10:38:00 AM
The grassroots takeover technique
« Color revolution » fails in Iran
Tehran’s «green revolution» is the latest version of the «color revolutions» which have allowed the United States to impose subservient governments in several countries without needing to use force. Thierry Meyssan, who advised two governments facing this type of crisis, analyses this method and the reasons for its failure in Iran.
Origin of the concept
This concept appeared in the 90s, but its roots lie in the American
public debate of the 70s-80s. After a string of revelations about CIA
instigated coups around the world, as well as the dramatic disclosures
of the Church and Rockefeller Senate Committees [1],
admiral Stansfield Turner was given the task by President Carter to
clean up the agency and to stop supporting « local dictatorships ».
Furious, the American Social Democrats (SD/USA) left the Democratic
party and sided with Ronald Regan. They were brilliant Trotskyist
intellectuals [2],
often linked to Commentary magazine.
After Regan was elected, he
charged them with pursuing the American interference policy, this time
using different methods. This is how the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) was created in 1982 [3]
and the United States Institute for Peace (USIP) in 1984. Both of these
institutions are organically intertwined: NED administrators sit on the
USIP board of directors and vice versa.
Legally the NED is a not-for-profit organization under US law,
financed by an annual grant voted by Congress as part of the State
Department budget. In order to operate, this organization is co-financed
by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is part
of the State Department. This legal structure is used jointly as a cover
by the American CIA, the British MI6 and the Australian ASIS (and
occasionally by Canadian and New Zealand secret services).
The NED presents itself as an agency promoting democracy. It
intervenes either directly or using one of its four tentacles: one
designed to subvert unions, the second responsible for corrupting
management organizations, the third for left-wing parties and the fourth
for right-wing parties. It also intervenes through friendly
foundations, such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (UK), the
International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development
(Canada), the Fondation Jean-Jaurès and the Fondation Robert-Schuman
(France), the International Liberal Center (Sweden), the Alfred Mozer
Foundation (Netherlands), the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Friedrich
Naunmann Stiftung, the Hans Seidal Stiftung and the Heinrich Boell
Stiftung (Germany). The NED thus claims to have corrupted over 6000
organizations throughout the world over roughly 30 years. All of this,
of course, under the disguise of training and assistance programs.
As for the USIP, it is an American national institution. It is
financed annually by Congress as part of the Defense Department budget.
Contrary to the NED which serves as a cover for the three allied states,
the USIP is exclusively American. Under the guise of political science
research, it can pay salaries to foreign politicians.
As soon as it commanded resources, the USIP financed a new and discrete structure, the Albert Einstein Institution [4].
This small association for the promotion of nonviolent action was
initially charged with designing a form of civil defense for the
populations of Western Europe in case of an invasion by the Warsaw Pact.
It quickly became autonomous and designed a model following which a
state, whatever its nature, can lose its authority and collapse.
First attempts
The first attempted « color revolution » failed in 1989. The goal was
to overthrow Deng Xiaoping by using one of his close collaborators, the
Chinese Communist Party secretary-general Zhao Ziyang, in order to open
Chinese markets to American investors and to bring China into the US
orbit. Young supporters of Zhao invaded Tiananmen square [5].
They were presented in the Western media as unpoliticized students
fighting for freedom against the party’s Conservative wing, when in fact
this was infighting within the Deng entourage between pro-American and
nationalist factions. After having ignored provocations for a long time
Deng decided to use force. Depending on sources, the repression ended
with 300 to 1000 dead. 20 years later, the Western version of this
failed coup has not changed. Western media which recently covered the
anniversary of that event presented it as a « popular uprising » and
expressed surprise that people in Beijing do not remember the event.
This is because there was nothing « popular » about this struggle for
power within the Party. This was not a concern for people.
The first successful « color revolution » succeeded in 1990. As the
Soviet Union was disintegrating, state secretary James Baker went to
Bulgaria to participate in the electoral campaign of the pro-American
party, heavily financed by the NED [6].
However, despite pressure from the UK, the Bulgarians – afraid of the
social consequences induced by the transformation from soviet union to
market economy – made the unforgivable mistake to elect in Parliament a
post communist majority. While European community observers testified to
the legality of the voting process, the pro-American opposition
screamed that electoral fraud had occurred and took to the streets. They
set up camp in the center of Sofia and threw the country into chaos for
the following six months, until pro-American Zhelyu Zhelev was elected
president by the parliament.
