the "solidarity" clause of the NATO treaty, because that clause is made expressly subordinate to the UN Charter.
But, you might ask, does legality matter in a case like this? You bet it does. Without the law, there is no limit to international violence but the power, ruthlessness and cunning of the perpetrators. Without the international legality of the UN system, the people of the world are sidelined in matters of our most vital interests.
We are all at risk from what happens next. We must insist that Washington make the case for the necessity, rationality and proportionality of this attack in the light of day before the real international community.
The bombing of Afghanistan is the legal and moral equivalent of what was done to the Americans on Sept. 11. We may come to remember that day, not for its human tragedy, but for the beginning of a headlong plunge into a violent, lawless world.
Michael Mandel is a Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He specializes in International Criminal Law.

Obama breaking vows on secrecy

This is from antiwar.com

So at the same time as he pledges more openness in practice he is doing the same thing as Bush. He is following Bush type policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well except there he is outdoing Bush. Obama needs a department of newspeak.


Obama Breaking Vows on Secrecy
by William Fisher, June 02, 2009
Despite President Barack Obama’s formation of a new task force to review government secrecy, and an ongoing investigation into use of the so-called state-secrets doctrine, lawyers for the new administration refused last week to disclose information on the government’s use of warrantless wiretaps and backed legislation to block the release of photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last week, Obama announced the formation of a task force to review government classification policies, proposing the creation of a National Declassification Center to facilitate public disclosure of once-secret information.
The president reaffirmed his commitment "to operating with an unprecedented level of openness."
But the next day, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers filed notice of the government’s intention to challenge in the Supreme Court a New York federal appeals court ruling ordering the administration to make public the photographs allegedly depicting the abuse of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit to force their disclosure. A federal court judge agreed and ordered the government to release the photos.
President Obama initially indicated he would comply with the court’s order but later changed his mind, saying that release of the photos might risk the lives of U.S. armed forces personnel.
At the same time, the DOJ told the court that a formal appeal by a June 9 deadline could be unnecessary if Congress quickly passes the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009.
That measure is supported by the White House and was passed by the Senate on May 2. It would forbid disclosure of photographs taken between Sept. 11, 2001, and Jan. 22, 2009, "relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001," by U.S. Armed Forces in operations outside the U.S. if "the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have determined would endanger military personnel if released."
Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder rescinded Bush-era FOIA guidelines and replaced them with new rules to preserve FOIA’s purpose of making public important information about the workings of the government.
In the wiretapping case, lawyers for a now-defunct Saudi charity claim they were victims of electronic spying by the government. A federal judge ordered the Obama administration to disclose documents relating to that charge.
The wiretapping allegedly took place as part of the so-called terrorist surveillance program that was initiated by then-president George W. Bush following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The DOJ, responding to a federal judge’s inquiry into whether the administration should be sanctioned for "failing to obey the court’s orders," refused to turn over the documents and asked the court for permission to appeal its decision.
It urged the court to permit appellate review over the fundamental and significant separation of powers questions presented before any disclosure or risk of disclosure in further proceedings," Anthony Coppolino, the DOJ’s special litigation counsel, wrote to Federal Circuit Court Judge Vaughn Walker.
A DOJ spokesman said sanctions were unwarranted because only the government can decide whether to disclose documents it believes are state secrets.
The lawsuit was brought in San Francisco by two U.S. lawyers who claim their telephone calls were illegally intercepted by the National Security Agency (NSA) under the Bush administration. The lawyers represent the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a charity that the Treasury Department claims was linked to terrorism.
Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, told Judge Walker at the time that the purpose of the lawsuit was to "obtain an adjudication of the legality of President George W. Bush’s warrantless electronic surveillance program and, more broadly, the Bush administration’s expansive theories of presidential power."
Bush claimed that his war powers gave him the authority to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens’ electronic communications without warrants.
Eisenberg told IPS, "The DOJ attorneys repeat all the same arguments that Judge Walker has already rejected. They’re treating Judge Walker as if he were irrelevant."
The San Francisco lawsuit began when the government accidentally sent the plaintiffs documents that showed their overseas communications with al-Haramain officials were intercepted without warrants. The pair sued, but was forced to return the documents because they were marked "top secret."
In the al-Haramain case, the Bush administration’s Treasury Department found that the group was funneling money to terrorists in Chechnya and shut it down. But the government inadvertently released a classified document to the group’s lawyers. The lawyers contend that this document revealed that the government had been wiretapping both the organization and its lawyers without a warrant.
The organization sued the Bush administration. But when the case came to court in 2006, the government invoked the so-called state-secrets privilege, claiming that the case could not go forward because it would reveal information that would compromise national security.
But Judge Walker rejected the government’s claims. He ruled that the president could not invoke the state secrets privilege to conceal the evidence and dismiss the case.
Al-Haramain’s lawyers said they needed the classified documents to represent their clients. They said they were surprised to see the Obama administration arguing so vigorously for the same expansive Bush-era view of executive power.
Al-Haramain lawyer Eisenberg told IPS, "I anticipated that the Obama Department of Justice would take a more reasonable approach to moving forward with litigating this case in a manner that doesn’t jeopardize national security, which I think can be easily done."
"They’re taking as hard a line as the Bush administration did on state secrets," he said. "If anything, they’re being more aggressive about it."
"In three years of litigating this case," Eisenberg added, "I’d come to expect this sort of thing from the Bush Department of Justice, but I’m astounded to see the new Obama DOJ continuing down the same path. So far, at least, we’re not seeing any ‘change we can believe in’ regarding presidential abuse of the state-secrets privilege."
Obama has ordered a DOJ task force to study the government’s use of the state-secrets privilege. The Bush administration invoked the privilege more than any other government in U.S. history.
In 2005, Bush admitted authorizing electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants from the FISA court.
President Bush said that he secretly ordered the NSA to eavesdrop on citizens with suspected ties to terrorists because it was "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution."
(Inter Press Service)

McChrystal wants ''holistic" approach to Afghan war.

