Syria: The Faces Behind The Terror

In her extraordinarily bold and direct speech addressed to the Irish Parliament, Clare Daly (TD, Dublin North) called Obama a “war criminal” and “hypocrite of the century”.  In describing the fawned reception of Obama in Ireland akin to pimping and prostituting of that nation,  Ms. Daly hit the nail on the head.   Sadly, America dwarfs Ireland and elsewhere in the undignified category of prostitution – the 29 standing ovations from Congress in May 2011 for war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu attests to this tragic fact.  

While Daly was quite right in censuring Obama for his criminal policies, including aiding terrorists in Syria, it is worthwhile noting that Obama is merely a willing instrument; the  faces and factors behind his handlers and the policies merit greater scrutiny and exposure. 

Backing and arming the so-called Syrian opposition distracts from the threat posed by Israel and its’s expansionist agenda by internalizing the enemy in order to weak the State.    As former Israeli Intelligence Chief, Amos Yaldin  told the audience at the  Israel Policy Forum in February 2013:  “And this military [Syrian], which is a huge threat to Israel, is now also weakening and, in a way, disintegrating.  We still have risk from Syria-- a risk of being an AlQaeda country, a Somalia-type country -- but from military point of view, each one of these are less dangerous than the Syrian regular army."

 Perpetuating adversaries to kill each other is a time-tested tactic – one which was used during the bloody eight year Iran-Iraq war;  a war which according to Leon Wieseltier[i] was a  “distraction” when Israeli boots were on the ground in Southern Lebanon.   In that war,  the United States was providing arms and intelligence to both sides.    When asked what the logic was in aiding both sides in the bloody war, a former official replied: “You had to have been there”[ii].   But why Syria?

The Need for Water

The primary goal of the early Zionist leadership was to control and secure the region’s waters.   At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizmann declared that ‘it was of vital importance not only to secure all water resources feeding the country, but to control them at the sources – and the development of these waters became the primary aim of the Yishuv as a whole[iii].    This policy remained in place. As Israel’s third Prime Minister Levi Eshkol put it, water was “the blood flowing through the arteries of the nation”.

As previously stated (HERE and HERE), the chaos we witness in Syria today has been in the making for years with the aid and backing of Israel-firsters in order to accommodate Israel’s agenda – expansion and control of regional water supplies while weakening its adversary/ies.

Israel faced one of its worst droughts in 1990-91.  A second more serious drought in 1998, forced it to turn to water rich Turkey.  Turkey and Israel engaged in serious negotiations starting in May 2000 to import 50 billion cubic meters of fresh water from Turkey using tanker ships, but using tankers was not cost effective for the transport of water.  Alternate plans were suggested.

In September 2000,  the same year that young Bashar-al Assad succeeded his father as President of Syria, a strategy paper entitled “The Geopolitics of Water” by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) opined that "Since extensive water planning proposals will necessitate the establishment of pipelines and energy grids stretching across borders, a political and military structure that can ensure the safety and security of the carriers will be the prerequisite to effective water sharing” ….. “But an effective regional system would require political-military cooperation against Syria”. 

How to achieve this?

 Israeli-Firsters to the rescue

 Media mogul Haim Saban became involved in politics in the mid 1990’s with a view to support Israel.  Saban professes that his greatest concern is the “protection” of Israel.   At a conference in Israel, Saban described his method of influencing American politics : ‘Make donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets’. (Saban penned an opinion piece in The New York Times in support of President Obama in his 2012 re-election bid). 

 It was no surprised therefore that in 2002, Saban pledged $13 million to start a research organization at the Brookings Institution called the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.  Saban Center would play an important role in propping up Syrian opposition (as it did in fermenting unrest post-2009 Iran elections with their June 2009 publication titled: "Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Towards Iran"^[1]).  

 In 2006,  Time Magazine revealed that that the US had been agitating, funding, and supporting "opposition" in Syria.  According to the Time,  the U.S.  was  "supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists" in Europe. The document bluntly expresses the hope that "these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists."  

It is worthwhile mentioning here that America’s support of the so-called  “opposition” which includes criminals, terrorists, and foreign fighters to effect regime change underscores America’s stark hypocrisy.   According to  18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (Cornell Law), advocating the overthrow of the government, ‘organizing or help or attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of the government of the United States or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence’ bears serious consequences including fines and prison sentence of up to 20 years.

What is most revealing about the abovementioned Time Magazine piece of 2006 is that America’s efforts to aid the opposition and undermine Assad were run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF).   Abdulhamid was a visiting Fellow at the Saban Center (2004-2006) before moving on to the Neocon-run National Defense of Democracies.  