« Democracy » : selling your country to foreign interests behind the people’s back
Since then, Washington has kept instigating regime changes everywhere
in the world, using street unrest rather than military juntas. It is
important here to understand what is at stake. Behind the soothing
rhetoric of « the promotion of democracy », Washington’s actions aim to
impose regimes that are opening their markets to the US without
conditions and which are aligning themselves to their foreign policy.
However, while these goals are known by the leaders of the « color
revolutions », they are never discussed and accepted by the mobilized
demonstrators. In the event when these takeovers succeed, citizens soon
rebel against the new policies imposed on them, even if it is too late
to turn back. Besides, how can opposition groups who sold their country
to foreign interests behind their populations’ backs be considered «
democratic »?
In 2005, the Kyrgyz opposition contested the legislative elections
and brought to Bishkek demonstrators from the south of the country. They
toppled President Askar Akayev. This was the « Tulip Revolution ». The
national assembly elected Kurmanbek Bakiyev as president. Unable to
control his supporters who were looting the capital, he announced having
chased the dictator and pretended that he intended to create a national
union government. He pulled General Felix Kulov (former Bishkek Mayor)
out of prison and named him prime minister. After the situation was back
under control, Bakiyev got rid of Kulov and sold the country’s few
resources to US companies with no invitation to tender but with
significant backhanders. He set up a US military base in Manas. The
population’s standard of living had never been lower. Felix Kulov
offered to get the country back on its feet by federating it to Russia
as it used to be. He was quickly sent back to jail.
A blessing in disguise?
It is sometimes objected that for states which were subjected to
repressive regimes, even if these « color revolutions » only bring the
appearance of democracy, they nonetheless constitute an improvement for
their populations. Experience shows however that this is far from
certain. The new regimes can turn out to be far more repressive than the
old ones.
In 2003, Washington, London and Paris [7] organized the « Rose Revolution » in Georgia [8].
According to a classic scheme, the opposition blew the whistle about
electoral fraud during legislative elections and took to the streets.
The demonstrators forced president Eduard Shevardnadze to flee and they
seized power. His successor, Mikheil Saakashvili, opened the country to
US economic interests and broke off from his Russian neighbor. The
economic aid that Washington promised to replace Russian aid never came.
The already weakened economy collapsed. In order to continue to please
his backers, Saakashvili needed to impose a dictatorship [9].
He shut down the media and filled up the prisons, which did not prevent
Western media from continuing to describe him as a « democrat ».
Continuing on his collision course, Saakashvili decided to bolster his
popularity by engaging in a military adventure. With the help of the
Bush administration and of Israel to which he rented air bases, he
ordered the bombing of the population of South Ossetia, killing 1600
people, most of whom also held Russian citizenship. Moscow stroke back.
American and Israeli advisers fled [10]. Georgia was left devastated.
Enough!
The main mechanism of the « color revolutions » consists in focusing
popular anger on the desired target. This is an aspect of the psychology
of the masses which destroys everything in its path and against which
no reasonable argument can be opposed. The scapegoat is accused of all
the evils plaguing the country for at least one generation. The more he
resists, the angrier the mob gets. After he gives in or slips away, the
normal division between his opponents and his supporters reappears.
In 2005, in the hours following the assassination of former prime
minister Rafik Hariri, a rumor spread in Lebanon according to which he
was killed by « the Syrians ». The Syrian army, which had been
maintaining order since the end of the civil war according to the Taëf
agreement, was now booed. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was
personally accused by the US authorities, which was as good as proof for
the public opinion. To those who noted that Rafik Hariri, despite
stormy episodes, had always been useful to Syria and that’s his death
deprived Damas of a central collaborator, it was answered that the «
Syrian regime » is so fundamentally evil that it cannot help but killing
even its friends. The Lebanese people were calling for the G.I.s to
come and get rid of the Syrians. But to everyone’s surprise, Bashar
al-Assad, considering that the costly deployment of his army was not
welcome in Lebanon any longer, decided to pull it back. Legislative
elections were organized in which the « anti-Syrian » coalition
triumphed. This was the « Cedar Revolution ». After the situation calmed
down everyone realized that even if Syrian generals had looted the
country in the past, the departure of the Syrian army did not change
anything to the country’s economic situation.
