[noir]

^

A bizarre Taqqyah piece. The author accuses the reluctant conscripts for jihadi imperial policy of the Mullahs, "racism"? This piece is classic potpourri type
of analysis that is common among Arab and Islamic commenters. Their tactic is to use Marxist jargon which indeed work for them.

Commentators and self-styled experts have been quick to jump to hasty conclusions and decree what is driving the present bout of discontent. The giddy enthusiasm of the Trump administration, rightwing DC thinktanks, and many others is palpable. Predictably, the same voices who have consistently demanded Iran’s international isolation, along with the imposition of sanctions, military intervention, and regime change, have rapidly sought to bandwagon the recent expressions of discontent and appropriate them for their own imperial agendas. Such rampant and frankly malevolent opportunism is frustrating to say the least. Within the space of some twenty-four hours, and with only a small number of exceptions, nearly every mainstream Western media outlet has inclined to assimilate legitimate expressions of socioeconomic distress and demands for greater governmental accountability into a question of “regime change.”


The pernicious “all or nothing” outlook, which permeates mainstream media coverage of discontent inside Iran, systematically prevents serious consideration of other grievances at work. These include growing inequality, high food prices, air pollution and environmental degradation, diminished domestic productive capacities, the lack of economic diversification, youth unemployment, and everyday corruption, to list a few. These issues can hardly be analyzed through wishfully-propelled narratives of “regime change” and the facile assumption that what guides the policies of Western powers and their allies is a commitment to democracy. In fact, if these same commentators could escape their caged prejudices they might realize that these very real issues are faced by many countries across the global south and beyond.

Many of the slogans chanted in this latest round of protests were surely political and relate to frustrations with the status quo. Others, however, demonstrate well how socioeconomic grievances coalesce with expressions of racism and xenophobia. Not exactly news to those following the rise of right-wing populism across Europe and the United States. Such instances do not merely give voice to anger over state support for Hizballah in Lebanon and the Asad regime in Syria, but also anti-Arab discourse and bizarre nostalgia for the days of Reza Shah (i.e., this generation never lived through or experienced the first Pahlavi monarch’s rule); views which have sometimes found themselves cultivated by Western media, but also popular diaspora Persian language TV channels such as Manoto, whose sources have been the subject of much speculation.

A Note on the US Factor

It would be remiss not to mention that the Trump administration has continued to try and thwart foreign investment and Iran’s integration into the global economy. Its aggressive anti-Iran stance and constant demonization of the country has to some extent dovetailed with Rouhani’s preoccupation with reducing inflation and subsidy cuts in view of the collapse of global oil prices, a kind of neoliberalism-lite, only exacerbating matters further. The Obama administration’s drive to sanction Iran’s oil exports and Central Bank between 2011 and 2015, similarly sparked a crisis in the value of the rial in 2012-2013 as the Ahmadinejad government and later that of Rouhani scrambled to acquire foreign currency. In addition, Europe’s inability to resolve Iran’s being locked out of the international banking system has made conduct of even the most rudimentary financial transactions for state and private sector alike a convoluted chore. Such obstacles thrown up by Washington, along with European inertia, show little regard to the diplomatic accord struck between Iran and the P5+1. Given such dynamics, there is little wonder that the Rouhani government is struggling to square the circle.

Thanks to MEMRI, the world knows what the protestors are objecting, so the author obliges to include it in his analysis dismissing it as "racism". Without it, the rest of MSM will be happy to go along with the Mullahs Taqqya (deception).

[Rugoz]

The "mullahs" will not be toppled violently.

Yep, they will be removed by magic.

[anasawad]

Yep, they will be removed by magic.

Actually he's right, regular people simply do not have the capability of toppling them, and if you invade to topple them you will first be in quagmire where Iraq will literally be kids play and jokes in comparison. And in the same time other similar regime will be established.
Khomeini only got into power because the already existent political coalitions along side the old tribes put hem there. And as far as these are concerned, the current regime is far better than the alternatives.
A pro-western regime is impossible anytime in the next century or two in Iran, you already burnt that card with the Shah.
Inside the regime currently there is a political conflict rising between the clerics and other factions.
In Iran in general, the regime will only be replaced when it stops serving its purposes, and its replacement will either by a semi-socialist regime or by one of the old dynasties. The most notable dynasties still around and still holding significant wealth and leverage are the Timurs , The Safavis , and the Osmanis.
(Funny enough, none of them are actually fully Persian, all three are Turko-Persian dynasties, as the really old dynasties faded away and only ones left are the Turkic dynasties that were persianized and integrated into the nation across history)

There really aren't any other possibilities to go from there. I mean even if somehow a fully capitalist free-market Iran were to emerge, it would turn into an oligarchy within a handful of years because the upper ultra-rich class are all old dynasties and under a capitalist system they'll crush any competition to power in no time.
Whatever system to be implemented in Iran, it must be one that balances power between the regular everyday people and the old powerful elites of the empire.
Thats why for example Iran can be socialist but could never be communist. It simply wont be allowed.

