I initially thought the explosive protests were a reflection of the people's grievances over the rigged election. I reacted emotionally, partly because I took pride in seeing my compatriots showing true courage, and partly because I am still skeptical about always trying to theorize. Maybe I should just stop thinking and always believe the official line. But that isn't me.
We need to take a step back for a minute, and see with new eyes. Similar type of events curiously occur in countries that are deemed as enemies to the United States. From the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, we saw the role the CIA played in fomenting anti-government protests, and creating political instability, leading almost to a new coup. In that operation, Chavez was the target. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the same type of thing maybe going on in Iran right now. It's been true in the past, if the CIA could pull a stunt like this off in 1953, what makes you think they're incapable to do the same in 2009?
It's all speculation, of course, only time will reveal such things. But time has reveal such things in the past. It's important to always remain doubtful of current and past historical events. Putting trust in American media's coverage of any historical event is never good, since as we all know the operation of the press has become an unruly oppression. There is no other way of putting it. Let's remember that the American media has continually lied about the Iranian's government purposes and desires for a nuclear program. The American CIA controlled media didn't report on IAEA findings that Iran's nuclear activities were of a peaceful nature. Also, the same media twisted Ahmadinejad's words when he criticized the Israeli state. They reported that Ahmadinejad said he wants to bomb Israel off the map, which was a mistranslation of language and metaphor. What Ahmadinejad meant is that he wanted to wipe off the Zionist regime in control of Israel off the map of history, and off the pages of time. He was not supporting or condoning genocide. Ahmadinejad is surely not an angel, and I'm willing to bet that in the heat of the moment he's the type of a man who would pull the trigger, press the button, and yes, even nuclear. So I am not in favor of him. He is head of a hypocritical and repressive government, just as Obama is. I would like to see both out of office, but I am troubled of who might take their places.
In America, the only opposition of Obama reported by the media is from the far right, who will probably install an even more hypocritical and repressive government if they ever get into office. And by the looks of things, those right wing fanatics, some of whom are propelled to prominence by the state agencies, are willing to use terrorist methods to scare the public and violently impress their ideology on people. The real patriots are lost in the brush fires. And the same is probably true in Iran. Who's to say who the real patriots are in times like these? Everybody has their own different world view and thus, take different sides. That's the bottom level, though. If we look at what's happening from a higher angle, and approach the situation with eagle eyes then we might have a better view of the truth.
As a student of history, I know revolutions and civil conflicts don't just appear out of nowhere. Although I am familiar with the concept of emergence, and bottom-up protests, it is still to early to tell if this is the case in Iran. Let's take a recent example, the tea party protests in America back in April. Those were backed by very powerful conservative interests who had different motives than the vast majority of the people who participated in the protests. Was some of it spontaneous and a reflection of the deep anger in the heartland? Absolutely. But those emotions can be riled up to achieve certain ends by very powerful interests. The history of the CIA and of the State in general in the last half century is very dubious. State agencies act very covertly and behind the scenes, and they are very successful at it. Since we know that Bush authorized the use of covert actions inside Iran to destabilize it's regime, can't we assume that the CIA has indeed taken the message? They've conducted the same shenanigans in Latin America and Eastern Europe for years, so why is it so prosperous to assume that they are doing the same thing in Iran?
In Latin American countries the CIA propped up rightist groups, funding their activities and covering up for them in propaganda pieces in the America media, and in Iran, it looks like they're helping leftist groups with the same tactics. It does not matter what your ideology is, left or right, because ideology does not grease the wheels of power. Money does. The CIA is not interested in supporting conservatives or liberals, capitalists or communists, pro-democracy groups or fascists but men who are pro-American empire, men who are not loyal to their country but to their wallets and egos. And the desired effect, which is to divide the country, is achieved no matter where in the world. Ultimately, the aim is to cause endless social unrest and political instability that could possibly lead to a coup and a new American stamped government.
But it is not just scumbags in the CIA who are rubbing their hands. Some of the bigger power players on the world war stage are also giddy behind the scenes. They are American military corporations like the RAND corporation, which has called for an expansion of war in the Middle East, beginning with an attack on Iran that could trigger WWIII. And of course, there is Israel's constant preoccupation with war in Iran. Israeli generals and state agencies act on their interests by any means necessary. Charting Stocks has speculated that some Israeli actors maybe behind some twitter postings, in the effort to destabilize the Iranian government. I can not verify if there is any truth to this, but if there is any country that is eying Iran like a hawk it is Israel. Why would these powerful, dark and very mysterious forces want to harbor political and civil instability inside Iran? Because, divide and conquer has always been the rule of the game. The current uprising in Iran could very well lead to a mini civil war, with different factions inside the government breaking off, thereby making the country more vulnerable to an American and Israeli attack. This is just speculation, of course, but it is always good to question the official version of events. The situation inside Iran is getting very murky. Are there any truths to my disquieting doubts? Only time will tell.
Update:
Paul Craig Roberts summed up the reasons to doubt a rigged election in Iran more coherently than I did. Here is a snippet:
There have been numerous news reports that the US government has implemented a program to destabilize Iran. There have been reports that the US government has financed bombings and assassinations within Iran. The US media treats these reports in a braggadocio manner as illustrations of the American Superpower's ability to bring dissenting countries to heel, while some foreign media see these reports as evidence of the US government's inherent immorality.
Pakistan's former military chief, General Mirza Aslam Beig, said on Pashto Radio on Monday, June 15, that undisputed intelligence proves the US interfered in the Iranian election. "The documents prove that the CIA spent 400 million dollars inside Iran to prop up a colorful but hollow revolution following the election."
