Friday, November 10, 2006

Garbage In, Garbage Out

So, how did Mr. Baker's and Mr. Gate's "Study Group" arrive at their recommendations?

Baker-Gates et al. have concluded that talking to
Iran and Syria is a good a thing? Based on what grounds? The 'Iraq-Iran study group' states they've consulted many so-called "Iran experts". If the "Iran experts" who are paraded around on PBS or CNN or NPR or who opine about Iran in Washington Post and The New York Times because they were granted access (given visa to visit Iran) to Islamic propagndists inside Iran are the ones who have contributed to this report, we're really in grave danger: Daniel Zucker of Global Politician concludes that "Unfortunately our intelligence system has been in shambles ever since a massive CIA foul-up in 1989 resulted in the destruction of our espionage network in Iran. On the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been busy since day one of its existence in planting its agents in strategic locations here and around the world.(Dispatched mainly to Western Academia since the first day of the Islamic republic inception 27 years ago via "fake and manufactured dissidents" ruse)

Most of these so-called experts are Islamic Republic's sympathizers and advocate talk with Iran as to buy the Iranian time to build their Shia Bomb. But you'll notice that they don't tell us what these Glorious Talks should entail. As if we're too ignorant to decipher what they mean. They never tell us whether they are pro-Iran or Pro-America. Do they consider themselves American first or Iranian? They also fail to tell us what kind of Grand Concessions (AKA "Grand Bargain") we're willing to give to the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Grand Bargain=Security guarantee.

Meet a few of your Iran Experts/Appeasers/Smooth Talkers:

I recently read at Sheema Kalbasi's blog
that Mr. Vali Nasr has become an unofficial advisor of President Bush. Here is how Daniel Zucker describes him:

"Smooth as glass is Dr. Vali Nasr, aka Dr. Sayeed Vali Reza Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and the hottest commodity on the Iran commentators circuit today. Born in Iran, to the Iranian-American scholar Professor Sayeed Hossein Nasr with whom he has authored several classics on Shia doctrine and philosophy, Vali Nasr was reared in Scotland and the United States following the family's departure from Iran in 1979. Nasr's perpetual manta suggests that Iran and her Lebanese proxy Hizballah are too strong to oppose and so it is necessary for the United States and its allies to negotiate with both. In article after article, and repeated testimony before Congressional committees and the White House, Nasr beats the same drum: Iran is already too powerful for the U.S. to oppose because of its control of Iraq through the Shia militias and Lebanon through Hizballah; it would be better for this country to come to an accommodation with the current regime. It may be that Nasr has no connection to VEVAK, but it is curious as to why he never wavers from suggesting accommodation with a regime that caused his family's emigration from its homeland.

Method of Deception; Current Talking Points


Currently, the conventional meme of the Iranian-American pundits/M.E. experts, Trita Parsi (Mr. Breizinski's Protégé)and Vali Nasr et al and their American liberal cohorts being marketed knowingly or unknowingly on behalf of the IRI to The White House, appear to have been designed and packaged cleverly to divert our attention from the real threat of the IRI's interventionist policies in the region by minimizing Mr. Ahamdinejad's ceaseless threats to Israel, Europe, and America as mere rhetoric, "hollow", "harmless","mere slogans" and "nothing-but-demagoguegy intended for domestic-consumption-to rally-the-base."

And to build their case, they point out Khatami,hence, his invitation to Harvard and St. Andrews and Oxford-- and the capitalist mullahs reform movement and its somewhat cooperative nature in helping the US in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In many respects, the smiling snake, Khatami, and the oligarchical mullahs are more dangerous than Ahmadinejad. Khatami and the reformers legacy, more than anything else will be their callous indifference to repression, plundering unheard amount of national wealth, and their attempt to legitimize a wholly illegitimate regime via ruses such as "Dialogue of Civilization" while only allowing monologues inside Iran (see Khatami's Reign of terror.)

I actually have more respect for Ahmadinejad than Khatami because he is at least honest and doesn't resort to deception. Ahmadinejad can't stand these corrupt mullahs. Ahmadinejad embodies the true nature of the regime and its ideological and structural foundation. Taheri characterizes him as "Perilously Honest"; Insight into the Mind of A True Shia:

"He (Ahmadinejad)asserts that Islam is an alternative to the current global system, not a candidate for becoming a small part of it.
Those who have tried to build a life on the basis of a little bit of Islam and a little bit of Western modernism are made uncomfortable by Ahmadinejad who is forcing everyone to take sides...



Similarly, in a recent conference on Iran, Dr. Soli Shahvar concludes that the most dangerous possible scenario in Iran would be a military coup, in which Ahmadinejad would capture the role of supreme leader. See: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3324216,00.html).


I would even go further as to say that this would be a second coup by Ahmadinejad and his military Junta, the IRGC. The first coup organized via rigged elections by the Basijis and the IRGC gave Ahmadinejad unexpected victory in the presidential election.

Falling for and using ruses such as knowingly or mistakenly minimizing Ahmadinejad's ideological push to export khomeini's revolution a la his puritincal military Junta IRGC, to develop our foreign policy toward Iran will not only solve our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon in the long term, but it could prove disastrous to US and Israel's national and strategic interests. Because by the time we figure out that the mullahs have no intention of stopping their interventionist policy in the region (see:
Iran: Trans-Regional Power by building their much coveted Shia Bomb, it would be too late. In the long run, our inaction might prove deadlier and cost more lives.

For Complete Pictorial of All the Appeasers go HERE

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Excellent and informative post.

I believe IR agents and supporters infiltrated strategic positions in various Western governments (as advisers) long before 1979 revolution. They contributed significantly to bringing Khomeini to power. Most were and are dual citizens, especially and sadly American and British. Moreover, and for their purposes, being an 'academic' tends to provide certain perceived expertise and clout that other fields may not offer.

