Tuesday, August 27, 2013

The Moment the US Ended Iran’s Brief Experiment in Democracy | The Nation

The Moment the US Ended Iran’s Brief Experiment in Democracy | The Nation:

The Moment the US Ended Iran’s Brief Experiment in Democracy

  • Decrease text sizeIncrease text size

President Truman and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons/National Archives)

This story originally appeared at Truthdig. Robert Scheer is the author of The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street (Nation Books).

Sixty years ago this week, on August 19, 1953, the United States, in collaboration with Britain, successfully staged a coup in Iran to overthrow democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh that a newly declassified CIA document reveals was designed to preserve the control of Western companies over Iran’s rich oil fields.

About the Author

Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer, a contributing editor to The Nation, is editor of Truthdig.com and author of The Great American Stickup...

Also by the Author

When Obama announced a review of surveillance practices, he was compelled by Snowden’s heroic actions.
August 6 marks sixty-eight years since the United States committed what is arguably the single gravest act of terrorism that the world has ever known.
The US government at the time of the coup easily had manipulated Western media into denigrating Mossadegh as intemperate, unstable and an otherwise unreliable ally in the Cold War, but the real motivation for hijacking Iran’s history was Mossadegh’s move to nationalize Western-controlled oil assets in Iran. According to the document, part of an internal CIA report:
The target of this policy of desperation, Mohammad Mosadeq, [sic] was neither a madman nor an emotional bundle of senility as he was so often pictured in the foreign press; however, he had become so committed to the ideals of nationalism that he did things that could not have conceivably helped his people even in the best and most altruistic of worlds. In refusing to bargain—except on his own uncompromising terms—with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, he was in fact defying the professional politicians of the British government. These leaders believed, with good reason, that cheap oil for Britain and high profits for the company were vital to their national interests.
There you have it, the smoking-gun declaration of the true intent to preserve high profits and cheap oil that cuts through all of the official propaganda justifying not only this sorry attempt to prevent Iranian nationalists from gaining control over their prized resources but subsequent blood-for-oil adventures in Iraq and Kuwait. The assumption is that “the best and most altruistic of worlds” is one that accommodates the demands of rapacious capitalism as represented by Western oil companies.
Tragically, the coup that overthrew Mossadegh also crushed Iran’s brief experiment in democracy and ushered in six decades of brutal dictatorship followed by religious oppression and regional instability. If Iran is a problem, as the United States persistently and loudly insists, it is a problem of our making. Mossadegh, who earned a doctorate in law from Neuchatel University in Switzerland, was not an enemy of the American people; he was an Iranian nationalist who as the CIA’s own internal report concedes was preoccupied with the well-being of his people as opposed to the profitability of Western oil interests.
The CIA report derides the Western media’s acceptance at the time of the coup of the demonization of all actors on the world stage that fail to follow the approved script provided by the US government. As the report notes, the “complete secrecy about the operation,” breached only by leaked information, made it “relatively easy for journalists to reconstruct the coup in varied but generally inaccurate accounts.”
Without conceding responsibility for misleading the media, the report says, “The point that the majority of these accounts miss is a key one: the military coup that overthrew Mosadeq [sic] and his National Front cabinet was carried out under CIA direction as an act of US foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government. It was not an aggressively simplistic solution, clandestinely arrived at, but was instead an official admission that normal, rational methods of international communication and commerce had failed. TPAJAX (the operation’s codename) was entered into as a last resort.”
Parts of the formerly top secret report, an internal CIA study from the 1970s titled “The Battle for Iran,” which detailed the CIA-directed plot, have been revealed previously. But the section disclosed Monday in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the National Security Archive is, as the archive’s research director Malcolm Byrne writes in Foreign Policymagazine, the first time the CIA admits to “using propaganda to undermine Mossadegh politically, inducing the shah to cooperate, bribing members of parliament, organizing the security forces, and ginning up public demonstrations.”
All of these actions were described in great detail by veteran CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt in a lengthy interview with me for the Los Angeles Times in 1979. Roosevelt is confirmed in the newly released documents as having the leading role in planning and executing the coup. In the interview, Roosevelt revealed his part for the first time, but instead of celebrating the success of the venture, he cautioned that it had set a terrible example.
As I summarized the conversation in the story that appeared on March 29, 1979: “Roosevelt said that the success of the operation in Iran—called Project AJAX by the CIA—so inspired then–Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that Dulles wanted to duplicate it in the Congo, Guatemala, Indonesia and Egypt, where he wanted to overthrow President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Roosevelt said that he resisted these efforts and finally resigned from the CIA because of them.”
Roosevelt, as he recounted in his memoir published five months after our interview, came away from the coup he engineered with serious concerns about the efficacy of such ventures. But unfortunately it became the model in Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua and other countries, where the full official record is apparently judged still too embarrassing for our government to declassify.
Washington’s Iran policy is still a disaster.

