As chances of the Iranian nuclear 'Deal' being revived are diminishing, a Deal which was for the sole purpose of regime change - the regime changers are once again speaking out. So blatantly obvious that you wonder why they don't bother to hide any more.
The latest is Mohammad Sahimi. He is well known among Iranians but what he is less known for is that he was the man behind the post 2009 elections which led to unrest, and even death. He is the man that came up with the lies about the Fatwa alleging that a clergy had instructed Iranians to commit fraud.
Writing for the George Soros & Koch established foundation, with NIAC/NED's boy Trita Parsi at its head, seems he is giving a kind of 'fatwa' of his own to revive the JCPOA and to restore a Washington-friendly regime in Tehran.
Here is his latest published by Responsible Statecraft Want to help Iran’s reformers? — revive the nuclear deal - Responsible Statecraft
Had Sahimi not been complicit and responsible for the 2009 uprisings, the article he recently penned would have been dismissed. But his record should give all pause as to the intentions of the 'Deal'.
This is a letter I wrote addressed to him and circulated among Iranians in 2009 when he called the elections 'fraudulent'. Some notes have been added at the end. I did not want this letter to be published publicly as my goal was to keep Iranians united. It is now time to share the events publicly.
It is also super important to read and understand what the JCPOA was really intended to do. Link to the article : JCPOA: The Deal That Wasn’t| Countercurrents
Let us Respect One Another
A response to Muhammad Sahimi’s “America’s Misguided Left”
At this juncture of our history each one of us must practice discretion. Our private opinions once posted are no longer about being moral or ethical – they become political. This has kept some of us from publicizing our opinions that only showcases the division among us as a result of the Iran elections. This only weakens Iran. However, I have decided to write this article and communicate it selectively without publicly publishing it for I have taken great offense at being called a ‘traitor’. The reason for not publishing it is because I believe that now more than ever, and in spite of our differences, we need to unite and dedicate ourselves to the Iran we all love.
*************************************************************************************************************
Distracted by hate and driven by an arrogance that is attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole, Mr. Sahimi is dismissing all Iranian patriots who do not see the last elections in Iran as fraud. Worse still, he considers anyone who supports Ahmadinejad’s second term guilty of “committing treason”. In short, in Mr. Sahimi’s “democratic” Iran, there is no choice other than what he considers fit for the nation. Surely one must wonder if he dared call those who accepted the Bush 2000 presidency as traitors, and encouraged them to rise up against Bush.
Every argument merits an examination. Given that the ‘left’ has embarrassed Mr. Sahimi (those of us who believe that the demonstrations in Iran were tainted by rogue elements and egged on by foreign influences – yet freely admit that the people on the streets want reform – with many having a different expectation of ‘reform’; personal freedom, freedom of expression, political, oppression, economy …), and given that unlike “intellectuals” who carry the burden of ego and demand that the reader unconditionally accept the verdict of “fraud”, I invite the intelligent reader to help me sort through this mess and read through the references with me before making up his/her mind. For as Voltaire said: “doubt is not pleasant, but certainly is absurd”. It is certainty that divides those with a closed mind from those who have an open mind. A closed mind is like a closed fist – one can never place anything in it.
Perhaps one should first inquire why allegations of ‘rigged’ are being made. Several factors contributed to this mindset. One can start with the most simple of all explanations – trick of the mind. By following the simple chart attached it is easy to see why those supporting ‘Green’ would have no doubt about the presidential elections. It is a simple matter of creating their truth – every bit free of malice. To paraphrase one of the greatest American activists, journalists and writers, Walter Lippmann, 50% of the truth is what you hear, the other 50% is what you believe. There is no truth – it is a creation or irrevocable expectation.
However, rumors poisoned this truth. We must all be mindful that one of the most effective weapons during WWII and the Cold War was rumor. Eisenhower said: ‘Without doubt, psychological warfare has proved its right to a place of dignity in our military arsenal.’ The spread of rumor in Iran in its various forms has been going on for some time. The Mousavi or “Green” which had its most supporters in Tehran showed their solidarity prior to the June 12th elections by forming a human chain that was miles long. [This was historic--and no doubt worrying for Ahmadinejad. Could it have prompted his supporters to encourage likely voters to come out? This would not be hard to do as the manpower was available to him].