When in  2008, Israel-firster Dennis Ross met with the "opposition" to discuss "Syria in Transition", Saban’s fellow - Amar Abdullhamid  was present.   In February 2009, Dennis Ross joined the Obama Administration team.  In April  2009, the US funded, London-based Baraada TV started its anti-Assad propaganda into Syria (The epicenter of the uprisings' was Baraada over water distribution).  Baraada  TV’s  chief editor, Malik al-Abdeh, is a cofounder of the Syrian exile group Movement for Justice and Development headed by Anas al-Abdah who was in attendance at the 2008 meeting with Dennis Ross. 

 It came as no surprise that John McCain who was a member of the  Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) formed to rid Iraq of Saddam Hossein, and a cheerleader for the Libya intervention, the Egyptian opposition to Mubarak, for bombing Iran, and so on…..visited Syrian “opposition” (via Turkey) in order to encourage more bloodshed.  And expectedly, he was de-briefed -- not at the White House, but at the Saban Center!  

Soon after McCain’s presentation at the Saban Center, the White House disputed UN’s account and claimed that that Syria had crossed the ‘red line’ and used chemical weapons.

 It is not the intention of this article to exclude the plethora of other individuals, think tanks, forums, and media pundits who have institutionalized Israel’s policies and promoted them as ‘America’s  interests’; these are too numerous to mention here.   However, a notable other Israel supporter must be named.

The Evangelical Factor

While various groups in Washington perpetuate and support Israel’s aggressive and expansionist policies -- at a cost to America, non have the zeal and the zest of the Evangelicals who support Israel to death.   According to the dispensational model, a time of turmoil lies ahead, but believers will be "raptured" away before it begins. This period of tribulation will culminate in the final battle at Armageddon, a valley northwest of Jerusalem.   

The close association between American evangelicals and Israel has been a clear goal of Israeli politicians, especially those in the Likud party.    According to Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of AJC, “the evangelical community is the largest and fastest-growing bloc of pro-Jewish sentiment in this country”[iv].   Israel and Jewish  organizations continue to  rely on the support of Evangelicals to justify Israel’s occupation of Arab land even as  Christian Zionists zest for evangelizing Jews remains a point of tension.  

For example, within days of the June 1982 invasion of Lebanon (with a green light from Reagan), full-page ads appeared in leading papers requesting Evangelical support for the invasion[v].  In 1998, when Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, he met with Jerry Falwell and numerous fundamentalist Christians before meeting with President Clinton.  Similarly, as recently as April 2013, Pat Robertson warned that brokering  peace between Israel and Palestine would bring  punishment on America.   

 It has been alleged that funds raised in America by right wing Christians is funneled to West Bank settlements.  The mayor of Ariel on the West Bank had estimated that two thirds of all Jewish settlements were funded by Christian Zionists.[vi]

 Building for Armageddon?

 While Evangelicals (not all) are rupture-ready and encourage Israel’s expansionist agenda, Israeli politicians are not yet Armageddon-ready; at least, not yet.

In March 2013, Business Inside revealed that the United States is spending hundreds of millions of dollars building bunkers in Israel due to be completed 900 days from February 13, 2013.     The project called Site 911 “will have five levels buried underground and six additional outbuildings on the above grounds, within the perimeter. At about 127,000 square feet, the first three floors will house classrooms, an auditorium, and a laboratory — all wedged behind shock resistant doors — with radiation protection and massive security.  Only one gate will allow workers entrance and exit during the project and that will be guarded by only Israelis”.

 Each door of the facility will have a detailed description of the mezuzahs written in “in-erasable ink”.

This should be heartwarming news to Americans whose taxes are spent on such projects while the bridges at home are crumbling. 

 The future

The political establishment and the media has pimped out the nation.  The list of conflicts awaiting us is long and bloody.  Syria will not be the last conflict.   This has been a brief and incomplete overview of what drives our nation, and where we are headed, the handlers and the willing instruments (in the words of Clare Daly, pimps and prostitutes).  We continue to sink our head in sand and hope for a hero – for ‘something to happen’.   There is only one hope for the future, and the only one power that can alter this destructive path:   “We, The People”.

---

[1] Chapter 6 reads: “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......”

 

---

[i] Wieseltier, Leon, “Israel meets Iran in Lebanon; The Wrong War”, The New Republic, Apr 8, 1985

[ii] Stephen R. Shalom, The United States and Iran-Iraq War,   citing Stephen Engelberg, "Iran and Iraq Got 'Doctored Data, U.S. Officials Say," New York Times, 12 Jan. 1987, pp. A1, A6.

