Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Full-Spectrum Idiocy: GOP and Chavez on Iran
When approaching Iran, the Republican Party line and the Hugo Chavez line are running in opposite directions -- but parallel. The leadership of GOP reaction and the leadership of Bolivarian revolution have bought into the convenient delusion that long-suffering Iranian people require assistance from the U.S. government to resist the regime in Tehran.
Inside Iran, advocates for reform and human rights have long pleaded for the U.S. government to keep out of Iranian affairs. After the CIA organized the coup that overthrew Iran’s democracy in 1953, Washington kept the Shah in power for a quarter century. When I was in Tehran four years ago, during the election that made Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, what human rights activists most wanted President Bush to do was shut up.
But Bush played to the same kind of peanut gallery that is now applauding the likes of Sen. John McCain. The Bush White House denigrated the 2005 election just before the balloting began -- to the delight of the hardest-line Iranian fundamentalists. The ultra-righteous Bush rhetoric gave a significant boost to Ahmadinejad’s campaign.
Denunciations and threats from Washington are the last thing that Iran’s reform advocates want. And Iranians certainly don’t need encouragement from Uncle Sam to do what they can to bring about democratic change.
John McCain doesn’t get it. And neither does Hugo Chavez.
Of course, Chavez has practical reasons for his warmth toward Ahmadinejad. (Practitioners of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” usually do.) While sharing Washington as a common adversary, their oil-rich countries have the makings of a world-shaking energy bloc. And they’re on similar pages with well-founded antipathies toward institutions like the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank.
But human rights -- whether food, shelter and healthcare or freedom of speech, press and elections -- should not be matters of winks and nods.
As voting began in Iran on June 12, Chavez praised Ahmadinejad as “a courageous fighter for the Islamic Revolution, the defense of the Third World, and in the struggle against imperialism.”
Nine days later, with a bloody crackdown on Iranian protesters gaining momentum, Chavez declared that “Ahmadinejad’s triumph was a triumph all the way.” The Venezuelan president condemned those “trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution.”
I’m among millions of progressive North Americans who admire much of what Chavez has been doing for economic equity and social justice in Venezuela. But that admiration is no reason to be quiet when Chavez makes common cause with repression in Iran.
Meanwhile, in the United States, we have nothing to be smug about. The day after President Obama toughened his criticisms of Iran’s rulers at his June 23 news conference, a venerable human-rights organization named the Quixote Center was noting that more than 1,200 people had sent letters and faxes asking the Obama administration “to denounce the violent repression of peaceful protests organized in response to the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement” -- a massacre of indigenous people in the Peruvian Amazon.
What happened during that massacre on June 5? “A hundred people were wounded by gunshot, and between 20 and 25 were killed,” the Center for International Policy reports.
“The Obama administration,” the Quixote Center noted, “remains silent on the massacre in Peru.”
But the fact of some hypocrisy from President Obama does not change the fact of some idiocy from President Chavez.
On Wednesday (June 24), the Associated Press reports, “Chavez reiterated his support for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a close ally, and said he is ‘completely sure’ Ahmadinejad fairly won re-election on June 12.”
For good measure, Chavez ascribed the protests in Iran to Washington and its allies. “He said protests and violence that have rocked Iran since the contested vote appear part of a recurring strategy by U.S. and European intelligence agencies to destabilize enemy governments.” Chavez declared: “From my point of view, that’s what’s happening in Iran.”
It seems to be beyond the vision of both Hugo Chavez and John McCain to see that vast numbers of Iranian people, fed up with repression, are able to grasp the historical moment on their own while opposing the regime. The last thing they need or want is “help” from the U.S. government as they struggle for a democratic future.