Its weird that all the so-called intellectuals who weigh in to give their opinion on Iran and start pushing a system based on their ideology (either capitalist or communist) seem to just skip the fact that Iran is a very old nations with most of its history as an empire. Empires accumulate and generate lots of wealth for the imperial dynasties ruling them. That wealth wont just evaporate, infact, its usually the other way around as wealth tend to grow. The dynasties that lose their wealth are the ones who don't manage to evict before their reign ends. Those aren't exactly many, as most got out when they saw the end of their rule coming.


And on the topic, Its hilarious to see the utter stupidity of some of the commentators here and in general.
Like seriously, the clerics and with all their flaws are still essentially soft snowflakes in international arena in comparison to both the current alternative regimes and the old regimes before.
You guys really need to start reading a little history to understand what type of nations Iran is before start throwing dice.
Iran is not Iraq, Iran already has a tendency towards a certain type of governance and regimes that is well integrated into the culture and way of thinking of the nation. The current regime is the softest and most moderate form of it. Yes, with all its flaws, it still is.
Attempting to replace it wont produce "prosperity and peace" to the west, because the alternative while in certain aspects are better for Iran, are much much worse to everyone outside.

[Zionist Nationalist]

You, Zionist, are so utterly short sighted and impulsive that you cannot even fathom the consequences of any political actions that are taken and due to this, you'll support actions that have such horrible and destructive long terms consequences just because your tribe supports it. You have no sense of individual thought, ideas, or critical thinking skills, all that matters is that your tribe wins, that your tribe is doing well, that your tribe dominates. You are the most terrible representation of what will bore from the tribalism and sectarianism of the modern West. You are the symbol for what will be the West's undoing. You represent the decadent, impulsive, and un-introspective part of modern society, one that is incapable of any form of self-dialogue and understanding. Death is what you wish, death is what you preach, and death is what you will get. And believe me, when you finally make enough mistakes, when you finally realize the futility, horrendous consequences of your own beliefs you will stick to them until the very end. Until the darkness engulfs you and as the last bit of sanity and individuality drains from the recesses of your mind, you will realize that you have screwed up.

Thats the world we live in everyone care about themselves

a regime change in Iran are good for my country thus I support it and I dont care about the consequences because no mullahs in Iran=game over for Hezbollah its like killing two birds with one shot

[anasawad]

^LoL.
No clerics in Iran and you just killed off around 1-2% of Hezbollah funding, at best years maybe 5%.
Great planning. Aiming at the little pieces.

[Victoribus Spolia]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[noir]

Its weird that all the so-called intellectuals who weigh in to give their opinion on Iran and start pushing a system based on their ideology (either capitalist or communist) seem to just skip the fact that Iran is a very old nations with most of its history as an empire.

Sane "old culture" argument was heard also during anti Mubarak protsts in Egypt. It's nonsense. Most of the Iranians were born after 1979 Islamic revolution. It's young society, and if they are desperate enough the sky is the limit.


Goose bumps. Bless the brave women of Iran

Adore their bravery

[skinster]

Iran - Early U.S. Support For Rioters Hints At A Larger Plan
In Iran - Regime Change Agents Hijack Economic Protests we looked at the developing U.S.-Israeli operation to instigate a revolt in Iran. What follows are a few more background points and a view on the developments since. A color revolution or revolt in Iran have only little chances of success. But even as the fail they can be used as pretext for additional sanctions and other anti-Iranian measures. The current incidents are thus only one part of a much larger plan.

The "western" democracies are used to distinguish political parties as left or right with fixed combinations of economic and cultural policies. The "left" is seen as preferring a social economy that benefits the larger population and as cultural liberal or progressive. The right is seen as cultural conservative with a preference for a free market economy that favors the richer segments of a nation.

The political camps in Iran are different.

