Arab Regimes 89

De Volkskrant-stijl van bericht geven:

 Leger in Caïro scheidt protesterende partijen (live)
AMSTERDAM - De protesten in Egypte zijn geëscaleerd. Aanhangers en tegenstanders van Mubarak gingen vannacht met elkaar op de vuist. Daarbij vielen doden.


Dit is precies het beeld dat het Mubarak-draaiboek wil oproepen. Protesten escaleren, aanhangers en tegenstanders van Mubarak scheppen chaos, leger moet wel ingrijpen. Mubarak blijft zitten, de democratie vernietigd. En dit propagandistische beeld geeft de onwetende Volkskrant, die geen correspondent permanent in Egypte heeft gestationeerd, braaf door.


De werkelijkheid is dit zoals ik gisteren schreef:

Arab Regimes 74

Wat op dit moment in Cairo gebeurt is geheel volgens het CIA-draaiboek dat voor het eerst tot uitvoer werd gebracht in 1953 door Kermit Roosevelt, het hoofd van de CIA-Operaties in het Midden Oosten. Nadat de democratische gekozen Iraanse premier Mossadeqh de Iraanse oliebronnen had genationaliseerd, zorgde Kermit ervoor dat de populaire leider ten val werd gebracht. Er zijn drie vooraantaande Amerikaanse intellectuelen die hierover uitgebreid en gedocumenteerd hebben geschreven. Ik meld dit even voor mijn collega's. Misschien kunnen ze zich erin verdiepen. Deze mensen zijn Robert Dreyfuss, auteur van onder andere Devil's Game. How the United States helped unleash fundamentalist Islam. Michael Scheuer, het voormalige hoofd van de Bin Laden Eenheid van de CIA en auteur van Imperial Hubris. Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, en tenslotte professor Stephen Kinzer jarenlang bureauchef van The New York Times in Turkije, Duitsland en Nicaragua, auteur van Overthrow. America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, onder andere het boek waarover ik hem afgelopen zomer in Boston interviewde. Kortom, drie gerespecteerde bronnen onder deskundigen.


Kermit Roosevelt dus, de kleinzoon van president Theodore Roosevelt, was de man die in Iran voor een regime wisseling zorgde door met CIA-geld de Iraanse onderwereld te bewegen om de pro-Mossadeqh bevolking met het grootst mogelijke geweld te terroriseren. Kermit Roosevelt nam daarvoor contact op met twee van zijn Iraanse geheime dienstmensen. Stephen Kinzer:


These two agents had excellent relations with Tehran's street gangs, and Roosevelt told them he now wished to use those gangs to set off riots around the city. To his dismay, they replied that they could no longer help him because the risk of arrest had become too great. This was a potentially fatal blow to Roosevelt's new plan. He responded in the best tradition of secret agents. First he offered the two agents $50,000 to continue working with him. They remained unmoved. Then he added the second part of his deal: if the men refused, he would kill them. That changed their minds. They left the embassy compound with a briefcase full of cash and a renewed willingness to help. That week, a plaque of violence descended on Tehran. Gangs of thugs ran wildly through the streets, breaking shop windows, firing guns into mosques, beating passersby, and shouting 'Long Live Mossadeqh and Communism!'  Other thugs, claiming alliance to the self-exciled shah attacked the first ones. Leaders of both factions were actually working for Roosevelt... 


En de rest is geschiedenis, Mossadeqh werd gevangen genomen, de shah in het zadel geholpen en de oppositie en democratie vernietigd. Op die manier kon het terreurregime van de shah tot 1979 ongestoord doorgaan met martelen en moorden. Voor de Amerikaanse autoriteiten werd deze coup een schoolvoorbeeld van hoe hun belangen het best verdedigd konden worden door overal marionetten aan de macht te helpen middels geweld en corruptie. Wikipedia meldt dit over Kermit Roosevelt:

Head of Operation Ajax

See also: 1953 Iranian coup d'état

By the early 1950s, Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. was a senior officer in the CIA's Middle Eastern division.^{[citation needed]} At that time, there was a political crisis centered in Iran that commanded the focused attention of British and American intelligence outfits. In 1951, the Iranian parliament, under the leadership of the nationalist movement of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, voted unanimously to nationalize the oil industry. This shut out the immensely profitable Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), which was a pillar of Britain's economy and political clout. A month after that vote, Mossadegh was elected prime minister of Iran.^[6]

