More Devastating Wikileaks Revelations

Wikileaks Reveals More U.S. Hypocrisy and Stupidity

A Top Secret cable reveled that U.S. State Department personnel believed Ahmajinad’s undemocratic ways were causing him to lose face in Iran and the Arab world.  Let’s talk about self-serving lies.  I wonder if part of the requirement for working within the State Department requires that you have an innate ability to believe your own lies.

At 213.251.145.96/cable/2009/08/09RPODUBAI316.html

Timothy Richardson, the Acting Director for the Iranian Regional Presence Office at the U.S. State Department wrote:

“Summary: Since Iran’s June 12 presidential elections, Arab media have intensely focused their coverage on the demonstrations in Iran and the international community’s response to the government crackdown.  Whereas in recent years the Arab media have limited their commentary to Iran’s external relations — particularly its regional ambitions and the international implications of its nuclear program — during the post-election crisis Arab commentators have,  for the first time, poked a hole in the veneer of the Islamic Republic’s internal political system and explored its underpinnings more closely, often challenging the system’s very legitimacy in on-air commentary.  A number of these commentators have opined that Ahmadinejad has, at least in the near term, lost standing among some moderate Arabs, who have come to view Ahmadinejad’s administration as oppressive, unpopular, and undemocratic, much as they criticize many Arab governments.  However, all of the Arab media figures we spoke to emphasized that Arab criticism of Ahmadinejad has not necessarily led to increased support for U.S. policy in the region.  On the contrary, closer analysis suggests that Ahmadinejad’s eroding popularity in the Arab world has created a scenario in which any U.S. effort to engage the current Iranian government will be perceived by a wide spectrum of Arabs as accommodation with Ahmadinejad.”

So the question that begs to be answered is: What Arab media and commentators “poked holes” in the veneer of the Islamic Republic’s internal political system and explored its underpinnings more closely, often challenging the system’s very legitimacy in on-air commentary”?  Could they mean the media and commentators who work in countries that are controlled by anti-democratic regimes the U.S. supports?  Or, could they mean the media that supports the voice of the people in the “Arab streets” like Al Jazeera which, after exposing war crimes by the U.S. and providing media coverage of the illegality of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ended up with tank fire slaughtering its news staff after the hotel’s coordinates had been supplied to the U.S. military to provide the same information to prevent the massacre of journalists that the U.S. used to massacre these reporters?  We are taking about a high-rise building that had the exact room on the exact floor blasted by tank fire. 

Americans need to understand what all Arabs in the Middle East already know, and that is that anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East supported by the U.S. are nothing more than echo chambers for whatever nonsense the Hillary needs to have bounce off a stone wall before reaching the ears of the U.S. media and then American ears. 

Yes, regimes feel Iran is a threat to them, but recent polling shows the “Arab street” believes 90% of the threat they face is from Israel and the U.S. while Iran represents only a 10% threat to them.  So, while Hillary begins her whirlwind tour using this talking point for which she is now trying to turn the lemons of the Wikileaks State Department cable leaks into lemonade, foreign governments might not be too eager to buy any of it, especially if it involves credit card purchases.

While Iran has not started a war with any country in many hundreds of years, Americans should research the number of foreign interventions by the U.S. government since 1850.  What they will find will surprise them. 

Richardson has proven adept at hedging his bets, as any good diplomat would do.  On one hand he writes that the Arabs question Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy and notes the growing internal opposition to Ahmadinjad, while at the same time providing “intelligence” that Ahmadinjad controls much more in Iran than what the U.S. intelligence community has previously acknowledged when he writes:

“Ahmadinejad is resented by many Iranians for domestic mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption.  Because of this public fall from grace, so the media consultant told us, Ahmadinejad is no longer the “untouchable, holy figure” in the Arab world he once was — his flaws have brought him down to the level of the Arab world’s own imperfect leaders. An Al-Arabiya executive, speaking at a recent conference, said that the election aftermath had destroyed the image many Arabs had of the Islamic Revolution, and Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy as a leader was now open to question. [NOTE: The media consultant ttributed Iran’s perceived “victories” over the U.S. and the West to Ahmadinejad, as opposed to Supreme Leader Khamenei.  While conventional wisdom in the West is that Khamenei has the final say over Iran’s most vital interests, including the nuclear program, the consultant’s comments suggest that the Arab street views Ahmadinejad as much more influential in the Islamic Republic’s decision-making system.”