The simplified version: The conservatives, or "principalists", are cultural conservative but favor economic programs that benefit the poor. Their support base are the rural people as well as the poorer segments of the city dwellers. The last Iranian president near to them was Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. One of his major policies was the implementation of cash payments to the needy as replacement of general and expensive subsidies on oil products and foodstuff. The current Iranian president Hassan Rouhani is a member of the "reformist" camp. His support base are the merchants and the richer parts of the society. He is culturally (relative) progressive but his economic polices are neoliberal. The new budget he introduced for the next year cuts back on the subsidies for the poor Ahmedinejad had introduced. It will increase prices for fuel and basic food stuff up to 30-40%.

The protests on December 28 and 29 were about these and other economic issues. Such protests have regularly occurred in Iran throughout the decades. But the current ones were soon hijacked by small groups which chanted slogans against the Iranian system and against the strong Iranian engagement in Syria and Palestine. These are not majority positions of the 80 million inhabitants of Iran:

According to the poll, 67.9% say Iran should increase backing for anti-IS groups, up from 59.8% a year ago. Meanwhile, a majority of 64.9% backs the deployment of Iranian military personnel to Syria to help the regime of Bashar al-Assad, up slightly from 62.7% a year ago.

The small groups that hijacked the protests against Rouhani's economic polices were heavily promoted by the usual suspects of U.S. influence operations. Avaaz, the RAND cooperation, Human Rights Watch and others immediately jumped onto the bandwagon. (True to form HRW's Ken Roth used a picture of a pro-government rally to illustrate the much smaller anti-government protests.) The smaller groups that hijacked and publicized the demonstration seem well coordinated. But they are far from a genuine movement or even a majority.

On the morning of December 30 large demonstrations in support of the Iranian republic were taking place in several cities. In Tehran several thousand people took part.


The self described "Iran junkie" of the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy, Suzanne Maloney, interpreted these as counter-demonstrations to the small gatherings the night before:

Suzanne Maloney‏ @MaloneySuzanne - 12:40 PM - 30 Dec 2017

The Islamic Republic has a well-oiled machine for mobilizing pro-regime rallies (Rouhani himself headlined one in 1999 after student protests.) What's interesting is that it was deployed almost immediately this time.

The "Iran junkie" and "expert" did not know that yearly pro-government demonstrations are held in Iran on each 9th of Dey (Iranian calender) since 2009 and are planned well in advance. They commemorate the defeat of the CIA color revolution attempt in 2009. That attempt had followed the reelection of the president Ahmedinejad. It had used the richer segment of the Iranian society in north Tehran as its stooges. It is not yet clear what social strata, if any, this attempt is using.

In June 2009 Brookings Institute published a manual on how to overthrow the Iranian government or to take control of the country. "Iran junkie" Maloney was one of the authors. WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? - Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran (pdf) came in four parts:

Part I - Dissuading Tehran: The Diplomatic options.
Part II - Disarming Tehran: The Military options
Part III - Toppling Tehran: Regime Change
Part IV - Deterring Tehran: Containment

Part III includes:

Chapter 6: The Velvet revolution: supporting a Popular Uprising
Chapter 7: Inspiring an insurgency: supporting Iranian Minority and opposition Groups
Chapter 8: The coup: supporting a Military Move against the regime

The velvet "color revolution" failed in 2009 when the "green movement" could not convince the Iranian people that it was more than a foreign supported attempt to overthrow their republic.

What we currently see in Iran is a combination of chapter 6 and 7 of the Brookings plan. Behind a somewhat popular movement that protests against the neo-liberal economic policies of the Rohani government a militant movement, as seen last night (below), is implementing an escalation strategy that could lead to a civil war. We have already seen a similar combination in Libya and at the beginning of the attack on Syria. (Tony Cartalucci at the Land Destroyer Report has written extensively on the Brookings paper as a "handbook for overthrowing nations".)

Last June the Wall Street Journal reported that the CIA had set up a special operation cell for such attacks on Iran:

The Central Intelligence Agency has established an organization focused exclusively on gathering and analyzing intelligence about Iran, reflecting the Trump administration’s decision to make that country a higher priority target for American spies, according to U.S. officials.

The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency’s capabilities, including covert action.

Head of the new office is one of the most ruthless CIA officers:

To lead the new group, Mr. Pompeo picked a veteran intelligence officer, Michael D’Andrea, who recently oversaw the agency’s program of lethal drone strikes and has been credited by many of his peers for successes against al Qaeda in the U.S.’s long campaign against the terrorist group.
...
Mr. D’Andrea, a former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, is known among peers as a demanding but effective manager, and a convert to Islam who works long hours. Some U.S. officials have expressed concern over what they perceive as his aggressive stance toward Iran.