Furthermore, the country
was now in danger: it was not able to defend itself from the
expansionism of the Israeli neighbor. The main « anti-Syrian » leader,
general Michel Aoun, thought better of it and joined the opposition.
Furious, Washington multiplied assassination plans to get rid of him.
Michel Aoun formed an alliance with Hezbollah on a patriotic platform.
It was about time: Israel attacked.
In every case, Washington prepared the « democratic » government in
advance, which confirms that these are takeovers in disguise. The names
composing the new team are kept secret for as long as possible. This is
why the pointing out of the scapegoat is always done without suggesting a
political alternative.
In Serbia, young pro-US « revolutionaries » chose a logo that
belonged to the Communist popular imagination (the raised fist) to hide
their subordination to the United States. They used « he is done! » as a
slogan, which federated the anger against the personality of Slobodan
Milosevic, who was held responsible for the bombing of the country even
though it was done by NATO. This model was replicated numerous times,
for example by the Pora! group in Ukraine, or by Zubr in Bielorussia.
The deceiving appearance of nonviolence
The PR staff members of the State Department maintain the non-violent
image of the « color revolutions ». They all put forward the theories
of Gene Sharp, who founded the Albert Einstein Institution. Yet
nonviolence is a combat method used to persuade authorities to a
political change. In order for a minority to seize power and to exercise
it, it must always use violence at some point. All « color revolutions »
did.
 |
| Otpor movement, Gene Sharp, founder of the Albert Einstein Institution (center) and his assistant colonel Robert Helvey, most senior member of the training academy for embassy military attachés. |
In 2000, Slobodan Milosevic called for anticipated elections despite
still having a year to run as president. After the first round, neither
he nor his principal opponent, Vojislav Koštunica, had secured a
majority of the votes. Without waiting for the second round, the
opposition claimed voting fraud and took to the streets. Thousands of
demonstrators walked on the capital, including the miners from Kolubara.
Their daily salaries were paid indirectly by the NED, without them
realizing that they were paid by the United States. The pressure from
the demonstration was insufficient so the miners started attacking
buildings with bulldozers that they had brought, hence the name «
bulldozer revolution ».
In cases when the tension is just dragging on, and when
counterdemonstrations are being organized, the only solution for
Washington is to throw the country into chaos. Inciting agents are then
placed in both camps to fire on the crowd. Each party can then observe
that the others are shooting while they are peacefully advancing. The
confrontation spreads.
In 2002, Caracas’ upper-class took to the streets to protest the social policies of President Hugo Chavez [11].
Using clever manipulation, private TV stations created the impression
of a human tidal wave. There were 50,000 people according to observers
and 1 million according to the press and the State Department. Then
there was the Llaguno Bridge incident. TV stations clearly showed armed
pro-Chavez supporters firing on the crowd. In a press conference, the
National Guard general and vice minister of domestic security confirmed
that the « Chavez militias » fired and killed 19 people. He resigned and
called for the dictator to be overthrown. The president was quickly
arrested by military rebels. However millions of people descended in the
capital’s streets and constitutional order was restored.
A subsequent journalistic investigation went over the details of the
massacre of the Llaguno Bridge. It brought to light a deceptive picture
manipulation, where chronological order was modified as proved by the
protagonists’ watch dials. In reality, the pro-Chavez supporters were
under attack and after having fallen back, they were trying to escape by
using their weapons. The inciting agents were local policemen trained
by a US agency [12].
In 2006, the NED reorganized the opposition to Kenyan President Mwai
Kibaki. It funded the creation of the Orange party of Raila Odinga. He
received the support of Senator Barack Obama, who was accompanied by
destabilization experts (Mark Lippert, current chief of staff for the
national security adviser, and general Jonathan S. Gration, current US
special envoy to Sudan). During a meeting with Odinga, the Illinois
Senator invented a vague family relationship with the pro-US candidate.
However Odinga was defeated during the 2007 legislative elections.
Supported by Senator John McCain as president of the IRI (the NED’s
Republican pseudopod), he disputed the validity of the vote and called
for his supporters to take to the streets. This is when anonymous text
messages were sent en masse to ethnic Luo voters. « Dear Kenyans, the
Kikuyu have stolen the future of our children… we must treat them in the
only way that they understand… with violence ». The country, despite
being one of the most stable in Africa, suddenly erupted in violence.
