When I returned from covering the Iranian elections recently, I was surprised to find my email box filled with progressive authors, academics and bloggers bending themselves into knots about the current crisis in Iran. They cite the long history of U.S. interference in Iran and conclude that the current unrest there must be sponsored or manipulated by the Empire.
Is mór an t-uafás é sin dóibh siúd a chuireann a mbeatha i mbaol ó lá go lá ar shráideanna mhórchathracha na hIaráine atá ag troid ar son an cheartais pholaitiúil, shóisialta agus eacnamaíoch.
Tá mo leabhar luaite ag cuid de na húdair seo fiú, Clár Oibre na hIaráine, as a source to prove U.S. meddling. Whoa there, pardner. Now we’re getting personal.
The large majority of American people, particularly leftists and progressives, are sympathetic to the demonstrators in Iran, oppose Iranian government repression and also oppose any U.S. military or political interference in that country. But a small and vocal number of progressives are questioning that view, including authors writing for Athbhreithniú Míosúil ar líne, Iris Beartas Eachtrach, agus lucht acadúil mór le rá mar an tOllamh James Petras ar scor.
They mostly argue by analogy. They correctly cite numerous examples of CIA efforts to overthrow governments, sometimes by manipulating mass demonstrations. But past practice is no proof that it’s happening in this particular case. Frankly, the multi-class character of the most recent demonstrations, which arose quickly and spontaneously, were beyond the control of the reformist leaders in Iran, let alone the CIA.
Let’s assume for the moment that the U.S. was trying to secretly manipulate the demonstrations for its own purposes. Did it succeed? Or were the protests reflecting 30 years of cumulative anger at a reactionary system that oppresses workers, women, and ethnic minorities, indeed the vast majority of Iranians? Is President Mahmood Ahmadinejad a "nationalist-populist," as claimed by some, and therefore an ally against U.S. domination around the world? Or is he a repressive, authoritarian leader who actually hurts the struggle against U.S. hegemony?
A ligean ar ghlacadh le breathnú. Ach nóta tapaidh ar dtús.
As far as I can tell none of these leftist critics have actually visited Iran, at least not to report on the recent uprisings. Of course, one can have an opinion about a country without first-hand experience there. But in the case of recent events in Iran, it helps to have met people. It helps a lot.
Titeann argóintí na heite clé Ag Amhras faoi Thomás i dtrí chatagóir leathana.
1. Dearbhú: Bhuaigh an tUachtarán Mahmood Ahmadinejad an toghchán, nó ar a laghad, níl a mhalairt cruthaithe ag an bhfreasúra.
Scríobh Michael Veiluva, Abhcóide ag Fondúireacht Dlí Stáit an Iarthair (ag léiriú a thuairimí féin) ar shuíomh Gréasáin an Athbhreithnithe Míosúil:
"[U.S. peace groups] are quick to denounce the elections as ‘massively fraudulent’ and generally subscribe to the ‘mad mullah’ stereotype of the current political system in Iran. There is a remarkable convergence between the tone of these statements and the American right who are hypocritically beating their chests over Iran‘s ‘stolen’ election.
http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/veiluva190609.html
Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, James Petras wrote:
"[N]nár cuireadh aon mhionsamhail fianaise i bhfoirm scríofa nó bhreathnaithe i láthair roimh chomhaireamh na vótaí nó seachtain ina dhiaidh. Le linn an fheachtais toghcháin ar fad, níor ardaíodh aon chúiseamh inchreidte (nó amhrasach fiú) as cur isteach ar vótálaithe." http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1781&more=1&c=1
Actually, Iranians themselves were very worried about election fraud prior to the vote count. When I covered the 2005 elections, Ahmadinejad barely edged out Mehdi Karoubi in the first round of elections. Karoubi raised substantive arguments that he was robbed of his place in the runoff due to vote fraud. But under Iran‘s clerical system, there’s no meaningful appeal. So, as he put it, he took his case to God.
