destabilization in the region, beginning with iraq seems to be working.... anyone other then me think that might have been part of the plan??

better yet, instead of "one wonders what kind of choices lie ahead for Mousavi, Rafsanjani, and their milliions of followers tomorrow. . ."

one wonders what kind of choices lie ahead for the oil cartel and their millions of followers....

i would agree with him on this ""American officials remarks about human rights and limitations on people are not acceptable because they have no idea about human rights after what they have done in Afghanistan and Iran and other parts of the world. We do not need advice over human rights from them."

Mousavi looks exhausted in that picture.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/027782.html

June 19, 2009
Who Put the ‘green’ in the Green Revolution?

The United States, of course.

As in the previous “color revolutions” that seem to tirelessly capture the romantic imagination of US journalists, elites, and the propagandized population, the warm embrace of the US empire is firmly guiding the “spontaneous” Iranian uprising against last week’s election results. While I do not and should not– nor should any other American — care in the slightest who rules a country some seven thousand miles away, when the fingerprints of the US empire show up on these dramatic events overseas it is very much my business.

Several commentators have already dredged from the memory hole press reporting at the time on a presidential “finding” on Iran, which is the formal method for the president to initiate covert actions against another country. Back in 2007 — plenty of lead time for this election — the president met with the Congressional Star Chamber, the “gang of 8″ House and Senate leaders, and was granted the authorization to use some $400 million for among other things, as the Washington Post reported, “activities ranging from spying on Iran’s nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country’s ruling clerics….”

Arch neo-conservative Kenneth Timmerman spilled the beans on activities of the other arm of US meddling overseas, the obscenely mis-named National Endowment for Democracy, in a piece written one day before the election, stating curiously that “there’s the talk of a ‘green revolution’ in Tehran.” Interesting. I wonder where that “talk” was coming from. Timmerman did not appear to be writing from Iran.

Timmerman went on to write, with admirable candor and honesty, that:

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

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

Yes, you say, but what does a blow-hard propagandist like Timmerman know about such things? Well, he should know! His very spooky Foundation for Democracy in Iran has its own snout deep in the trough of NED’s “open covert actions” against the Iranian government.

How does the “Foundation for Democracy in Iran” seek to “promote democracy” in Iran with our tax dollars? Foundation co-founder Joshua Muravchik gives us a hint in his subtly-titled LA Times piece, “Bomb Iran.”

Frankly, what I find more disturbing than the fact that the US government continues meddling in this new magical era of Obama is how many in the United States continue to be taken in by these events color-coordinated from afar. Pundits have turned their websites green in “solidarity” with this “green revolution.” Self-described “libertarians” have thrown all critical thinking aside to embrace their inner green. As if hoping, somehow, that this time it will all be true. That the “people power” really is on the march. That it is a binary world where there are evil incumbents — the old guard — oppressing thrusting “reformers” who are Twittering away toward the bright tomorrow of a world where everyone wants to be just like us! Democracy!

At times like these, I turn to the great Matt Taibbi, who has written the best piece of all time on how the US has morphed into the USSR:

“Modern observers look back at the early Soviet days and wonder how it is that people could possibly have believed those fantastic tales they read about in the state papers–the lurid descriptions of fascist terrorists and wreckers who conspired to poison reservoirs and turn up rails and put broken glass in sausage in the most faraway, seemingly irrelevant places in Siberia and the far north. The answer probably is that they wanted to believe them. Because that was what was in their hearts. It wasn’t a lie that was being put over on them. It came from them.”

And on it goes…

"One wonders what kind of choices lie ahead for Mousavi, Rafsanjani, and their milliions of followers tomorrow." It's pretty obvious: bad choices.

I have seen nothing to suggest that the Rafsanjani faction would offer much of a better alternative for the people of Iran. You simply don't get to be the richest person in the country by putting the people's interests first.

However, Congress, the media, and TWN all seem to believe that Rafsanjani/Mousavi would offer a better deal to Western economic interests.