 

[iii] Jan Selby, “Water, Power & Politics in the Middle East; The Other Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, Palgrave Macmillan, 2003

 

[iv] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”, The Christian Century, Nov. 4, 1998).

 

[v] Donald Wagner,  “Evangelicals and Israel: Theological roots of a political alliance”,  ibid

[vi] Colin Shindler, “Likud and the Christian Dispensationalists: A Symbiotic Relationship”, Israeli Studies, March 31, 2000

RT - America mulls arming rebels amidst allegations of WMB

includes RT interview with Soraya

http://rt.com/news/hagel-us-syrian-rebels-736/

Why We Must Change The Narrative On Syria

For some time now, the predominant narrative about Syria has been that the unrest has been fueled in order to weaken Iran.  This prevalent account is common to neoconservatives and liberals alike.  While The New York Times trumpeted Israeli-firsters Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham message that “rebel fighters deserved to be armed and that helping them take on the Syrian government would aid Washington’s effort to weaken Iran”, moderate and independent outlets such as Truthout, Counterpunch, and numerous others echoed this same objective – but whilst decrying the plan.   Even Iran’s state-run media shares this account.

 This is sheer misdirection -- deliberate or otherwise.  Undisputedly, Syria and Iran have been staunch allies since the Iranian Revolution in their joint cause to protect the Palestinian rights and to stand up Israel and America, and any change in Syria would adversely affect Iran (as it would Russia).   But this is a secondary consideration.  The generally accepted  narrative takes the focus away from the primary reason for the current assault on Syria – Israel.

Since the 1948 war, Syria and Israel have been in a state of war (with brief periods of unsuccessful negotiations).   The conflict has been primarily over land and water (see  a previous essay The Syria Imperative).   Since the 1950’s, conflict over water (and land) has been at the root of hostilities between the two.  In the 1950’s, Eisenhower commissioned Eric Johnston to generate a regional water allocation agreement.  The failure of the Johnston plan exacerbated the conflict. The published diaries of Israeli Foreign Minister Sharett helps understand why the Johnston negotiations were unsuccessful.  Sharett maintained: “[P]olitical decisions concerning the occupation of the rest of Eretz Israel were taken as early as 1954, although implemented in 1967.[i]”

The 1967 occupation of Syria Golan (Golan Heights) and the Upper Mount Hermon by Israel enabled Israel to seize the entire Upper Jordan River  giving Israel the advantage of placing its riparian position to fully upstream.   Consequently, not only was Syria denied access to Upper Jordan waters, but its territorial and national integrity were assaulted.

 Some years later, Haaretz would reveal the existence of a study (Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel-Aviv university) under General Aaron Yariv, former intelligence services chief, which outlined a “zone of hydraulic security”, which called for placing water resources in Syria and Lebanon under full Israeli control[ii].  Disputes continued unabated and the status quo maintained until 1982 when the military prowess of both sides were tested. 

 A 1987 book by Col. Emmanuel Wald of the Israeli General Staff entitled “The Ruse of the Broken Vessels: The Twilight of Israeli Military Might (1967-1982) reveals the aims of the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and the month of pre-planning that had gone into it.  Wald writes that Ariel Sharon’s master plan codenamed “Oranim” was to defeat the Syrian troops deployed in the Bekaa Valley all the way to the district of Baalbek in North of Lebanon.  According to Wald, “during the fist days, it was quietly approved by the U.S.”.

 With this aim, on June 6, 1982, Israeli advanced into Lebanon.   However, the Syrian army halted the Israeli army advance in the battle of Sultan Yakub and the battle of Ain Zahalta.  Sharon’s plan to conquer all of Lebanon and destroy Syria as a military power was thwarted.  In reviewing the book and the battles, the famous scholar and activist, Israel Shahak, opined that “the principal purpose of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon was destruction of the Syrian Army”[iii].

 Shahak posits that Israel needs to win its wars quickly or not at all.  In spite of technological and nuclear superiority, another assault on Syria would not predictably bring an easy win to Israel and defenses could ‘drag out a war endlessly’.   He further argues that during the entire history of  Israel, Israeli Jews have shown themselves to be  highly sensitive to their losses, and high losses make Israelis “susceptible to political arguments against modes of domination and oppression which they otherwise would accept”.