The “Green” was convinced of a win. Victory was so close at hand that all other considerations were put aside. Certainly polls everywhere are not always reliable, but an astute politician would do well to at least consider if not heed them. A jointly commissioned poll by the BBC and ABC News[1], and conducted by an independent entity called the Center for Public Opinion (CPO) of the New America Foundation with a reputation of conducting accurate opinion polls, not only in Iran, but across the Muslim world since 2005, conducted a poll a few weeks before the elections. It predicted an 89 percent turnout rate and showed that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide advantage of two to one over Mousavi.
Moreover, in a June 2009 Foreign Policy article, a study by Berkman Center for Internet and Society, web users which indicated the candidates' domestic and international supporters showed Mousavi had received only about half the search volume as Ahmadinejad over the last 30 days. According to the same article, within Iran, “it is telling that Mousavi has had a greater share of the English-language search volume in the last 30 days, while Ahmadinejad dominates searches in Persian. This might be because Mousavi, who has been touted as a reformist candidate, appeals to a demographic more likely to speak English. Consistent with this pattern, Mousavi's search-query strongholds are in Tehran and Shiraz--places where you're more likely to find urban elites. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's appeal is highest among those less likely to have English as their default Internet browser language. Ahmadinejad remains a big player in all prominent Iranian cities but only completely dominates the less-cosmopolitan cities of Qom, Karaj, and Mashhad.”
This information not only sheds some light on the voting pattern, but also on the aftermath of the elections and the demonstrators. More to the point, it explains the English signs, the foreign media’s role, and the influence of “intellectuals” in America – not the ‘left’ who have it wrong.
But it appears these were ignored – they even ‘created’ another manifestation of their certain victory prior to the elections -- a front-page image announcement in the liberal paper Hamshahri of a Mousavi win with 24 million votes standing next to Khatami with the title “Mousavi has become the President”. What is conspicuously missing from this ‘creation’ is the picture of Khamenei. It appears that those who wanted a ‘Green’ victory had also wanted Khamenei out even before the elections.
Regrettably, the “left” is expected to accept what is presented to them as fact or be called traitors, which includes an alleged fatwa that has found its way from an unnamed “highly reliable source”. In conjunction with the fatwa, there were reports of “pens provided at polling stations were filled with disappearing ink, and partisans of Mousavi and reformist cleric Mahdi Karroubi urged one another to bring their own writing instruments. In Iran, voters write in the names of their candidates of choice.” [i] One can only surmise that the reformist candidates expected Ahmadinejad’s votes would not disappear given his religiosity. Perhaps my confusion over the fatwa and disbelief of it stems from here:
-
It is alleged that a fatwa
was issued allowing votes to be rigged in favor Ahmadinejad.
-
Given the fatwa, why was it
necessary to go through the expense and trouble of buying ‘invisible ink’ when
one could simply do a “fuzzy math” as in the U.S.?
-
How would the ink distinguish
between the Ahmadinejad voters and Mousavi/Karroubi voters?
Mr. Sahimi
dismisses all foreign hand claiming NED does not have a partner in Iran to work
with. Therefore absent NED, absent
mischief. It is worthwhile mentioning Haleh
Esfandiari , who was Deputy Secretary General of the Women's Organization of
Iran, a royal-patronage society established in 1966 by Ashraf Pahlavi. She is
known to have been close to Faezeh Hashemi Rafsanjani, a daughter of Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani, according to The New York Times. She was the first Iranian-American fellow at
NED (1995). She was arrested in 2007. Of course NIAC has been a NED recipient. It is important to look to history and the effects
of propaganda. One of the most notable
men of history who helped the WWII war efforts was Sefton Delmer (Der Chef[2]). A British agent, Delmer was born in
Berlin. He had the extraordinary ability
to empathize and understand the German mind.
He undermined the Germans like no other. No doubt there are many who
understand the Iranian mind -- of course they need not be foreign born to
betray Iran. Iran’s tragic history is
full of such people.
"The primary sponsor of the United for Iran protests, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, is a project of the Dutch Foundation for Human Security in the Middle East. The Netherlands and the U.S. openly budget funds to promote ‘political change’ in Iran. Gozaar is the result of the Hague’s contribution to the Freedom House in 2003 which was part of a larger project to promote “media pluralism” in Iran – thanks for MEK member, Farah Karimi. "Haagse subsidie tegen regime Iran," NRC Handelsblad, first published on 16 September 2006, updated on 22 August 2008, Trans. Yoshie Furuhashi). MEK member Karimi is also a member ‘Foundation for Human Security in the Middle East.’
Needless to mention the daily – illegal -- 24/7 VOA with its usual propaganda which these days has the added Iranian “Americans” protesting for Americans here as well as satellite broadcasting to Iran. Contrary to Mr. Sahimi’s outrageous allegations, proof of such people is not in their vote for Ahmadinejad or remaining silent.
