The new Great Satan is the UK

[alienlovechild 75]

That's the upshot of the announcement Wednesday that the Islamic Republic of Iran is considering downgrading its diplomatic ties to Britain, the country's former colonial ruler.

The comments by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Iranian state television signal a concerted effort to blame the British for the chaotic postelection street demonstrations threatening the government, experts say.

"The British role as former colonial masters makes them easy targets," said Michael Williams, a professor of international relations at the University of London who advised Barack Obama's campaign on foreign affairs.

"The Iranians have a history of using the British as a proxy when they can't get at the United States."

Williams said the Obama administration has been very careful not to fuel the volatile situation, while the British have drawn verbal fire because of the BBC's prominent role as trusted broadcaster inside Iran.

"The BBC Persian Service is very popular and respected in Iran, and the BBC is working actively to increase its satellite coverage and foil Iranian attempts to block their signal, this has made the Iranian government very suspicious," he said.

Williams also noted the British have opened their embassy in Tehran to treat people injured in the demonstrations.

Suspicions that the British are helping to keep the protests going prompted the Iranian government to expel two British diplomats, prompting Britain to respond in kind Tuesday.

Britain has many historical ties to Iran—far more than the United States or other Western countries—that help to explain the bad blood between the countries.

Tensions go back as far as the 1813 Treaty of Gulistan, a British-brokered treaty that ceded Iranian land to Russia and painted all British intentions as devious in Iran's eyes. In the 1860s, Britain helped draw Iran's borders with India.

In 1907, Britain and Russia shared Iran under the "spheres of influence" doctrine because an independent Iran was seen as a threat to their imperial interests. The next year, British Petroleum found huge quantities of oil in Iran, exploiting it for decades until the oil fields were nationalized in 1951.

In the 1920s, British forces coordinated Reza Shah Pahlavi's ascension to the emperor's Peacock throne. The dynasty lasted until his son was later overthrown in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Ben Wallace, a Conservative Party lawmaker on the all-party parliamentary committee on Iran, said Iran's leaders have singled Britain out because it is one of only three Western countries that still have diplomatic missions there.

"The Shah is long dead but there is still a feeling that there must be some conspiracy from the outside," he said. Wallace was supposed to travel to Iran Sunday on a fact-finding mission, but his visa was revoked.

Hooshang Amirahmadi, a professor at Oxford and Rutgers universities who has made frequent trips to Tehran, said some of Iran's anger at Britain stems from the firmly held belief that Britain four years ago used its military presence in Basra, Iraq, to spur uprisings across the border inside Iran.

"They argued that Britain was expanding its influence inside Iran," he said. "That was a turning point."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[Peikko 1,575]

Hardly the 'new' Satan then. Anyway, this was in the news yesterday or the day before that even.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Iran always was a modern state, compared to the rest of the region, with a long history of civilisation (a lot longer than ours). By meddling in Iranian politics we helped set her back by decades if not centuries. That's the appalling irony of this whole business!

[Peikko 1,575]

Link

Troubled relations between Britain and Iran hit a new low today with the #######-for-tat expulsion of each other's diplomats. But the move was hardly surprising after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, singled out the UK as the "most evil" country when he ruled out any concessions over the disputed presidential election in his speech last Friday.

Iran's nuclear ambitions and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leadership style are serious points of contention. But rows and ructions have been the norm between the two countries since before the 1979 Islamic revolution. So there was a grim inevitability about the spat as Tehran blamed its old adversary for mass protests over the "stolen" vote.

Often dubbed the "Little Satan," to the "Great Satan" of the US, Britain occupies a special place in Iranian official demonology. Many Iranians are still convinced the BBC helped topple the Peacock throne and bring Ayatollah Khomeini to power, ironic in the light of the role being played by the BBC's new Persian TV channel, a huge irritant to the authorities in Tehran.

Britain's negative image in Iran dates back to the 19th century when it sought to protect India, vied with Russia for strategic influence and rode roughshod over Persian sensibilities. It occupied the country in 1941 and exiled Reza Shah for his pro-German sympathies. The most damaging moment came in 1953 when MI6 helped the CIA mount a coup against Muhammad Mossadegh, the popular prime minister who had dared to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian oil company – forerunner to BP.

In the 1960s and 1970s Britain backed the Shah as the pliable "policeman" of the Gulf – a counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East – and treated Iran as a lucrative export market. British ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons famously reported to London that the Shah's position was secure as late as 1978.

