Iran Super Thread- Merged

[Xiang]

CIA Discovered Planning “Soft Revolution” in Early 2009

Global Research, June 24, 2009
Mehr News Agency - 2009-06-19

TEHRAN, Jan. 19 (Mehr News Agency) — Iran has broken up a CIA-backed network that sought to carry out a “soft revolution” in Iran through people-to-people contacts.

The “soft revolution” plan is based in Dubai and is similar to a U.S. plan that targeted the Soviet Union in 1959, the director of the counterespionage department of the Intelligence Ministry told reporters at a press conference here on Monday.

He said the CIA was seeking to implement the plan under the cover of scientific and cultural contacts between Iranian and U.S. nationals.

Unfortunately, some Iranian nationals, especially cultural and scientific figures, were deceived through such activities, he added.

“The U.S. intelligence agency was seeking to (repeat) its experiences of color revolutions through such public contacts with influential persons and elites.”

The CIA tried to attain its goals by taking advantage of people-to-people contacts, joint studies, efforts to share scientific experiences, and other similar projects, he added.

The soft revolution plan was carried out through “NGOs, union protests, non-violent demonstrations, civil disobedience… and (efforts to) foment ethnic strife” all across Iran, the official stated.

Four of the people who led the network inside Iran were actively and intentionally cooperating with CIA agents, he noted.

These four persons were put on trial, some others were pardoned, and some others were acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence, he explained.

These four persons confessed and videotapes of parts of their confessions will be released soon, he noted.

He only named two of the persons, the brothers Dr. Arash Alaei and Dr. Kamyar Alaei.

The Intelligence Ministry official said that $32 million of the $75 million allocated by the U.S. Congress to destabilize Iran was spent on this project.

The CIA used institutions such as the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Soros Foundation, AIPAC, and charity organizations and sought the help of William Burns and other people in the United States and agents in the Azerbaijan Republic, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait.

He stated that the CIA enlisted scientists, physicians, university professors, clergymen, artists, athletes, and dress designers for its plot.

He went on to say that these people were invited to the United States in groups of 10-15 people, with visas issued for them in Dubai in the shortest possible time, and according to their professions, they participated in scientific seminars and toured various states, and when they returned home they were asked to write “analyses” of the situation inside Iran.

The CIA was actively seeking to recruit more people for the network, who also would have been invited to visit the United States, he added.

These persons were ordered to put pressure on the government to change its policy and to sow discord between the government and the people, he explained.

The Intelligence Ministry found out about the secret plan from the very beginning and “even allowed the operation to be conducted to a (certain level) so that we could inform talented people with full confidence that they should not be deceived by such scientific centers,” he stated.

The Iranian Intelligence Ministry countered the plot by “infiltrating” the network and even derailed it from its path by providing false information, but the CIA eventually discovered the ruse, he explained.

Advice for Obama

The official advised the incoming U.S. administration to avoid repeating the previous “failed” policies toward Iran.

He made the remarks one day before Barack Obama is officially inaugurated as the next U.S. president.

The Intelligence Ministry official said the U.S. is discrediting its scientific and charity organizations by allowing the CIA to use them as cover for its activities.

“It is not in the interests of scientific and political institutions (to allow themselves) to be used by the CIA for its hidden agenda.”

Employing such organizations to conduct spy activities will create skepticism about them that will be very difficult to eliminate, he noted.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20090624&articleId=14082

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

What a pathetic website.......

Canada: In Service To The Pentagon And NATO At Home And Abroad

Yea, here's to you sucking my d&*$.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Hmmm,

Xiang, wouldn't you be breaking your own requests by quoting Iranian Official or Mehr News Agency/Faux news, drawn from quite a questionable site....

And for the love of god/allah/buddah/whatever, don't quote US officials or CNN/Faux news rhetoric.

Or do the rules only apply to some?

dileas

tess

 

[time expired]

I am afraid I can find very little sympathy for the Iranian people.
A much smarter person than me stated once that in the long run
a people get the government they deserve,and the Iranian people
layed the shackles on themselves when they went to the streets
to bring a power mad group of clerics to rule them.Imagine how
quickly our freedoms would disappear if we handed power to a group
of priests or fundamental Christians,but I guess the Iranians will
have to figure that out for themselves.Changing this present group
of mullahs for a more"moderate"group is not going to give them the
freedoms the seem to desire.
                                    Regards

 

[Fusaki]

And what if Iran DOES develop a nuclear weapon?  It has already been proven that the "wipe Israel off the map" comment was completely false.  It seems the drums of war are being trumped by that very (although erroneous) statement.

