Furthermore, he has contended that "this tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work."
Unfortunately, this so-called paranoid reaction that Western powers are witnessing is not simply a result of "old tensions." Rather, Iran has a history of having its government and its government's interests subverted by Britain and the U.S. One could argue, especially when considering the actions of the Bush Administration from 2000-2008, that the tensions in the past decade have been renewed.
It should be no surprise that Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hassan Qashqavi thinks that U.S. and British media outlets are responsible for the unrest that has followed the Iranian election.
"Voice of America (VOA) and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) are state-funded channels and not privately-run. Their budgets are ratified in the US Congress, as well as the British Parliament. The two channels serve as mouthpieces of their respective governments...
...Any sort of contact with the said channels either through e-mail or telephone runs against national Iranian sovereignty and is considered as an act of enmity towards the Iranian nation. The channels act as command posts engineering the ongoing post-election riots."
Simon Tisdall, in The Hindu, published an opinion article showing that Iran feared foreign plotters were involved.
"...pro-Ahmadinejad Keyhan newspaper on Tuesday denounced plots by "politically bankrupt dictators" to thwart the popular will. "The hopes of the imperialist triangle (America, U.K. and the Zionist regime) for a crawling coup d'etat in the Middle East and revival of the dead Middle East plan have been dashed," it declared."
Javan newspaper was similarly acerbic. "Today democracy slogans have become a lever to provoke, interfere and overthrow," it said. "By announcing results in the presidential elections that did not benefit their favourite candidate ... some foreign media such as BBC Persian [service], al-Arabiya, Fox News, CNN and some French media have started a new wave to create social and political division and cause riots."
In largely cautious responses to Friday's polls, Barack Obama's administration has been careful not to feed the fires of xenophobic resentment. "It's up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be. We respect Iran's sovereignty and want to avoid the U.S. being the issue inside of Iran," Mr. Obama said. But Iranian officials say U.S. protestations of non-interference would be more credible if the White House canceled a $400m Bush era covert programme, authorised in 2007, which they say was intended to destabilise Iran, with the ultimate aim of regime change."
Reports from Iranian state news organizations may be the stuff of paranoia, but is this paranoia really just part of a show the Iranian government would like to put on? Or, is it possible that the U.S. has elements in Iran that are fueling the uprising and subverting the rule of the Iranian regime?
Why would America pour millions into broadcasting Voice of America if it didn't intend to somewhat subvert the Iranian regime?
British and U.S. media have reported on Iran's paranoia but refuse to explore the claim as if it may be credible. However absurd it may seem, even Hooman Majd, author of "The Ayatollah Begs to Differ," implied and suggested on Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann that the Iranian government has reason to be weary and afraid.
The National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) details an Iran Democracy Program (IDP) launched by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in February of 2006. Seventy-five million dollars was appropriated for the program, and Congress agreed to provide $66 million.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
