Psychological Warfare Against Iran

This article in today’s New York Times Magazine is worth a read because it details the names of faux Iranian dissidents, and the think tanks involved in psyop against Iran. While the article quotes some faux dissidents as not wanting to have anything to do with the US funding — the reason for this refusal has little to do with principles, and a lot to do with the fact that the Iranian government is onto the US sponsored counter-(soft) revolutionary interventions.

As a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, David Denehy is charged with overseeing the distribution of millions of dollars to advance the cause of a more democratic Iran. Affable, charming and approachable, he is bearlike in stature and manner. His voice is pleasantly rumbly; his smile is so wide that it seems to have been drawn onto his face with a crayon. Over the last two years, Denehy has canvassed dozens of pundits, students, journalists, bloggers and activists across the world about how he might best go about his work — what he calls, echoing President Bush, “the freedom agenda.” He has shaken hands with millionaire exiles, dissidents, monarchists, Communists, self-styled Mandelas and would-be Chalabis. He is the public face of “the democracy fund,” as it has come to be known, or simply “the $75 million.”

click here to read more.

Aslan counts himself as one of the “reform Islam scholars” - who believe, as do the neo-cons, that Islam must be reformed - for the religion to “co-exist” with the American empire (or, as they call it, “civilization” “west” and “democracy”). In this respect, Aslan serves the insidious role of corrupting Islam (the ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran) from within - re-defining, and providing an interpertational framework that would re-fashion Islam into an empire friendly religion.

Aslan, like his collegue Vali Nar, is a member of the notorious neo-con Council on Foreign Relations.

Aslan got his so-called “education” from Harvard University. Harvard has been at the forefront of advocating “reform Islam” -and has supported some of the more notorious pro-empire Muslim groups such as the (now defunct) Progressive Muslim Union North America.

Aslan is also one of four original participants in meetings with Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, ostensibly to counter “homegrown radicalism.” (Chertoff’s mission, is, of-course, to silence Muslim dissent (and really all dissent) to the US’s imperial project.)

A few comments by Aslan reveals his ideological leanings:

“Despite the apartheid state that has resulted from over half a century of bloody territorial conflicts with its neighboring Palestinian territories, few would deny that the state of Israel is a democracy.” (Perhaps this is one reason why most Muslims now find the word “democracy” to be just another name for hypocrisy).

“And it’s up to us as Muslims in the US to give voice to that (reform-Islam) for our brothers and sisters who don’t have the voice or the same ability to speak out as we do”

Well, yes, so long as you are speaking for an empire friendly Islam, from Harvard, and from the Council of Foreign Relations, yeah you can speak. Try seriously speaking out, and acting against imperialism outside of such institutions, and see how quickly you are first placed under surveillance, with Homeland knocking on your door next.

Aslan has contributed an essay called ‘The Struggle for Islam’s Soul’, in With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, Will Marshall, ed. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006.

If one takes a look at how these terms are defined - we will find that “jihadism” is resistance to imperialism, and “liberty” is American style “democracy promotion.”

infact the cover of the book says it all:

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:44:19

The chief of the Iranian Armed Forces Headquarters has encouraged awareness of all Iranians to stymie the psywar launched by the enemies.

Major General Seyyed Hassan Firouzabadi said people from all walks of life should be aware of the psychological war launched by the enemies and try to thwart their efforts.

Addressing a crowd of top military commanders in Tehran, he stated that Iran enjoys authority and dignity and that its religious policy has overshadowed all the current policies in the world.

He added that Iranian sovereignty has served as a deterrent against the aggressive, shameless and hegemonic enemies.

As the leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said, the enemies are making efforts to disrupt national Iranian unity.

The enemies are seeking to disrupt social unity in order to achieve their fiendish goals, he added.

The member of the Expediency Council also emphasized the importance of economic development and scientific and technological advances in Iran.

The US, along with its own funded psyop and “democracy promotion”, is also using its puppets to ratchet up the propaganda against Iran. Since the revolution, the puppets of the region have been fearful of Iran - lest their own population take a lesson or two out of Iran’s book, and do to them what was done to the “shah.”