One comment taken out of context does not undo decades of supporting Hezbollah, who I'm pretty sure have wiping out Israel at the top of their agenda.  Iran has been fighting proxy wars in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan against us and our allies.  I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.

Hasn't the US done enough to Iran already?  Their support for Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war had the Iranians fighting for their very existence... and ended at a million people lost.

I'd like to see you explain that to the mother of a Canadian soldier killed by an Iranian EFP.  I'm not going to try and explain away the past, but I will say that in the situation we are in today my responsibility (and yours too) is to the safety of Canadians and Canadian national interests.  For whatever reason, the Iranian government is hostile to us.  The line has been drawn in the sand and you need to decide which side of it you're on.

I'm still waiting to see that smoking gun....

Easy to say when it's not you in the line of fire...

 

[OldSolduer]

Uh question here Wonderbread:
No disrespect, but some of us are a touch slow(ME). What is an EFP? Sorry to appear like a dumba$$.

 

[tango22a]

Old Solduer:

EFP is an explosively formed projectile, an advance on the shaped charge and probably 5 to 10 times more lethal to vehicle armour.

tango22a

 

[Fusaki]

Explosively formed penetrator on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

And links from a previous post:

    Gates also warned of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, pointing to a slightly increased flow of weapons including components of lethal munitions known as "explosively formed projectiles." He said Iran wants to "have it both ways," seeking economic and diplomatic benefits of relations with Kabul while still attempting to impose "the highest possible costs" on U.S. and coalition troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/27/AR2009012700472.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2958093/Taliban-claim-weapons-supplied-by-Iran.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/22/military.afghanistan

 

[Xiang]

Sorry 48th/Bruce... I didn't bother looking through the site thoroughly.  I came across the story and found it interesting.  First time on that site actually.

One comment taken out of context does not undo decades of supporting Hezbollah, who I'm pretty sure have wiping out Israel at the top of their agenda.  Iran has been fighting proxy wars in Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan against us and our allies.

It's called geopolitics. Every country in history has fought proxy wars that served their interests.  How many innocent Iranians have to die because you want to be a hypocrite and call foul when one side does it, and say nothing when the other side does?  The point is, let Iran sort its own problems out.  They are certainly capable of doing it.  There is no immediate threat coming from Iran right now (which has been admitted from many sources IN THE KNOW... unless you have intel stating otherwise?)

I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.I can't see why you think it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.

I can't see why you think they are developing nuclear weapons...

I'd like to see you explain that to the mother of a Canadian soldier killed by an Iranian EFP.

I would like to see you explain that these weapons were sanctioned by the Iranian government.  How about the US weapons in FARC hands.  How about the Colombian soldiers, Western tourists and US Military advisers killed by these American weapons.  Are we to assume the US is supplying the FARC while training/aiding the Ejercito?

I'm not going to try and explain away the past, but I will say that in the situation we are in today my responsibility (and yours too) is to the safety of Canadians and Canadian national interests.

Iran seems to only be "threatening my national interests" when the drums of war start beating.  You sound oddly like the US war hawks before the Iraqi war... going on and on about how Saddam is a "grave threat" to the world, when in reality he wasn't even a threat to his neighbors... something that was even ADMITTED by Rice and Powell prior to 9/11.  Please spare me the "truth and duty" rhetoric.

For whatever reason, the Iranian government is hostile to us.  The line has been drawn in the sand and you need to decide which side of it you're on.

They weren't hostile to anyone until they re-started their nuclear energy program.. then suddenly they became the "axis of evil".... if they weren't pursuing nuclear energy, they would be like Zimbabwe... you wouldn't hear any news on them at all.

Easy to say when it's not you in the line of fire...

I'm not sure if you were aiming for that "epic ending" to your response, but that reply made no sense at all.

Myself, and the world (including the thousands of American families who lost loved ones) are still waiting to see that smoking gun Bush brought the US (and its allies) into war for.  Simple as that.

 

[Fusaki]

You're dodging my points, Xiang.

I can't see why you think they are developing nuclear weapons...

I never said they were - and I've been very clear on that.  I said that Iran can't be allowed the potential of developing nukes.

