Your home for traditional conservatism.

Are You Ready for War With Demonized Iran?

How much attention do elections in Japan, India, Argentina or any other country, get from the U.S. media? How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France and Germany? Who can name the political leaders of Switzerland, Holland, Brazil, Japan or even China?

Yet, many know of Iran's President Ahmadinejad. The reason is obvious. He is daily demonized in the U.S. media.

The U.S. media's demonization of Ahmadinejad itself demonstrates American ignorance. The president of Iran is not the ruler. He is not the commander in chief of the armed forces. He cannot set policies outside the boundaries set by Iran's rulers—the ayatollahs who are not willing for the Iranian Revolution to be overturned by American money in some color-coded "revolution."

Iranians have a bitter experience with the U.S. government. Their first democratic election, after emerging from occupied and colonized status, in the 1950s was overturned by the U.S. government. The U.S. government installed in place of the elected candidate a dictator who tortured and murdered dissidents who thought Iran should be an independent country and not ruled by an American puppet.

The U.S. "superpower" has never forgiven the Iranian Islamic ayatollahs for the Iranian Revolution in the late 1970s, which overthrew the U.S. puppet government and held hostage U.S. embassy personnel, regarded as "a den of spies," while Iranian students pieced together shredded embassy documents that proved America's complicity in the destruction of Iranian democracy.

The government-controlled U.S. corporate media, a ministry of propaganda, has responded to the re-election of Ahmadinejad with nonstop reports of violent Iranian protests to a stolen election. A stolen election is presented as a fact, even though there is no evidence whatsoever. The U.S. media's response to the documented stolen elections during the George W. Bush-Karl Rove era was to ignore the massive documented evidence of real stolen elections.

Leaders of the American puppet states of Great Britain and Germany have fallen in line with the American psychological warfare operation. Discredited British Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressed his "serious doubt" about Ahmadinejad's victory to a meeting of European Union ministers in Luxembourg. Miliband, of course, has no source of independent information. He is simply following Washington's instructions and relying on unsupported claims by the defeated candidate preferred by the U.S. government.

Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, had her arm twisted, too. She called in the Iranian ambassador to demand "more transparency" on the elections.

Even the American left wing has endorsed the U.S. government's propaganda. Writing in The Nation, Robert Dreyfuss presents the hysterical views of one Iranian dissident as if they are the definitive truth about "the illegitimate election," terming it "a coup d'etat."

What is the source of the information for the U.S. media and the American puppet states?

Nothing but the assertions of the defeated candidate, the one America prefers.

There is hard evidence to the contrary, however. An independent, objective poll was conducted in Iran by American pollsters prior to the election. The pollsters, Ken Ballen of the nonprofit Center for Public Opinion and Patrick Doherty of the nonprofit New America Foundation, describe their poll results in the June 15 Washington Post. The polling was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and was conducted in Farsi "by a polling company whose work in the region for ABC News and the BBC has received an Emmy award."

The poll results, the only real information we have at this time, indicate that the election results reflect the will of the Iranian voters. Among the extremely interesting information revealed by the poll is the following:

Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than two to one margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad's principal opponent, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran's provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our pre-election survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by two to one over Mousavi.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18- to 24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.

There have been numerous news reports that the U.S. government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the U.S. government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The U.S. media treat these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American superpower's ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the U.S. government's inherent immorality.

Pakistan's former military chief, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on June 15 that undisputed intelligence proves the United States interfered in the Iranian election. "The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election."

The success of the U.S. government in financing color revolutions in former Soviet Georgia and Ukraine and in other parts of the former Soviet empire have been widely reported and discussed, with the U.S. media treating it as an indication of U.S. omnipotence and natural right and some foreign media as a sign of U.S. interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Mousavi is a bought-and-paid-for operative of the U.S. government.

We know for a fact that the U.S. government has psychological warfare operations that target both Americans and foreigners through the U.S. and foreign media. Many articles have been published on this subject.

Think about the Iranian election from a common sense standpoint. Neither I nor the vast majority of readers are Iranian experts. But from a common sense standpoint, if your country were under constant threat of attack, even nuclear attack, from two countries with much more powerful military establishments, as is Iran from the United States and Israel, would you desert your country's best defender and elect the preferred candidate of the United States and Israel?

Do you believe that the Iranian people would have voted to become an American puppet state?

Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird.

The U.S. government is taking advantage of these Westernized Iranians to create a basis for discrediting the Iranian election and the Iranian government.

On June 14, the McClatchy Washington Bureau, which sometimes attempts to report the real news, acquiesced to Washington's psychological warfare and declared, "Iran election result makes Obama's outreach efforts harder." What we see here is the raising of the ugly head of the excuse for "diplomatic failure," leaving only a military solution.