In 1980 Iran's London embassy was taken over by Iraqi-backed gunmen from Khuzestan, and the siege was ended by the famous SAS hostage rescue.

The extensive British embassy compound in Tehran was closed after the revolution and only reopened fully in 1988 when the war with Iraq ended. The main road outside, Churchill Avenue, was renamed Bobby Sands Avenue, in honour of the Northern Ireland hunger striker – two fingers to British imperialism.

Britain, like the US, was accused of backing Saddam Hussein and secretly arming him with the chemical weapons used against the Islamic republic. Post-war relations were dominated by the fatwa issued by Khomeini ordering the killing of Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses was deemed blasphemous. Iran was also accused of backing the IRA and a bugging device was found in Iran's recently refurbished London embassy. Attacks on Iranian dissidents abroad were another problem, as was its backing for Shia hostage-taking.

The atmosphere improved under the reformist president Mohammed Khatami, enabling Robin Cook, then foreign secretary, to resolve the Rushdie affair. Soon there was co-operation over drug trafficking from Afghanistan. After the 9/11 attacks Iran pledged support for fighting terrorism and the new UK foreign secretary, Jack Straw, visited the country.

But in 2003 the US-led invasion of Iraq led to new tensions, as did the fear Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. In 2007 there was a tense standoff when Iran seized 15 British sailors, accusing them of trespassing in Iranian waters.

Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust and Israel, as well as Iranian support for Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, have kept the regime at odds with Britain and other western countries. January's launch of BBC Persian TV infuriated the Iranians, whose harassment then forced the closure of the British Council offices in Tehran.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and for a 'cat among the pigeons piece'.

Those guys who brought you regime change in Iraq, imaginary WMDs, fake Iraq-al-Qaida connections, 4,000 dead GIs and a trillion-dollar war – they're selling snake oil again.

This time it's Iran. Not content to allow Iranians to fight their own battles for democracy, the neocon war party is beating the drum for US intervention. Recently Paul Wolfowitz and Charles Krauthammer weighed in on the subject. Their views aren't unexpected. You'd just have thought they'd allow a decent interval to lapse after Iran's streets flowed with young blood before they'd inveigle us with their fraudulent vision of events there.

The neocon meme goes like this: The brave Iranians we see on our TV screens and computer monitors aren't demonstrating about a stolen election. They've gone whole hog and become counter-revolutionaries. They want to dump the current regime, turn their backs on radical Islam and install a Bush-era Middle East secular democracy. Bush redeemed.

"Obama totally misses the point," writes Krauthammer. "The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervour that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy."

In a more sophisticated fashion, Reuel Marc Gerecht makes the suspect claim that Islam and democracy are fundamentally incompatible: "In the current demonstrations we are witnessing not just the end of the first stage of the Iranian democratic experiment, but the collapse of the structural underpinnings of the entire Islamic approach to modern political self-rule."

The only Iranians who want the secular, anti-clerical revolution that the neocons claim they want are the discredited Mujahadeen Khalq. Real Iranians, according to messages posted on the National Iranian American Council's blog, support the Obama administration's less strident position.

As Stephen Kinzer put it in Comment is Free: "To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: 'We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!'"

To which we should add, American interference in Iranian affairs would be used quite effectively by the very repressive forces we claim to oppose in attacking the Iranian reformers.

As we know from our eight years of Bush smearmongering, when a nation is in danger it is only too easy to sully the reputation of political opponents. You question their judgement and patriotism, associate them with foreign enemies and put them on the defensive. They are marginalised. If we truly wish to see Iran open to the world and Iranians living freer lives, why would we want to do this to those who can bring this about?

I think the answer is that many neocon partisans care little about the actual people of Iran. They are merely pawns in a geostrategic chess match between Islam and the west. The Iranian regime must fall. Whoever helps in that goal is useful, but not terribly important. That is why the Israelis and neocons, during the election, disparaged Mousavi as a warmed-over Ahmadinejad.

These rightist ideologues do not want a reformed Iran, as Mousavi does. They want an Iran shorn of Islam, or at least political Islam. That is something almost no Iranian wants. But again, that matters very little to the Krauthammers and Wolfowitzs of the op-ed punditocracy. They would be just as happy seeing democracy "imposed" on Iran as they were to see it imposed on Iraq. And it would work just as well as it has in Iraq. Matt Duss at Think Progress has written convincingly on some of these questions.