I would like to see you explain that these weapons were sanctioned by the Iranian government.

I've provided sources to these claims  - including the SAME source you've been using to make your own points: The Washington Post and The Guardian.

All you really have is your "smoking gun" argument, but that is based on the premise that we should wait until Iran has a nuclear weapons program in full swing before we do anything about it.  The problem is, once that program is in full swing it will be too late to stop them.  That is why it's important to limit the Iranian potential for nuclear weapons now.

 

[Xiang]

You're dodging my points, Xiang.

No I'm not.  Your points aren't new and interesting.  They are mundane and redundant.  I have addressed this all before, many times.  Please direct yourself to the previous posts in this thread, and the Coming war with Iran thread. 

Everything you are saying has been addressed already... but what the heck, I'll bite..

I never said they were - and I've been very clear on that.  I said that Iran can't be allowed the potential of developing nukes.

So what do we do?  Bomb them?  Kill more innocent people?  Destroy more infrastructure?  By not having nuclear energy , we are essentially dooming Iran. 

Don't you think it would be a better idea to let them develop nuclear energy and keep a close eye on it?  So far all inspectors are saying Iran is in compliance with the IAEA.  If that were to change, then I would agree to start beating the drums of war. 

But to have inspectors, independent agencies and intelligence agencies all saying Iran is not developing a nuclear weapons program, a preemptive strike would do nothing but worsen an already volatile situation that the region REALLY can't afford right now.

All you really have is your "smoking gun" argument

And all you have is your "what if" argument.  You seem to want to drop bombs like it was handing out candy.

but that is based on the premise that we should wait until Iran has a nuclear weapons program in full swing before we do anything about it.

Or we can let the IAEA continue doing what it is doing and prevent unnecessary bloodshed...

The problem is, once that program is in full swing it will be too late to stop them.  That is why it's important to limit the Iranian potential for nuclear weapons now

Read my reply above...

 

[Xiang]

I would suggest you (and others) have a look at this site:

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIran/index.shtml

Pay specific attention to the IAEA Board Report.

This talk of it being "too late" makes little sense.  It is as if you think developing a nuclear weapon happens overnight, at the flip of a switch.

IAEA inspectors are able to tell of a weapons program (which could take months to develop one bomb) is in the works.

 

[Xiang]

Iran has not converted the low-grade uranium that it has produced into weapon-grade uranium, inspectors belonging to the International Atomic Energy Agency have said.

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=3694

http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/02/22/stories/2009022253751300.htm

Essentially, all over main stream media and politicians (people who are NOT specialists in the field) claiming Iran is developing nuclear weapons when all the specialists in the field, intelligence agencies, and eyes on the ground are saying they aren't.

If you want to believe the rhetoric on CNN and Fox, that's fine, but I will continue to listen to the people in the know, and give my opinions based on THEIR assessments, not the opinions of some pundit with a 30 minute slot on Fox.

 

[George Wallace]

:

Xiang

I don't know how many times you have turned back on this "Iran is not producing Nuclear Weapons/weapons grade materials/etc., but I would like to point out to you that several posters have made comments and you have not paid attention to detail.  They have said that there is the "POTENTIAL" that Iran "CAN EASILY CONVERT TO THE MANUFACTURE OF" these weapons and materials; NOT that they are currently producing these weapons/materials. 

The POTENTIAL is there, and they are saying that it must be monitored/regulated/stopped/etc. 

 

[Fusaki]

Don't you think it would be a better idea to let them develop nuclear energy and keep a close eye on it?  So far all inspectors are saying Iran is in compliance with the IAEA.  If that were to change, then I would agree to start beating the drums of war.  

Start beating, then.

From the link you provided:

F. Summary

19. As has been reported in previous reports, the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.

20. Iran has not, however, implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information, and has continued to refuse to permit the Agency to carry out design information verification at IR-40.

21. Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water related projects as required by the Security Council.

22. Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the requirements of the Security Council, Iran has neither implemented the Additional Protocol nor cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns and which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. Unless Iran implements the Additional Protocol and clarifies the outstanding issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf

 

[Edward Campbell]

The facts, and I do accept that they are facts, that Ahmadinejad did not, explicitly, call for Israel’s eradication and that Iran has not taken all the necessary steps to produce nuclear weapons does not negate the general trends in Iranian policy – not towards Israel (the existence (or otherwise) of which is not a dominant concern/vital interest of Canadian foreign policy), nor towards its Sunni neighbours and certainly not towards the secular, liberal West, in general.