'via Blog this'

Daily Kos: The Donald sued for $40 million over 'Trump University' scam

Daily Kos: The Donald sued for $40 million over 'Trump University' scam:
Donald Trump arrives for the premiere of the film "Tower Heist" in New York October 24, 2011.   REUTERS/Lucas Jackson (UNITED STATES - Tags: ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS)
In most cases, for-profit education is a big enough scam to begin with. Add Donald Trump to the equation and have the "education" in question be a series of seminars on how to get rich in real estate and you get the kind of scam that has now led New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to sue Trump for $40 million over his "Trump University":
State Education Department officials had told Trump to change the name of his enterprise years ago, saying it lacked a license and didn't meet the legal definitions of a university. In 2011 it was renamed the Trump Entrepreneur Institute, but it has been dogged since by complaints from consumers and a few isolated civil lawsuits claiming it didn't fulfill its advertised claims. [...]
Scheiderman said the three-day seminars didn't, as promised, teach consumers everything they needed to know about real estate. The Trump University manual tells instructors not to let consumers "think three days will be enough to make them successful," Schneiderman said.
At the seminars, consumers were told about "Trump Elite" mentorships that cost $10,000 to $35,000. Students were promised individual instruction until they made their first deal. Schneiderman said participants were urged to extend the limit on their credit cards forreal estate deals, but then used the credit to pay for the Trump Elite programs. The attorney general said the program also failed to promptly cancel memberships as promised.
But hey, those thousands of dollars did buy students the opportunity to have their pictures taken with a life-size picture of Trump. Seriously, the guy couldn't even be bothered to come have his picture taken in real life with the people he was scamming out of thousands, or even tens of thousands, of dollars they surely couldn't afford, and doesn't that just convey the depth of contempt he felt for his marks.
If these poor people thought Donald Trump had anything to teach them about starting at the bottom and getting rich, they needed to start off with a critical thinking class. What Donald Trump has to teach is how, if you happen to inherit from a real estate developer father with hundreds of millions of dollars, you can, through relentless self-promotion (and a series of corporate bankruptcies), increase your inheritance by an amount that remains unknown because no one can seriously believe your own claims about your wealth.
Here's hoping Schneiderman nails him to the wall.
'via Blog this'

Sunday, August 25, 2013

It's no longer 'Sarah Palin's Alaska' | Daniel Kenealy | Comment is free | theguardian.com

It's no longer 'Sarah Palin's Alaska' | Daniel Kenealy | Comment is free | theguardian.com:

It's no longer 'Sarah Palin's Alaska'

