WeAreTheKey

Oh boy, here we go... looks like the groundwork for "regime change" in Iran has already been laid and now the first phase of their 'covert' plan to bring down the Iranian government has officially begun! Hoo-rah!
And we're all supposed to feel comfortable with this because we've been told Iran's president Ahmedinejad is a big, scary "Holocaust Denier" and wants to "Annihilate Israel", both of which are completely bogus, and wouldn't justify his downfall anyway. We would be upset at him for wishing the end of Israel, while we openly call for the end of Iran, and succeeded in bringing about the end of Iraq essentially. Hypocrisy is so fun.

Here are some lowlights from a New Yorker article which details some of the inside information.

The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

...But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature...

...The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money....

...some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy...

...The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran...

...There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing...

...The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror

One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.

“The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”


And to think where we'd be without 9/11, hmm?

Full article: www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/ ... ntPage=all

Sooo, no one has responded, but I'll update this mess of a situation anyway.
It's almost funny the level of spin and propaganda being pumped out by government spokespeople and politicians regarding Iran, and it is so incredibly lopsided and biased towards Iran being "evil" and the U.S. being "righteous"...check this out.

So we have been ramping up our war-like statements towards Iran over the last several weeks/months, we keep heavily implying with a wink and a nudge that we would absolutely LOVE to bomb the crap out of Iran... Israel just held a large-scale military exercise meant to demonstrate to the Iranians that they mean business and are more than willing to flex their military might:
"The Israeli exercise was widely interpreted as a show of force as well as a practice on skills needed to execute a long-range strike mission. "
Riiiight, so we've got spies in their country trying to undermine their government, bring about "regime change", and we constantly remind the public that this madman is a "holocaust denier" and wants to "wipe Israel off the map" just in case we forget what a wacko he is....

Also, statements that Ahmedinejad makes about Iran defending itself, or retaliating against an attack are seen as.....wait for it......PROVOCATION! That's right, we play stupid and act like it is HIM who is threatening US, when it is so obviously the other way around.

And let's not forget, this WHOLE THING is based on the assumption that Iran's nuclear program is probably aimed at creating a nuclear weapon, which might somehow fall into the hands of terrorists, who might then use it on Israel or The United States! And we're all ready to follow along like cloned sheep into another disasterous military confrontation, based on THAT??

The spin keeps on coming too. Today Iran test-fired seven missiles, six short-range and one long-range. And what was their explanation? To "demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh language." And "intended to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack."

Did you catch that? Retaliate. Meaning we struck first. Which is all they have EVER said when it comes to them "attacking" someone. Basically, they will defend themselves, which is the same thing any nation would say and do. But what is the response from our government and politicians and media?

MSNBC: shows a video image of an Iranian missile with the headline: Provocation?

Condi Rice: "evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one...Those who say that there is no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defense system perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims."

White House spokesman: "completely inconsistent with Iran's obligations to the world."

National Security Council Spokesman: "The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the international community when it engages in this sort of activity...They should also refrain from further missile tests if they truly seek to gain the trust of the world."

John McCain: "underscores the threat posed by Iran to the region. It's very disturbing. Iran continues to profess it's COMMITMENT to the destruction of Israel"

Barack Obama: "Tehran's move highlights the need for tougher economic sanctions as well as strong incentives to persuade Iran to change its behavior."

All this, despite the fact that in June, "Israel's military sent warplanes over the eastern Mediterranean for a large military exercise in June that U.S. officials described as a possible rehearsal for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities."

And apparently, we'll all sit idly by while war with Iran slowly unfolds, withouth the President even needing to really sell it, they'll just continue to slowly slide into it while the media continues to give off the aura of it being "inevitable", until it becomes true, and American wakes up one morning an realizes that the U.S. is fighting THREE SIMULTANEOUS WARS in the middle east. All unprovoked, and none of which were a threat.
As you can tell, this really pisses me off.

From US News and World Report:

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon's resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel's airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone -- if that becomes necessary -- to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?

6. Israel's war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel's July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon's and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush's Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president's "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president's plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon's top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

The hypocrisy of these neocons is breathtaking. I found a good article the other day that illustrates that well:



Bush and his corporate cronies are beneath contempt.