 Shahak’s analysis shed a light on events which pursued the failure of “Oranim” as outlined in The Syria Imperative.   Israel continues to pursue its grand strategy, using a different tactic given its awareness of, and its familiarity with the strengths of the Syrian army -  an army which must be disrupted from within given Israel’s 1982 failure to do so.  And this is the primary reason for arming terrorists posing as “opposition”.

 It is not without irony that Netanyahu has recently admitted that he does not rule out arming Syrian rebels, given Israel’s age-old tactic of arming minorities or rebels and cultivating dissent and chaos (such as the Anya Nya in Sudan , later the Sudanese People Liberation Army (SPLA), and the leader of the Sudanese rebels, John Garang armed by Israel  from neighboring countries).  This is a scenario being repeated in Syria. 

Paradoxically,  the [Persian] Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) who are today on a mission to secure Israel’s vision (with a nod from Washington)  by arming rebels and undermining Syria, were all in favor of securing Syria in 2003 when they told Washington: "We think the threat to Syria should stop. We don't think Syria wants a war or to escalate any situation. We reject any infringement of Syria's security.”[iv]   There is no end to their duplicity.  

 Amos Yadlin, the outgoing military intelligence chief warned the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in November 2010 that Israel's next war  would take longer and be fought on more fronts.   Yaldin warned that Syria in particular,  posed a greater military obstacle to Israel than at any time in the past three decades.  It would appear that  the Syria unrest has allayed his concerns. The Syrian forces which put up such a resistance in 1982, are now engaged fighting terrorists, while the world is being told that they are the violators.  Perhaps Netanyahu’s plan will succeed where Sharon’s Oranim failed.

 Regardless, it is important to change the accepted narrative about Syrian uprisings.   Given the decades lone demonization of Iran, it may be more palatable to associate the fueling of unrest in Syria point to a ‘weaker’ Iran, but let there be no mistake -  Syria today is in turmoil in order to promote Israel’s grand strategy – even as the perpetrator – Israel,  plays the victim and  warns of chemical weapons use by Assad’s regime, demanding intervention.    “Evil requires the sanction of the victim.”  Ayn Rand.

---

[i] Livia Rokach, "Israeli State Terrorism: An Analysis of the Sharett Diaries," Journal of Palestine Studies 9, no. 3 (Spring, 1980), 3-28.

 

[ii] Zeev Shiff, "The Censored Report Revealed," Ha'aretz, 8 October 1993

[iii] Sahak, Israel.  Israel Considers War With Syria as It Ponders 1982 Invasion of Lebanon,The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 30, 1992).

[iv] Janardhan, N, Iraq: Gulf Council Urges U.S. to Stop Threats to Syria, Global Information Network [New York] 17 Apr 2003

Argo’s Oscar Win -- Hollywood’s ‘Coming Out’

Foreign policy observers have long known that Hollywood reflects and promotes U.S. policies (in turn, is determined by Israel and its supporters).   This fact was made public when Michel Obama announced an Oscar win for “Argo” – a highly propagandist, anti-Iran  film.  Amidst the glitter and excitement, Hollywood and White House reveal their pact and send out their message in time for the upcoming talks surrounding Iran’s nuclear program due to be held tomorrow -  February 26^th.    

Hollywood has a long history of promoting US policies.   In 1917, when the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) enlisted the aid of America’s film industry to make training films and features supporting the ‘cause’.  George Creel, Chairman of the CPI believed that the movies had a role in “carrying the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe.”

The pact grew stronger during World War II, when, as historian Thomas Doherty writes, “[T]he liaison between Hollywood and Washington was a distinctly American and democratic arrangement, a mesh of public policy and private initiative, state need and business enterprise.” Hollywood’s contribution was to provide propaganda. After the war, Washington reciprocated by using subsidies, special provisions in the Marshall Plan, and general clout to pry open resistant European film markets[i].

Hollywood has often borrowed its story ideas from the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at times reinforcing them. One of the film industry's blockbuster film loans in the last two decades has been modern international terrorism. Hollywood rarely touched the topic of terrorism in the late 1960s and 1970s when the phenomenon was not high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, in news headlines or in the American public consciousness. In the 1980s, in the footsteps of the Reagan administration’s policies, the commercial film industry brought ‘terrorist’ villains to the big screen (following the US Embassy takeover in Tehran – topic of “Argo”) making terrorism a blockbuster film product in the 1990s.  