155 Comments so far
Show AllBush and Cheney got precisely the result in Iran that they wanted in 2005. They knew full well that their rhetoric would help to inspire the election of an Iranian leadership which they could more easily demonize.
q
Bush and Cheney, good lord, are they still in office??? No...I didn't think so. Your guys are steering the ship now. For better worse, the current state of affairs, nationally and internationally, belongs to the left. And based on the recent poll numbers...that's not a good thing for your side
Typical troll response.
q
Yep, I find that a political discussion is not even possible with most of my right-wing family, because I would have to spend hours explaining why the Obama Administration is not "the left" and what a left position on an issue really looks like.
Yes. The Obama is on the Left is a right wing talking point.
Which leads me to what I've said all along - liberals (Obama voters) are basically right-wingers and don't even know it.
Yeah, everyone should go to: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ to determine where they stand in the two-dimensional (not left-right one dimensional) political spectrum.
Here's my score. What does that tell you?
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
Economic Left/Right: -7.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
that puts me firmly in the lower left quadrant, no surprises there
Am I more socialist than you?
Economic Left/Right: -8.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
almost
Socialism isn't the panacea to everything. Well regulated capitalism with a mix of socialism would be more preferable.
Balance/moderation in oppression doesn't work, just like balance/moderation in murder doesn't work. Instead, try hippocratic oath, full emancipation.
Socialism may help assist in the basics but at some point, freedom is constrained and hence well regulated capitalism can then come in handy.
No, not on the left, really more on the wobbly center. Actually poll numbers are still surprisingly good.
Please name one member of the left that has anything at all to do with the current administration?
Belongs to the left...ha! Because Obama, his staff, and all the crooks in congress are obviously "left".
NotthebRIGHTest sez: "Bush and Cheney, good lord, are they still in office???"
***
Your question is in response to a poster who was writing of events of 2005. Your boys, though admittedly not elected, were in office at that time.
Iran Falls to U.S. PSYOPS
by Paul Craig Roberts
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22882.htm
** A much better five-minute read than Mr. Solomon's piece which adds little to the discussion.
Good article; makes a lot of sense.
q
I agree. Posted this article yesterday to Common Dreams (see Amy Goodman piece).
The whole notion of judging the crackdowns of other countries when our country has a long and inglorious history of violent crackdowns, from the Whiskey Rebellion to the Indian Wars, to the Haymarket massacre to the Vietnam Peace movement.
Roberts does a good job of demonstrating psyops and the Orwellian doubletalk of the U.S. govt regarding Iran. The end, both he and I surmise, is to allow us to demonize and delegitamize the Iranian govt in any future military action against the country. The U.S. has a long history of interference in Iran and a stated policy of fomenting the unrest we see today (as it has done in countries worldwide - see Blum's book "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II, revised edition (Common Courage Press) ISBN 1-56751-252-6", a book so disturbing that I had to quit reading it (murder, mayhem, information warfare, infiltration, proxy wars, etc.).
Why should we consider the current Iranian unrest any different?
The only idiocy I see here is Solomon's whitewash of history. Perhaps he should read Orwell's 1984 - especially the part about Oceania's "two-minutes of hate." Maybe he'd think twice before publishing such gibberish.
Funny you should mention Orwell.
In Paul Craig Robert's piece today Orwell is the theme.
Ignorance is Strength
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22905.htm
Sioux Rose
LOGARITHMIC: I think you're onto something, and I wish it wasn't so.
I was thinking about the 50% of Americans who now have been wired to accept torture as a bonafide tool of state being used to protect them. Thought about the numbers in that group who probably own arms. Considered the percentage overlap of this group and those who do not believe in evolution or global warming, but do believe in End Times. We're talking about millions of angry, armed, and seriously deluded people in a phase where economic conditions are about to worsen, and the government has shown its contempt for any faint notion of "the greater good," or "public welfare."
The overlaps of these subsets is frightening. Unfortunately we're not dealing with "2 minutes of hate," but entire networks devoted to it in one form or another. And when the comforts our citizenry has been accustomed to suddenly become scarce, upon whom will they vent their considerable angst? The climate has been rendered the equivalent of chum placed in shark-infested waters, and stirred up.