As a person who has seen it all from inside the U.S. government, I believe that the purpose of the U.S. government's manipulation of the American and puppet government media is to discredit the Iranian government by portraying the Iranian government as an oppressor of the Iranian people and a frustrater of the Iranian people's will. This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack.

With the help of Mousavi, the U.S. government is creating another "oppressed people," like Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, who require American blood and treasure to liberate. Has Mousavi, the American candidate in the Iranian election who was roundly trounced, been chosen by Washington to become the American puppet ruler of Iran?

The great macho superpower is eager to restore its hegemony over the Iranian people, thus settling the score with the ayatollahs who overthrew American rule of Iran in 1978.

That is the script. You are watching it every minute on U.S. television.

There is no end of "experts" to support the script. For one example among hundreds, we have Gary Sick, appropriately named, who formerly served on the National Security Council and currently teaches at Columbia University:

"If they'd been a little more modest and said Ahmadinejad had won by 51 percent," Sick said, Iranians might have been dubious but more accepting. But the government's assertion that Ahmadinejad won with 62.6 percent of the vote "is not credible."

"I think," continued Sick, "it does mark a real transition point in the Iranian Revolution, from a position of claiming to have its legitimacy based on the support of the population, to a position that has increasingly relied on repression. The voice of the people is ignored."

The only hard information available is the poll referenced above. The poll found that Ahmadinejad was the favored candidate by a margin of two to one.

But as in everything else having to do with American hegemony over other peoples, facts and truth play no part. Lies and propaganda rule.

Consumed by its passion for hegemony, America is driven to prevail over others, morality and justice be damned. This world-threatening script will play until America bankrupts itself and has so alienated the rest of the world that it is isolated and universally despised.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.


Tagged as: ,

14 Responses »

  1. The government-controlled U.S. corporate media, a ministry of propaganda ... Amen PCR!

    The Iranians have every reason on Earth to distrust the US. When henpecked neocon, David Frum, said through his mouthpiece -- Bush Lite, that Iran, Iraq and North Korea are the Axis of Evil you could be assured that those nations would build nuclear arms in order to defend themselves from the schoolyard bully.

  2. What I don't get is the whole brouhaha by the US other than seeking a nice pretext for war by messing with the American public's mind in getting support for an attack. From what I have just read via Information Clearing House and Asia Times online the past couple days Mousavi really isn't that much different politically than Ahjy. It just is a power play between the two opposing factions over who controls the Oil Ministry. Another psy ops campaign to get the retard American public into supporting another unnecessary attac/war.

  3. I have considerable disagreement with Dr. Roberts on this one. The poll he cites is not at all "hard information", nor is any poll. There is no evidence that Mousavi is an American agent. The US has certainly sponsored some terrorist attacks against Iran in recent months, but these were mere pin pricks, serving more to bolster the incumbent than to undermine him. My own suspicion is that a fair election would have been close, but the mullahs panicked and permitted Ahmadinejad to run up the totals. This has led to the current protests and to the ruling clerical establishment perhaps reconsidering its position.

    The whole affair is really no business of the US and to his credit, BHO has so far shown no inclination to make a big deal about this. All of the media are giving this a lot of coverage and all are certainly biased toward the Mousavi supporters, who are very media savvy themselves. But I have yet to hear any suggestion that the US go to war against Iran because of this election. The US has a fixation about Iran somewhat similar to its fixation about Cuba which prevents so far the normalization of relationships. But the time for war against Iran already came and went (thank God) in the waning years of the Bush regime.

  4. "Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society. Much of the intellectual class is secularized. A significant, but small, percentage of the youth has fallen in thrall to Western sexual promiscuity, to personal pleasure and to self-absorption. These people are easily organized with American money to give their government and Islamic constraints on personal behavior the bird."

    These our the blessed youth our mainstream conservatives are always telling us are the future of this-or-that country and want democratic reforms. These "conservatives" are simply radical liberals who would love nothing than to destroy an actual conservative and religious society and import all the destructive aspects of consumer capitalism and western decadence. This is the true perniciousness of the so called "freedom agenda!"

  5. This article is silly. Here is a few reasons why : 1. I doubt that PCR himself knew the name of the leader of Switzerland before the writing of his article. 2. "Iranians have a bitter experience with US government." They do not, just ask the ones that live in the US. Besides at the end of WWII, the US made the USSR withdraw from Iran which was greatly appreciated. 3. "Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society". What is that supposed to mean? What is that got to do with anything? The color revolutions PCR anathemizes present a change for the better anywhere that they were successful in terms of economic and personal liberties. 4. "This is how the U.S. government is setting up Iran for military attack." There is not going to be any military attack on Iran. This is one of the biggest PCR delusions. He comes to this conclusion because of his worldview where there is a vast conspiracy behind everything that happens.

