Iran Falling to US PSYOPS?


President Obama
called on the Iranian government to allow protesters to
control the streets in Tehran. 
Would Obama or any US president allow protesters
to control the streets in Washington, D.C.?

There was more
objective evidence that George W. Bush stole his two
elections than there is at this time of election theft
in Iran.  But
there was no orchestrated media campaign to discredit
the US government.

On May 16, 2007,
the London Daily
Telegraph
reported that Bush regime official

John Bolton  told
the Telegraph
that a US military attack on Iran would
"be a `last
option` after economic sanctions and attempts to foment
a popular revolution had failed."

We are now
witnessing in Tehran US
"attempts to
foment a popular revolution"
in the guise of another
CIA-orchestrated
"
color revolution".
 

It is possible
that splits among the mullahs themselves brought about
by their rival ambitions 
will aid and abet what the
Telegraph (May
27, 2007)

reported
were
"CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign
intended to destabilize, and eventually topple, the
theocratic rule of the mullahs."
 
It is certainly a fact that the secularized youth
of Tehran have played into the CIA`s hands.

The Mousavi
protests have set up Iran either for a US puppet
government or for a military strike. 
The mullahs are in a lose-lose situation. Even if
the mullahs hold together and suppress the protests, the
legitimacy of the Iranian government in the eyes of the
outside world has been damaged. 
Obama`s diplomatic approach is over before it
started.  The

neocons
and Israel have won. 

The US
intervention and the orchestrated disinformation pumped
out by the western media are so transparent that it is
impossible to believe than any informed person or
government is taken in. 
One cannot avoid the conclusion that the West
wants the 1978 Iranian Revolution overthrown and intends
to use deception or violence to achieve that goal.

It has become
increasingly difficult to believe that facts and truth
motivate the western news media. 
For the record, I would like to point out a few
of the most obvious oversights, to use a euphemism, in
the Iran reporting.

According to a
wide variety of news sources (for example,

London Telegraph,

Yahoo News, The
Globe and Mail,
 
Asbarez.com, Politico), 
"Before
the polling closed Mr. Mousavi declared himself
`definitely the winner` based on `all indications from
all over Iran.` He alleged widespread voting
irregularities without giving specifics and hinted he
was ready to challenge the final results."
 

Other news
sources, which might not have been aware that the polls
were kept open several hours beyond normal closing time
in order to accommodate the turnout, reported that
Mousavi made his victory claim the minute polls closed. 

Mousavi`s
premature claim of victory before polling was over or
votes counted is clearly a preemptive move, the purpose
of which is to discredit any other outcome. 
There is no other reason to make such a claim. 

In Iran`s
system, election fraud has no purpose, because a small
select group of ruling mullahs select the candidates who
are put on the ballot. 
If they don`t like an aspiring candidate, they
simply don`t put him on the ballot. 

When the liberal
reformer Khatami ran for president, he won with 70% of
the vote and served from 1997-2005. If the mullahs
didn`t defraud Khatami of his win, it seems unlikely
they would defraud an establishment figure like Mousavi,
who was foreign minister in the most conservative
government, and is backed by another establishment
figure, Rafsanjani.

As Mousavi was
seen as Rafsanjani`s man, why is it
"unbelievable"
that Ahmadinejad defeated Mousavi by the same margin
that he defeated Rafsanjani in the previous election?

Neoconservative
Kenneth Timmerman let the cat out of the bag that there
was an orchestrated
"color revolution" in the works. 
Before the election, Timmerman

wrote
:
"there`s talk of a `green revolution` in Tehran."
 
Why would protests be organized prior to a vote
and announcement of the outcome? 
Organized protests waiting in the wings are not
spontaneous responses to a stolen election.

Timmerman`s
organization, Foundation for Democracy, is funded by the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) for the explicit
purpose of promoting democracy in Iran. According to
Timmerman, NED money was funneled to
"pro-Mousavi
groups who have ties to non-governmental organizations
outside Iran that the National Endowment for Democracy
funds."

The US media has
studiously ignored all of these highly suggestive facts. 
The media is not reporting or providing objective
analysis.  It
is engaged in a propagandistic onslaught against the
Iranian government.

We know that the
US funds terrorist organizations inside Iran that are
responsible for bombings and other violent acts. 
It is likely that these terrorist organizations
are responsible for the burning buses and other acts of
violence that have occurred during the demonstrations in
Tehran.

A writer on
pakalert.wordpress.com says that he was intrigued by the
sudden appearance of tens of thousands of Twitter
allegations that Ahmadinejad stole the Iranian election. 
He investigated, he says, and he reports that
each of the new highly active accounts were created on
Saturday, June 13th.
"IranElection"
is their most popular keyword. He narrowed the spammers
to the most persistent:

@StopAhmadi
@IranRiggedElect

@Change_For_Iran
. He researched further and found
that on June 14 the

Jerusalem Post
already had an article on the new Twitter.

He concludes
that the new Twitter sites are propaganda operations.

One wonders why
the youth of the world, who do not protest stolen
elections elsewhere, are so obsessed with Iran.

The unexamined
question is Mousavi and his motives. 
Why would 
Mousavi unleash demonstrations that are obviously
being used by a hostile West to discredit the government
of the Iranian Revolution that overthrew the US puppet
government? 
Are these the actions of a
"moderate"? 
Or are these the actions of a disgruntled man who
kept his disaffection from his colleagues in order to
gain the opportunity to discredit the regime with street
protests?  Is
Mousavi being manipulated by organizations funded with
US government money?

John Bolton laid
out the US strategy. 
First we try to destabilize the regime. 
Failing that, we strike them militarily. 

As this strategy
unfolds, Iranians will pay in lost independence or in
blood for the naiveness of its secularized youth and for
the mistake the mullahs made in trusting Mousavi.

Paul Craig Roberts [email
him
] was Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan`s
first term.  He was Associate Editor of the
Wall
Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic
appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair,
Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow,
Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded
the Legion of Honor by French President Francois
Mitterrand. He is the author of


Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider`s Account of
Policymaking in Washington
;
 Alienation
and the Soviet Economy
and

Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy
,
and is the co-author
with Lawrence M. Stratton of


The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and
Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name
of Justice
. Click

here
for Peter
Brimelow`s
Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts
about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.