I have said before and I remain committed to the idea that Iran is, primarily, Israel’s problem. But, if (when?) Israel is forced to deal with Iran it will, almost certainly, be doing so in support of, perhaps even with the tacit approval of its (and Iran’s) Sunni Arab neighbours.  I doubt that the Arabs can work up the requisite unity and will to confront Iran – which is a modern, sophisticated and, I think, united nation-state. I doubt that America wants (can afford) to embroil itself in further Middle East/West Asian conflicts – not with Pakistan looming and North Korea beckoning. Europe quavers. Russia looks on helplessly and China tries, very carefully, to stir the pot without allowing any to spill over onto the Xinjiang separatists. That leaves Israel to decide what to do and when to do it.

There is an issue of how far the USA can restrain Israel. An Israeli air-strike on Iran, for example, might require either over-flying American occupied Iraq or, somehow or other, spoofing American surveillance and warning systems throughout the region. Despite my guess that Israel will have the tacit approval of its Sunni Arab neighbours that does not mean that there will not be massive anti-Israel and anti-American reactions throughout the Arab world. American policy makers might decide that a nuclear armed Iran is preferable to an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran.

It IS understandable that Iran wants nuclear weapons – not just to attack, or deter, Israel but, primarily, to make it an unassailable regional power. As a general rule, over the past 65 years, nuclear powers have acted sensibly and responsibly. One might want to conclude that nuclear weapons have a calming effect on nation-states. Perhaps they might have that effect on Iran, too.

 

[Fusaki]

So lets review the last few pages then, shall we?

- You made the assertion that Iran was not out for the destruction of Israel.  I think given Iran's longtime support for Hezbollah, we've shown that to point to be false.

- You made the assertion that Iran does not pose a security threat to us.  Given information for the same sources you use (and therefore you must consider reliable and accurate), we've found that Iran is providing insurgents in Afghanistan weapons to kill Canadian and coalition soldiers.  Given that this undermines Canadian security, we've shown your assertion to be false.

- You've made the assertion that Iran is in full compliance with IAEA inspections and Security Council resolutions.  Given the IAEA Board of Governors Report released only a week ago (your own source), we've proven that your assertion is false.

-And as George just pointed out (again), pressure must be put on Iran to limit their potential for nuclear weapons, for the reasons stated above.

 

[Xiang]

I never denied the potential was there, however there is a big difference between potential and intent.  Right now, the potential is there, but the intent is not.  Another war, with the risk of more lives lost, and even more insatiability in the middle ease is not worth it based on potential alone.  I do not see any intent (and apparently neither do the experts)  My point was, regulation/monitoring is what is needed... not JDAMS and MOAB's...

And the board report has not stated that they have an active weapons program either, so it is open to interpretation.

One side will obviously try to use it as a smoking gun for war (even when it's not), but the fact still remains, no weapons program is in the works.

The IAEA openly stated it would be easy to tell if one were.

I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over, so I will continue to have my opinion on the matter, and I will respect yours.  Simple as that.

 

[CougarKing]

Here's another update: Mousavi says he won't back down.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/090625/world/iran_vote_mousavi_threats

1 hour, 28 minutes ago


TEHRAN (AFP) - Defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi said on Thursday that threats would not stop him from securing the rights of the Iranian people.

"I won't refrain from securing the rights of the Iranian people... because of personal interests and the fear of threats," he said in a statement on his newspaper website, Kalemeh.


Mousavi said earlier that he had come under pressure to withdraw his complaint over the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which he has branded a "shameful fraud" and demanded a new vote.


The ex-premier said he was ready to show how those who violated the election process "stood beside the main instigators of the recent riots and shed people?s blood on the ground."


Mousavi also reiterated his call for supporters to continue protests but in a way which would not "create tension."


"The main strategy which will guarantee your objectives will be to continue with the protests within the framework of law and by observing the principles of the Islamic revolution," he said in a statement addressed to the people of Iran.

 

 

[Fusaki]

I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over,

Saying something over and over does not constitute a valid argument.  I've addressed your points and shown the flaws in each of them.

All you have left is to say that Iranian government should be given the benefit of the doubt, in spite of their hostile intent and the grave risk to our security. It's naive in the most dangerous way possible.