  6. Mr. Bailey,

    You write "They do not, just ask the ones that live in the US."

    And this is a representative sample?

    "the US made the USSR withdraw from Iran which was greatly appreciated."

    It was so appreciated the Islamic Revolution of 1979 never happened, furthermore the myth of American embassy hostages survives to this day.

    “'Iran is an ancient and sophisticated society'. What is that supposed to mean?"

    It means us Americans shouldn't presume to know everything based off of western media reporting. Didn't we already make this mistake with Iraq.

    "The color revolutions PCR anathemizes present a change for the better anywhere that they were successful in terms of economic and personal liberties"

    Personal liberties to do what? Become an obese, professional sports worshipping, self-destructive fan of Sean Hannity?

  7. Sorry bud but the Orange Revolution didn't do squat for Ukraine. The first major act that new govt did was to peg the hryvna to the dollar and most folks lost almost half their savings. Other than that I agree with MR Whitmore. It seems like it is the 1960's in Iran. Sex, drugs, and Rock N Roll, is what they want. It is sad really, for once Islam goes they way Christianity went in the West all you are going to have are a bunch of oversexed, drugged up, and dumbed down people in Iran in another couple generations. That is all these wars in the ME area about though, to promote cultural Marxism,destroying any bonds that might impede the impostion of it via the family, nation, culture, etc. Being free in america and the West in genearl just means being free to indulge in any vice imaginable and not being responsible for the consequences.

  8. general not genearl

  9. The colour revolutions were nothing more than cultural Marxism turned political for a while so as to further the culture war in those countries where they happened, as well as to enslave the economies of those countries under western economic elites. They were a disaster. Anyone who would stage such a revolution should be imprisoned at least, perhaps executed.

  10. 1. yes. 2. so? 3. so? 4. so funny!! NOw let me ask you some questions: do you, Mr. Jeremiah have an agenda? What exactly is your endgame here? From your observations I can pretty safely conclude that you have your own idea of what the world outside USA is like and that it is much better there in so many ways than it is here. Therefore we should do what? Act like unappreciated scholars and write endlessly about our pet peeves like PCR does and put our trust in the big O? I think not.

  11. Mr. Bailey, I have no agenda nor faith in any political movement that will miraculously restore our Republic. My endgame is simply relaxing at home with a delectable lager.

    My thesis is simple: that America must extirpate the arrogance of assuming we know what is best for other nations and that we have a fundamental right to intervene where we think it is best. Our nation has cultivated an ethos utterly devoid of anything worth preservation.

    You write "From your observations I can pretty safely conclude that you have your own idea of what the world outside USA is like and that it is much better there in so many ways than it is here."

    I do not believe that the Iranian system of governance is any better than ours, simply that it is a product of their own culture, religion, and traditions. Would you accept an Iranian regime meddling in the affairs of America and forcing their customs, manners, and predilection upon you? Especially if they were attempting to empower radical egalitarians, cultural marxists, and other such subversives; all under the penumbra of freedom?

  12. More good work by PCR.

    Mr. Whitmore @11 Excellent comments, sir.

    We need to start minding our own business and try straightening out some of our own problems: bring our troops home from our bases scattered around the world; downsize our military and emphasize national defense instead of international offense; downsize and restructure our government so that it truly is serving its proper function and before it bankrupts itself; and defend our own borders.

    Let Iran alone.

  13. #12 "We need to start minding our own business and try straightening out some of our own problems: bring our troops home from our bases scattered around the world; downsize our military and emphasize national defense instead of international offense; downsize and restructure our government so that it truly is serving its proper function and before it bankrupts itself; and defend our own borders.

    Let Iran alone."

    Well said!

  14. "How many Americans and American journalists even know who is in political office in other countries besides England, France and Germany?"

    That reminds me of a really embarrassing video I saw last week of some American students vacationing in Israel and their criticism of Obama's ridiculous speech in Cairo.

    The students were all drunk, all upper middle class, and all painfully stupid. One young woman stated that Obama is an a**hole, saying, ".. and I'm a political science major so I know my $#!+", but she was dumbstruck when asked a question about Benjamin Netanyahu. "Who's Yahoo, anyway?" she whined.

    True enough, most Americans couldn't tell you who is in office in other countries. In fact, many don't even know who represents their district in Congress or who their senators are.