That's the whole point of all this hype about the poor Iranian people, whom official Washington has never, even shown the least concern for--until now. Washington now sees that protests in the streets can be useful to their agenda and to those economic interests that underwrite politicians, the media, and think tanks. Now we are to believe that official Washington has gone all teary eyed about the Iranian people! Hogwash!

Regardless of what official Washington thinks, people shouldn't be murdered or beaten for simply wanting basic freedoms.

e.g. exercising the right to peaceful assembly, free speech, or the exercise of a vote. These strike me as fundamental values.

As a parallel analogy: I would wager that most didn't know MLK or ordinary civil rights marchers -- yet the sympathy for the marchers deepened the public resolve to find a solution to the injustices of segregation -- even if many of those solutions entailed hard compromises.

The civil rights movement in this country also raised those questions about "local concerns". At what point is a local concern, more than just a local concern?

In the same way, I think it's fair debate what the correct course of action is for the U.S. at a policy level. It's fair to recognize that our ability to play a constructive role in the process unfolding in Iran is severely curtailed -- especially given our history in the region over the past 50 years. However, this awareness doesn't absolve us of all responsibility.

I think the phrase: "it's not about us" is an interesting concept in the abstract. In reality, I think it would be more accurate to say: "it is not primarily about us, but in a way, it is still 'about us' too". If we chose to do nothing, that's still our choice.

As far as how this plays out, the stakes are highest going forward for ordinary citizens. Most can probably turn back and avoid retribution -- even if some will be made an example of. The political leaders, on the other hand, have already made their wager (for better or worse).

It'll be interesting to see if Fannie Lou Hamer's statement "I got sick and tired of being sick and tired" is at work in the current process in Iran. Just how sick and tired are ordinary citizen? Just how much more b.s. are they willing to put up with?

Even if as you say JohnH, it's ultimately a choice between bad options, it will be interesting to see how things unfold. In the case of Rafsanjani/Mousavi, for the poor, the entire exercise may be a wash. For middle class and upper middle class families though, it's likely that there are very real difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi -- especially as it relates to civil liberties and future economic opportunity, and perhaps even the question of war and peace.

It's a measure of the courage of ordinary citizens that they have even taken this process as far as they have at this stage. As someone watching these events unfold from a safe distance in the comfort of a largely free society -- it is absolutely humbling to witness these events unfold.

franklin - washington thinks it needs to have it's war machine in iraq controlling iraqis fate from close and afar while murdering a lot of innocent people in the process.. i bet you have your girdle in a knot over that too, just like you do over what is going on in iran at present...

justin raimondo over at antiwar.com

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/06/18/irans-green-revolution/

The usual suspects are raising cain over the Iranian events: George Packer, who aptly describes himself as "a suspected neocon fellow-traveler," wants a full-throated expression of support for the "Green Revolution" from the White House, and argues (convincingly) that Obama, in spite of his abjuration against "meddling," has done everything but: his intellectual soul-brother, Andrew Sullivan — another supposedly "reformed" neocon, who has since recanted his role in cheerleading the Iraq war — has issued a foot-stamping encyclical demanding: "No Recognition of Ahmadinejad: This is the first and absolute requirement of all Western governments." One wonders what the second — and undoubtedly just as "absolute" — requirement is going to be: new and harsher economic sanctions? It’s just a coincidence that this non-recognition ploy would torpedo the much-vaunted prospect of negotiating with Tehran over the outstanding issues that separate Washington and Tehran: after all, we can’t negotiate with a government we don’t recognize.

Sullivan doesn’t want us to recognize — and, presumably, meet with — the Ahmadinejad faction if they come out on top, but of course it’s perfectly fine for our Secretary of State to meet with Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of what even the most pro-Israel among the nation’s magazine editors — Marty Peretz — calls a "neo-fascist" party. That Lieberman is also the foreign minister of Israel should certainly not make a lot of difference to the Andrew Sullivans of this world, unless their moral outrage comes attached to a particular agenda.