In response to nationalization, Britain placed an embargo on Iranian oil exports, which worsened the already fragile economy. Neither the AIOC nor Mossadegh was open to compromise in this period, with Britain insisting on a restoration of the AIOC and Mossadegh willing only to negotiate the terms of its compensation for lost assets.^{[citation needed]} U.S. President Harry S. Truman ruled out joining Britain in a coup against Mossadegh, and Britain felt unable to act without American cooperation,^{[citation needed]} particularly since Mossadegh had shut down their embassy in 1952.^[6] Truman's successor, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was persuaded by anti-communist arguments^{[citation needed]} that there was potential for Iran's CommunistTudeh Party to capitalize on political instability and assume power, aligning Iran and its immense oil resources with the Soviet bloc. Coup plans which had stalled under Truman were revived by an eager intelligence corps, with powerful aid from the brothers John Foster Dulles (Secretary of State) and Allen Welsh Dulles (Director of Central Intelligence), after Eisenhower's inauguration in 1953.^[6]

According to Roosevelt, he slipped across the border under his CIA cover as "James Lockridge" on June 19, 1953. He was put up in the capital, Tehran, in a place rented by British intelligence. As Mr. Lockridge, he became a regular at the Turkish Embassy where he played tennis. No one suspected that "Mr. Lockridge" was the grandson of the 26th US President but he came close to blowing his cover. When playing tennis and making some frustrating mistake he would cry out, "Oh Roosevelt!" Puzzled by this, his friends asked him about this interesting way of expressing his annoyance with his game. He explained that as loyal member of the Republican Party back in the states, that every Republican had nothing but scorn and hatred for Franklin D. Roosevelt and that he despised the man so much that he took to using FDR's name as a curse.^[7]

Under Roosevelt's direction, the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a campaign of black propaganda and bribery leading to a coup d'etat to overthrow Mossadegh^{[citation needed]}with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah in Operation Ajax.^[8] The plot hinged on orders signed by the Shah to dismiss Mossadegh as prime minister and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans.

Despite the high-level coordination and planning, the coup faltered initially and the Shah fled Iran. After a brief exile in Italy, however, the Shah was brought back again, this time through a second coup which was successful.

In his book All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, The New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer reported^[6] that the CIA ordered Roosevelt to leave Iran. Roosevelt ignored the order and, instead organized a second coup, this one successful. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and placed in solitary confinement for three years in military prison, followed by house arrest for life. Zahedi was installed to succeed prime minister Mossadegh.

After that coup, Kinzer reported that the Shah said to Roosevelt, "I owe my throne to God, my people, my army—and to you."^[6]

[edit]Roosevelt tells his story

Twenty-six years later, Kim Roosevelt took the unusual step of writing a book about how he and the CIA carried out the operation. He called his book Countercoup to press home the idea that the CIA coup was staged only to prevent a takeover of power by the Iranian Communist Party (Tudeh) closely backed by the Soviet Union. He also may have meant to imply that the exile of the Shah constituted the initial coup, and that he was merely restoring the rightful leader to power.

In 2003, William Blum, in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II criticized Roosevelt for providing no evidence when he "argu[ed] that Mossadegh had to be removed to prevent a communist takeover" of Iran.^[9] Blum noted that while Roosevelt kept repeating how Mossadegh was a danger due to his seizure of the oil industry and his other Socialist reforms as well as his cooperation with the Tudeh Party, Mossadegh's role was much more nuanced.^[9] This view was shared by many in the Intelligence community, although most notably the head of the CIA station in Iran resigned rather than participate in the coup. Many outside the intelligence community, including some in the Truman administration, had felt that Mossadegh should be kept in power to prevent a Communist takeover.^[9]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Roosevelt,_Jr.}

Het is deze westerse terreur die opnieuw in Egypte een rol van betekenis speelt. Eerst heeft men de democratische oppositie laten komen, vervolgens heeft het Mubarak-regime gangsters vrij gelaten die nu betaald worden om de oppositie tot pulp te meppen, en in de daarop volgende chaos zal het leger onder leiding van Mubarak zich zogenaamd genoodzaakt zien in te grijpen. Dat is tenminste het draaiboek. Komende vrijdag gaan we zien of de goed georganiseerde Moslim Broederschap bereid is de strijd aan te gaan met de Mubarak-gangsters. 

Let u eens op hoe de Nederlandse journalisten deze informatie achterhouden, en wel omdat ze of niet goed geinformeerd zijn of het niet durven te melden. Beste collega's: complotten bestaan echt, zoals ze bij alle geheime diensten ter wereld maar al te goed weten. Alleen jullie weten het niet, dat maakt jullie zulke bruikbare boodschappers van de macht.

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/02/arab-regimes-74.html

En leest u dit:

Arab Regimes 75

Posted on Feb 1, 2011

 By William Pfaff

 The events in the Arab world during the past three weeks have ended
 the era of American-Israeli domination/intimidation of the region.
 This is all but universally acknowledged outside the United States,
 although many in Washington refuse to admit it--as does, with
 considerable concern, the Israeli government in Jerusalem.

