June 27th, 2009
Having won the presidential election by a landslide, Ahmadinejad and his backers within the Iranian regime should be basking in the glory of an overwhelming mandate from the Iranian people. Instead they face unrelenting pressure from within and without as they confront their deadliest crisis yet. The US and British media is presently falling over itself to broadcast images of an Iranian protestor shot dead in broad daylight, while repeatedly decrying “election fraud” in Iran.
Here’s the BBC’s coverage of the event. Note the well-placed image and caption (as appears in original article) of “grave spaces.” The implication is left unsaid, but the suggestion is tantalising bait for readers by now emotionally charged from accounts of the martyred symbol of Iranian Freedom™: the Iranian regime is quietly burying evidence of its crimes in ‘mass graves’…
She was near the area, a few streets away, from where the main protests were taking place, near the Amir-Abad area. She was with her music teacher, sitting in a car and stuck in traffic.
She was feeling very tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just for a few minutes.
And that’s when it all happened.
That’s when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and video footage of the shooting clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately targeted her. Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot in the chest.
The New York Daily further charged the emotional content:
Her name is Neda, which means “voice” in Farsi, and her death has become the central rallying cry of the Iranian rebellion.
The fresh-faced teenage girl killed by what appears to be a single sniper shot on the streets of Tehran Saturday is now a potent symbol for Iran’s pro-democracy protesters.
Her shocking and quick death in the arms of her howling father was captured on closeup video, posted to Facebook and came to life on computer screens across the globe.
“RIP Neda, the world cries seeing your last breath,” was one of a flood of messages on Twitter.
“They killed Neda, but not her voice,” read another. “Neda is everyone’s sister, everyone’s daughter, everyone’s voice for freedom,” said a third.
Within hours of her death, posters of the girl’s face, open-eyed and bloody, were being brandished by demonstrators in Los Angeles and New York City.
The graphic video was originally posted to Facebook by an Iranian expatriate in Holland who said it was sent to him by a friend in Tehran, a doctor who tried to save the girl.
He identified her as Neda Soltani, a 16-year-old philosophy student.
A Facebook group created to mourn her calls her “The Angel of Iran.”
Hmmm, Facebook and Twitter certainly appear to be playing useful roles in this post-modern revolution:
Not to be outdone, the Times of London described her death as “Iran’s equivalent of the student who defied China’s tanks in Tiananmen Square”. That’s quite a leap given that there were conflicting accounts about her age, who she was with at the time and what she was doing. Buried in The Times‘ similarly gushing eulogy to the martyred “symbol of rebellion” was a crucial caveat:
“The authenticity of the video, and the source of the bullet, cannot be verified independently but that hardly matters any more because millions of Iranians and hundreds of millions of others around the world firmly believe the story to be true.”
What’s a little embellishment when the momentum of history is on our side! We don’t know who killed her, but let’s just assume it was the evil Iranian regime!
Well, if the revolution-that-was-not-televised in Venezuela in 2002 taught us anything, it’s that the source of the sniper’s bullet is pivotal to understanding just who is responsible for instigating the violence and thus who is manipulating events for ulterior motives. The similarities between what is happening in Iran today and what happened in Venezuela in 2002 are striking.
Wherever in the woods of rural Virginia the CIA teaches it’s masters course in coup plotting & execution, the template undoubtedly studied therein is the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, the CIA’s perfect black ops coup. Mossadeq was the last democratically elected Iranian head of state. “Mosaddeq was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control.” Sound familiar? Yes, substitute “Chavez” and “Venezuela” for Mosaddeq and Iran; substitute “American” for British and you have the same fact pattern of President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela circa 2002.
The CIA made an alliance with the Venezuelan elite who controlled the majority of the television stations in the country and top generals of the Venezuelan military. The CIA initiated a progranda campaign through the controlled television stations followed by street demonstrations. Then the CIA used snipers to create chaos in the streets. Chaos was used as the pretext for the military to demand the ouster of Chavez. The military went so far as to arrest Chavez but he never resigned. The whole plan unraveled after 48 hours when Chavez supporters flooded the streets of Caracas and junior officers within the military (especially the palace guard) defected back to Chavez. Once the countercoup forces gained control of the main television station, the game was up. The people overwhelmingly demanded the return of Chavez.
