Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods
BBC’s Iran protests backgrounders fail to ameliorate years of omission
At Foreign Policy magazine, Dennis Ross noted that:
“Placards criticizing corruption are rampant, and some demonstrators have even chanted death to the dictator, referring to Khamenei. Protesters have also railed against the costs of Iran’s foreign adventures: One of the earliest chants was, “Not Gaza, not Lebanon, my life for Iran.” […]
The protestors are asking why their money is spent in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza […] On Hezbollah alone, Iran is estimated to provide more than $800 million a year — and their costs in sustaining the Assad regime come to several billion dollars.”
...
An article titled “Iran protests: US brands Tehran’s accusations ‘nonsense’” that also appeared on the BBC News website on January 2nd included analysis by the BBC’s Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen in which readers were told that:
“When the protests started last Thursday, they were about the current economic crisis but as they spread, pent-up frustrations spilled out and politics became a big part of them.
President Rouhani has been widely criticised. He has disappointed voters who hoped he would do more to turn round an economy that has been damaged by years of sanctions, corruption and mismanagement.
Iran’s role in conflicts across the Middle East has also been criticised as it is an expensive foreign policy at a time when people in Iran are getting poorer.”
Another backgrounder – published on the BBC News website on January 4th under the headline “Six charts that explain the Iran protests” made no mention whatsoever of the vast sums of money shoring up the Iranian regime’s protégés and proxies around the Middle East.
Two and a half years ago senior BBC journalists covering the P5+1 deal with Iran assured BBC audiences that the vast sums of money freed up by sanctions relief under the terms of the JCPOA would be used by the Iranian regime to improve the country’s economy.
“President Rouhani was elected because people hoped that he would end Iran’s isolation and thus improve the economy. So the windfall that they will be getting eventually, which is made up of frozen revenues – oil revenues especially –around the world, ah…there are people who argue that look; that will go to try to deal with loads and loads of domestic economic problems and they’ll have trouble at home if they don’t do that. If people – the argument goes on – are celebrating in Iran about the agreement, it’s not because they’ll have more money to make trouble elsewhere in the region; it’s because things might get better at home.” Jeremy Bowen, PM, BBC Radio 4, July 14th 2015
“In exchange it [Iran] will get a lot. It will get a release of the punishing sanctions. We heard from Hassan Rouhani saying as Iran always says that the sanctions did not succeed but he conceded that they did have an impact on the everyday lives of Iranians. There’s an estimate that some $100 billion will, over time, once Iran carries out its implementation of this agreement, will be released into the Iranian economy.” Lyse Doucet, Newshour, BBC World Service radio, July 14th 2015.
Since then, the BBC has continued the existing practice of serially avoiding any serious reporting on the issue of Iran’s financing of terror groups and militias across the Middle East.
Given that long-standing policy of omission, it is obvious that BBC audiences are not sufficiently informed on the issue to be able to understand the full significance of those euphemistic references to “Iran’s involvement in countries like Lebanon and Syria”, its “role in conflicts across the Middle East” and its “expensive foreign policy” found in content supposedly meant to explain why Iranians have taken to the streets in protest.
"Our literature is equated with dynamite. This is a great honour for us, I think"How the BBC whitewashed the issue of women’s rights in Iran
This is the opening paragraph of an article titled “How Iran’s feminist genie escaped” which was published in the ‘Features & Analysis’ section of the BBC News website’s Middle East page and in its ‘Magazine’ section on March 5th – in decidedly embarrassing proximity to International Women’s Day:Iran feminism art
“Iran’s 1979 revolution may have put an ayatollah in charge – but for women it had plenty of positive side-effects… in education, in the workplace, and even in the home, discovers Amy Guttman during a ride on the Tehran underground.”
Later on in the article, readers are told:
“Farah talks of the major changes Iranian women have experienced in the last 30 years […] On Tehran’s metro, I’m getting a spontaneous, unprompted lesson about gender equality in Iran.