This is the real reason behind the anti-Iran and anti-Shi’a sectarianism - the flames of which are being fanned from D.C.

Egypt blaming Iran on Gaza no surprise

Egypt has stepped up support for Fatah by blaming Tehran for the Hamas takeover in Gaza and endangering its border in the process.

In an interview in Egypt’s Al-Masri Al-Yom newspaper Egyptian Foreign Minister Abul Geit was quoted as saying, “Iran’s policies encouraged Hamas to do what it has done in Gaza and this represents a threat for Egypt’s national security because Gaza is a stone’s throw from Egypt.”

Abul Geit said the situation has made Egypt to rethink its relations with Iran. “The Iranian influence in Iraq also represents a threat for Egyptian and Arab national security. This obliges Cairo to restrict its relations with Tehran,” he noted.

The Egyptian government, which reinforced its military presence on its border with the Gaza Strip last week, said that it would do everything possible to prevent an Islamist regime from cementing control of the territory.

Not surprisingly the Egyptian minister’s remarks reflect a concensus that has been growing among regional and western analysts alike: namely that Washington’s Arab allies, most notably Israel, Jordan and Egypt would be working in tandem to hem in Hamas and even harass Hezbollah in Lebanon as another Israeli assault there seems out of the question.

All these measures are connected to limiting Iranian influence in Iraq where US forces are badly mired down. The American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh laid out this scenario in a March issue of the New Yorker magazine. He wrote of “black money” gone missing out of US coffers in Iraq to fuel the machinations and the organizing of non-Lebanese Arab fighters to confront Hezbollah in Lebanon.

When reminded of his previous accurate analyses on the different schemes to hamstring and blame Iran for US failures in the region, including the failure to foresee Hamas’s electoral victory in Palestinian elections in January 2006, Hersh noted he is not to be blamed if his information has been proven accurate.

Aside from the fact that this so-called resolution is based on a falsified translation of the President of Iran’s statement… exactly who is the United States to be passing such resolutions?

The United States government that is responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, just in the past three years - and in the millions over the past decade or two of genocidal sanctions.

If there is a government that should be indicted for genocide it is the US government — not only Iraq, but for the slaughter in Vietnam, the slaughter in Central America — and lets not ever forget the Holocaust of the Native/First Nation peoples of this continent - for which the American government has never been held accountable.

Of-course, this has nothing to do with standing up for human rights - or being against genocide - this has everything to do with increasing the psychological pressure on the Iranian government that chooses to remain outside of the American puppet sphere.

This afternoon the House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to urge the United Nations to indict the President of Iran for inciting genocide. The charge is over a disproven allegation (based on a mistranslation) that Ahmadinejad was called for the destruction of Israel.

Only two members of the House voted against the resolution, Republican Ron Paul and Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Eleven members voted “present” indicating a weak opposition. Usually-consistently-antiwar Rep. Barbara Lee supported the hawks in this vote.

see also Vineyard’s blog entry on this “resolution.”

by

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
President,

International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

Malaysia.

A strategic shift has taken place in US-Israel policy in the Middle East. The new strategy seeks to isolate, emasculate and decimate Iran. Through this shift, the elite in Washington and Tel Aviv hope to achieve their ultimate goal which is ‘the conquest of the Middle East’, to borrow a phrase from Robert Fisk.

The Washington-Tel Aviv elites thought that they would be able to accomplish their objective through the invasion and occupation of Iraq. They would have gained effective control over one of the richest oil reserves in the region and would have eliminated a government— the Saddam Hussein leadership—that was an impediment to Israeli dominance of the Middle East.

