Unrest in Iran

[Crandar]

How is this relevant to my criticism of Freedom House? I questioned the objectivity of your source, not the morality of the American foreign policy.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, the West should only do business with the nice people in the world. (sigh)

The despicables the USA "tolerated" had a shelf life that we recognized, having been revolutionaries ourselves, once. Taiwan, South Korea, Panama etc. may not have democracy because we are the puppet-masters, but they also didn't have some kind of Pol Pot butcher a third of their citizens. Some choices didn't have Utopia on the list.

Most Empires have only the justification that they are big and powerful and that's the end of it. The USA often goes on about the whole "land of the free" line and some people think that they should follow this.

Of course, they never have in their entire history and enjoyed the same methods of disenfranchising and when required killing those who don't want to join Team USA. Setting the bar as low as "hey - we didn't support killing 1/3 of the population" makes most of the things the British Empire did practically benign.

[Agent Miles]

Crandar, the link is an advertisement for the Financial Times and FH gave Russia a score of 20. Hardly a score for a democracy. Maybe you have some real evidence that I would gladly read and respond to.

Rory, real Americans made real choices that didn't always help real problems. I certainly don't agree with all of the choices we made. Which nation has a perfect track record?

[Crandar]

I copy-pasted the article. My second point is that Freedom House, financed by the government, considers Russia as democratic as UAE, which is preposterous. The Wikipedia link I provided is fully cited.

In choosing Freedom House as the venue for a foreign policy address this week, President George W. Bush has stepped into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US and Iran over how US dollars should be used to carry out the administration’s policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic republic.

Few in the Washington audience on Wednesday realised that Freedom House, an independent institution founded over 60 years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, former first lady, is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for clandestine activities inside Iran.

Peter Ackerman, chairman of the board of trustees, who introduced Mr Bush, is also the founder of a separate organisation that promotes non-violent, civic disobedience as a form of resistance to repressive regimes. His International Centre for Non-Violent Conflict has organised discreet “workshops” in the Gulf emirate of Dubai to teach Iranians the lessons learned from east European movements.

A separate organisation, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre based in New Haven, Connecticut, has also received US funding and organised a Dubai “workshop” for Iranians last year that was not made public.

Mr Ackerman, who is very wealthy from an earlier career as a financier, says he does not accept government money. Questioned by the FT, Freedom House confirmed it had received funding from the State Department for activities in Iran. It declined to give details but said it was not involved in Mr Ackerman’s work in Dubai.

Freedom House also disclosed that it received $100,000 from Mr Ackerman last year and a further $100,000 from his organisation.

In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: “Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance – which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders.”

Some academics, activists and those involved in the growing US business of spreading freedom and democracy are alarmed that such semi-covert activities risk damaging the public and transparent work of other organisations, and will backfire inside Iran.

“The danger is that this is a move towards covert political warfare that will completely stymie the whole idea of democracy building. This kind of activity endangers nearly 20 years of democracy promotion,” commented Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, a UK founding governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

“Getting crowds on the streets to overthrow regimes can backfire badly,” he said. He and other academics reject the notion that the east European experience can be applied to Iran.

There is concern in Europe too. Diplomats say the Bush administration’s request this year for $85m in pro-democracy funding – and its refusal to hold talks with Iran – will be seen as tantamount to a policy of “regime change”. They say this risks undermining efforts – continuing with a Berlin meeting of foreign ministers on Thursday – to resolve the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme.

The State Department told the FT it would not disclose recipients of funding for pro-democracy activities inside Iran because lives would be placed in danger. This was also true for funding in Cuba, Iraq, Syria and other repressive regimes, an official said. Some members of Congress are informed, however. While the activities are not made public they do not amount to “covert action” which requires a specific presidential directive.

Mehrangiz Kar, a prominent Iranian lawyer and human rights activist, has issued an impassioned plea to Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, to drop her funding plans.

The money would tarnish Iranian human rights organisations, turn them into businesses, stoke corruption and play into the hands of the security forces, she said, suggesting the US channel funds through international organisations like the United Nations and the World Bank.

Several Iranians were recently detained briefly for attending the workshops that are believed to have begun a year ago, according to friends and relatives.

“Dubai is crawling with Iranian intelligence,” commented Ray Takeyh, analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, criticising State Department plans to transform the US diplomatic mission in Dubai into a listening post on Iran.

“Every Gucci-wearing Iranian exile without a day-job is for democracy now,” he added.

Michael Ledeen, analyst at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, rejects criticism of Mr Ackerman’s efforts. Mr Ledeen told Congress that it was hard to find a revolution in history, including America’s, that did not have an outside base of support.

Established by a former first lady, they are pretty open about who finances them.