Contrary to the Palin stereotypes, Alaskan politics is now a model of bipartisanship
'Drill baby drill!' Help us unravel the Sarah Palin emails using our crowdsourcing tools
Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. Photograph: KPA/Zuma/Rex Features
In 2008 John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, flirted with selecting Joe Lieberman, an independent, who had been on the Democratic presidential ticket in 2000, as his running mate. Disconcerted by the reaction of his own base he gambled on Sarah Palin instead. The rest is history. Palin, whose transformation from disastrous vice-presidential candidate to the best actress in US politics continues to baffle and amaze in equal measure, may be Alaska's most famous political export.
But all that could change in 2014. For what McCain was almost courageous enough to do might actually happen in Alaska. A former Republican mayor of Valdez (Bill Walker) and an incumbent Democratic state senator (Bill Wielechowski) are considering joining forces to run for Governor and Lt Governor, respectively. Their mission: to defeat incumbent Governor Sean Parnell, who ascended to the governor's mansion following Palin's memorable, ahem, resignation in 2009 (to be fair, he was elected in his own right in November 2010).
While Parnell might not look that vulnerable on paper. there is a sense that the state is reaching a moment – not unlike the US as a whole – where a set of mounting public policy challenges need to be addressed. For the first time in years Alaska posted a deficit. And that is likely to be repeated next year. One of the reasons why the fiscal position has deteriorated is the passage of SB 21; a bill that gave tax breaks to oil and gas companies. Supporters of the bill, including Governor Parnell who championed it with vigour, claimed it would trigger economic growth through increased production. Opponents see it as no more than a giveaway of Alaska's natural resources and have successfully campaigned to have a vote on whether to repeal SB 21 placed on the primary ballot next August.
The state is also wrestling with such "wicked" problems as rural poverty,domestic violence, and drug abuse. And a natural gas pipeline, long a talking point, is nowhere close to being developed. A dynamic partnership between a Republican and a Democrat who happen to see eye-to-eye on many of these most pressing public policy challenges could be the silver bullet required to make progress.
It's an interesting testing ground for politics elsewhere in the US. The potential coalition of Alaskan voters that a Walker-Wielechowski ticket would target comprises independents, progressives, and moderates from both major parties. Moderate Democrats may find a bipartisan ticket such as this more appealing than the likely futile candidacies of Ethan Berkowitz, Les Gara or Hollis French, one of whom will emerge as the party's nominee. And there are plenty of registered Republicans, as I learned during a recent visit to Alaska, angry enough at Parnell's SB 21 giveaway to give Walker a second look.
Fair enough, this sort of independent, bipartisan politics might play better in a state where more than half of all registered voters are 'Independents'. Alaska, despite the stereotypes that may prevail (stereotypes that Palin does little to dispel), was quick to shun the Tea Party. Joe Miller, the Palin-supported Tea Party candidate, may have won the Republican senate primary in 2010, but he was taken down by a write-in campaign by the moderate Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski. Palin has seen her popularity – in a state that once gave her an over 80% approval rating – tumble so low that in a hypothetical presidential match-up Alaskan voters would be more supportive of Hillary Clinton.
It may be that such pragmatism is the precursor to bipartisanship, in which case Washington DC may be doomed for several electoral cycles to come. Yet that same coalition of voters – moderate Republicans and Democrats, progressives, and independents – exists across the US Indeed this is something that Charles Wheelan identified in a recent, and excellent book, The Centrist Manifesto. What they need are standard-bearers.
Walker-Wielechowski still might not happen. And if it does taking on and defeating an incumbent with Parnell's strengths will not be easy. But, given that it offers a prospect of the sort of bipartisan pragmatism thatUS politics so desperately needs, let us hope that does happen.
With Palin herself hinting at a prospective run for one of Alaska's two US Senate seats, the 2014 election cycle in Alaska could prove to be just as fascinating as anything going on in the lower 48.
'via Blog this'

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Pathetic! Far Right So Powerful Mitch McConnell Can't Even Fire His Trash-Talking Staffer | Alternet

Pathetic! Far Right So Powerful Mitch McConnell Can't Even Fire His Trash-Talking Staffer | Alternet:

Pathetic! Far Right So Powerful Mitch McConnell Can't Even Fire His Trash-Talking Staffer