Farah tells me it all began, not with imports from the West, but with the 1979 revolution. A confluence of access, education and a bad economy created a society where women now have independence, careers and husbands happy to help around the house with chores and children.
The revolution, Farah says, was very good for women.”
The article continues:
“The revolutionists supported women coming out of their homes to demonstrate. They used women to show their strength, but they never anticipated these women also believed in their right to exist outside the home,” Farah remembers.
Iran’s genies were let out of the bottle. The same genies have gone on to become active members of theological schools and hold positions as judges and engineers. […]
There’s no greater evidence of women in the workplace, than where we’re sitting, surrounded by women on their way to work. It’s another outcome the Ayatollah hadn’t expected, but with Iran’s economy battered by the revolution, women had no choice but to join the workforce.
“It forced men to acknowledge that their wives could go out and earn money,” Farah says. Growing up, Farah only remembers affluent families allowing girls to work outside the home. Now, she says, “Nearly all boys prefer to marry a girl who has a permanent job and good salary. Often the women work harder, and longer hours than their husbands, so they do more of the housework – cleaning and preparing meals.””
Of course the rosy picture painted by Amy Guttman’s sole source for this article – whom she economically describes as “my guide Farah” – is clearly at odds with the reality presented in reports such as those above. So who is Farah and why is her portrayal of the status of women in Iran so different from the accounts of numerous human rights organisations?
Amy Guttman is a freelance journalist and in addition to this article and the very similar audio version (from 11:22) made for the February 28th edition of BBC Radio 4’s ‘From Our Own Correspondent’, her visit to Iran also prompted pieces for other media outlets. In one of those articles she correctly notes that:
“British, American and Canadian tourists must be accompanied by a guide at all times in Iran.”
Those guides must be approved by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. In other words, the sole source for the BBC’s multi-platform promotion of the notion that the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran was “very good for women” is a regime approved minder.
And yet that fact did not prevent the organization which likes to describe itself as “the standard-setter for international journalism” from commissioning, publishing and broadcasting this cringingly transparent regime propaganda which whitewashes the serious issues faced by women in Iran.
Decky wrote:You are a perfect example of no thought process at all.
Syrians suffering under Iranian-supported regime praise Israel’s strikes
By SETH J. FRANTZMAN
Qais al-Khazali, the head of the Iraqi Shi’a Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq militia, celebrated the downing of an Israeli F-16 by Syrian air defense in a series of tweets over the weekend. Although most responses were supportive, one mocked him and Iran for being “pawns, luring children to their death.”
This is part of the much wider debate unfolding between opponents and supporters of the Syrian regime. In this debate, Israel’s actions and any perception of Iranian gains have ramifications across the region. For supporters of Assad and Tehran, the “axis of resistance” has scored a great victory against the “Zionists.” For those who have stood with the Syrian rebellion and watched Assad’s barrel bombs killing civilians for years, the Israeli air strikes against the Iranians in Syria are a welcome sign.
يوم سعيد والطائرات الاسرائيلية تقصف مواقع حزب الله وإيران في سوريا ومواقع أخرى لنظام بشار .. الاخوانجية سيقفون مع ايران وسوريا وحزب الله ضد الضربات الاسرائيلية .. وأما أنا سأقف اليوم ليس لتحية الجيش الاسرائيلي ولكن لأتمنى أن يهلك الظالمين بالظالمين
— منصور الخميس (@MansourAlkhamis) February 10, 2018
“A happy day that Israeli planes bomb Hezbollah and Iran sites in Syria and other sites of the Bashar [Assad] regime,” a Saudi named Mansour al-Khamis tweeted in Arabic to his 29,000 followers on Saturday. He claimed the Muslim Brotherhood stands with Iran, the Syrian regime and Hezbollah, but today “I will stand not to salute the Israeli Army but to that the oppressors will destroy the unjust.” Replies to his tweet included accusations that “Wahhabi Saudi Arabia” was collaborating with Israel.
