© IRAN-RESIST.ORG – March 19, 2010 | Two days ago, something amazing happened in Tehran : thousands of people went down to the streets in order to celebrate a ritual that is forbidden by the regime. They danced, they sang together what is forbidden and above all they refused to be instrumented by Mussavi’s Green Movement, this false internal opposition whose leaders sit in the leader decision-maker body of the country. The retraction was so important that the regime needed to change the colour balance of this night’s videos in order to make them green. However, the mullahs are not the only ones to colour anything in green : the Europeans and the Americans have just dedicated entire pages of their press to the Green Movement via long interviews which were made with Shirin Ebadi and Sazgara who claim to be the exiled leaders of the green opposition. | Decoding |

We often forget some simple evidence : the mullahs didn’t come on power by their own means. Khomeini and his team used to be settled in France ! At that time, this country gave visas at regular intervals to new members of the team who arrived from the United States. France also turned a blind eye to their political activities against one of its allies. Its media -Nouvel Obs, Le Monde, L’Express, Tf1…- joined in and lent a hand : everybody wanted to make the Iranian monarchy collapse despite the fact that the French people deny it relentlessly nowadays by claiming that the Shah asked them to look after the ayatollah’s security. The French who promote nowadays the Green Movement forgot to specify that the Shah has stopped being considered as an ally since 1973 when he announced his decision to not renew the despicable oil contract that was imposed to his country in 1954 by the Consortium in which they took part. The French lent the United Kingdom and the United States, major shareholders of the Consortium, a hand in order to overthrow the Iranian monarchy and be sure to obtain their 6% share of the cake, i.e. 360,000 barrels daily.

However through such demolition initiative, the Americans used to pursue another goal : they wanted to bring to power the Iranian Islamists they had financed since 1961, the year of the founding of the OPEC by the Shah. Their favourites were supposed to establish with the mullahs’ help a revolutionary Islamic republic whose mission would be to export the Islamic revolution in the Muslim world, firstly among the OPEC founders and secondly among Central Asia’s Soviet republics. The main point of the operation was : regime change, border change. By splitting of the targeted countries, Washington would cancel every contract and agreement in order to get the upper hand on divided but powerless countries. French people believed that the Shah’s overthrow would make them keep their 6% share of the Iranian production and they didn’t suspect they would loose de facto everything : not only their 6% share of oil production but also every deal they closed with Iran and Iraq as well. They felt less hopeless whenever the mullahs who were more numerous and more organized than Washington’s pets sent the latter packing in order to become Iran’s absolute leaders. Washington appeared dispossessed of the regime it had just created and of the contracts it hoped to get. The French and other Europeans filled the gap in order to grab the best contract. They turned to be against Washington because they were hostile to its pressures against Tehran because any regime change would have meant the end of their contracts. Eventually they managed to get more and more profitable contracts by making money out of their lack of support to Washington. We weren’t then facing the same configuration than in 1979.

Without the Europeans’ support to back it up -such as they did against the Shah, to make it come back by force in this country and to give the power to its pets, Washington finalized a simple concept : a come back via some reconciliation. This is the principle of the Troyes horse. Washington started to sanction Tehran because of its inveterate support to terrorism but in the meantime it offered at regular intervals to end those sanctions. Washington wanted to make the mullahs give in and organize elections that would be opened to any candidate, an occasion for its pawns to take the power again. Faced with such strategy, the mullahs who didn’t feel strong enough to resist in such sanctions invented the “moderates” in order to simulate their own free elections. Washington was trapped and it played the game. Thus the Europeans supported fiercely those false moderates in order to dash Washington’s project of regime change because of the defence of the moderates -a speech which is topical again thanks to the Green people- but actually it was question of avoiding any situation of cancelled contracts.

Such droning status quo changed hastily when in 2003 Washington accused Tehran of the production of massive destruction weapons in order to increase economic pressure and manage to break the Iranian stronghold. The Europeans’ interests appeared then under some threat : the latter met in Troika in order to take action by remaining midway between their commitments toward Washington and the obligation to prevent the latter from submitting the bearded milch cows.