Today, whether Hollywood follows US policy or whether it sets it, is up for discussion.  But it is abundantly clear that Hollywood is dominated by Israelis and their supporters who previously concealed their identity.   According to a 2012 Haaretz article “from the 1930s until the mid-1950s, Hanukkah never appeared on screen. This was because the Jewish studio heads preferred to hide their ethnic and religious heritage in attempting to widen the appeal of their products[emphasis added]. Jews were thus typically portrayed as participants in an American civil religion, whose members may attend the synagogue of their choice, but are not otherwise marked by great differences of appearance, speech, custom, or behaviour from the vast majority of American”.   This is no longer the case.

In sharp contrast to its past, Hollywood “celebrated” Israel’s 60^th “birthday” [occupation] with a Gala called “From Vision to Reality”.  Israeli TV blog wrote of the Gala:  ‘Don’t Worry Israel, Hollywood is behind you’.   Actor Jon Voight said: “World playing a dangerous game by going against Israel”.   Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for Israel's nuclear program (the book, “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” written by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman, recounts Milchan's life story, his friendships with Israeli prime ministers, U.S. presidents and Hollywood stars).

It is important to understand Hollywood not only in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but the propaganda aspect of it and as one of  the most powerful and universal methods of spreading ideas through visual propaganda.  “Propaganda is defined as a certain type of messaging that serves a particular purpose of spreading or implanting a particular culture, philosophy, point of view or even a particular slogan”.   With this capability, Hollywood owns the world of ideas on a scale too large and too dangerous to ignore - see this excellent example by Gilad Atzmon - Hollywood and the Past.

Atzmon writes: “History is commonly regarded as an attempt to produce a structured account of the past. It proclaims to tell us what really happened, but in most cases it fails to do that. Instead it is set to conceal our shame, to hide those various elements, events, incidents and occurrences in our past which we cannot cope with. History, therefore, can be regarded as a system of concealment. Accordingly, the role of the true historian is similar to that of the psychoanalyst: both aim to unveil the repressed. For the psychoanalyst, it is the unconscious mind. For the historian, it is our collective shame.”  
As Hollywood and the White House eagerly embrace “Argo” and its propagandist message, they shamelessly and deliberately conceals a crucial aspect of this “historical” event.  The glitter buries the all too important fact that the Iranian students who took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, proceeded to reveal Israel’s dark secret to the world.  Documents classified as “SECRET” revealed LAKAM’s activities.  Initiated in 1960, LAKAM was an Israeli network assigned to economic espionage in the U.S. assigned to “the collection of scientific intelligence in the U.S. for Israel’s defense industry”[ii].  

As it stands, the purpose of the movie and its backers was to push the extraordinary revelations to the background while sending a visual message to the unsuspecting audience – to lay the blame of the potential (and likely) failure of the upcoming negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program on the Iranians -- the gun-wielding, bearded Iranians of “Argo” who deserve America’s collective punishment and the crippling, deathly sanctions.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is a Public Diplomacy Scholar, independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby group.

---

[i] Martha Bayles, Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2005

[ii] U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Israel: Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, Washington, D.C., March 1979, p. 9 (typescript). The report classified SECRET, was released to the world by Iranian students who occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979.  Cited by Duncan L. Clarke, “Israel's Economic Espionage in the United States” (1998).

Western Media Ratcheting Up Anti-Iran Propaganda?

On November 22, 2012, the Los Angeles Times published an alarming piece of news entitled “Cyber Corps program trains spies for the digital age”.   The “cyber-warriors” who are headed for organizations such as the CIA, NSC, FBI, the Pentagon and so on, are trained to stalk, “ rifle through trash, sneak a tracking device on cars and plant false information on Facebook [emphasis added].  They also are taught to write computer viruses, hack digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine data from broken cellphones and flash drives.”

Not surprisingly, less than a month later,  it was rumored that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei  had started a Facebook page.  The style and content of the site ruled out its authenticity, but the State Department was amused.  In spite of the potential for alarm,  State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland jokingly expressed Washington’s curiosity to see how many “likes’ Khamenei would receive.    This is no joking matter.   Any message on this page would be attributed to Khamenei with a potential for dangerous ramifications.    

Barely a month later, on January 24, 2013,  Guardian’s blaring headlines exposed fake blogs and Facebook pages made for  BBC Persian’s Iranian journalists with claims that these were made  in order to harass, intimidate, and discredit the journalists.   These fake blogs, according to The Guardian charges, are not by the American Cyber Corps warriors, but are alleged to be the creation of the Iranian ‘Islamic cyber-activists’ in “what appears [emphasis added] to be an operation sponsored by the authorities”.   