The ‘misguided left’ cannot
be altogether blamed for not wanting division in Iran – or for not accepting
rumors since they have not forgotten the bombings in Iran, the terror prior to
the elections – not only in Ahwaz, but the bombings in Ahmadinejad’s campaign
headquarters. Was chaos not
intended? How is it possible to overlook
the braggings of the monarchists on CNN – the post-election network of choice when
they openly declared they had prepared for the “protests”. “In 2006, Mr. Bush poured $75 million into
“promoting democracy” in Iran, in part by funding satellite broadcasts. But
Homayoun said his station does not take any money from the U.S. government,
relying instead on constant televised appeals for funds, even during his high-voltage,
excited coverage of street protests. Officials with Channel One said that their
station operates on a budget of nearly $2 million a year.”
"A year ago we distributed these things that look like a pen, but it's
actually a video camera. People use it to record the events in Iran and
then they take the video and send it back to us."
On CNN, these same people contended that three months prior to the elections they had been handing out the Iranian flag with the lion, sun, and sword – prepared, ready not for a Mousavi win, or an Ahmadinejad, but for illegitimacy and chaos by all indications.
In a Newsweek article (June 17, 2009) titled “Who’s behind the violence in Iran”, protesters expressed their fear at “they were also wary of hijacking of their movement by the more violent elements in the opposition.”[3] This writer, among others, and not to be the first, has written many articles connecting the MEK to Israel. Currently, many of the political leaders in America who support the MEK are backing the protests.
In addition to the above, a same day report by “Wired Magazine” aptly called “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…” reveals that the “U.S. media is projecting its own image of Iran into what is going here on the ground.” Mr. Obama’s request to keep Twitter up and running and not shut down for the annual maintenance, especially given that much of the mischief behind the ‘newsfeed’ from Iran was traced back to Israel, is telling and worthwhile reading[4].
While the ‘left’ were committing ‘treason’ by refusing to become gladiators of sorts, and depriving the enemies of Iran of a spectacle, the deposed Shah’s son and the MEK continue to compete for power. How can one not argue that the protests are not tainted, even if the intentions of the people are pure?
Mr. Sahimi writes that Ahmadinejad is an Islamic fundamentalist and as such not a nationalist. I am not in Ahmadinejad’s head to know what his national aspirations are, but I do dislike his extreme religiosity. Does this translate into his disregard for Iran? I do not believe so.
Mr. Sahimi blames the sending of Iran’s nuclear dossier to the UNSC on Ahmadinejad. This untruth is contrary to the ideals of someone who ‘believes in a progressive and enlightened interpretation of Islamic and Shia teachings’. Here I cite Mr. Sahimi’s own paper: “Rafsanjani's government first approached Kraftwerk Union to complete the Bushehr project. However, under the US pressure, Kraftwerk Union refused. Iran then asked Germany to allow Kraftwerk to ship the reactor components and technical documentation that it had paid for, citing a 1982 International Commerce Commission (ICC) ruling under which Siemens was obligated to deliver all plant materials and components stored outside Iran, but the German government still refused to do so. In response, Iran filed a lawsuit in August 1996 with the ICC, asking for $5.4 billion in compensation for Germany's failure to comply with the 1982 ruling. The issue is still unsettled.”
The
continued pressure from the United States at the behest of Israel forced Iran
to seek its civilian nuclear program in secret – although in itself not
illegal, this was later used as a weapon against Iran.
Rafsanjani who is praised highly by Mr. Sahimi was later implicated
in the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires[ii]. Martin Indyk, the National Security Council's
Senior Director for the Near East and South Asia, portrayed Iran to be the world's foremost sponsor of
terrorism and assassinations, and claimed Iran was allegedly attempting to
build weapons of mass destruction. It
was at this time that the “dual containment” was proposed – underwritten by
AIPAC! Executive Order 12957 given by
Clinton specifically banned any "contract for the financing of the
development of petroleum resources located in Iran." This had an immediate effect on Iran’s
economy (Fairbanks 2001, p447-465).
In 1999, while the moderate Khatami was president, in a student protest, the dormitories were raided and students brutally attacked. These students were waving Khatami’s picture hoping for change. But Khatami denounced them and said that ‘his entire reform movement may be jeopardized by the chaos’.[5] The Knight Ridder [Knight Ridder, 12/8/2004]reported that in 2004 (during the Khatami presidency), the United States used the MEK and other dissident groups to effect regime change with ‘human rights’ as its weapon of choice. It stated “Pentagon and White House officials “are developing plans to increase public criticism of Iran’s human-rights record, offer stronger backing to exiles and other opponents of Iran’s repressive theocratic government and collect better intelligence on Iran.””