After days of rioting, president Kibaki was forced to accept the
mediation of Madeleine Albright as president of the NDI (the NED’s
Democrat pseudopod). A prime minister position was created and offered
to Odinga. Since the hate text messages had not been sent from the
Kenyan installations, one can wonder which foreign power was behind
them.
Mobilizing the international public opinion
During the last few years, Washington had the opportunity to
instigate « color revolutions » with the understanding that they would
fail to seize power but that they would help manipulate public opinion
and international institutions.
In 2007, many Burmans were up in arms because of the domestic fuel
price increase. Demonstrations spread as Buddhist monks took a leading
role in the protest. This was the « Saffron Revolution » [13].
Washington could not care less about the Rangoon regime; however they
were interested in orchestrating the people of Burma in order to
exercise pressure on China which holds strategic interests in Burma
(pipelines and military bases for electronic intelligence gathering). It
was therefore crucial to distort people’s perception of reality.
Pictures and films shot on mobile phones started to appear on YouTube.
They were anonymous, impossible to verify and without context. It was
precisely their lack of reliability that gave them authority, and
allowed the White House to fit them with their interpretation of the
situation.
More recently, a 2008 student demonstration brought Greece to a
grinding halt following the murder of a 15 year old young man by a
policeman. Hoodlums were soon seen rioting. They had been recruited in
neighboring Kosovo and brought in by bus. The city centers were
devastated. Washington was trying to scare foreign investors away in
order to secure a monopoly on the investments in the gas terminals that
were being built. The weak Karamanlis government was portrayed as being
iron fisted. Facebook and Twitter were used to mobilize the Greek
Diaspora. Demonstrations spread to Istanbul, Nicosia, Dublin, London,
Amsterdam, The Hague, Copenhagen, Frankfurt, Paris, Rome, Madrid,
Barcelona, etc.
The Green Revolution
The operation conducted in 2009 in Iran belongs to the long list of
pseudo revolutions. First, a 400 million dollar budget was voted in 2007
by Congress to orchestrate a « regime change » in Iran. This was in
addition to the ad hoc budgets of the NED, the USAID, the CIA & Co.
How this money is being used is unclear, but the three main recipients
are the following: the Rafsanjani family, the Pahlavi family and the
People’s Mujahedin of Iran.
The Bush Administration decided to instigate a « color revolution »
in Iran after confirming a decision by the Joint Chiefs of Staff not to
conduct a military attack of that country. This choice was then approved
by the Obama Administration. The plans for a « color revolution » which
had been drawn up by the American Enterprise Institute in 2002 with
Israel were then reopened. I had published an article at that time
regarding this plan [14].
In it, one can identify the current protagonists: that plan has not
changed much since then. A Lebanese chapter was added which predicted an
uprising in Beirut in case of a victory of the patriotic coalition
(Hezbollah, Aoun), but it was later cancelled.
The script included huge support for the candidate chosen by
Ayatollah Rafsanjani, the disputing of the presidential election
results, widespread bombings, the toppling of president Ahmadinejad and
of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, setting up a transition government
headed by Mousavi, restoring the Monarchy and creating a government
headed by Sohrab Sobhani.
According to the 2002 plans, the operation was overseen by Morris
Amitay et Michael Ledeen. It mobilized in Iran the Irangate network.
Here is a necessary quick historical background: the Irangate
(Iran–Contra affair) was an illegal arms deal. The White House wished to
supply weapons to the rebels in Nicaragua (to fight against
Sandinistas) and to Iranians (in order to drag the Iran-Iraq war for as
long as possible), but was prevented from doing so by Congress. Israelis
then offered to act as subcontractors for both operations. Ledeen, who
has both US and Israeli citizenships, served as a link in Washington,
while Mahmoud Rafsanjani (the brother of the Ayatollah) was his
counterpart in Tehran. This took place over a background of widespread
corruption. When the scandal broke out in the United States, an
independent inquiry committee was headed by Senator Tower and General
Brent Scowcroft (Robert Gates’ mentor) to investigate.
Michael Ledeen is an old fox involved in many secret operations. He
could be found in Rome during the assassination of Aldo Moro. He also
appears to have been linked to the fake Bulgarian connection after the
assassination attempt on John Paul II, or more recently to the fake
claims of Nigerian uranium supply to Saddam Hussein. He currently works
for the American Enterprise Institute [15] (with Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz) and for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies [16].
Morris Amitay is a former director of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He is today the vice president of the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the director of a
consulting company for the weapon industry.