While truth is the fist casualty of war, journalists are also fair game thanks -- in large part owing to the provisions of the Information Operations Road Map of 2003 (signed by the then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and pursued by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta).  As part of the plan,  “public affairs officers brief journalists”.   In 2005 it came to light that the Pentagon paid the Lincoln Group (a private company) to plant ‘hundreds of stories’ in Iraqi papers in support of U.S. Policies.   The plan also called for “a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet. “

In light of such wide spread propaganda, deception and digital warfare by the Pentagon, and with the recent Los Angeles Times revelations of the Cyber Corps training,  truth become indistinguishable from falsehood and thus accepting or rejecting the authenticity of allegations by the Guardian becomes subjective, in spite of the reality of the victimhood of BBC journalists (ditto Radio Farda, VOA) whose reporting is not welcomed in Iran.    

The broadcast of BBC Persian into Iran is problematic.  Leaving aside the illegality of it (see article), BBC Persian which was launched in early 2009, receives  significant funding from the United States.   To many Iranians,  no doubt including the Iranian government, BBC’s role was (and continues to be) a dark reminder of its past role in destroying Iran’s democracy in 1953 when, by its own admission, the BBC spearheaded Britain’s propaganda and broadcast the code which sparked the coup and the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh.   

As if in a reenactment, the role of BBC Persian in the 2009 post-election unrest was significant.  Claiming that  BBC Persian Services was basing its reporting on “citizen journalists” and on the receiving end of “eight user generated communications per minute”,   their own report indicates that some of the reporting was impossible to verify.  Unlike BBC Persian (and VOA, Radio Farda, etc.), Wired Magazine did its homework fully.  In its report aptly titled “Iran: Before You Have That Twitter-Gasm…” , it revealed that the “U.S. media is projecting its own image of Iran into what is going here on the ground.”   BBC Persian, true to its track record, and thanks to State Department funding, had a desire to trumpet in a new era in Iran’s history -  A historical change planned from without, with help from within.   Unlike 1953, it failed. 

Once again, with the Iranian elections on the horizon, indications are that the recent elections in the United States and Israel will not produce a break-through in the US-Iran relations, or the foreign policy agenda of the United States toward Iran -- warfare by other means, including propaganda.   Cognizant of this fact, either the Iranian government is bracing itself for a propaganda war by discrediting sites with a potential to propagate misinformation, which may explain duplicating the BBC (admittedly, a clever move), or, the American Cyber Corps has outdone itself with the ability to point the finger at Iran.

Either way, in launching its cyber warfare, the United States has crossed the Rubicon.  Cyber warfare, much like germ warfare, is dangerous, relentless, and without boundaries.   The casualties of such warfare will continue to rise – unstoppable. 

The Hollywood Story

Hollywood has always been, and continues to be an extension of US policies.   US policies around the globe and at home is dominated by neoconservatives (Israel-firsters).   

Historically, Hollywood has been used to sell policies.  As far back as 1917, when the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information (CPI) enlisted the aid of America’s film industry to make training films and features supporting the cause. Heavily propagandistic, most of these films were for domestic consumption only. But the CPI also controlled all the battle footage used in newsreels shown overseas, and its chairman, George Creel, believed that the movies had a role in “carrying the gospel of Americanism to every corner of the globe.”

The CPI was terminated after the war, but the stage had been set for a major shift, as Washington rewarded the movie studios by pressuring war-weakened European governments to open their markets to American films.  This pact grew stronger during World War II, when, as historian Thomas Doherty writes, “[T]he liaison between Hollywood and Washington was a distinctly American and democratic arrangement, a mesh of public policy and private initiative, state need and business enterprise.” Hollywood’s contribution was to provide propaganda. After the war, Washington reciprocated by using subsidies, special provisions in the Marshall Plan, and general clout to pry open resistant European film markets. (Martha Bayles, Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2005)

In his book ‘Soft Power’, Joseph Nye speaks of the influence of Hollywood.  He cites the poet Carl Sandburg who in 1961 said: “What, Hollywood’s more important than Harvard?  The answer is not as clean as Harvard, but nevertheless, further reaching.”  He is right.

The American commercial film industry, Hollywood, has often borrowed its story ideas from the U.S. foreign policy agenda, at times reinforcing U.S. policies while at times undermining them and offering alternative interpretations to them and to news media portrayals. One of the film industry's blockbuster film loans in the last two decades has been modern international terrorism. Research on Hollywood portrayals of international terrorism has been almost non-existent although the movie industry has produced well over one hundred films on modern terrorism since the emergence of the phenomenon in international relations in 1968. Hollywood rarely touched the topic of terrorism in the late 1960s and 1970s when the phenomenon was not high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, in news headlines nor in the American public consciousness. In the 1980s, in the footsteps of the Reagan administration, the commercial film industry found international terrorism a threat to the U.S. and brought terrorist villains to the big screen, making terrorism a blockbuster film product in the 1990s.