Their strategy failed for two reasons. Armed opposition to the occupation mainly from the Sunni Arab community has turned out to be more organized and more determined than the occupiers had anticipated. The Shiite majority that was in a sense empowered through the invasion and the subsequent elections, has also become increasingly critical of the occupation and a segment of the community under the leadership of Muqtada Sadr has chosen to take up arms. What is even more significant, Shiites as a whole including the government of Prime Minister Nuri al- Maliki appear to be more inclined towards Shiite Iran. This is what prompted the American academic Juan Cole to make that cryptic remark, “The Iraq war is over and the winner is Iran”.

Read the rest of this entry »

This article, from the Financial Times, does a positive spin to the counter-revolutionary activities of the so-called “pro-democracy” groups in Iran.  The reality is that, if one looks at any of these groups even with just a low powered reading glasses, we get to see the real motivations, and loyalties - that are primarily towards making Iran into a pro-US country, with its very own loyal to America puppet regimes. But still an interesting article to read - as it openly admits to the role of American $$$ that are being used to promote puppet groups within the Islamic Republic. 

The US allocated $66.1m (€50m, £34m) in 2006 to promote democracy in the Islamic republic. Most of the money was for organisations outside Iran including the Washington-based Voice of America TV but $20m was earmarked for activities inside the country.

Recipients remained anonymous unless they chose to reveal the funding themselves.Critics in Tehran and Washington, including some within the US administration, allied governments and prominent NGOs, say this secret funding is damaging Iran’s NGO movement and the few US organisations working openly with Iranians, such as the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Open Society Institute.

Jim Lobe has a couple of good articles on Neo-Con targeting of Iran. I do not agree with him on some points, where he suggests that certain faux dissidents are “real” even though they are hanging out with the US neo-con anti-Iran soft and hard (counter) revolutionists. No self-described “dissident” can possibly be considered legitimate while they are collaborating with such an atrocious crowd.

However, he has linked to some fascinating documents on two recent conferences of the (faux) “democracy promotion” crowd.

The first one, sponsored by the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, was in Bahamas, and specifically focused on Iran.

You can read the agenda of that conference here

Articles and papers from the Bahamas conference can be read here

The second one was sponsored by the Prague Security Studies Institute (PSSI), the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies at the Likudist Shalem Center in Jerusalem, and Spain’s Foundation for Social Studies and Analysis (FAES) headed by former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

The conference program can be read here

A list of the conference participants can be read here - worth reading over a few times, so that next time you see their names associated with this or that (faux) “dissident” you’ll know what is going on…

Also check out this photograph (from their web site) titled “dissident round table” - more like puppets wannabes.

Vali Nasr has become the US media’s new favorite Muslim expert - especially on Shi’a Islam, Iran, and sectarianism. He has also become a favorite of some liberals, who like to quote him authoritatively from a couple of his books, again, especially when discussing Shi’as.

For these liberals, quoting a Shi’a Muslim scholar (i.e. an Ayatullah) on Shi’a Islam, would be anathema, because they are all considered to be “fundamentalists”, and “backwards.” And also because many liberals have adopted the neo-con hatred and Islamophobia for scholars of Islam, so they now have a supposed “liberal” American educated dude, who they can quote safely as a supposed representative of Shi’as.

So, now lets take a closer look at this guy. Who exactly is he? Who is he speaking for, and what are are his affiliations?

The Wikipedia entry on Vali Nasr offers some interesting insights that are worth examining:

First, Nasr, in January, 2006, was named the Adjunct Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Now, I’ve talked about the awful liberal Brooking Institute.. But, if that is not bad enough, the CFR is like plain rotten - amongst its members are the following:

Dick Cheney
Condoleezza Rice
Paul Wolfowitz
Robert M. Gates
John D. Negroponte
Richard Perle
Leslie Gelb
Colin Powell
Alice Rivlin
Madeleine Albright
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Henry Kissinger

more here

Among the participants at Prague’s International Conference on Democracy and Security were Reza Pahlavi, a son of Iran’s autocratic shah who was listed as an “opposition leader to the clerical regime of Iran,” and Farid Ghadry, often referred to as Syria’s Ahmed Chalabi. Many other invitees, including Richard N. Perle, were leading U.S. neoconservatives and Iraq war advocates.