D'Andrea is the CIA guy who "dropped the ball" when he could have prevented 9/11. He was intimately involved in the CIA's torture program and drone murder campaign in Pakistan and Afghanistan. He is suspected to be the brain behind the U.S. cooperation with extremist Wahhabis in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

Yesterday morning a Sunni terror group blew up a pipeline in south-west Iran near the Iraqi border:

Ansar al Furqan states that “a major oil pipeline was blown up in Omidiyeh region of occupied Ahvaz, Iran.” The group added that it had established a new unit, the Ahwaz Martyrs Brigade. The area of Ahvaz has historically had a large Arab population. However, it is unclear if this purported brigade is comprised of Iranian Arabs or Baluchis, as most of its members are thought to be Baluch. The jihadists say the “operation was conducted to inflict losses on the economy of criminal Iranian regime.”

According to the U.S. military Combating Terrorism Center, Ansar al-Fruqan has grown out of the defeated Jundallah terrorist group which had killed hundreds of Iranian officials and civilians. Jundallah was a Baluch jihadi insurgency fighting for a "Free Baluchistan" in the area of south-west Pakistan and south-east Iran. Its leader was killed in 2010 and it has since split and evolved into Ansar al-Furqan and other groups. Some of these are under foreign influence. Mark Perry reported in 2012:

A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.

Mossad agents hired Jundallah terrorists to kill nuclear experts in Iran. It should not be a surprise then that a Jundallah follow-up group is now attacking Iranian economic infrastructure in the very same moment that the Mossad and the CIA coordinate another campaign to overthrow the Iranian government. This clearly points to a wider and well organized plan.

Last night groups of 20 to 50 young men appeared in some 20 cities and towns of Iran and started to vandalize (vid) the streets. They took down street demarcations and billboards, smashed windows and set fire to trashcans. Short videos of tens of incidents appeared on various Twitter accounts. The descriptions were often very exaggerated.

The "protesters burn government offices in the Ahvaz Province" video only shows the burning of a trashcan in front of a building. The only noise in the "police using live rounds on protesters" video are from the smashing of windows of an office container. A video promoted as "3 people were killed in police shooting of Lorestan" shows a small but loud group. Two people are carried away but it is unclear who they are or what, if anything, happened to them. No shooting is heard and no police can be seen. In other videos police is responding to stone throwing and vandalizing rioters.

The groups, their appearance in some 20 cities and what they did was clearly coordinated. Media promoters aggregate their videos for a larger public. The Iranian government asked the message application Telegram, widely used in Iran, to take down a channel that urged demonstrators to throw Molotov cocktails at official buildings. The head of the Telegram service agreed that such calls are against its Terms of Services and took the channel down. New channels with similar messages immediately sprang up. The Iranian government will have to completely block Telegram or infiltrate those Telegram channels to disrupt such coordination of militant activities.

Those U.S. politicians who had called to "bomb, bomb, bomb" Iran (John McCain) or had threatened to wage war against it (Hillary Clinton) issued statements in support of the "Iranian people"- i.e. the rioters in the streets. These are the same people who suffocate the Iranian people by pushing sanction round after sanction round onto them - hypocrites. Donald Trump and his State Department issued statements in support of the 'peaceful protesters' who vandalized their cities throughout the country and demanded that "the regime respect their basic human rights." The professed concerns for the Iranian people are nonsense. A recently leaked memo advised U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson:

... that the U.S. should use human rights as a club against its adversaries, like Iran, China and North Korea, while giving a pass to repressive allies like the Philippines, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The official U.S. uttering comes very early and is detrimental to any real movement in Iran. It obviously exposes these protests as U.S. supported and thereby kills off their chance to win a wider base in Iran.

Why is the U.S. doing this?

The plan may well be not to immediately overthrow the Iranian government, but to instigate a sharp reaction by the Iranian government against the militant operations in its country.

Suzanne Maloney‏ @MaloneySuzanne - 5:51 AM - 31 Dec 2017

And here's the thing: whatever the USG does or doesn't say about these protests, the reality is (as @POTUS tweeted) that the world is watching what happens in Iran. How Tehran responds to the current protests will shape its relationship w/the world, just as it did in 2009.

That reaction can then be used to implement wider and stricter sanctions against Iran especially from Europe. These would be another building block of a larger plan to suffocate the country and as an additional step on a larger escalation ladder.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/ir ... -plan.html

[anasawad]

@noir
Its not old wise, and nor individuals in general. Its the culture and governing power structures that are old. And those shape much of the world.