Several researches have shown for example that typically Hollywood has concentrated on portraying the Indians as savages, the Latins as greasers, Italians as mobsters, Arabs as fanatic terrorists, and the hero as the while male.  Several researchers (Parneti ’92, Crowdus ’94, and Gregg ’98) argue that the traditional image of the White hero killing the foreign villain supports the US foreign policy.  This goes unnoticed by the movie audiences especially in the US where the audiences are poorly informed about international affairs (Hess 1996, Rosenbaum 1993).

Hollywood films on terrorism reflect the US Department of State’s pattern of global terrorism and disproportionately focus on conflict, which follows the classical Hollywood cinema screenwriting structure but not necessarily the events of international relations. The pattern of global terrorism disproportionately focuses on conflict, which follows the classical Hollywood cinema screenwriting structure but not necessarily the events of international relations.  It dates back to the hostage crisis in Iran and 1980.  (Helena Vanhala - Hollywood portrayal of modern international terrorism in blockbuster action-adventure films: From the Iran hostage crisis to September 11, 2001 Dissertations And Theses 2005).  University of Oregon; 2005. 

This foreign policy which Hollywood reflects, is now wholly dominated by neoconservatives and promotes the Israeli agenda - as with the US foreign policy.    

The end of the Cold War had left Israel in an awkward place.   According to The Jerusalem Report, in 1991, the idea that radical Islam would (should) replace communism had taken seed among the Israeli right.  The basis of the idea was founded on the neoconservatives fear that with the demise of the Soviet Union, and the splintering of the America’s right wing faction, there would no longer be an unconditional support for a U.S.-Israel alliance.  There was a decade of peace and prosperity to implement the seeds of hostility in the American psyche;  As Podhoretz had stated:  “But the real world and the world of ideas aren't always in the direct communication they should be. In the world of ideas the major media, the universities, the artistic community all of these are still on the left." (Jerusalem Report).  These would have to be mastered.

To this end, the pro-Israel or Israel-firster crowd set out to take over Hollywood – openly, and promote Israel’s narrative of events and its agenda.

It is interesting to note that according to this Haaretz article “from the 1930s until the mid-1950s, Hanukkah never appeared on screen. This was because the Jewish studio heads preferred to hide their ethnic and religious heritage in attempting to widen the appeal of their products. Jews were thus typically portrayed as participants in an American civil religion, whose members may attend the synagogue of their choice, but are not otherwise marked by great differences of appearance, speech, custom, or behaviour from the vast majority of American”.  This is no longer the case and Judaism and preference for Israel has become apparent.

As a side note, it is important to recall that Israeli businessman and Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan was a longtime weapons dealer and Israeli intelligence agent who purchased equipment for Israel's nuclear program.  The book, “Confidential: The Life of Secret Agent Turned Hollywood Tycoon Arnon Milchan,” written by Meir Doron and Joseph Gelman, recounts Milchan's life story, from his days as a boy in Rehovot through his friendships with Israeli prime ministers, U.S. presidents and Hollywood stars.

Hollywood “celebrated” Israel’s 60^th “birthday” with a Gala called “From Vision to Reality”.  Israeli TV blog wrote of the Gala:  ‘Don’t Worry Israel, Hollywood is behind you’.   Actor Jon Voight said: “World playing a dangerous game by going against Israel”.

It is important to understand Hollywood not only in the context of a multi-billion dollar industry, but the propaganda aspect of it.

The most basic example, according to several researches have shown that typically Hollywood has concentrated on portraying the Indians as savages, the Latins as greasers, Italians as mobsters, Arabs [and Iranians] as fanatic terrorists, and the hero as the while male.  Several researchers (Parneti ’92, Crowdus ’94, and Gregg ’98) argue that the traditional image of the White hero killing the foreign villain supports the US foreign policy. 

Without thinking about it, we deal with propaganda every day – through film, advertising, political speeches, news, in TV shows, etc.   There are different forms and methods of propaganda.  Without a doubt, one of  the most powerful and universal methods of spreading ideas is visual propaganda.. 

“Propaganda is defined as a certain type of messaging that serves a particular purpose of spreading or implanting a particular culture, philosophy, point of view or even a particular slogan”.  