Ar lá an toghcháin 2009, chuir oifigigh toghcháin cosc go neamhdhleathach ar go leor breathnóirí freasúra ó na vótaíochtaí. Bhí sé beartaithe ag an bhfreasúra teachtaireachtaí téacs a úsáid chun scóir vótaí áitiúla a chur in iúl go háit lárnach. Dhruid an rialtas teachtaireachtaí SMS! Mar sin bhí comhaireamh na vótaí ag brath go hiomlán ar chuntas rialtais ó oifigigh a bhí báúil leis an sealbhóir.
Chuala mé go leor cuntas starógach ar bhoscaí vótála ag teacht isteach réamh-líonta agus níos mó ballóidí á gcló ná mar a thugtar cuntas sna huimhreacha clárúcháin oifigiúla. Is cosúil nach dócha go gceadóidh rialtas na hIaráine achomhairc nó imscrúduithe lánbhríocha ar na líomhaintí éagsúla faoi rigging vótaí.
Staidéar a rinne beirt ollamh ag Chatham House and the Institute of Iranian Studies at University of St. Andrews, Scotland, took a close look at the official election results and found some major discrepancies. For Ahmadinejad to have sustained his massive victory in one third of Iran‘s provinces, he would have had to carry all his supporters, all new voters, all voters previously voting centrist and about 44% of previous reformist voters. http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/14234_iranelection0609.pdf
Coinnigh i gcuimhne go dtarlaíonn bua Ahmadinejad i gcomhthéacs córas an-rigged. Cinneann an Chomhairle Chaomhnóirí cé na hiarrthóirí a fhéadfaidh a reáchtáil bunaithe ar a gcáilíochtaí Ioslamacha. Mar thoradh air sin, níor ceadaíodh aon bhean riamh dul i mbun feachtais le haghaidh uachtaránachta agus dícháilíodh comhaltaí parlaiminte a bhí ina suí toisc go raibh siad tar éis éirí neamh-Ioslamach ar bhealach éigin.
The constitution of Iran created an authoritarian theocracy in which various elements of the ruling elite could fight out their differences, sometimes through elections and parliamentary debate, sometimes through violent repression. Iran is a classic example of how a country can have competitive elections without being democratic.
2. Dearbhú: Tá stair fhada de mheon ag SAM san Iaráin, mar sin caithfidh sé a bheith taobh thiar den chorraíl reatha.
Scríobhann Jeremy R. Hammond ar an suíomh Gréasáin forásach Iris an Bheartais Eachtraigh: “[G]i bhfianaise thaifead na SA ar chur isteach ar ghnóthaí stáit na hIaráine agus ar bheartas soiléir an athraithe réime, is cinnte gur féidir, fiú dóichí, go raibh ról suntasach ag SAM maidir le cabhrú leis an suaitheadh le déanaí mar iarracht an bonn a bhaint de rialtas na Poblachta Ioslamach.
Eric Margolis, a columnist for Quebecor Media Company in Canada and a contributor to The Huffington Post, wrote:
"While the majority of protests we see in Tehran are genuine and spontaneous, Western intelligence agencies and media are playing a key role in sustaining the uprising and providing communications, including the newest electronic method, via Twitter. These are covert techniques developed by the US during recent revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia that brought pro-US governments to power."
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/seeing-through-all-the-propaganda-about-iran.aspx
Both authors cite numerous cases of the U.S. using covert means to overthrow legitimate governments. The CIA engineered large demonstrations, along with assassinations and terrorist bombings, to cause confusion and overthrow the parliamentary government of Iran‘ Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. The U.S. used similar methods in an effort to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002. (For more details, see my book, Dateline Havana: Fíorscéal Beartas SAM agus Todhchaí Chúba.) http://p3books.com/datelinehavana/
Hammond luann mo leabhar Clár Oibre na hIaráine agus mo agallamh ar Daonlathas Anois a thaispeáint go raibh an Riarachán Bush ag oiliúint agus ag maoiniú mionlaigh eitneacha in iarracht rialtas na hIaráine a threascairt in 2007.