[Agent Miles]

Here's what one might call real evidence:

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/defau...ments_2016.pdf

So yes, FH gets government grants. Just about every organization in the US does too. That doesn't make them a joke. Ron Paul's statement is from 14 years ago. Maybe they got it right since then. Read the assessment of Iran from FH and present evidence to the contrary. Besides FH efforts in those countries are shadowing what Gene Sharp's book does for free.

[Montmorency]

I had heard one of the usual government pronouncements that police violence in Iran was the result of some kind of outside agitators stirring things up.

I rolled my eyes, as I usually do at such things.

However, I got to thinking....

We have Saudi proxies (at least by some definitions) clashing with Iranian regulars in Syria and Saudi regulars clashing with Iranian proxies in Yemen. We know from previous episodes over that last three years that not all in Iran are content.

Might it ACTUALLY be outside agitators for once? Trying the RomeTW 'send 4 spies to force the town to rebel' ploy? I am not sure.

I'm sure it includes outside agitators.

Russia has opened the Pandora Box here with its cyberwar investments (and this is exactly what cyberwar looks like, not the sci-fi stock of explodifying aircraft or the power grid from afar). Everyone from China down is moving to partake of the Meddling Pie. We don't have a chance.

Unless the USA has massively upped its game the odds of them having a decent number of people that could infiltrate Iran is close to nil. Imagining that Saudi Arabia has such people - such as some of the 2% of Arabs in Iran - is much easier to believe. And they must be itching to bring the hurt home whilst Yemen is ongoing.

The Arabs in the southwest of Iran sure did disappoint Saddam Hussein in his expectation of Arab solidarity. Any Saudi interference probably isn't restricted along ethnic lines.

I am not a hawk and not American, but if something is going to change it will be in Iran and nowhere else. Iranians are different from other people in the middle-east they are much more free-thinking. Maybe I am overly optimistic and I am most certainly biased but still, go team Persia salafist those mullahs, hard deep and unsafe

You didn't mean it that way, but a Salafist takeover in Iran would certainly be a turn for the worse.

As for my other question, why do you hate Arabs so much compared to Persians?

Given Iran is the major power of 30% of Muslims they are surely our natural ally (not having to deal with the entire Middle East would definitely be better of course). The USA needs to get over that it utterly botched its relationship with propping up the Shah and frankly engage as suits its own interests.

Even for Israel, Iran is a smaller threat than everyone else that surrounds them; blustery rhetoric aside, Saudi Arabia has exported a lot more extremist religion than Iran has and apparently we are bestest mates. Hezbollah in Jordan / Syria is definitely supported by Iran but what with the whole embargoes for a few decades they take allies where they can.

A telling comment from a ___ over New Year's upon hearing of Russian material support for the Kim Jong Un regime: 'North Korea just wants nuclear weapons because America is trying to conquer it [sort of], and they have the right to manage to their own affairs and self-defense [arguably], so we shouldn't try to stop them from having nuclear weapons [there are other reasons to dislike a nuclear North Korea, and those who are helping them along...]. North Korea is defending itself, just like Israel defends itself from Iran.'

The obvious question to pose here is, does Iran similarly have a right to "defend itself" from Israel and the United States? Hezbollah is an Iranian creation, and the worst thing you can say about Iran's foreign policy is that it wants to control Syria and Lebanon, thereby access to the East Med coast, and are willing to fund international crime and terrorism to do it. This is a sticking point on the same level as nuclear proliferation, and a much better argument for a US counter to Iran than "they say mean things about Israel". And as far as I am aware, Iran has never directly attacked the territory of Israel, but Israel has directly attacked the territory of Iran. But the United States has been unfair and hypocritical in its disposition toward Iran, more so than is justifiable through Iran's fundamental governance or policies.

An ideal show of force in the Middle East, if such a thing exists, might have been to demand mutual deconfliction and normalization of relations between Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran as a prerequisite to full participation in the American order. We meet some of our objectives for the region, and we don't have all of the aforementioned playing us against Russia for profit. If the US guarantees the peace (between states), then the various parties have no business cultivating clients and proxies anyway. Probably not feasible today - maybe in 2002.

That has been the rap against CIA and 'No Such' for some time. It certainly has a good measure of truth behind it, as our brilliant HUMINT work prior to the invasion of Iraq under Bush43 suggests.

I would caution everyone, however, that groups like the CIA seldom publish their successes [wholly understandably I believe you will all agree], only their failures are noted.