Twelve years ago, during the Israel-Hezbollah war, the region was vastly different. Then, the support for Hezbollah and its claims of “victory” over Israel were more widespread. Now, the cleavages in the region between supporters of Assad, Iran and Hezbollah and those who look on with more favor as Israel targeted a dozen sites in Syria on Saturday, are more stark. Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war irretrievably tarnished the group’s image for many people. Iran has been portrayed in cartoons in the region as a grasping octopus with bloody hands reaching into Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq.
Faisal al-Qassem, who hosts The Opposite Direction debate program on Al Jazeera, provided some balanced comments on the Syrian-Israel clash. In a series of provocative tweets, he blamed Israel for Iran and its militias being in Syria in the first place. However, he also gave voice to others who challenge the conspiracy theories that allege Israel is secretly allied with the Assad regime in order to weaken the Syrian people. He also retweeted a comment from a man named Myassein Najjar who noted the irony of Russia complaining about Israel violating Syrian sovereignty, while Russia violates Syrian sovereignty. In a February 10 poll on Al-Qassem’s Twitter in Arabic, he asked who his followers support: Iran and its militias or Israel. Fifty-fix percent of respondents, fully 12,800 people, said they supported Israel.
لو اندلعت حرب (لو لو لو لو ) بين اسرائيل من جهة وإيران وميليشياتها في سوريا من جهة أخرى، من ستؤيد؟
— فيصل القاسم (@kasimf) February 10, 2018
“THERE IS no Syrian in his right mind who would line up with Israel against his native Syria, but you will find millions of Syrians queuing up with the blue devils [Israel] against the fascist sectarian regime that has surpassed all the monsters on earth in killing Syrians,” wrote one anonymous Syrian about the situation.
A knowledgeable Syrian source who supports the opposition said he hopes Israel will continue its retaliation against Iranian targets in Syria. “Everybody now, including me, is thinking that if Israel does not hit then it is afraid. One harsh hit at least.” He hoped to see Iran and Hezbollah “broken” by Israeli strikes. Hezbollah has been a key supporter of Assad, sending thousands of fighters to Syria over the last six years. When there were rumors on Saturday night of explosions near Aleppo on Mount Azzan, the source said many assumed it was Israel. “After the massive killing inflicted on civilians, the opposition and activists started to see Iran as the biggest enemy,” he says. “Syrians always compare between Israel and the Iranian-supported regime.”
He noted that these divisions between support for the regime and Israel’s policies have repercussions beyond Syria. For instance, he claimed “Ahed Tamimi’s father is a regime supporter.” He said that stories about the Tamimis had been circulated among Syrian opposition members who wondered, “If his daughter was a Syrian, would she dare shout at a soldier [as she shouted at Israeli soldiers]?” No, he says. “She would be killed [by the regime] immediately.” This shows how the Palestinian conflict plays out in Syria.
He argues that Iran seeks to use the Syrian regime and its supporters against Israel. “It will incite hatred against Israel just to achieve its ideological dream and to keep the regime of clerics in power.” This has wider repercussions. He argues Israel miscalculated in the first years of the rebellion, preferring Assad because the Assad family had kept the border calm for decades. “Now they [Israel] faces Iran in Syria. A lot of Arab youth are misled by these two evil regimes [Syria and Iran].” He asserts that if the opposition came to power that eventually there could be discussions with Israel about “normalization.”
This illustrates the major ramifications caused by any action of Israel or Iran. It is not just about a few bases in Syria, or a drone over Beit She’an, but a wider conflict that has repercussions across the region. From Syrian refugees trying to make a new life, to Shi’a militias in Iraq and commentators in Doha and Riyadh, Saturday’s events were watched closely.
How American Media Spin-Doctored the Iranian Protests
Barely a month ago, Iranians were amassing in the streets to protest against their government. Their core grievances, according to Western media and politicos, were the economy, foreign policy, expansionism, and human rights.
Today, the protests are over. But according to a recent survey by the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (based at the University of Maryland) and IranPoll, only one of those grievances actually provided the spark: the economy.
