But Khamenei's political alliance with his very odd and hallucinatory president may have sprung from fear as much as anger.I wrote about this here many days ago. You can bet that the USA is 100% behind Mousavi and has been preparing and creating this current situation for months now. I said in my post weeks ago, that if the USA (and it’s EU attack dogs) had simply left Iran alone, the country would have naturally gone through a progression of change at it’s own pace. That is important because it does take time for factions to become adjusted to change. Take the North of Ireland for instance. Had England, the US and the Irish Free State, suddenly said, “Right, Irish Nationalists, starting tomorrow have full and equal rights and representation in a local government” and “Additionally, when the majority of the population votes for a United Ireland, they will get it” you would have seen Loyalist and Pro-British unrest, violence and a war that would have continued for the last 10 years and would still be going on right now. That’s my point. People have to adjust, AND more importantly, they must feel that no outside foreign forces are working behind the scenes for one side or the other.
During his Friday prayers address at Tehran University, the Supreme Leader mentioned the dangers of a "velvet" revolution and it is clear that the regime has been deeply concerned by the democratic overthrow of Eastern European and west Asian governments since the fall of the Soviet Union. People power – through which the 1979 revolution was ultimately successful – is a devastating weapon (albeit the only one) in the armoury of a serious but unarmed political opposition.
In the aftermath of the Ahmadinejad "success" at the polls, his supporters were handing out leaflets condemning the secular revolutions of Eastern Europe, and their content says much about the anxieties of Iran's clerical leadership. One of them was entitled: "The system of trying to topple an Islamic Republic in a 'velvet revolution'." It then described how it believes Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and other nations won their freedom.
I find it interesting that one of the first media outlets to begin to fan the flames was the BBC’s Persian station inside Iran. Then things began spreading to Western media. How convenient for Obama that he can remain silent, whilst his cohorts like England, France and Germany begin to fan flames by calling Iranian Ambassadors in for questioning regarding the election.
The truth is that the USA has used the same online groups, sources and resources it used to so effectively to elect Obama to the Whitehouse. People think that the hoards of online progressives are all free thinking and came to their position on their own. This however, is not really true. For a great many are simply just the online "media pushers" for the Obama Administration's policies, good OR bad. Within popular US progressive blogs, Dissent, to a mild degree will be tolerated, but the hoards of followers will soon begin to attack those who stray too far from the fold. I followed the US elections very closely, Witness thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters forced to leave certain blogs after years of posting there with much popularity. So even among Democrat progressives, alternate opinions, or any continued criticism of Obama was not allowed. Additionally, people were banned for their support of Palestine. These things tell me that the online blogosphere can be used as a propaganda outlet just like mainstream media is used. Hence people need to start thinking for themselves and looking at the bigger picture.
Add in the US and UK media drum beat, of which I have watched with a sick feeling the entire weekend. Each channel pushing for overthrow of Iran’s government. Each channel pushing the same agenda. Each channel ensuring that there are continual reports and graphic photos to inflame the masses, all the while interviewing talking heads all calling for much the same thing. On the rare occasion where someone with intelligence says that those protesting are not after toppling the Islamic Republic, but rather are only asking for more freedoms and a different President, as soon as that person is finished giving their assessment, you see the news commentator repeating the mantra that the millions of protesters do want to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
In countries around the world we see people marching. In America we see people calling for Obama to intervene. So, ask yourself this question. If you wanted to overthrow, intervene or attack a country, but you knew there was no way that the American people would allow you to behave like George Bush did, them how would you do this? Answer: you create, on the ground, public outrage, so that it ends up being the American people themselves that ask you to take that action. Your hands remain clean as you are merely reacting to what the “public” wants you to do.
I don’t support Ahmadinejad, and I’m not mad keen on many aspects of the Islamic Republic, but I do believe for change within a country to last it needs to come “naturally” over time, not immediately at the meddling of foreign countries with an agenda to create another mini America in the middle east or elsewhere. That’s my problem.
If Americans think that, should they succeed in toppling the Iranian regime through covert meddling that they’ve had some great victory. Think again. Because like it or not there are millions of Ahmadinejad supporters, and others who do want the “Islamic” part. And if they believe that the US and the UK have meddled, they will never accept the outcome of such a “velvet” revolution. They will fight back and the entire country will be at internal war for many years to come. Additionally, all of this will fan the flames of Anti-American sentiment and another gift to Al Qaeda increasing its support throughout the Muslim world. That will be America’s “victory”
Look, the young generation, women and well educated Iranians do want more freedoms. This is the beginning, and if America would just stay the hell out of things now, then the change will come naturally and ultimately over time be accepted by the vast majority of the population, resulting in a more stable country. But is a “stable“ country what America really wants? Is it what Israel wants?
I’m asking people to think with their minds, rather than just reacting to the graphic scenes (meant to make you outraged) that are shown 24 hours a day by Western media. Think about who gains, and who looses and what the bigger picture is regarding the Middle East, Israel, Palestine and Lebanon. Think about what you are asking when you call out to Obama to "intervene"
Let Iran makes its change at it’s own pace, otherwise be prepared to reap what you sow.
Here’s Fisk’s explanation of a Velvet or Colourful Revolution, see what you recognise as having already taken place:
"'Velvet' or 'colourful' revolutions... are methods of exchanging power for social unrest. Colourful and 'velvet' revolutions occurred in post-communist societies of central and Eastern Europe and central Asia. (With American assistance, see WIKI) Colourful revolutions have always been initiated during an election and its methods are as follows:note that this took place, exactly like Fisk described above. Read about US involvement in the "Orange Revolution" Look at the US groups and US funding involved in these revolutions.
"1. Complete despair in the attitude of people when they are certain to lose an election...
"2. Choosing one particular colour which is selected solely for the Western media to identify (for their readers or viewers)." Mousavi used green as his campaign colour and his supporters still wear this colour on wristbands, scarves and bandannas.
"3) Announcing that there has been advance cheating before an election and repeating it non-stop afterwards... allowing exaggeration by the Western media, especially in the US.
"4) Writing letters to officials in the government, claiming vote-rigging in the election. It's interesting to note that in all such 'colourful' projects – for example, in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan – the Western-backed movements have warned of fraud before elections by writing to the incumbent governments. In Islamic Iran, these letters had already been written to the Supreme Leader."
Another leaflet maintained that a study – which Khamenei's advisers have obviously undertaken, however inaccurately – demonstrated that vote-rigging will be alleged on the very day of the election and that victory will be claimed by the opposition hours before the counting is finished and before their own defeat is announced. The results, says the document, will therefore already have a "background" of fraud. "In the final stages... supporters gather in front of the regime's official offices, holding colourful banners and protesting against vote-rigging." This part of the demonstration, the leaflet says, "is run by the foreign media who are the opposition movement's supporters so that they make good pictures and mislead the international community".
All this shows a unique and obsessive concern among the Supreme Leader's disciples about just how popular Mousavi's post-election campaign has become. Even the cutting of SMS and mobile communications – and in a sophisticated society such as Iran, this must have cost millions of dollars – did not prevent the calling of rallies which always assembled at the same moment and at the same place.
What we are now seeing is a regime which is far more worried than the Supreme Leader suggested when he threatened the opposition so baldly on Friday. Having refused any serious political dialogue with Mousavi and his opposition comrades – a few district recounts will produce no real change in the result – the Iranian regime, led by a Supreme Leader who is frightened and a president who speaks like a child, is now involved in the battle for control of the streets of Iran. It is a conflict which will need the kind of miracle in which Khamenei and Ahmadinejad both believe to avoid violence. link