Is de réir analaí agus impleachta a dhéantar na hargóintí go léir. Ní thairgeann an dá údar thuas, ná aon duine eile ar a bhfuil mé ar an eolas, aon mhionsamhail fianaise go ndearna Riarachán Obama innealtóireacht, nó fiú tionchar suntasach, ar an reatha taispeántais.
Breathnaímid ar cad a tharla i ndáiríre ar an talamh. Chuaigh na mílte Ioránach a chodladh Dé hAoine, 12 Meitheamh, cinnte go raibh an toghchán buaite ag Mousavi go hiomlán nó go mbeadh rith chun srutha idir é féin agus Ahmadinejad. D’éirigh siad maidin Dé Sathairn agus bhí néal orthu. "Coup d'etat a bhí ann," a dúirt roinnt cairde liom. Ghearr an fhearg trasna línte ranga agus chuaigh sé i bhfad níos faide ná bunchloch Mousavi de mhic léinn, intleachteach agus dea-dhéanamh.
Within two days hundreds of thousands of people were demonstrating peacefully in the streets of Tehran and other major cities. Could the CIA have anticipated the vote count, and on two days notice, mobilized its nefarious networks? Does the CIA even have the kind of extensive networks that would be necessary to control or even influence such a movement? That simultaneously gives the CIA too much credit and underestimates the independence of the mass movement.
Maidir leis an muirear go bhfuil an CIA ag soláthar ardteicneolaíochta mar Twitter, pleaaaaaase. I mo thráchtaireacht ar Reuters, tugaim le fios nach bhfuil rochtain ag formhór mór na nIaránach ar Twitter agus gur ar fhón póca agus ar bhriathar béil a eagraíodh na léirsithe den chuid is mó.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/author/reeseerlich/
Many Iranians do watch foreign TV channels via satellite. A sat dish costs only about $100 with no monthly fees, so they are affordable even to the working class. Iranians watched BBC, VOA and other foreign channels in Farsi, leading to government assertions of foreign instigation of the demonstrations. By that logic, Ayatollah Khomeini received support from Britain in the 1979 revolution because of BBC radio’s critical coverage of the despotic Shah.
Le fírinne, bunaithe ar mo thuairimí, ní raibh aon duine i gceannas ar na taispeántais. I rith na seachtaine tar éis na dtoghchán, d'athraigh an ollghluaiseacht ó chalaois vóta agóide go ceann ag iarraidh saoirsí i bhfad níos leithne. D'fhéadfá é a fheiceáil i gcomhdhéanamh athraitheach na máirseálacha. Ní hamháin go raibh páistí den rang lár uachtarach i jeans daingean agus spéaclaí gréine dearthóra. Bhí méadú ar líon na n-oibrithe agus na mban i seadairí an-choimeádach.
Rinne óige na hIaráine go háirithe do thacaíocht an Uachtaráin Ahmadinejad d'ionsaithe mílíste reiligiúnacha ar fhir agus ar mhná óga neamhphósta a bhí ag siúl le chéile agus i gcoinne ban nach gclúdaíonn a ndóthain gruaige lena hijab. Bhí doicheall ar oibrithe leis an mboilsciú bliantúil 24 faoin gcéad a robáil arduithe pá iarbhír orthu. Bhí ceardchumannaithe neamhspleácha ag troid ar son pá réasúnta agus ar son an chirt eagraithe.
Some demonstrators wanted a more moderate Islamic government. Others advocated a separation of mosque and state, and a return to parliamentary democracy they had before the 1953 coup. But virtually everyone believes that Iran has the right to develop nuclear power, including enriching uranium. Iranians support the Palestinians in their fight against Israeli occupation, and they want to see the U.S. get out of Iraq.
Mar sin má bhí siad CIA ag ionramháil na taispeántóirí, bhí sé ag déanamh jab lag.
Ar ndóigh, bheadh an CIA cosúil to have influence in Iran. But that’s a far cry from saying it a dhéanann have influence. By proclaiming the omnipotence of U.S. power, the leftist critics ironically join hands with Ahmadinejad and the reactionary clerics who blame all unrest on the British and U.S.
3. Assertion: Ahmadinejad is a nationalist-populist who opposes U.S. imperialism. Efforts to overthrow him only help the U.S.