In spite of the apparently limitless predations demonstrated by agents of deception like the CIA, their limited creative abilities reveal unmistakable signature patterns. Reinsert “Ahmadinejad” for “Chavez” and “Iran” for “Venezuela” and the same CIA-scripted scenario repeats, like an outdated computer program that its users are loath to upgrade for fear of venturing into the unknown.
Footage has surfaced showing the 16 (or 26) year old Neda Soltan with her father or music teacher – whichever account you prefer to believe – standing around just moments before she was shot dead by a single sniper’s bullet.
For this to emerge in such a timely manner from a country that has supposedly clamped down heavily on people’s access to information is curious. Curiouser still that a camera happened to be trained in the direction of this particular person, despite people roaming about in all directions. And note the man in the white cap who briefly appears and is speaking into a cell phone with a hand covering his mouth. Was Ms Soltani selected beforehand for assassination? Or was she randomly gunned down by the repressive Iranian authorities as the media would have us believe?
The event received blanket coverage in the US, prompting Obama to break his “no comment” policy regarding the street protests, having kept his distance until this point:
The Democratic president, facing heavy criticism from Republicans that he was being too timid in backing street protests over Iran’s contested election, said the United States was “appalled and outraged” by the violence.
“I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost,” Obama said.
He called the video of an Iranian women killed in the streets, which has become a staple of news coverage of the protests, “heartbreaking” and said it made clear the violence against the protesters was “fundamentally unjust.”
“In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice,” he said.
Asked why it took him so long to express his outrage, Obama said the U.S. approach had been consistent and he did not want to hurt the protesters by aligning them with the United States.
“Ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people,” he said.
But Obama declined to spell out any potential consequences for Tehran of the crackdown, and said there was still “a path available” to Iran in which it could operate within the international community.
And this while another US military drone attack in Pakistan murders twice the numbers killed in the “violent protests” and yet more evidence of Israeli cruelty surfaces. Should we hold our breath for White House condemnation of these crimes?
What is particularly galling about this is the fact that there are mountains of evidence to suggest that Bush stole both of his elections and there is cast iron proof that the US invasion of Iraq has led to the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis. Yet hardly a word has been written on either of these points by the same media that is condemning Iran.
Consider these facts from the stolen US election of 2000:
- The vote turned on a state whose governor is brother of the candidate.
- The Junta opposed a recount of the votes in the disputed state.
- This state’s attorney general, with strong ties to the junta, suppressed votes using a list generated by a company from the candidate’s home state.
- This list fraudulently contained thousands of names of citizens who were in fact eligible to vote.
- The junta, members of a party known for its states’ rights agenda, went to the federal supreme court in order to overturn the state court’s decision to have a recount.
- This self-declared winner actually lost the popular vote.
- The self-declared winner is the son of a former leader of the country and this former leader was the head of none other than the CIA.
The depths of hypocrisy plumbed by a regime that accuses its target victim of crimes for which it is endlessly guilty are breathtaking. James Petras writes that:
What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.
The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.
As obvious as it was in our own 2000 election, Al Gore would not touch the topic of voter fraud. No major US politician goes near the subject. They know full well that such an accusation would shake the entire foundation of our democracy and threaten the political structures that are in place.
Which is, of course, exactly what this is all about. The perpetrators were all too aware that repeated accusations of election fraud would threaten the very foundation of Iranian political institutions, instilling doubt and mistrust amongst the Iranian people.
If the violent protestors are not Mousavi supporters, then who are they?
The US and its partner in crime Israel have made no secret of their desire for regime change in Iran. GIven the incessant sabre-rattling against Iran and demonisation of its regime over the past few years, it is incredible to observe the widespread support this sham revolution has received in western media as it uncritically regurgitates the blatant lies spun by the CIA and its feeder think-tanks. And this in spite of all that has emerged since 9/11, not least the successive failures of previous colour-coded revolutions in eastern Europe and the diabolical farce of “spreading freedom and democracy to Iraq.”
