Information Clearing House
August 07, 2012
For 25 years the Shah of Iran tortured and murdered many thousands of dissident workers, students, peasants and intellectuals. For the most part, the U.S. press ignored these dreadful happenings and portrayed the Shah as a citadel of stability and an enlightened modernizer.Thousands more were killed by the Shah’s police and military during the popular uprisings of this past year. Yet these casualties received only passing mention even though Iran was front-page news for several months. And from 1953 to 1978 millions of other Iranians suffered the silent oppression of poverty and malnutrition while the Shah, his family, and his generals grew ever richer.Now the furies of revolution have lashed back, thus far executing about 200 of the Shah’s henchmen ~ less than what the Savak would arrest and torture on a slow weekend. And now the U.S. press has suddenly become acutely concerned, keeping a careful account of the "victims," printing photos of firing squads and making repeated references to the "repulsion" and "outrage" felt by anonymous "middle-class" Iranians who apparently are endowed with finer sensibilities than the mass of ordinary people will bore the brunt of the Shah’s repression. At the same time, American commentators are quick to observe that the new regime is merely replacing one repression with another.So it has always been with the recording of revolutions: the mass of nameless innocents victimized by the ancien régime go uncounted and unnoticed, but when the not-so-innocent murderers are brought to revolutionary justice, the business-owned press is suddenly filled with references to "brutality" and "cruelty."That anyone could equate the horrors of the Shah’s regime with the ferment, change and struggle that is going on in Iran today is a tribute to the biases of the U.S. press, a press that has learned to treat the atrocities of the U.S.-supported right-wing regimes with benign neglect while casting a stern self-righteous eye on the popular revolutions that challenge such regimes.Michael Parenti
The answer is: Iran’s Islamic Republic has other features that did not sit well with the western imperialists. Iran was ~ and still is ~ a "dangerously" independent nation, unwilling to become a satellite to the U.S. global empire, unlike more compliant countries.
To strike enough fear into the public, our leaders tell us that, like Iraq, Iran "might" develop weapons of mass destruction.And like Iraq, Iran is lead by people who hate America and want to destroy us and Israel.And like Iraq, Iran "might" develop into a regional power leading other nations in the Middle East down the "Hate America" path.
The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons; was it saved? he asked.India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons; have they found peace and security?Israel has nuclear weapons: has it found peace and security?And the United States itself has nuclear weapons and nuclear fleets patrolling the world and it seems obsessively preoccupied with being targeted by real or imagined enemies.
It has already been delivered to Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, and many other countries around the world: overthrow your reform-minded, independent, communitarian government; become a satellite to the global corporate free-market system, or we will pound you to death and reduce you to a severe level of privatization and poverty.