Iran Says US Aids Rebels at Its Borders - CommonDreams.org
Hmm, I think the U.S. did set aside something like 50 mil. about 2 years ago to encourage democracy in Iran... (whatever democracy means in this day and age, as few are completely defining it - really never have I read so many different interpretations of the term democracy than have been offered since the afghan war.) Sorry, lack of sleep.
I know during the Iranian elections earlier this year propaganda included underground papers and expansion of radio broadcasts. I believe even broadcasting in the minority languages of Kurdish and Azeri. So, there is some truth to Iran's claim.
Strange thing is, the U.S. tactics are so friggin' dated. Pollack in The Persian Puzzle and a Doctoral thesis on the Revolution from about 1983 describe similar strategies (funding extremists and creating false factions) during operation ajax. Blah.
Last night, I was reading Nikola Schahgaldian's (he has written some good stuff about Iran) report on post persian gulf war Iran, and in it he describes Iran's power as checked by Saddam and Iraq's "military machine". He also describes Iran as being "impressed" by the U.S. showing military might in the gulf war... I'm reading this and thinking, well damn, all that was lost in a very short period.
Also, love how all of the reports/journals from "think tanks" dating from 1992-2001 all discount Russia as a non threat/irretrievably broken state.
FOXNews.com - Treasury Secretary Paulson: Worst of Credit Crisis May Be Over - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
"Iran, just named by the State Department as "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," and "a threat to regional stability and U.S. interests in the Middle East," this week hardened its position with respect to going nuclear. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who outranks the Persian Napoleon – Iranian president Mahmoud Amadinejad – said this week that Iran would not give up its nuclear program."
^ See this is interesting! Most focus on Amadinejad. It is all about Khamenei. He's no Khomeini, who was a great political figure as well as religious leader (even though Khamenei has experience in both and is not a pussy), but given the right opportunity, Khamenei may prove to be a pain in the ass.
Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times - Tomgram: Patrick Cockburn, Petraeus's Ghost
I like how Cockburn refers to Muqtada as a "Messianic leader ". He has long distanced himself from that role - one reason being it is well known he didn't have the aptitude for religious (koranic) study. Early on the go to guy was Sistani, but the way he's been disrespected as of late, his role as a leader is not the same. Who knows who the next will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Hena  It reminds me of childhood bickering where "he started it" seems like a good enough defence. In the twilight days of the rule of The Great Shrub,( love that!  ) it appears that his legacy for the USA will be the greatest denegration of it's international clout ever. Statements from the State Dept that were once holy writ and could move countries are now considered with scorn. Large swathes of the planet now ignore them altogethor.
If the USA moves on Iran or Syria, will they have any friends at all? |
It is indeed a clusterfuck.
However, I believe with the right leaders and pointed diplomacy, the shit will not come to a head. Unfortunately, I do not believe anyone in government at this moment has the ability to orchestrate the needed changes. THe U.S. needs the best deep and open thinkers around to chime in, and with everyone so partisan (zealot?) and into finger pointing, that is unlikely to happen. Imo, of course.