Israel works hand-in-glove with the neocon effort. Its leaders too wish to see the Iranian regime overthrown. That is why we see Bibi Netanyahu on our TV screens here, interviewed for Meet the Press. During his appearance, in terms reeking of motherhood and apple pie, he praised the Iranian demonstrators for unmasking the true terrorist nature of the Iranian regime and yearning for freedom.

In doing so, he conflated two issues which no Iranian ever would. He attempted to transform Iran's reformers into counter-revolutionaries who would turn their back on Iran's foreign commitments supporting Israel's enemies in Gaza and Lebanon. In effect, he has co-opted the demonstrators and turned them into Israel's ally. If anyone in Iran were to believe Bibi, the opposition would be dead.

But for Bibi it makes little difference. If the opposition wins, he wins, since it may change Iran's policy. And if the opposition loses, Bibi still wins because the more bloodshed in Teheran, the more favourably the world will view Israel's case for regime change (or at least a massive bombing campaign against nuclear facilities). In fact, as far as the Israeli right is concerned, if the opposition loses, it will be better for them. That's why they care very little how much damage they do to its cause with such ill-advised statements.

The American mass media can sometimes become unintended co-conspirators in the campaign to smear Iran and advance Israel's interests. Take a CNN interview in which a purported Iranian student named Mohammad called the American Morning show and provided an entirely suspect summary of the goals of the opposition. In response to a question about what the protesters want, Muhammad says:

We are a peaceful nation. We don't hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don't want to be isolated. … We don't deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel's rights. And actually, we want – we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform. … How can a government that doesn't recognise its people's rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace.

This statement reflects Israel's talking points on this subject so precisely that I frankly have a hard time believing that "Mohammad" is who he claimed to be. It is certainly within the realm of possibility for Israeli intelligence to engage in this sort of media manipulation to advance its interests within the US.

As if to reinforce this notion, the lobbyists at Aipac released a statement pointing to this interview in order to remind the American public about its own lobbying push for draconian sanctions against Iran. The pro-Israel community here is worried that the unrest in Iran has derailed their ongoing political campaign against Iran's nuclear programme. A statement like this is a shot in the arm.

Can I prove Mohammad is a fraud? No. But there are only two sets of interests which could benefit from the type of malarkey Muhammed is peddling: Israel and the mullahs. And I doubt the mullahs are thinking much about using CNN to smear the reformers – although I could be wrong.

link

Edited June 24, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[alienlovechild 75]

Iran always was a modern state, compared to the rest of the region, with a long history of civilisation (a lot longer than ours).

The Islamic Revolution was a step backwards in Iranian history. They hobbled the economy, lost diplomatic relations with most Western nations and had a theocratic government with phony democratic elections bent on nuking Israel.

By meddling in Iranian politics we helped set her back by decades if not centuries. That's the appalling irony of this whole business!

The irony is that there's been little real meddling and Iran is still looking for foreign scapegoats. BBC broadcasts in lieu of no coverage by the Iranian media and helping injured protestors is hardily on par with say attacking foreign embassies and holding hostages.

Things will improve in Iran when last ayatollah is strangled with the entrails of last Revolutionary Guardsmen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

...The revolution happened because of the meddling....

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Iran always was a modern state, compared to the rest of the region, with a long history of civilisation (a lot longer than ours).

The Islamic Revolution was a step backwards in Iranian history. They hobbled the economy, lost diplomatic relations with most Western nations and had a theocratic government with phony democratic elections bent on nuking Israel.

By meddling in Iranian politics we helped set her back by decades if not centuries. That's the appalling irony of this whole business!

The irony is that there's been little real meddling and Iran is still looking for foreign scapegoats. BBC broadcasts in lieu of no coverage by the Iranian media and helping injured protestors is hardily on par with say attacking foreign embassies and holding hostages.

Things will improve in Iran when Iranians strangle last ayatollahs is strangled with the entrails of last Revolutionary Guardsmen.

[Ban Hammer 13,347]

the usa isn't #1 anymore? i sure hope obama can do something about this!

[bhajishah 4]

Britian is the old great Satan

[fozzie 41]

We've been meddling for centuries! The US is new to this game.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US has yet to bankrupt a country by flooding it with opium.

That was one of The British Empires crowning achievements. We fought dirtiest.

[Tahoma 2,292]

the usa isn't #1 anymore? i sure hope obama can do something about this!

Obama can always get some pointers from Bush's Brain, Darth Vader, and Rummy!

[Tahoma 2,292]

...The revolution happened because of the meddling....

Indeed.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Madame Cleo...

Thanks for the posts...good reading!