Sure, most of the population are young, but they're born into the same culture. Even they dropped Islam altogether, and many do, the cultural aspect wont change much.
When Iran converted from Zoroastrianism to Islam, while the religion differed, pretty much the entire culture of Iran was carried into the new religion which resulted in the creation of an entirely new sect of Islam that differs widely from the mainstream.

For example, Idols and saints.
Sunni Islam strongly forbids these things and has many rules to remove it. Yet Persians all through our history celebrated our kings and wisemen and put them in the rank of gods and prophets and great saviors.
Islam came along, and that still didn't change. What changed is that a new sect of Islam was created that has all these things. Like Ali and Hussain and ayatollahs and others- like the rank ayatollah is 2 words aya and allah together, which means verse of god, meaning that this person is a special creation of god like a messiah, this is only in the Shia tradition because Shia tradition is based on Persian culture which already had such things and its still here after over 4000 years of this tradition.

Cultural basis rarely change in a nation.

And in the case of the governing system, even if some small groups of protesters chanted they wanted western systems, the majority don't. The majority were born and raised like their parents and grandparents and great great grandparents into an already existing culture and power structure, and irregardless of what outer theme it may take, Islamic or imperial or whatever, the core is still the same.

You brought the example of Egypt. Egypt was ruled by a unitary central authority with near absolute power for what now ?! 5000-6000 years or so ?
Large protests irrupted, Mubarrak was removed, then a new government with different outer theme but same old core was put in place, and by the people with large public support.

Why people in Egypt now want Al-Sisi ? The most common argument is that they need someone who can hold the nation together and stabilize it. The same argument was put for Mubarak, and Nassar, And Farouq, and the list goes own all the way back to the Pharaohs.
The theme changes, and you get a little add on like some little new laws here and there, but the nation is still the same nation irregardless. New generations don't mean anything other than new carriers of the flag.


You wanna know what will happen if the clerics were removed ? Simple.
A new regime will take place that will also play the role to balance powers between all factions in Iran, it will also have the same general social and power structures that this one and the dozen before had.
It will have a new theme and little modifications, like maybe a splash of liberalism, sure. But everything else will remain the same.
The geopolitiks of Iran which shapes its stances wont change, what will change is the level of aggressiveness that would be taken to pursue geopolitical goals.
Irans allies and friends wont change, and our relationship towards them wont change.

Because with or without the clerics, Iran is still the same nation.
Different generations just mean a change in what fads they want individually, not how society functions in general.

[Oxymoron]

Hope you Islamist enjoyed your 40 years, its been nice knowing you. Do not fuck with the chosen people, and you wont have to suffer the consequences.

[Rich]

These Iranian women are pathetic cowards compared with the unbelievable bravery of the western women retweeting the meto hashtag.

[skinster]

[Zionist Nationalist]

^LoL.
No clerics in Iran and you just killed off around 1-2% of Hezbollah funding, at best years maybe 5%.
Great planning. Aiming at the little pieces.

I dont think so

"Nasrallah: as long as Iran have money we have money"

[skinster]

[anasawad]

@Zionist Nationalist
Thats just hem keeping up the narrative along the Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon line.
You want to look at the numbers to know whats the situation on the ground is.

Iranian government put on average 100-200 million every year for Hezbollah. At some years like in the early years of the Syrian war, it reached an average of 500 million counting the value of weapons sent, so its not in cash.
Hezbollah's budget averages between 8-12 billion a year.
Not exactly much contribution from the Iranian government now, is it.

[noir]

These Iranian women are pathetic cowards compared with the unbelievable bravery of the western women retweeting the meto hashtag.

Bless the Iranian women

America's chief Taqqyah propagandist

[noir]

Linda Sarsour, America's chief Taqqyah (deception) propagandist, is trying to confuse the Americans

An American Muslim replies to her demagogy

[Rugoz]

Another thread turned into a dump by noir and skinster. You two are truly the scourge of Pofo.

Actually he's right, regular people simply do not have the capability of toppling them

Of couse they have the capability, if they come out in sufficiently large numbers and are ready to risk their lives. I don't think it will happen now, but depending on how the Mullahs behave, i.e. whether they'll make concessions to the reformists or not, it might happen in the future.

A pro-western regime is impossible anytime in the next century or two in Iran

Depends on your definition of "pro-Western". Iran is a pseudo-democracy, it already has experience with elections and democratic institutions. All it must do is remove the institutional powers of the clerics.

[skinster]

“Based on our analysis, almost 27 percent of the new hashtags, directed against Iran have been generated by the Saudi government,” Shamkhani said, adding that the interference was aimed at halting Iran’s progress.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2018 ... cusations/

[noir]

^
First posted by MEMRI