Perhaps this is meant to parallel the Taliban jihad or "holy war". Both sides will resort to unholy tactics. McChrystal used to be head of a special operations (black ops) group and no doubt he will increase those operations. This is no doubt another aspect of Obama's emphasis upon change bringing in a master of dirty tactics and calling them by nice names.

This is from abc (Australia)

McChrystal wants 'holistic' approach to Afghan war
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers for AM

Posted Wed Jun 3, 2009 9:11am AEST Updated 11 hours 36 minutes ago

US President Barack Obama has ordered an extra 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. (US Army: Staff Sgt Michael L Casteel, file photo)
The US general who has been put in charge of the Afghanistan war says success in the seven-year-old conflict will not be quick or easy.
Lieutenant General Stanley McChrystal says the war can be won if a proper counter-insurgency campaign is mounted.
His comments came as more than 40 people were killed in a surge of militant attacks across Afghanistan yesterday.
Fighting is escalating across Afghanistan, with suicide attacks, roadside bombs and battles between US troops and Taliban fighters.
The violence raises fresh concerns about the stability in Afghanistan ahead of the August presidential election, and Lieutenant General McChrystal says the situation is serious.
"There is no simple answer. We must conduct a holistic counterinsurgency campaign, and we must do it well," he said.
"Success will not be quick or easy; casualties will likely increase; we will make mistakes."
Lieutenant General McChrystal has been testifying at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He is set to replace General David McKiernan, who was sacked last month in an unusual wartime shake-up.
Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has quizzed him about the consequences of failing in the more than seven-year-old conflict.
"Everyone's asked about winning; tell me the consequence of losing. What would happen if America lost in Afghanistan?" Senator Graham said.
"What would happen is it would break down into civil war," Lieutenant General McChrystal said.
"There would be... I don't believe that the Taliban would take over Afghanistan; I think it would go back to what it was before 2001, and that would be an ongoing civil war between different factions.
"I believe that Al Qaeda would have the ability to move back into Afghanistan, and I cannot imagine why they would not do that.
"I think that if they're within that kind of safe haven in Afghanistan with the ongoing problem in Pakistan, I think Pakistan would find winning its insurgency very, very difficult, if not impossible."
Senator Graham: "Would it probably lead to the collapse of the civilian government in Pakistan?"
Lieutenant General McChrystal: "I think it's very likely."
Lieutenant General McChrystal says he will also draw on the advice of Australian

Philippines lowers interest rates.

This is from alibaba.com.

This is no doubt an attempt to stave off a possible recession a fate that so far the Philippines has escaped although growth has slowed considerably. The interest rate is still high relative to the United States and Canada I should think although it would be bargain for credit card interest!


Philippine says easier monetary policy will lift growthPublished: 30 May 2009 17:48:34 PST
MANILA, May 28 - An easier monetary policy will help support growth in the Philippine economy, which is now teetering on the brink of recession, the socio-economic planning chief said on Thursday.
"Loosening monetary policy will help clearly," Secretary Ralph Recto told reporters.
The Philippine central bank will hold a policy meeting later on Thursday and the market expects a cut of at least 25 basis points to 4.25 percent for the overnight borrowing rate, a fresh 17-year low. [ID:nMAN4866085]
The policy announcement is expected shortly after 0800 GMT.

Fisk on Obama's upcoming Cairo speech

This is from the Independent.

I am not sure that Netanyahu is treating what Obama says with contempt, it is just the political reality in Israel makes it difficult if not impossible for him to follow through with Obama's demands to stop settlement expansion entirely.
It will be interesting to see if Obama says exactly what Fisk predicts! No doubt there will be little criticism of the fact that neither Egypt nor Saudi Arabia are democratic and that Egypt is a great place to render terror suspects to be tortured.

Robert Fisk: Most Arabs know this speech will make little difference
I suspect that what the Arab world wants to hear is that Obama will take his soldiers out of Muslim lands
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
More and more, it looks like the same old melody that Bush's lads used to sing. We're not against the Muslim world. In fact, we are positively for it. We want you to have democracy, up to a point. We love Arab "moderates" and we want to reach out to you and be your friends. Sorry about Iraq. And sorry – again, up to a point – about Afghanistan and we do hope that you understand why we've got to have a little "surge" in Helmand among all those Muslim villages with their paper-thin walls. And yes, we've made mistakes.
Everyone in the world, or so it seems, is waiting to see if this is what Barack Obama sings. I'm not sure, though, that the Arabs are waiting with such enthusiasm as the rest of the world.
I haven't met an Arab in Egypt – or an Arab in Lebanon, for that matter – who really thinks that Obama's "outreach" lecture in Cairo on Thursday is going to make much difference.
They watched him dictate to Bibi Netanyahu – no more settlements, two-state solution – and they saw Bibi contemptuously announce, on the day that Mahmoud Abbas, the most colourless leader in the Arab world, went to the White House, that Israel's colonial project in the West Bank would continue unhindered. So that's that, then.
And please note that Obama has chosen Egypt for his latest address to the Muslims, a country run by an ageing potentate – Hosni Mubarak is 80