For years everyone has known, and it was conventional wisdom in the intelligence community, that  Ahmadjinejad was a figurehead and politician.  It was explicitly understood that the real power rested in the hands of Ayatollah Khamenei who actually controls Iran’s military and nuclear energy program.  But, suddenly it seems in the U.S.’s interest to construct Ahmadinejad as an all-powerful maniacal megalomaniac so as to create the bogeyman the U.S. needs to continue funding CIA directed terrorist attacks on Iran through the use of the MEK and Jundullah.  Moreover, the U.N. Security Council has worked hand-in-hand with U.S. intelligence to kidnap and assassinate Iranian scientists.  This issue of murdering scientists is an issue coming to a logger’s head for Iran, but I digress.  The cable shows the U.S. interest in creating a perception counter to the U.S. intelligence community’s assessments by touting the “Arab streets” belief that Ahmadinejad has much more power within Iran.  I am sure the real intelligence experts know this to be a “fixing of intelligence around policy” by the State Department.  Career diplomats know what their bosses want to hear, and I am sure Richardson, when he was not writing cables, spent the rest of his time looking for credit card numbers and DNA samples for Hillary. 

Richardson’s cable goes on to support Ron Paul’s position that the U.S. “played it right” when it did not become heavily involved in the Iranian election controversy.  I guess Ron Paul is having an influence  on U.S. policy when another one of Richardson’s cables states:

“All of the Arab commentators and news media figures we spoke to agreed that the U.S. ‘played it right’ throughout the post-election crisis by staying away from detailed public comments that could be perceived as interventionist.  However, the Arab commentators were quick to distinguish between criticism of Ahmadinejad in the Arab street and support for U.S. policies.  The Syrian media consultant said that the heated debates before the election, in which the three challengers — Mousavi, Karroubi, and Reza’i — publicly criticized Ahmadinejad for corruption and economic mismanagement, made it clear to Arabs that this election was about Iran, not the U.S.  This distinction, coupled with the U.S.’ restraint in commenting on the election, provided an unprecedented window for Arab commentators to criticize Ahmadinejad without appearing to side with the Americans.”

Richardson’s cables then goes on to state:

“Ahmadinejad’s fall from grace notwithstanding, most of the Arab media commentators with whom we spoke agreed that Arab governments have a limited ability to capitalize on Ahmadinejad’s missteps because of the skeletons in their own closets.   Al-Arabiya’s former Tehran bureau chief observed that Arab regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, who no doubt would like to exploit Ahmadinejad’s current vulnerabilities, have remained noticeably silent.  In his view, they realize that any statement condemning Tehran’s crackdown on peaceful dissidents would appear untenably hypocritical in the eyes of their own citizens.  He considers this public silence yet another “missed opportunity” for Arab leaders to take a stand to counter Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and further detract from his popularity with the Arab street.”

So, what exactly are the “skeletons” in closets of “Arab government” that prevents them from capitalizing on Ahmadinejad’s “missteps” and “vulnerabilities” caused by his repression of “peaceful dissidents” that would cause Middle East governments friendly to the U.S. to “appear untenably hypocritical in the eyes of their own citizens”? 

Furthermore, why would the U.S., who supposedly supports Middle East democracy, want “Arab leaders to take a stand to counter Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric and further detract from his popularity with the Arab street”? But, why would the U.S. want to subvert democratic tendencies? Considering how Americans have no problem accepting the “untenable hypocrisy” created by our government in the eyes of our citizenry that would ever prevent them from denouncing a Middle East government for jaywalking while the U.S. government runs down nuns, children and puppies during its drunk driving drag race, the skeletons hiding in these “Arab leaders” “closets” must make the Iraqi mass graves created by Shiite militias look like Central Park in comparison.

Another Richardson cable exposes the real reason why the U.S. needs to hype the Iranian nuclear energy program into a weapons program, and that is the growing Iranian influence the U.S. aided through its misguided war with Iraq that ended up installing Iranian proxies that had been long fostered in Iran during Saddam’s rule. In this cable he states:

“Examples of this played out during two separate appearances by the Dubai Regional Media Hub Acting Director on live panel discussions on Abu Dhabi TV and Lebanese New TV regarding regional issues, including events in Iran.  Whereas fellow Arab panelist resolutely disagreed with her comments in support of U.S. policy in the region, in particular the peace process, they felt free to openly criticize Ahmadinejad’s government, which they refrained from doing in the past, for its internal crackdown and regional ambitions.  One Saudi commentator contrasted Turkish regional mediation, which he described as a positive force in the region, with Iranian regional intervention, which he called pernicious and destabilizing.  A Lebanese commentator noted the irony of Iran accusing outsiders of interfering in its internal affairs when there is not “one corner of the Arab world” where Iran does not intervene behind the scenes.”