According to the poll, more than 72 percent of 1,002 Iranian respondents agreed that their government is not doing enough to help the poor, 86 percent said it shouldn’t increase the price of gasoline, 95 percent wanted a halt on the rising prices of food products, and an equal number agreed that their leaders should do more to fight financial and bureaucratic corruption.
Asked to select the single most important problem or challenge currently facing Iran, respondents overwhelmingly selected unemployment (40.1 percent), followed by inflation and high costs of living (12.5 percent), youth unemployment (9.4 percent), low incomes (6.9 percent), financial corruption/embezzlement (6 percent), and so forth.
Interestingly enough, “lack of civil liberties” was the least selected of the options offered by the pollsters, coming in at a paltry 0.3 percent, while “injustice” garnered just 1.4 percent.
President Donald Trump thought otherwise: “The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted,” he tweeted. “Big protests in Iran…The U.S.A is watching very closely for human rights violations!” blared another Trump tweet.
In fact, according to poll results, over 66 percent of respondents believed their police forces handled the protests very well (34.5 percent) or somewhat well (31.8 percent), compared to 23.7 percent who said demonstrations were managed somewhat or very badly. Some 63 percent of those polled said the police used an appropriate amount of force, and another 11.4 percent said they used “too little force.”
While 64.5 percent of respondents answered that “peaceful protesters who were chanting slogans against government policies” should be released from detention, 42.3 percent said “peaceful protesters who were chanting slogans against Islam or religious laws” should be “prosecuted, but not punished harshly,” with an additional 31.9 percent saying they “should be punished harshly.”
That trend continues with 68.3 percent of respondents agreeing that protesters “chanting slogans against Iran’s political system” should be prosecuted, and a whopping 62.5 percent insisting that protesters burning Iran’s flag should be “prosecuted and punished harshly.” Almost the same numbers demanded prosecution and punishment for those attacking the police (63.9 percent) and damaging public property (59.7 percent).
Overall, 84.5 percent of Iranians strongly agreed (63 percent) or somewhat agreed (21.5 percent) that “the government should be more forceful to stop rioters who use violence or damage property.”
Meanwhile, back at the UN Security Council, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was spinning her version of Iranian “aspirations.” The protests, she railed, are “a powerful exhibition of brave people who have become so fed up with their oppressive government that they’re willing to risk their lives in protest.” Haley also demanded emergency UN meetings to deal with Iran’s domestic situation.
Yet when asked whether their government interferes too much in people’s personal lives, a hefty 66.8 percent of Iranians disagreed, compared to 26.3 percent who agreed.
But American pundits were well past looking for “evidence” at that point. As Brookings Institution fellow Suzanne Maloney told the Washington Post: “What’s different” about these Iranian protests is “that people aren’t just demonstrating for better working conditions or pay, but insisting on wholesale rejection of the system itself.”
According to the poll results, only 16.4 percent of Iranians agreed with the statement that “Iran’s political system needs to undergo fundamental change”—76.7 percent disagreed, with 53.5 percent them saying they “strongly disagreed.” That’s a staggering three quarters that, according to this poll, appear to favor their current government. And this number correlates with the over 70 percent of voters that cast ballots in Iranian elections—surely a sign of a system’s “legitimacy” if there ever was one.
Indeed, shortly after the poll’s release, the Washington Post changed its tune and acknowledged that Iranians showed “comparatively little support for changing Iran’s political system or relaxing strict Islamic law.”
Iran’s foreign policy is at the core of U.S. frustrations in the region, as the Islamic Republic and its allies continue to make gains in military theaters that affect American hegemonic goals. This explains why U.S. media and politicians jumped all over the few protest slogans that appeared to show support for Iran exiting its strategic and military commitments within the region. Those slogans were often granted equal weight with the more economic ones, despite the fact that the economy was clearly the motivating factor behind Iranian unrest.
