US 'has agents working inside Iran'

[ComradeR]

The US has intelligence agents in Iran but it is not clear if they are providing help to the protest movement there, a former US national security adviser has told Al Jazeera.

Brent Scowcroft said on Wednesday that "of course" the US had agents in Iran amid the ongoing pressure against the Iranian government by protesters opposed to the official result of its presidential election.

But he added that he had no idea whether US agents had provided help to the opposition movement in Iran, which claims that the authorities rigged the June 12 election in favour of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president.

"They might do. Who knows?" Scowcroft told Josh Rushing for Al Jazeera's Fault Lines programme.

"But that's a far cry from helping protesters against the combined might of the Revolutionary Guard, the militias and so on - and the [Iranian] police, who are so far completely unified."

Limited options

Scowcroft's admission that Washington has agents stationed in Iran comes a day after the US president issued tougher rhetoric against the government in Iran.

Barack Obama's sterner tone came after days of deadly clashes between the opposition and Iranian security forces and militias.

Obama has been criticised by US conservative politicians for not taking a stronger line against Tehran amid the government crackdown, but Scowcroft, a former adviser to presidents Gerald Ford and the senior George Bush, said the US could only do so much.

"We don't control Iran. We don't control the government, obviously," he said.

"There is little we can do to change the situation domestically in Iran right now and I think an attempt to change it is more likely to be turned against us and against the people who are demonstrating for more freedom.

"Therefore, I think we need to look at what we can do best, which is to try to influence Iranian behaviour in the region."

At least 19 people have been killed in post-election violence in Iran, which broke out at the scene of protests questioning the veracity of the poll results.

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger to Ahmadinejad, has rejected the official results of the vote and has called for a fresh election to be held, while Mehdi Karoubi, another defeated candidate in the election, has called the new government "illegitimate".

But the Guardian Council, Iran's highest legislative body, has said that there were no incidences of major fraud in the vote and has declared that the official results will stand.
Source (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009624225744811593.html)

[Jimmie Higgins]

"of course" the US has agents in Iran

Wow, that's exactly what I thought when I read the heading of this topic.

As much as the US wants control in Iran, I think they must be feeling like any control right now is better than a totally volatile situation. It seems to come through the disagreements that are coming from the top of US society on the issue.

As much as we are disagreeing about Iran, on this website, the US ruling class also seems taken a little by surprise. If the protesters were 100% behind Mousavi, I think the US would have been quicker in making demands and pronouncements regarding the situation. Of course they want Iran's government weakened and loose-face, but they also want to be able to control what goes on there.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Duh. I've been saying since the beginning the First World so-called leftists were objectively acting on the same side as the CIA.

[Patchd]

Duh. I've been saying since the beginning the First World so-called leftists were objectively acting on the same side as the CIA.
Seems like the Iranian working class are doing the same.

[AvanteRedGarde]

The difference is that you and I are not in Iran. But I wouldn't expect a self-styled anarchist to be able to tell the difference.

[Patchd]

The difference is that you and I are not in Iran. But I wouldn't expect a self-styled anarchist to be able to tell the difference.
Please provide me with proof that these protests are even being led by the CIA, I'm sure they're in Iran, potentially even trying to stir up more trouble ideologically in favour of Western Capital, yet there are Communists in Iran too who are on the same streets, in the same University occupations, as well as trade unionist strikes.

But then, I shouldn't expect an Anarcho-Stalinist (LOL) to not have deluded positions on anything.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Well what the fuck do you think the CIA is there for? To provide support for the Iranian regime?

Look at the slogans. Anything about imperialism or capitalism? Seems like it's a lot of "tyranny" and "dictatorship," something that caters well to the CIA, and First World reactionaries, "progressives," and apparently "revolutionaries."

In any case, once there is a semblance that a given movement has the capacity to replace the Iran regime with something better, I'll support it. Outside of revolutionary leadership however, I don't see this happening. Moreover, I don't see how any toppling of the Iranian state, except in the case that it is done so on revolutionary footing, would do anything but further the interest of capitalist imperialism.

You seem to be fine with that though, because it sounds cool I assume.