Mr. Sahimi makes outlandish allegations against Ahmadinejad without a shred of evidence such as helping his interior minister “illicitly get rich in the oil swaps with the Republic of Azerbaijian”, yet amazingly, he writes that Ahmadinejad had exposed corruption among the elite without ‘concrete evidence’. Without wishing to label this as hypocrisy, I would like to point out that maybe Ahmadinejad who was mayor of Tehran, and later President of Iran, is likely to know a bit about what is happening in Iran – while Mr. Sahimi’s sources are unknown – hearsay at best. Even Hooman Majd who is pro-Mousavi/Khatami has something positive to say on this account in his book “The Ayatollah Begs to Differ”. In his view, with all his shortcomings, Ahmadinejad tries hard to stamp out corruption.
We hear in great detail what is wrong with Ahmadinejad – this is not the point. What is relevant is that 45 million people voted. At the time of voting, they knew that all four candidates were qualified by the Guardian Council, that they all were from inner circles of IRI and the system, that all would have followed basically the same policy and on that basis, the people made their choice. It seems that some are reluctant to accept it and wish to push a case for “rigged”, “fraud”, and continue to campaign against Ahmadinejad bringing in reinforcements from the outside – that is, Tehran Bureau, CNN, and any other site that will post their grievance or views. Millions have participated in these elections, and yes millions have voted for Ahmadinejad. Some who live in America, for reasons of their own, voted for Ahmadinejad. To be intolerant of their vote and voice reflects political immaturity and a clear indication that we must re-examine our readiness to embrace ‘democracy’.
We all would like a change in our country. Some wish a more extreme change than others. But first we must ensure there is a country to be had. Over the past month and half, the minds in this country have been battling each other while others have been planning to take over the Iran that we feign to be protecting. We have neglected our duty to protect her because we each think we are in the right. Our love is an assault at this moment in her history. There are dangerous decision makers in Washington deciding her fate while we are fighting with our pen – each other. I have not written publicly because the aftermath of the elections has been a heartbreak. I cannot call it a ‘fraud’ if I am not convinced of it – and I cannot tolerate the ill-treatment of the protestors. Worse still, I have no patience for the vultures outside Iran who are waiting to pick the bones of the mentally defeated Iranians who have fought so hard for independence.
I am simply at an impasse as how to move forward. All I know is that as before I must fight the foreign elements. The internal battle is beyond my comprehension. I am open to dialogue but not to insults.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich
Los Angeles, California
[ii] This writer
does not believe accusations against Rafsanjani in Argentina are not believed
to be valid and has written published opinion piece on it.
Very important to include this link and the polls
before el2ctios
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/based-on-terror-free-tomo_b_215423.html
I also want to point to the fact that a
day before the Iran elections, neoconservative papers such as the Weekly
Standard paints a picture of a radical, fanatic Mousavi:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/06/who_is_mir_hossein_mousavi_kha_1.asp
They also call him "Butcher of
Lebanon".
In March 2006, The Weekly Standard
(Kristol) wrote:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/909rqgza.asp?pg=2
The
whole aim has been to create chaos in Iran. Had Mousavi won, an unlikely
scenario, the neocons would have gone after him. Odd that he should be so
supported now.
The pro-Israeli think tank, the Saban
Center at the Brookings Institute, released a publication in June 2009 penned
by neocons Martin Indyk, Kenneth Pollack, et al, titled: "Which Path to
Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran". Chapter 6 appears to be a
strong indication of their motivation.
“The United States could play
multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize
domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative
leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee
argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations.
They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate
materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this,
US-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise
obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian
language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio
Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have
taken the lion’s share of overt US funding for promoting democracy in Iran). US
economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime,
making the population hungry for a rival leadership......”
Curiously,
a few short months before the elections, "Tehran Bureau" was
established giving exclusive right to Mohammad Sahimi to post his claim that a
'fatwa' had been issued by a mullah to falsify the election results. He
could not reveal his source!
As
Jeremy Hammond, Editor of Foreign Policy Journal meticulously connects the
dots, Jason Rezaian was behind Tehran Bureau.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/21/the-case-of-the-fatwa-to-rig-irans-election/
And
Iran released him in the era of Rohani.