Former president Barack Obama’s “Iran czar” Dennis Ross even published a piece in Foreign Policy titled “Iranians are mad as hell about their foreign policy” where he very transparently tried to tie Iran’s economic woes to its military expenditures in the region—and not, for instance, U.S. sanctions. “The protesters are asking why their money is spent in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza—and the administration should be putting out the estimates of what the Islamic republic is actually spending,” he advised the White House. “The Iranian public is making it clear it is fed up with the costs of the country’s expansion in the region.”
Does he have a point? The poll shows that a majority of Iranians (51.1 percent) disagree with the statement that “the government should spend less money in places like Syria and Iraq,” while 41.3 percent agreed. That number increases when it’s asked whether “Iran’s current level of involvement in Iraq and Syria is not in Iran’s national interest,” with 61.2 percent disagreeing and 32.6 percent agreeing. (Keep in mind that the poll was taken after ISIS had been largely defeated in both Syria and Iraq.)
The survey even specifically asks whether military assistance to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should change “now that Iran and Russia have declared victory over ISIS in Syria.” To this, 14.8 percent of Iranians responded that military assistance should end, 30 percent said it should be “reduced,” and 48.5 percent answered it should continue “until Assad’s government gains full control over all Syrian territories.”
Furthermore, an overwhelming 86.5 percent of Iranians think Iran should increase (54.8 percent) or maintain at current levels (31.7 percent) its “support of groups fighting terrorist groups like ISIS.”
The Wall Street Journal should pay attention to these figures. During Iran’s protests, it ran the headline “Iran’s Spending on Foreign Conflicts Raises Protesters’ Ire,” and stated quite incorrectly that “the billions of dollars Iran spends on foreign conflicts have been a focal point of protester anger at a time when domestic inflation and unemployment are in double digits. Crowds chanting ‘Leave Syria, think of us!’ are seeking to force Tehran to reassess a cornerstone of its foreign policy: the use of proxies to spread its influence and challenge regional rivals, notably Saudi Arabia.”
It’s another example of American media trying to connect Iranian economic grievances to the nation’s security imperatives. That trick simply doesn’t work in wartime—or when populations perceive security threats. Even the menace of further U.S. sanctions that could lead to more economic contraction doesn’t alter this perception among Iranians—70 percent said “Iran should not agree to stop developing advanced missiles” even if Trump threatens sanctions.
The Washington Post was all over this too: “’No Gaza, no Lebanon, our lives for Iran,’ the crowds chanted at one of the first demonstrations. ‘Leave Syria alone, think about us,’ and ‘Death to Hezbollah’ were among other slogans.”
Yet two thirds of Iranians (64.7 percent) told pollsters that they viewed Hezbollah favorably, and a stunning 82.7 percent favored the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force’s elite unit commander General Qassem Soleimani, the highest number garnered in the poll by a featured Iranian political figure. Soleimani is the architect of most of Iran’s (and its allies’) battle plans in Syria and Iraq.
Iran is one of only a few stable nations in a neighborhood torn apart by war and terrorism, so it isn’t difficult to understand why defense expenditures that enhance the country’s strategic depth and protect its borders are given a pass, even as economic pressures abound.
The CISSM/IranPoll survey is worth a thorough perusal, as it provides valuable insights on what Iranians think on a variety of issues—including key U.S. ones like the nuclear deal. Even more importantly, it helps separate fact from fiction on the Islamic Republic at a time when the U.S. administration is ramping up the war propaganda once again.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -protests/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... -protests/
Hindsite wrote:"We keep pointing the gun. We haven't pulled a single trigger yet. And it's about time that we did. I would be launching air strikes not only in Iraq, but also in Syria."
-John McCaain
LehmanB wrote:What kept Assad in power is RUSSIA. Obama didn't calculate the Russian intervention well enough.
Zionist Nationalist wrote:without Assad there is no hezbollah and no Iran on our borders
- By litwin
A lot of Russians vacationing in Mexico. I have[…]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GMCdypUXU[…]
- By Rancid
As a Latino, I am always very careful about cross[…]