Yeah the largest exports to Iran being cigarettes was what promted the McCain quip "Maybe that's one way to kill them".
Yar-har-har.
But now the U.S. has stepped-up it's belligerent words against Iran even further, after a diplomatic U.N. meeting with Iran in which Iran stated that it would not suspend it's nuclear enrichment activities, the U.S. has stated quite publicly today "Cooperate or face consequences"....
We're just setting this up to make it look like we have no other choice but to engage them militarily, because of their "refusal to accept our demands", even though we have known all along that they won't suspend their enrichment activities.
We refuse to engage in negotiations with Iran UNTIL they stop enriching... That's our pre-requisite for "talks"...
But then I wonder, if they met that demand and ceased the activity, and we agreed to direct talks with them... what would we be negotiating?!? They would have already done what we wanted!

This is retarded circular logic at its best.

But of course the U.S. knows this, so what is it that they really want? Hmmmm....

Here's the article on our big, scary threat.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25733175

Well, thankfully the Bush Admin failed in its desired one-two-three punch of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran by failing to get enough public support for a 3rd war despite their best efforts.
Looks like they've left it to Obama, who has sent many mixed messages on his feelings about Iran.
But anyway, the Iranian Presidential election serves as the latest and greatest excuse to paint Ahmedinejad as an evil-doer, so of course the media does what it is clearly supposed to, and begins dutifully pumping out anti-Ahmedinejad propaganda.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, June 18, 2009

The BBC has again been caught engaging in mass public deception by using photographs of pro-Ahmadinejad rallies in Iran and claiming they represent anti-government protests in favor of Hossein Mousavi.

An image used by the L.A. Times on the front page of its website Tuesday showed Iranian President Ahmadinejad waving to a crowd of supporters at a public event.

In a story covering the election protests yesterday, the BBC News website used a closer shot of the same scene, but with Ahmadinejad cut out of the frame. The caption under the photograph read, ‘Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests’.

The BBC photograph is clearly a similar shot of the same pro-Ahmadinejad rally featured in the L.A. Times image, yet the caption erroneously claims it represents anti-Ahmadinejad protesters.

See the screenshots below:
<img src="http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/iran_protest_rally_lie1.jpg">
<img src="http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/iran_protest_rally_lie2.jpg">
“Well I guess it sure was a popular fictional rally for Mousavi, because I later noticed while browsing the news sites a familiar picture on the BBC’s lead Iran story - it shows the same crowd, zoomed in to cut out Ahmadinejad,” a reader told the WhatReallyHappened website. “It is clearly the same protest as in the background are the same tree and odd circular building. However, the BBC managed to outdo the LA times in quality reporting - their actual comment under the photo from the huge PRO-Ahmadinejad rally reads ‘Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi again defied a ban on protests’ - a blatant lie and deliberately misleading description of what is actually occurring in Iran!”

As soon as the truth about the misrepresented images surfaced on the WhatReallyHappened website yesterday, the BBC changed the photo caption on their original article. The caption now reads, ‘Tehran has seen mass demonstrations by all sides since the disputed election’.

This is not the first time the BBC has been caught red-handed using crude image and video framing techniques for the purposes of political propaganda.

During the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, the BBC and other mainstream news outlets broadcast closely framed footage of the “mass uprising” during which Iraqis, aided by U.S. troops, toppled the Saddam Hussein statue in Fardus Square.

The closely framed footage was used to imply that hundreds or thousands of Iraqis were involved in a Berlin Wall-style “historic” liberation, yet when wide angle shots were later published on the Internet, footage that was never broadcast on live television, the reality of the “mass uprising” became clear. The crowd around the statue was sparse and consisted mostly of U.S. troops and journalists. The BBC later had to admit that only “dozens” of Iraqis had participated in toppling the statue. The entire scene was a manufactured farce yet the propaganda technique of blocking wide-angle shots from being broadcast convinced the world that the event represented a triumphant and historic mass popular uprising on behalf of the Iraqi people.

Whatever your views on the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad and the accuracy of the Iranian election results, the fact that the Anglo-American establishment and its media organs are exploiting and fanning the flames of chaos in Iran to provoke further instability is unquestionable.

Indeed, the U.S. State Department, which routinely demonizes the Internet as a tool of extremists and terrorists when it is used to criticize U.S. foreign policy, took the unprecedented step today of requesting that Twitter.com “delay planned maintenance work so that Iranian protesters can continue to use it to post images and reports of unrest,” according to a London Times report.