It’s a metaphor for the control the right has claimed over the GOP since George W. Bush left office.
Generally speaking, it’s a bad idea to trash talk your boss and your company — particularly to someone who might expose your true feelings to the public. It’s a particularly bad idea to trash talk your boss and your company if you work in public relations and your boss is the company.
This is what kids these days call a “pro tip.”
If you trash talk your own candidate for public office and then get caught, you should probably resign. Or at least expect to be let go. It’s like the political equivalent of insubordination. If you somehow manage to keep your job, it says more about your employer than it does about you.
Which brings us to Mitch McConnell and his campaign manager Jesse Benton — a Ron Paul acolyte whom McConnell recruited ahead of his reelection campaign to shore up his weakened credibility with the right.
It was revealed on Thursday that Benton was surreptitiously recorded six months ago admitting what everyone assumed — that he was “sorta holdin’ [his] nose for two years,” to work for a guy whose last major ploy in Kentucky politics was a failed attempt to keep Ron Paul’s son from becoming a senator. It was conceived as a marriage of convenience and political junkies didn’t need Benton’s confession to know that was the case.
But copping to it changes things. There’s a difference between people having a general sense that President Obama had strained relations with military leadership in 2009, and Stan McChrystal emasculating his administration to a Rolling Stone reporter. We know how that story ended.
That Benton still has a job (another top McConnell aide  told the New York Times he’d “absolutely” keep it) and that the campaign is making light of the remark (see the cheesy picture above) is an implicit admission of McConnell’s political weakness.
This isn’t like the time Marco Rubio developed dry mouth during his State of the Union response speech and took an inelegant swig of water on live television. That was easy to co-opt, and it elegantly neutralized the brief embarrassment he might have suffered otherwise. It’s an admission that McConnell would rather have his campaign managed by someone who essentially admitted he doesn’t believe in its mission than replace him with someone more loyal at the risk of further antagonizing conservative voters who don’t trust him but control his fate.
It’s a metaphor for the control the right has claimed over the GOP since George W. Bush left office — a campaign-trail manifestation of the power back-bench Republicans have successfully asserted in both the House and Senate. And it’s a harbinger of what they hope to do when it’s time to pick their presidential candidate three years from now.
'via Blog this'

Monday, August 5, 2013

Why Republicans Want Jobs to Stay Anemic

Why Republicans Want Jobs to Stay Anemic:

Why Republicans Want Jobs to Stay Anemic

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
04 August 13

ob-growth is sputtering. So why, exactly, do regressive Republicans continue to say "no" to every idea for boosting it - even last week's almost absurdly modest proposal by President Obama to combine corporate tax cuts with increased spending on roads and other public works?
It can't be because Republicans don't know what's happening. The data are indisputable. July's job growth of 162,000 jobs was the weakest in four months. The average workweek was the shortest in six months. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has also lowered its estimates of hiring during May and June.
It can't be Republicans really believe further spending cuts will help. They've seen the effects of austerity economics on Europe. They know the study they relied on by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff has been debunked. They're no longer even trying to make the case for austerity.
It could be they just want to continue opposing anything Obama proposes, but that's beginning to seem like a stretch. Republican leaders and aspiring 2016 presidential candidates are warning against being the "party of 'no.'" Public support for the GOP continues to plummet.
The real answer, I think, is they and their patrons want unemployment to remain high and job-growth to sputter. Why? Three reasons:
First, high unemployment keeps wages down. Workers who are worried about losing their jobs settle for whatever they can get - which is why hourly earnings keep dropping. The median wage is now 4 percent lower than it was at the start of the recovery. Low wages help boost corporate profits, thereby keeping the regressives' corporate sponsors happy.
Second, high unemployment fuels the bull market on Wall Street. That's because the Fed is committed to buying long-term bonds as long as unemployment remains high. This keeps bond yields low and pushes investors into equities - which helps boosts executive pay and Wall Street commissions, thereby keeping regressives' financial sponsors happy.
Third, high unemployment keeps most Americans economically fearful and financially insecure. This sets them up to believe regressive lies - that their biggest worry should be that "big government" will tax away the little they have and give it to "undeserving" minorities; that they should support low taxes on corporations and wealthy "job creators;" and that new immigrants threaten their jobs.
It's important for Obama and the Democrats to recognize this cynical strategy for what it is, and help the rest of America to see it.
And to counter with three basic truths:
First, the real job creators are consumers, and if average people don't have jobs or good wages this economy can't have a vigorous recovery.
Second, the rich would do better with a smaller share of a rapidly-growing economy than their current big share of an economy that's hardly moving.
Third, therefore everyone would benefit from higher taxes on the wealthy to finance public investments in roads, bridges, public transit, better schools, affordable higher education, and healthcare - all of which will help the middle class and the poor, and generate more and better jobs.
'via Blog this'