This cable is very revealing in that one would have to look hard to find any Lebanese citizen complaining about Iranian intervention when it was the Iranian-funded Hezbollah that evicted Syrian influence from Lebanon using Hezbollah, a militia that is internal to Lebanon and has proven to not cater to Tehran’s influnce..  Moreover, I don’t think Syria had any intention of standing between the Lebanese civilian populous and the IDF during the 2006 invasion.  Without Hezbollah, Israel would be invading Lebanon before every election.  Go ahead and ask any Lebanese citizen which they prefer between Syria and Hezbollah.  Everyone in the Middle East knows the answer to that question.  It was Syrian weakness against Israel  and Hezbollah proving itself as an effective fight force that led to the strengthening of Hezbollah.  This cable is very enlightening as the U.S.’s ability to delude itself when viewed in the context of a recent Noam Chomsky speech in which an Israeli journalist stated that the U.N. had supported the disbanding of Hezbollah.  But, Chomsky stated this was a decision to be made by the people of Lebanon, that they were under no greater obligation to follow U.N. resolutions than Israel.  He also mentioned that Hezbollah was under no obligation at all to follow U.N. resolutions as the U.N. establishes laws between nations and Hezbollah is not a country.

But, one can see in the aforementioned cable that the U.S. is concerned with Iranian influence, which has increased exponentially since the U.S. invaded Iraq –as critics of the Iraq War predicted it would.  Iran is a much greater regional power than the U.S. wants Americans to understand.  This is because the Israelis and neocons, or do I repeat myself, are willing to have Israel fight Iran all the way down to the last American dollar and soldier.

The above cable also mentions favorably “Turkish mediation” in the region.  Yet, we dump on Turkey when it worked to resolve the Iranian nuclear fuel swap impasse and then follow that injustice with the injury of providing diplomatic cover for the Israelis slaughtering Turkish peace activists providing humanitarian aid while they attempted to mediate the disaster caused by Israeli strangulation of the Palestinians.  The U.S. media has been all but silent about the fact that a 19 year-old American peace activist was shot while face down in the back of the head. 

Finally, Richardson basically says in his cable that the “Arab street” which is “notoriously emotional” could be used to shout down Ahmadinejad except for one thing –Israel.  The fact is that no leader in the Arab world has recently stood up to the U.S. and Israel with the courage, determination and intelligence of Iran.  This fact is exposed in this Richardson cable:

              “As Al-Arabiya’s Tehran bureau chief noted, while Ahmadinejad’s image may have taken a hit in the Arab street as a result of the government’s handling of domestic dissent, the damage is not necessarily permanent.  In his view, the Arab street is notoriously emotional and “could easily be turned to support Ahmadinejad once again” with some trumped up slogans and public bravado.  The bureau chief believed that, in the perceived leadership void left by Arab leaders on regional issues, Ahmadinejad could rally public opinion by capitalizing on any number of sensitive issues for the Arab street, most prominent among them Israel, at upcoming international fora. The Syrian media consultant, too, cautioned the U.S. not to overestimate any erosion in Ahmadinejad’s popularity with Arabs. In his opinion, Ahmadinejad has only lost standing with a segment of moderates in the Arab street; he believes that most Arabs are so polarized, either for or against Ahmadinejad, that the allegations of voter fraud and the violent post-election crackdown on protesters will not permanently sway their positions one way or the other.”    

Again, the cable does not provide any information regarding the “sensitive issues” upon which Ahmadinejad could “rally public opinion by capitalizing on any number of sensitive issues” except that it mentions the “most prominent among them” being “Israel”.   As all this “intelligence” comes from a “Syrian media consultant”, I guess the fact that Iranian-supported Hezbollah having undermined Syrian influence would not influence the opinion of this “Syrian media consultant”.     

The stupidity of American diplomats under Hillary’s leadership is a national disgrace.  One merely wonders how much longer it will be before all the information the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA has collected on Americans finds its way to Wikileaks. 

These Wikileaks revelations show our government to be the laughingstock of the world.  It is amusing that the premier security state on the planet, with outlays of hundreds of billions of dollars, could not stop this incident.  I wonder how long will it be before we create the Department of Security for Information? 

I am just an average Joe who knows little, but it does not take a genius to realize that the U.S. government is out of control and driving our republic off a cliff under the stewardship of people like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Palin, Obama, Clinton and a cast of lesser like Leiberman and  Huckaby.  When will the insanity end?

Joseph Zrnchik