[Patchd]

Well what the fuck do you think the CIA is there for? To provide support for the Iranian regime?

Look at the slogans. Anything about imperialism or capitalism? Seems like it's a lot of "tyranny" and "dictatorship," something that caters well to the CIA, and First World reactionaries, "progressives," and apparently "revolutionaries."

On the contrary, I agree with you that it's there for anti-workerist means, this does not mean that they lead or even control the protests. I realise full well though that they are attempting to turn the protests to their own benefit, and this must be opposed by revolutionaries around the world, yet what must also be opposed it the anti-worker, anti-woman, anti-LGBTQ, anti-secular Islamic state, what Hands Off the People of Iran says on this matter represents my position on this subject:

"The US is pumping billions of dollars into regime change in its own image - involved in dubious front organisations such as the ‘Solidarity Centre’ in order to trick the Iranian workers’ movement into lining up with the interests of imperialism’s rotten project in the Middle East. Such ‘solidarity’ is the kiss of death for the Iranian workers - it pulls them behind and ties them to this thoroughly anti-working class agenda."

As such, you should be attempting to extend the politics of the struggle where they are not revolutionary already instead of just sitting behind your computer denouncing yet another workers' struggle.

Yassamine Mather, an exiled ex-Fedayeen (minority) guerilla [yeah, so someone who was actually involved in a revolutionary struggle against the Islamists in '79-'82] writes on this matter:

"The problem with most dictators is that, even in their dying days, they believe they can stop the movement by simply passing orders or blaming ‘foreign powers’. Some supporters of the shah are still under the illusion that he was not overthrown by the 1979 Iranian revolution, but was deposed thanks to a plot by Britain and the US."

"Those of us who can identify the class composition of demonstrators from their clothes and accents have not had the slightest doubt about the predominance of workers and wage-earners (including teachers, nurses and public employees) on recent protests, but for the benefit of those who have no knowledge of Iran and who keep telling us the demonstrators are ‘middle class’ let me explain some basic facts.

If you live in a country where the ministry of labour claims that over 80% of the workforce are employed on limited contracts and reassures capitalists that by 2010 the figure will have reached 100%, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country where in the year ending March 2009 despite the repression there were over 4,000 workers’ actions against privatisation and job losses (unemployment stands at 30%, while inflation has reached 25%), including sit-ins, the kidnap of managers, as well as strikes, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country that has been praised by the International Monetary Fund for its firm pursuit of neoliberal economic policies, all under a certain Mr Ahmadinejad, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?

If you live in a country where teachers and nurses have waged at least four major strikes in the last two years against their government’s economic and political stance, who do you think will join protest demonstrations?"

Not to mention revolutionary demands set forth by students in their protests and occupations, the involvement of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran in some of these protests where they can get involved, trade unionist opposition and a call for a general strike.


In any case, once there is a semblance that a given movement has the capacity to replace the Iran regime with something better, I'll support it. Outside of revolutionary leadership however, I don't see this happening. Moreover, I don't see how any toppling of the Iranian state, except in the case that it is done so on revolutionary footing, would do anything but further the interest of capitalist imperialism.

... as opposed to Islamic anti-Western Capitalism? I'll reiterate, any support for the Islamic regime, especially at this time, is support for an anti-worker, anti-LGBTQ, anti-women and anti-secularist state, especially if done under the illusion that it opposes Imperialism. :rolleyes:


You seem to be fine with that though, because it sounds cool I assume.

Yeah, it's very cool to support fellow workers in their struggle against oppression. You've got something right, for once. :cool:

[#FF0000]

Look at the slogans. Anything about imperialism or capitalism? Seems like it's a lot of "tyranny" and "dictatorship," something that caters well to the CIA, and First World reactionaries, "progressives," and apparently "revolutionaries."

I assume it'd also cater to, you know, people who live under a "tyrannical" "dictatorship".

EDIT: You know there are other imperialist powers in the world aside from the U.S., right

[Os Cangaceiros]

This subject line ranked somewhere on my suprise meter between "bears take shits in the woods" and "the Pope wears a funny hat".

[Communist Theory]

They should release a list of countries that they don't have spies in.