Saturday, August 3, 2013

Sex, Money and Gravitas - NYTimes.com

Sex, Money and Gravitas - NYTimes.com:
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Sex, Money and Gravitas

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS
Can a woman effectively run the Federal Reserve? That shouldn’t even be a question. And Janet Yellen, the vice chairwoman of the Fed’s Board of Governors, isn’t just up to the job; by any objective standard, she’s the best-qualified person in America to take over when Ben Bernanke steps down as chairman.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Opinion Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Yet there are not one but two sexist campaigns under way against Ms. Yellen. One is a whisper campaign whose sexism is implicit, while the other involves raw misogyny. And both campaigns manage to combine sexism with very bad economic analysis.
Let’s start with the more extreme, open campaign. Last week, The New York Sun published an editorial attacking Ms. Yellen titled “The Female Dollar.” The editorial took it for granted that the Fed has been following disastrously inflationary monetary policies for years, even thoughactual inflation is at a 50-year low. And it warned that things would get even worse if the dollar were to become merely “gender-backed.” I am not making this up.
True, The Sun is a marginal publication, with strong gold-bug tendencies, and nobody would pay much attention if the rest of the right had ignored or distanced itself from that editorial. In fact, however, The Wall Street Journalimmediately followed up with its own editorial along the same lines, in the course of which it approvingly quoted The Sun piece, female dollar and all.
The other campaign against Ms. Yellen has been subtler, involving repeated suggestions — almost always off the record — that she lacks the “gravitas” to lead the Fed. What does that mean? Well, suppose we were talking about a man with Ms. Yellen’s credentials: distinguished academic work, leader of the Council of Economic Advisers, six years as president of the San Francisco Fed, a record of working effectively with colleagues at the Board of Governors. Would anyone suggest that a man with those credentials was somehow unqualified for office?
Sorry, but it’s hard to escape the conclusion that gravitas, in this context, mainly means possessing a Y chromosome.
Both anti-Yellen campaigns, then, involve unmistakable sexism, and should be condemned for that reason. As it happens, however, both campaigns have another problem, too: They’re based on bad economic analysis.
In the case of the “female dollar” types, the wrongheadedness of the economics is as raw and obvious as the sexism. The people shouting that the Fed is “debasing the dollar” have been warning of runaway inflation any day now for almost five years, and they have been wrong every step of the way. Worse, they have shown no willingness to admit having been wrong, let alone to revise their views in the face of experience. They are, in short, the last people in the world you should listen to when it comes to monetary policy.
The wrongheadedness of the gravitas crowd, like its sexism, is subtler. But to the extent that having gravitas means something other than being male, it means being what I like to call a Very Serious Person — the kind of person who talks a lot about the need to make tough decisions, which somehow always involves demanding sacrifices on the part of ordinary families while treating the wealthy with kid gloves. And here’s the thing: The Very Serious People have been almost as consistently wrong, although not as spectacularly, as the inflation hysterics.
This has been obviously true in the case of budget policy, where the Serious People hijacked the national conversation, shifting it away from job creation to deficits, on the grounds that we were facing an imminent fiscal crisis — which somehow keeps not coming.
But it has also been true for monetary policy. The Wall Street Journal (news department, not editorial) recently surveyed the forecasting records of top policy makers at the Fed, whom it divided into “hawks” (officials who keep warning that the Fed is doing too much to fight unemployment) and “doves” (who warn that it’s doing too little). It found that the doves made consistently better forecasts, with the best forecaster of all being the most prominent of the doves — Janet Yellen.
The point is that while the gravitas types like to think of themselves as serious men (and I do mean men) who are willing to do what needs to be done, recent history suggests that they’re actually men who are eager to prove their seriousness by doing what doesn’t need to be done, at the public’s expense.
Also, there was a time not along ago when almost everyone in the gravitas crowd, if asked who possessed that mystical quality in its purest form, would surely have answered “Alan Greenspan.” How well did that turn out?
So is Janet Yellen the only possible candidate to be the next leader of the Fed? Of course not. But the case for someone else should be made on the merits — and, so far, that hasn’t been what’s happening.
'via Blog this'