A while ago, I noticed a few 'reformist' IR clowns posting on regimechangeiran blog. Some observations include: Invariably, they all wrote in fluent English and seemed very well read on a range of subjects. They also appeared to be quite competent at debating - either ignoring or never directly answering a question that may incriminate them and, basically, adept at taking an offensive position in order to defend themselves and/or the regime. Disinformation seemed the norm to win confidence. All this, to me, suggests, that these agents go through some exceptional training.

I think most of these regime supporters have 2 main motivators: money and power combined with an Islamic façade (even if they don’t grow a beard, wear western suites and drink alcohol). Next time, get them to deny, criticize or belittle Islam – many will argue, try to shut you down or plain ignore you or your point.

RoxieAmerica said...

Serendip - Excellent job. Keep up the excellent work.

Gayle said...

Great post, Serendip! You're right on all counts, and so is your anonymous commentor here.

SERENDIP said...

Annonymous said:
Falling for and using ruses such as knowingly or mistakenly minimize Ahmadinejad's ideological push to export khomeini's revolution a la his puritincal military Junta IRGC, to develop our foreign policy toward Iran will not only solve our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon in the long term, but it could prove disastrous to US and Israel's national and strategic interests. Because by the time we figure out that the mullahs have no intention of stopping their interventionist policy in the region (see: Iran: Trans-Regional Power by building their much coveted Shia Bomb, it would be too late. In the long run, our inaction might prove deadlier and cost more lives.

I just re-read this last paragraph in your post, a few times. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Full of contradictions. Am I missing a point here or is it the way it is phrased? And, is this, partly, what you meant by "garbage in, garbage out" ?

Anon: What's not clear to you? You think talking to Iran is going to solve anything. Can you tell me why you think that. What are you suggesting we should do? Do you want the US to give Iran security guarantees (i.e. the grand bargain)

Anonymous said...

Serendip: No, I don’t think we should talk to Iran at all, nor did I say that we should in my remark. My thinking is that there has been sufficient amount of appeasement in the last 27 years.

What I was questioning is that particular paragraph, how it is phrased and its intended meaning.

It says “Falling for and using ruses such as knowingly or mistakenly minimize Ahmadinejad’s ideological push……….” (,) comma, then, in the same sentence says “to develop our foreign policy towards Iran will not only solve our problems in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Lebanon in the long term,” (,) comma, then, immediately and in the same sentence it says “but it could prove disastrous to US and Israel’s national and strategic interests.” Doesn’t this sound contradictory or confusing to you?

To me, it suggests that we should develop our foreign policy for Iran, which will also solve our problems with Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon in the long run. BUT, it could prove disastrous to the US and Israel’s national and strategic interests if we did so.

Like I asked before, am I missing the point or not reading what is written correctly?!

By the way, I thought that paragraph was written by one of those Iran experts your post and its title suggest. My remark wasn’t directed at you.

SERENDIP said...

Dear anon: The paragraph was written by me. Perhaps I should have phrased it more carefully. I was trying to convey that if we base our foreign policy on the garbage fed to the Baker's study group by those who clearly,one way or another, have a stake at the survival of this regime, will be making a big mistake. What these shills are trying to feed the Baker group is that the mullahs are reasonable and we can deal with them and solve our conflict by pragmatic exchanges and so forth. However, the nature of the conflict is not of conflict of interests, given the track record, history and the underpining core ideology of those who are at the helm. We're dealing with conflict of values in regards to Iran not conflict of interest whereby you can devise tactical solutions to remedy them.

Here is part of what I wrote in a comment section in another blog (http://allthingsbeautiful.com).

...I'm here to tell Mr. Gates do go ahead and talk as much as you can but you are only wasting you're time and giving them more time to build the Shi'a bomb. What is this glorious talk is supposed to entail anyways? What kind of "grand bargain" and grand cocessions are we willing to give the most active state sponsor of terrorism?

Mr. Gates, Carter, Gary Sick and Brezinski et al. are desperately trying to avoid confrontation with IRI. Their fatal and flawed assumption is premised on the fact that those in charge of medieval republic are statesman or leaders of a country with foresight in securing the national interest of their nation and their people. Not so, Mr. Gates. They couldn't care less about Iranians or the Iranian nation.The Islamic regime which has never sought to inform the Iranian people of the national security, foreign policy, and economic or environmental consequences of its nuclear program, is faithfully committed to emulating North Korea, expecting that a nuclear deterrent will enable it to blackmail the international community into inaction, while at the same time prolonging its despotic rule, through its policy of sustained internal repression.

Iran has no intention of giving up enriching uranium and acquiring the Islamic bomb regardless of whetehr we offer them the grand bargain or not. They will not accept our offer. We're on a path of self-deception because the reality is too uncomfortable to imagine.

Almost everyone who is in charge in Iran is from a mostly poor upbringing with criminal and violent background. They are basically ruthless gangs with gang member mentality. I wish Briezinski and Mr. Gates lots of luck in trying to convince the mullahs to stop being thugs--one silver lining is that they will learn their lesson once and for all--Can you expect the gang members in L.A. to run the US efficiently by making sound decisions if they ruled the US?

I can almost hear the mullahs laughter at the gullibility of Gates and Zbig."

I hope this is more cogent than my previous paragraph.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for the elaboration.

I completely agree that a significant part of it is, in fact, a conflict of values and ideology.

Also, I very much liked the comment you posted in the other blog. The “ruthless gang member mentality” is particularly appropriate.

I’d like to think through some of your good points as well as recent developments following the mid-term elections.

At this stage and for many reasons, I don’t think Israel will be a passive by-stander.