 The spectacle of confused and confusing administration and State
 Department responses to the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Yemen,
 and to the huge mass movement in Egypt, protected by the Egyptian
 army, as well as prudent prime ministerial change in Jordan, suggests
 that, until now, no one in an American government office has
 considered--or been allowed to consider, more likely--that this day
 would inevitably come.

 The presence of the U.S. in the Mideast has lost its ability to
 intimidate the more than half a billion people who live in the Arab,
 Egyptian and North African states, once politically united under the
 Ottoman Turks, and before that under the Arab Caliphates, but which
 until now have seemed discarded by history.

 The reaction of the Israeli government has been more shocking still.
 There seems to have been panic, rather than the confusion and seeming
 impotence in Washington--both liberal and conservative Washington, and
 in whatever other sectors of opinion that these days also exist in in
 that troubled city, which has yet to emerge from two meaningless and
 un-won wars fought ostensibly for democracy, and which now is shocked
 to confront democracy among the Arabs.

 Israel, since its defeat of combined Arab armies in 1948, has believed
 that it could survive in the Middle East only through total military
 domination of its Arab enemies and control without concessions of the
 subjects of its military occupation of Palestine. Israel has been
 supported in this, more or less willingly, by every American
 administration since that of Dwight Eisenhower--the last to say "no"
 to Israel.

 The contempt initially shown toward Israel's Arab enemies was ended by the
 1973 surprise attack by Egypt and Syria, the rise of Hamas (whose
 creation Israel over-cleverly supported to counter the Palestine
 Liberation Organization; how could religious enthusiasts do anything
 to harm Israel?) and the resistance of Hezbollah to Israel's 2006 (and
 second) invasion of Lebanon. The result of that was to give Hezbollah
 political predominance in Lebanon.

 Lebanon is the nation that once, using conciliation rather than
 intimidation, might have been turned into Israel's passport to peace
 with the other Arab countries. Israel's eyes were already on complete
 possession of Palestine when I first visited Beirut in 1955. The
 swagger of the Lebanese then was that, given unrestricted relations,
 the Lebanese could easily outsmart, out-trade and outwit the Jews. The
 Zionists should have taken up that challenge.

 The Israeli calculation today is that if "Mubarak goes" (which is
 usually stated as "If America lets Mubarak go"), Egypt goes. If
 Tunisia goes (same elaboration), Morocco and Algeria go. Turkey has
 already gone (for which the Israelis have only themselves to blame).
 Syria is gone (in part because Israel wanted to cut it off from Sea of
 Galilee water access). Gaza has gone to Hamas, and the Palestine
 Authority might soon be gone too (to Hamas?). That leaves Israel amid
 the ruins of a policy of military domination of the region.

 Now, it is only America that can save us, Israelis say. But Washington
 has sent new emissaries to Cairo, undoubtedly to tell Hosni Mubarak
 that departure in September is not good enough. Now is the time to
 go--with a graceful acknowledgement of the popular will and good
 wishes to his successors. He has already named reliable and moderate
 men to take over, whom the Pentagon and CIA trust. Will that be good
 enough? I think not. The people do not want a makeover of
 U.S.-dominated government. I doubt seriously that they would accept
 the "orderly transition to meet the democratic and economic needs of
 the people" that Hillary Clinton kindly proposes, adding that America
 stands "ready to help with the kind of transition that will lead to
 greater political and economic freedom." I would imagine that the
 popular feeling is that they have had quite enough help from
 Washington.

 Would the people accept Mohamed ElBaradei to conduct a transition to
 elections, the ex-U.N. nuclear agency chief whom Washington considers
 an enemy? Possibly. The best thing the U.S. can do is to keep out of
 this, speak only when spoken to and hope that the common sense that
 has prevailed thus far in Tunisia and Egypt will continue.

 The trouble is that the people who are handling these things in
 Washington are the same ones, or the proteges of the ones, now
 retired, who were responsible for American policy in the Middle East
 under both Democratic and Republican administrations since Franklin
 Roosevelt, late in the Second World War, and made a deal to trade
 guaranteed security for Saudi Arabia in exchange for guaranteed oil
 for the U.S. Certainly since President Richard Nixon clapped the Shah
 of Iran on the back and said, "We restored you to your throne in 1953,
 young man--I mean, Your Imperial Majesty. From now on, you are our
 gendarme in the Middle East. Just tell the Pentagon what you need."
 Israelis take notice.

 Visit William Pfaff's website for more on his latest book, "The Irony
 of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy," at
 www.williampfaff.com.

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/02/arab-regimes-75.html