Scríobh James Petras: "Bhí seasamh láidir Ahmadinejad ar chúrsaí cosanta i gcodarsnacht leis an staid chosanta ar son an Iarthair agus lag go leor de na bolscairí feachtais an fhreasúra ...."
"Ahmadinejad’s electoral success, seen in historical comparative perspective should not be a surprise. In similar electoral contests between nationalist-populists against pro-Western liberals, the populists have won. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez of Venezuela, [and] Evo Morales in Bolivia."
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1781&more=1&c=1
VeiniséalaScríobh an Aireacht Gnóthaí Eachtracha ar a láithreán gréasáin:
"The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela expresses its firm opposition to the vicious and unfounded campaign to discredit the institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, unleashed from outside, designed to roil the political climate of our brother country. From Venezuela, we denounce these acts of interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, while demanding an immediate halt to the maneuvers to threaten and destabilize the Islamic Revolution."
http://www.mre.gob.ve/Noticias/A2009/comunic-092.htm
From 1953-1979, the Shah of Iran brutally repressed his own people and aligned himself with the U.S. and Israel. After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran brutally repressed its own people and broke its alliance with the U.S. and Israel. That apparently causes confusion for some on the left.
I have written numerous articles and books criticizing U.S. policy on Iran, including Bush administration efforts to overthrow the Islamic government. The U.S. raises a series of phony issues, or exaggerates problems, in an effort to impose its domination on Iran. (Examples include Iran‘s nuclear power program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and support for Shiite groups in Iraq.)
During his past four years in office, Ahmadinejad has ramped up Iran‘s anti-imperialist rhetoric and posed himself as a leader of the Islamic world. That accounts for his fiery rhetoric against Israel and his denial of the Holocaust. (Officially, Ahmadinejad "questions" the Holocaust and says "more study is necessary." That reminds me of the creationists who say there needs to be more study because evolution is only a theory.) As pointed out by the opposition candidates, Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric about Israel and Jews has only alienated people around the world and made it more difficult for the Palestinians.
But in the real world, Ahmadinejad has done nothing to support the Palestinians other than sending some funds to Hamas. Despite rhetoric from the U.S. and Israel, Iran has little impact on a struggle that must be resolved by Palestinians and Israelis themselves.
So comparing Ahmadinejad with Chavez or Evo Morales is absurd. I have reported from both Venezuela and Bolivia numerous times. Those countries have genuine mass movements that elected and kept those leaders in power. They have implemented significant reforms that benefitted workers and farmers. Ahmadinejad has introduced 24% annual inflation and high unemployment.
As for the position of Venezuela and President Hugo Chavez, they are simply wrong. On a diplomatic level, Venezuela and Iran share some things in common. Both are under attack from the U.S., including past efforts at "regime change." Venezuela and other governments around the world will have to deal with Ahmadinejad as the de facto president, so questioning the election could cause diplomatic problems.
But that’s no excuse. Chavez has got it exactly backward. The popular movement in the streets will make Iran stronger as it rejects outside interference from the U.S. or anyone else.
Ní díospóireacht acadúil ar bith é seo nó farae do bhlagadóirí leamh. Tá saolta fíor i mbaol. Mharaigh rialtas faoi chois 17 nIaránach ar a laghad agus gortaíodh na céadta. Féadfaidh an ghluaiseacht mais gan a bheith láidir go leor chun cur leis an gcóras sa lá atá inniu ann ach tá sí ag cur na síolta le haghaidh streachailtí amach anseo.
Caithfidh na léirmheastóirí clé an cheist a fhreagairt: Cé leis ar a bhfuil tú?
–30-
----
Freelance foreign correspondent Reese Erlich covered the recent elections in Iran and their aftermath. He is the author of The Iran Agenda: the Real Story of U.S. Policy and the Middle East Crisis. (Polipoint Press)
http://p3books.com/theiranagenda/
Is trí fhlaithiúlacht a léitheoirí amháin a mhaoinítear ZNetwork.
Síntiúis