The history of covert American and British involvement in Iranian affairs is a long and sordid one. This time around is no different. Former Pakistani General Beig said that there is “undisputed intelligence proving the US interference in Iran:”
“The documents prove that the CIA spent $400 million inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election,” he added.
The CIA’s reach is global and total, extending through covert psychological and logistical warfare, destabilising or supporting sovereign nations in accordance with its needs – the needs of a ruthless and psychopathic elite unfettered by qualms of conscience. The stereotypes impressed on us through ‘popular culture’ about what the nature and activities of highly secretive intelligence groups like the CIA entails couldn’t be further from the truth. It is essential for our psychological welfare that we become aware of the range and depth of versatility and sophistication employed against us in their war on reality. In “The Secret Team“, an extensive account of the structure and modus operandi of the CIA and the American security state, former high-level CIA insider L. Fletcher Prouty reveals the Men Behind the Curtain, exposing the mechanisms and machinations of the “deep state” regime that controls American national interests – which are, of course, its interests:
The global U.S. military system is without question the most massive, the most powerful, and the most capable communications system in existence. However, the best and most efficacious system in the world belongs to the CIA. In making this statement, allowance should be made for the capability of the National Security Agency, but that is more or less a part of the military system and need not be explored here. The CIA is able to cover the entire world, not like a blanket, but like a rapier. There is no place it cannot reach out to get to an agent or to a busy station chief on its own secure facilities. In doing this, the Agency makes use of all kinds of communications; some are considered rather old and crude but effective, and others are highly sophisticated.
The crude methods include equipping and training terrorist groups while the highly sophisticated target a country’s channels of information. We can see this range in methodologies of subversion displayed in the events leading up to and during the Iranian election campaign:
The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.
Iran’s Intelligence Ministry has uncovered “terrorist plots” targeting the country’s security and stability during the presidential election.
“The ministry has dismantled the groups involved in such activities and has arrested almost all group-members in two stages,” IRNA quoted Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei on Wednesday.
He said that the plots included bomb attacks on several sites in Iran, adding that those behind such activities were linked with “the Zionist and non-Zionist regimes outside the county.”
The Jundullah terror group has claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack that killed at least 25 people in southeastern of Iran.
The bloody attack injured 125 others. A second explosive was also defused at the mosque within minutes of the explosion.
Iranian officials condemned the attack, calling it in line with attempts to divide Iranians, specifically just before the June 12 presidential election.
Tehran’s Interim Friday Prayers Leader, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, put the finger of blame on the US and Israel, calling the attack “a scheme to drive a wedge between the Shia population and the Sunni minority in Iran.”
The Pakistan-based terrorist organization denies having any link to Washington but ABC news reported in 2007, citing US and Pakistani intelligence sources, that the terrorist group “has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials” to destabilize the government in Iran.
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed another report in July 2008 that US congressional leaders had secretly agreed to former president George W. Bush’s USD 400 million funding request, which gives the US a free hand in arming and funding terrorist groups such as Jundullah militants.
A writer on pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. He investigated, he says, and he reports that each of the new highly active accounts were created on Saturday, June 13th. “IranElection” is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers to the most persistent: @StopAhmadi, @IranRiggedElect, and @Change_For_Iran. He researched further and found that On June 14 the Jerusalem Post already had an article on the new twitter. He concludes that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.
With the momentum of irresistible pressure building against Iran, has Ahmadinejad lost the war? Remember how Hugo Chavez recovered from successive attempted coups to fight another day. It’s noteworthy that the media-led waves of demonstrations in Iran coincided with Ahmadinejad’s participation in the Shaghai Cooperation Organisation, from which he emerged with dignity intact and supported by powerful neighbours:
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for the creation of a new world order in dealing with the many challenges arising in the international political arena.
“What we need now is a dramatic change in world political thought,” said President Ahmadinejad in a Tuesday address to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Moscow.
“Western-style capitalism is falling apart, marking the end of the age of Imperialism,” he added.
Ahmadinejad said the new world order should be less US-centric. “Washington’s many political and economic woes show that its judgment can no longer be trusted,” he explained.
Little wonder then that they hate him – by presenting an alternative to American hegemony he is a threat that must be neutralised one way or another.