Sioux Rose,
I think you're correct - there have always been scapegoats in societies (take the Jews during the Nazi era). Our government under Bush looked to place our problems on the "Islamic fascism," whatever that means. But the truth of the matter is, with economic collapse, energy depletion, and global warming, the government will increasingly present external enemies to the American public to divert their eyes from the larger picture. It is corruption and manipulation, and as Chomsky describes it, manufacturing consent.
Excellent article.
Chavez should know American interference when he sees it. As for Chavez's verbal support for Ahamadinejad, Solomon should know that heads of state do this sort of thing all the time, even when it's not deserved. And in any case, the West's demonization of Ahmadinejad is no more realistic a picture of the man than Chavez's putative admiration for him. The reality surely lies somewhere between the two extremes.
"President Obama remains silent on the massacre in Peru"
So like every group espousing a cause be it worthwhile or not to demand a response from the president, attention to THEIR focus, insinuating at the very core that no response indicates a lack of willingness on this administration to embrace their cause. Typical in this "its all about me" time period. Clamoring for attention without regard to etablishing the truth.
Its really too bad that for once the US has a good president and this is how you are treating him. All would get done if there were cooperation and appreciation.
Imagine what would happen if everyone appreciated his efforts and supported him. There wouldnt be anything that couldnt be accomplished. The US will probably go down for its own folly and stupidity.
What happens when one has something good and does not appreciate it? Right... they lose it.
God Bless the US and Barack Obama.
Wow. Obama has trolls too.
q
A great many of these trolls are employed by various think tanks to disrupt and confuse discussions. They use a full-spectrum of techniques such as good cop bad cop etc.
These techniques work well on sites like Huff Po where the average reader is less educated.
On this site, however, their posts are transparently pathetic.
Please. Just because he seemed pro-Obama, all of a sudden he's a troll being paid by the Obama administration (or some Obama-friendly think tank)? How do we know YOU'RE not a troll for the Green Party trying to combat Obama? Cuts both ways doesn't it.
Don't feed the troll Kane Jeeves.
(If you want to play that game, here it is. The Green Party does not have the resources to have people who troll on the payroll.)
That we know of...
They're being funded by Tralfamadorans...
While there's plenty to be disappointed with Obama about, there are still plenty out there who are used to blindly accepting Obama as a progressive. I don't find all these "troll" accusations helpful. Even on this thread, I notice that even the mild dissenters are unfairly attacked as "trolls" much the same way Chavez is getting a bit too cruel with even mild dissent back home. I've had enough of the Democrats in my state of VA, usually the DLC types, getting intolerant with real progressives and I'm afraid Chavez is doing likewise. There needs to be some civility here. All this "troll" accusation is making honest discussions meaningless.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: Very astute observation. Having felt in the middle of more than one of these political Vauderville routines, I know just what you mean!
"God Bless the US and Barack Obama" What kind of naive fundamentalist 3rd grade mentality is this? Leave your god out of this, not all of us believe in fairy tales
"Hail the Empire
Hail Emperor Obama"
Sioux Rose
Another troll. Obviously someone who's quite fond of consuming a diet of pablum mixed with propaganda, a little too bland for most of us in this forum who clearly prefer finer food for thought.
Alas poor Hugo! Instead of keeping quiet and busy in his own back yard furthering solidarity among the newly emerging leftist governments of Latin America, he does exactly what he resented (and rightly so) the US doing--he shoots his mouth off about something that isn't any of his business.
Full spectrumn idiocy indeed--from the Beige Bush to Hugo the Bigmouth--what a spectacle! C'mon everybody., let's all join with Sarah "Whitetrash" Palin and start chanting "drill baby drill"--which makes as much sense as Obama and Chavez on Iran.