A common mistake about propaganda is that it is considered to provide false information. This is not accurate.  Propaganda may not necessarily contain false facts; existing facts may be interpreted in a special way to illustrate a point of view or an idea, as well as only part of the truth can be shown in the propagandists’ speeches and slogans. What is common about propaganda information, it is that it seldom shows the situation from different points of view and seldom gives the full picture in details; this information would rather contain.

US Violates Agreement; Punishes Iran

In its latest act of blatant hypocrisy, the Obama administration has sanctioned Iran over internet and media censorship.  The Administration’s pretentious concern for the Iranian peoples’ welfare is all the more offensive in light of the harsh, illegal, and life-threatening sanctions imposed on that nation, aptly described by The New England Journal of Medicine as a “war against public health” (Gowans).  The Obama administration would have us believe that it is concerned about human rights and freedom of expression where it has no regard for life itself, much less freedom.

President Obama is not alone or the first in this contradictory policy.   In one of the more recent events relating to the topic,  Mr. Obama’s champion during the 2012 presidential race,  Bill Clinton, revealed America’s lack of concern and compassion for human life during the Rwandan genocide when he refused to "neutralize" Radio Mille Collines  with "counter-broadcasts".   Well before the Rwanda genocide,  UN officials and other non governmental officials had asserted that radio transmissions were playing a central role in inciting ethnic tension and "ethno-political" murder.   Although these broadcasts were an important component of the implementation of genocide,  counter-broadcasts urging the perpetrators to stop never took place.

A reason given by Washington for the failure to interfere was state sovereignty and international law as it related to the broadcasts.  In other words, state sovereignty and international law were placed above human life.  In an about face,  Washington is further punishing Iran for not giving America a free hand in undermining its state sovereignty and international law, and the violation of a bilateral agreement.   

International Law & State Sovereignty

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a guarantee of freedom of expression:  “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions, without interference, and to seek, receive and impact information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”  

However, in the same Article, there are provisions for restrictions:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Furthermore, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”  

The United States has continuously violated the territorial integrity and the political independence of Iran, starting with the 1953 coup against the democratic government of Mossadegh.   The continuation of these policies,  another coup was attempted shortly after the Iranian Revolution to overthrow the newly formed government of Iran.  Faced with the failure of the Nojeh Coup in 1980, Washington started its broadcasts into Iran from neighboring countries.

The Carter administration’s clandestine radio broadcasts into Iran from Egypt at a cost of some $20-30,000 per month, called for Khomeini's overthrow in support of Iran’s last Prime Minister under the Shah – Shahpur Bakhtiar.  Later, under Reagan’s watch in 1986, the CIA pirated Iran's national television network frequency and transmitted Reza Pahlavi’s address “I will return” on Iranian television[i].

Piracy and broadcast not only violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, but also violated a bilateral agreement.

Bilateral Agreement

The January 19, 1981, the United States government and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran concluded the Algiers Accords.  (Although the Accords was re-classified by George W. Bush, a review of it is accessible at Columbia Law Review, Vol. 81, No. 4 (May, 1981), pp. 822-90).   Article 1 of the agreement is as follows:

“I: Nonintervention In Iranian Affairs 1. The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs.”

Since its very inception, the United States has violated this bilateral agreement.  It has continued its relentless propaganda into Iran through the Voice of America, Radio Farda, and other State-funded media outlets such as BBC Persian which receives significant funding from the US government.   Launched in early 2009, the BBC Persian as well as Voice of America played a significant role in instigating violence post 2009 Iranian Presidential elections.

It is abundantly clear that America is not a ‘Good Samaritan’ State, and its policies are not driven by compassion.   Ironically, with drones spying on Americans,  network neutrality undermined, and internet censorship abound at home, the Obama administration demands that Iran open itself to further sabotage and subversion guised as compassion.   In other words, embrace the implementation of Donald Rumsfeld’s Information Operations Roadmap – namely, computer network attacks, psychological operations, "maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum", and US ability to  "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".   

One would be hard-pressed to believe that the newly imposed sanctions on Iran are a reflection of care and concern for the Iranian people, but rather, they are punishment for resisting the net war.  Edmund Burke was quite right to say that “As People crushed by laws, have no hope but to evade power. If the laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the law; and those who have must to hope and nothing to lose will always be dangerous.”

---

[i] Stephen Shalom – citing David Binder, “U.S. Concedes It Is Behind Anti-Khomeini Broadcasts”, New York Times, 29 June 1980, p.3 and . Tower Commission, p. 398; Farhang, "Iran-Israel Connection," p. 95