CIA operations in the Vietnam War were "technically" very successful. So were CIA coups and assassinations. Unfortunately, CIA successes have tended to be much worse for the world than CIA failures.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes, the West should only do business with the nice people in the world. (sigh)

The despicables the USA "tolerated" had a shelf life that we recognized, having been revolutionaries ourselves, once. Taiwan, South Korea, Panama etc. may not have democracy because we are the puppet-masters, but they also didn't have some kind of Pol Pot butcher a third of their citizens. Some choices didn't have Utopia on the list....

Admittedly, our coterie of kleptocratic thugs murdered too many innocents, but decidedly LESS than the Stalinist thugs. Sadly, that means they were "better" for some values of better.


The USA gets derided for being too jingoistic and naive in foreign affairs AND for being too cynical and calculating. I think the world would truly be happiest if we voted "abstain" hereafter in the UN and just funded what they asked us to fund without upsetting everyone.


Europe was happiest with us under Carter, since he had the only truly consistent and principle-driven foreign policy we've displayed over the last half century, with his human rights centered approach. Of course, we see how well that worked out in the long run

[Agent Miles]

The political resistance has nothing to do with Iranian foreign policy toward the US or Israel or support for Hezbollah. The people want to be free. Students are jailed for having a party. Only opposition candidates approved by the government can run. It's an autocracy.

Seamus, "all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

[Montmorency]

Admittedly, our coterie of kleptocratic thugs murdered too many innocents, but decidedly LESS than the Stalinist thugs. Sadly, that means they were "better" for some values of better.


The USA gets derided for being too jingoistic and naive in foreign affairs AND for being too cynical and calculating. I think the world would truly be happiest if we voted "abstain" hereafter in the UN and just funded what they asked us to fund without upsetting everyone.


Europe was happiest with us under Carter, since he had the only truly consistent and principle-driven foreign policy we've displayed over the last half century, with his human rights centered approach. Of course, we see how well that worked out in the long run

To understand America's place in the world, you need to remember that Carter's administration was not at all out of step with American post-war consensus foreign policy. I'm sure Kissinger would describe it something like, rearranging the deck of the ship of state rather than changing its course. If an American president must propagate war crimes and crimes against humanity in due course, then Carter is as guilty as any of them, even if others have done worse.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/01/21/...-jimmy-carter/

[spmetla]

The USA gets derided for being too jingoistic and naive in foreign affairs AND for being too cynical and calculating. I think the world would truly be happiest if we voted "abstain" hereafter in the UN and just funded what they asked us to fund without upsetting everyone.


Europe was happiest with us under Carter, since he had the only truly consistent and principle-driven foreign policy we've displayed over the last half century, with his human rights centered approach. Of course, we see how well that worked out in the long run

For your first point in all fairness we do do both and that is normal for a great power. The wonderful irony of it all is the criticism leveled at us since WW2 is essentially the same criticism we leveled at the British and French during the previous century.

As for Europe being happiest, I'd say they were happiest with Kennedy in charge. The mix of optimism, energy, and purpose mixed together with a bit of resolve let them love us. There's a reason people know the "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech as opposed to anything Carter said. Additionally, his evangelical angle is very un-European.
Only thing I'll really credit Carter with accomplishing though is the Egypt-Israeli peace which is still in effect. Having the Suez be safe and open for business is a boon for Europe's economy. The previous Arab-Israeli wars closed it for years at a time.

[Pannonian]

Admittedly, our coterie of kleptocratic thugs murdered too many innocents, but decidedly LESS than the Stalinist thugs. Sadly, that means they were "better" for some values of better.


The USA gets derided for being too jingoistic and naive in foreign affairs AND for being too cynical and calculating. I think the world would truly be happiest if we voted "abstain" hereafter in the UN and just funded what they asked us to fund without upsetting everyone.


Europe was happiest with us under Carter, since he had the only truly consistent and principle-driven foreign policy we've displayed over the last half century, with his human rights centered approach. Of course, we see how well that worked out in the long run

As far as enacting a liberal foreign policy, the US was probably at its most focused, driven and effective under the Clinton-Blair axis. Blair is included because he was the one who drove the foreign policy in this manner. Unfortunately the legacy has been blotted by the Iraq debacle, which was driven by Bush and his neocons. However, Blair cannot be wholly excused from this, since he genuinely believed in the intervention, if not in its execution.

[Gilrandir]

That would be cool because it would mean that the Dutch control everything. But we don't

Judging by recreational marijuana legalized in California, you do.

[Agent Miles]

Judging by recreational marijuana legalized in California, you do.

Which brings up the obvious. Millions of liberals are dazed and confused about how the electoral college works. They seem to have a loss of memory as to how Gore's own Presidential run ended. Add to this paranoid delusions about Hitler and Nazis. What could explain this? Hmmm...

[Greyblades]

I think all of washington has been in dire need of some mellow yellow for quite awhile.