Poet
Rightly or wrongly, Chavez is expressing solidarity with another leader whom he sees as a fellow victim of US interference. He clearly believes that the US is doing more than shooting off their mouths in Iran (see the link to Roberts' article).
q
Why you give a dam about what Chavez says about Iran is beyond me.
Looks like the trolls are here in force today using a variety of techniques to try and muddy the issue.
Poet suggests:
"...he does exactly what he resented (and rightly so) the US doing--he shoots his mouth off about something that isn't any of his business."
No Poet. Chavez resents attempts to overthrow and discredit governments and elections in foreign lands. He resents multi-national oil companies who think they're entitled to every oil field no matter where it lies. He resents powerful countries using their militaries to intimidate smaller countries. He resents monetary funds that try to sucker poor countries into loans that are more dangerous than quicksand.
Pathetic attempt Poet. Try again.
All great leaders are entitled to say an occasional impolitic thing now and again. Chavez is entitled to be suspicius of the neoliberal privatizer Mousavi; but, I have to admit, that this is the first thing Chaves has said in which I wished he just stayed quiet on the matter.
pjd412, there was at least one occasion earlier when I had wished Chavez hadn't opened his mouth - that was in support of Sudan's Al Bashir after he was indicted by the International Criminal Court for continuing atrocities in Darfur.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/31-6
There was an immediate (and by now predictable) response by some here on CD.
And what was that?
Sioux Rose
KEEP: Dang! You were so polite and your articulation/analysis right on, then you had to go and spoil it by hurling insults. Is it you MRaven/Serena in yet another "incarnation"? As for the 28 thing, it is the number of MIRACLES as taken from a very spiritual book on the 40 days of LENT. I have found the messages related to the 40 days also fit the days of the month that persons are born on. If you were born on November 28, it would certainly open publishing and academic doors, not to mention broader travel opportunities. I suppose with that sun opposing Uranus you can't help but project yourself in a contentious manner; and didn't you say your sun was also conjunct Mars? Or am I confusing that with the MALE name/persona you took on? In the Medicine Cards Raven means magic, and shapeshifting is certainly a component. Do you keep track of all the shapeshifting nomenclature you project into this forum? Nonetheless, your earlier post was sharp.
NORMAN SOLOMON is one the thousands of fake-leftists that USA has. Normon Solomon is a zionist, pro-US imperialism leftist. Normon Solomon is denying the fact that Mahomud Ahmadinejad won the elections legally. Norman Solomon is siding with the state of Israel and with US Imperialism. What a fake-leftist, just like the people of Moveon.org
.
Ahmadinejad may have won, but we don't know for sure. So aside from that thought,
can you provide links or details backing up your post?
Thank you in advance for the extra work in posting those.
Hello? Link?
Had John Mccain claimed the last elections in the USA a fraud. Had Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter and Michael Savage encouraged the people to take to the streets to overthrow an illegitimate Government.
Had Countries the world over implored the people of the United States to rise up against their rulers all of them chanting in unison the election a fraud and Mccain the rightful winner.
Had radio broadcasts into the USA from foreign countries and Governments all over the world reported endlessly on the mobs taking to the street and of Violent actions on the part of the "repressive" Obama administration.
Had agents of Russia and or China or some other foreign powers been tasked with creating "Instability" inside the United States of America and had they a history of doing so using those same methods.
Would the police forces of the United States simply stand aside ? Would Obama say "yes there was a fraud, the election was a sham"?
Would Normon Solomon claim that those people going into the streets were doing so spontaneously because of years of brutal oppression?
Would anyone who claimed the election of Obama legitimate and that the people were being incited to revolt be an idiot?
Good post.
However, there are quite a few groups, and of course people like Limbaugh and Savage, who *do* claim Obama is illegitimate, and some of these people are calling for overthrow of our government. But we have no need of hostile foreign agents to create instability and foment violence, our very own conservatives are doing that on their own.
Did you forget the AIPAC spys?