On April 27, Morris et Ledeen held a seminar on Iran with Senator
Joseph Lieberman at the American Enterprise Institute, regarding the
Iranian elections. On May 15, a new seminar was held. The public part of
the event consisted of a round table discussion headed by Senator John
Bolton about the « haggling » over Iran: would Moscow agree to end its
support of Tehran in exchange for Washington renouncing its missile
shield project in Central Europe? French expert Bernard Hourcade took
part in the debates. At the same time, the Institute launched a website,
intended for the press, about the coming crisis: IranTracker.org. The
website includes a section on the Lebanese elections.
In Iran, the responsibility for overthrowing old rival Ayatollah
Khamenei rested on Ayatollah Rafsanjani. Born in a family of farmers,
Hashemi Rafsanjani built his fortune on real estate speculation during
the time of the Shah. He became the main pistachio dealer in Iran, and
increased his wealth during the Irangate. His assets are estimated to
several billion dollars. After he became the wealthiest man in Iran, he
became successively president of the parliament, president of the
Republic, and now chairman of the Assembly of Experts (an arbitration
body for the parliament and the Guardian Council of the Constitution).
He defends the interests of Tehran’s merchant class. During the
electoral campaign, Rafsanjani required Mir-Hossein Mousavi, his former
adversary who became his protégé, to promise he would privatize the oil
sector.
With no connection to Rafsanjani, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran have been used by Washington [17].
This organization, protected by the Pentagon, is considered a terrorist
organization by the State Department and has been considered as such by
the European Union. Indeed, it is responsible for dreadful operations
in the 80s, including a huge bombing which killed Ayatollah Beheshti,
four department heads, six department head assistants and one fourth of
the parliamentary group of the Islamic Republic party. The People’s
Mujahedin of Iran is headed by Massoud Rajavi, who first married the
daughter of former President Abol-hassan Banisadr and then the cruel
Maryam.
Its headquarters are located outside of Paris and its military
bases in Iraq, first under the orders of Saddam Hussein, are now under
the Defense Department. The People’s Mujahedin provided the logistics
for the bombing attacks which took place during the electoral campaign [18].
They were responsible for instigating clashes – which they probably did
– between Pro Ahmadinejad supporters and their opponents.
Should chaos
have followed, the Supreme Leader could have been overthrown. A
transition government, headed by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, would have
privatized the oil sector and brought back the Monarchy. The son of the
former Shah, Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, would have ascended to the throne and
would have nominated Sohrab Sobhani as prime minister. With this in
mind, Reza Pahlavi published in February a number of interviews with
French journalist Michel Taubmann, the director of Arte’s information
office in Paris, and who presides the Cercle de l’Observatoire, the club
for French neo conservatives. It is useful to remember that Washington
had made similar plans for the restoration of the Monarchy in
Afghanistan. Mohammed Zahir Shah was supposed to ascend to the throne
again and Hamid Karzai would have become prime minister. Unfortunately,
at age 88, the pretender had become senile. Karzai thus became
president. Both Sobhani and Karzai hold United States citizenships. Both
were involved in the Caspian sea’s oil sector.
As far as propaganda was concerned, the initial plan had been given
to Benador Associates, a public relations firm. But it evolved with the
influence of Goli Ameri, the United States Assistant Secretary of State
for Educational and Cultural Affairs. This American Iranian woman is
John Bolton’s former colleague. As a new media specialist, she
implemented infrastructure and Internet training programs for
Rafsanjani’s friends. She also developed radio and television programs
in Farsi for the State Department propaganda, in conjunction with the
BBC.
Iran’s destabilization failed because the main drive behind the «
color revolutions » was not appropriately initiated. Mir-Hossein Mousavi
did not manage to make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the focus of popular anger.
The Iranian people did not fall into the trap; they did not hold the
outgoing president responsible for the United States’ economic sanctions
against the country. Therefore the protests were limited to the
northern suburbs of Tehran. The authorities refrained from creating
counter demonstrations, and let the plotters expose themselves.
However, it must be noted that the propaganda was successful with the
Western media. International public opinions really believed that two
million Iranians took to the streets, when the real figure was ten times
lower. The fact that foreign correspondents were under house arrest
facilitated these exaggerations because they were exempt from having to
provide evidence for their allegations.
Having given up war, and having failed at overthrowing the regime, what is Barack Obama’s remaining option?
