Destabilization of Iran


23 June, 2009
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090623_destabilization.htm

It's the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question. Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad's apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract). On June 13th, 30000 "tweets" begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos. The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn't staying up to date with new media?). Now, YouTube is providing a "Breaking News" link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less). Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically elected governments that don't yield to the whims of western governments and multinational corporations.

Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It's 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh's government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition. The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.

Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can't afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country's resources for western business interests. This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments. Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically elected governments.

Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color. These "color revolutions" sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan "grape revolution" having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI's Evgeny Morozov).

Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media...when it serves western imperial interests. We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal. While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for quesyioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran's government and the installation of Mir-Houssein "Butcher of Beirut" Mousavi.


COLOR REVOLUTIONS ..OLD …AND… NEW
by Stephen Lendman Global Research, July 1, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14168


Excerpt:
“Iran's Made-in-the-USA "Green Revolution"
After Iran's June 12 election, days of street protests and clashes with Iranian security forces followed. Given Washington's history of stoking tensions and instability in the region, its role in more recent color revolutions, and its years of wanting regime change in Iran, analysts have strong reasons to suspect America is behind post-election turbulence and one-sided Western media reports claiming electoral fraud and calling for a new vote, much like what happened in Georgia and Ukraine.
The same elements active earlier are likely involved now with a May 22, 2007 Brian Ross and Richard Esposito ABC News report stating:
"The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity....say President Bush has signed a 'nonlethal presidential finding' that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."
Perhaps disruptions as well after the June 12 election to capitalize on a divided ruling elite - specifically political differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader/Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on one side and Mir Hossein Mousavi, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on the other with Iran's Revolutionary Guard so far backing the ruling government. It's too early to know conclusively but evidence suggests US meddling, and none of it should surprise.Kenneth Timmerman provides some. He co-founded ….”



Democracy Manipulator Color Revolutions ( like the one in Ukraine) and Notorious CIA fronts!
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/redirect.php?gid=2&fid=5&tid=549479&goto=nextoldset

The what so called color revolutions are the "soft coup" that skillfully manipulate elections and democratic procedures to attain regime change in former USSR states in central Asia. This kind of "revolution" significantly use bright and eyes-catching emblems for the action. Georgia had its "rose revolution", Ukraine had its "Orange revolution" and Kyrgiztan had "Yellow/ Lemon revolution".

The main connection and similarity are... all color revolutions candidate held pro-west policy compared to their opponents in elections, that propose close relationship with Russia. They also enjoy US support, some of which are notorious CIA front. Some of them and the background:

1. US Aid : A US funded "civil organization" that teach various political parties in the world on propaganda, news report, topic making, mass rally and people's revolt.

2. IRI (International Republican Institute): lead by John McCain, a republican presidential candidate. One of the most significant operation it ever completed was to throw Haitian president Aristide by force and actively promote and support pro-US Iraqi assembly candidate.

3. NDI (National Democratic Insitute for International affairs): led by former secretary of state Medeleine Albright. The most significant operation is cooperate with NED to support Chavez opponents in Venezuelan election. The financiers of the operation: Chevron, Exxon, Texaco and Enron (it's all about oil).

4. NED (National Endowment for Democracy): led by Vin Weber, former Senate member and currently member of hawkish neo-cons. He is a founder of "Empower America" with simple political views, that America has to own absolute supremacy in military hardware to "solve" dispute. It leads other organizations as International Republican Institute、National Democratic Institute for International Affairs、Center for Private Enterprise and American Center for Labor Solidarity. All have connection to various worldwide NGO's. Their operations stretched from Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia, China etc etc. In 1980, they even interfere with France election, financing ultra-right National Inter-university Union, using them to attack leftist. One of the NED leader Allen Weinstein stated "A lot of what we NED do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA". Current president Bush suggest to double government budget for NED in its 2004 speech.

5. Freedom House: led by former CIA director James Woolsey, a neo-cons... so don't need too much introduction.

6. At last... Open society: led by George Soros. He set up several organizations to finance liberal academics, reporter, college students and organize rally, seminar etc etc. He spent around 2.5 to 3 millions in these 3 countries. His background of a persecuted Jew made him have much care for this eastern Europe region.

(American) Center for Media and Democracy accuse them of being "DEMOCRACY MANIPULATOR" organization seeking to influence political outcomes or process of another country by overt and covert means.

American congressmen Ron Paul accused these organizations, their action won't be allowed in US soil, but they actively operate outside there.

The what so called "democracy preachers" are just propaganda machine financed by former intelligence officers or bloodthirsty supremacist in Washington. Only Open Society that is rather free from Washington interference, but it serve the same agenda, to spread pro-US message using nasty, crafty means.
So much for US style democracy


Colour-Coded Revolutions and the Origins of World War III
Part 2
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15767