Thanks to the much serious pretext of nuisance to dissuasion balance, Washington went further into sanction implementation but the mullahs who have everything to loose didn’t break their stronghold. Such as it happened on the previous time, as they considered they weren’t able to resist again and that they would be forced to break their stronghold in order to let Washington’s pets come back, they had the weird idea of their own colour revolution under the aegis of the Green Movement by following the outline of the colour revolutions Washington organized under the pretext of electoral fraud. This new scenario was similar to Khatami’s scenario of moderate people. Immediately the Europeans supported it and diffused reports that were favourable to the Green people.

However things didn’t go well because the Iranians have ignored such false revolution which was made by 2 to 3,000 green extras and they took advantage of the slight weakening of the stronghold to come down massively to the streets with slogans that were hostile to the regime. On this occasion, we noticed some failure among militia people : the youngest bassiji didn’t accept to participate in such repression and the regime appeared quite isolated. Thus a new scenario of regime change that would imply some contract cancellation started to be implemented. In order to make the opinion turn against this uprising, the Europeans stopped to tell about demonstrations in Iran despite they gathered daily around one million people in several cities. French media mentioned again those demonstrations only after the end of the uprising against the regime and some laudatory articles were written about the Green Movement’s leaders in order to give them a legitimacy and avoid any possibility of a regime change that would be susceptible to cancel their contracts.

Strangely, we noticed some similar attitude among Americans : i.e. no reaction during the uprising and then lots of noise in favour of the Green Movement but not in favour of its leaders. In a first article, we saw into such half-legitimating the proof of the vigilance of Obama administration to not let itself trapped by interfering with such game and accusing the mullahs of fraud in order to force them to organize elections under international supervision, an occasion for its pawns to take the power. But on the basis of the discover of American articles that dealt with this issue of electoral fraud on the beginning of 2010 and the discovery of the existence of a project of -American- green revolution in the Caucasus in 2005, we assess that the idea of the Green Movement was most probably an American project which Washington sent to the Mullahs in order to commit them into a process they wouldn’t control. According to our analysis, the friend who gave such a good advice to Tehran may be Washington’s 1979 former pet who dropped his clan in 1980 so to serve the mullahs and who would have come back to his initial commitment in order to serve American interests. That’s the reason why Obama remained silent : he was well informed. He said nothing in order to trigger the irreversible process : he wanted to take longer time in order to push the mullahs to go even further. Both parties started then a sterile game in order to trap each other. Thus we could notice there were American encouragements to the Green Movement but it cannot be mixed up with the European encouragements to the same movement : one wishes a regime change while the other wants to maintain it.

This week, those both opposed trends happened to join together the day after the Fire Day because the Iranians came down again to the streets against the power’s prerogative but they didn’t display any sign of rally to the Green Movement, i.e. in a logic of regime change. Moreover, according to the information we received yesterday, the bassiji would not have followed the orders by not dispersing party people and they would have even participated in those prohibited festivities. This reinforces the hypothesis of the regime’s fragility and this raises the issue of a risk of fatal uprising.

Following some Pavlov reflex, the Europeans and the Americans fled immediately their media with reports about the Green Movement’s popularity in order to make their citizens unable to imagine that the Iranians mostly wish for a regime change. This is quite depressing for Iranians.

However if the Europeans and the Americans reacted simultaneously, we would like to remind that the first ones reacted so to save their contracts and the second ones wanted to impose the transition of power towards their own Islamist pawns. That’s why the Europeans gave the priority to Ebadi who supports Tehran and the Americans favoured their pet Sazgara.

Right now, we have those both persons who take themselves seriously and claim the leadership of an Islamist false movement which was created in Washington, adopted by the mullahs and whose sole supporters are remunerated. We give them 5 minutes to survive into a crowd of Iranians which is hostile to any Islamist regime. Considering such point of view, this is not depressing, this is crazy : Europeans and Americans deny what is obvious. We are heading to an explosion which won’t be green but blood red.

The french version of this article :
- Iran : Dans les coulisses des 2 Mouvements Verts
- (19 mars 2010)

All our articles in English...

Additional article :
- The Anglo-American Oil Controversy in Iran 1919-1924
- (source : Fravahr)

| Mots Clefs | Réformateurs & faux dissidents : Le Mouvement Vert |
| Mots Clefs | Réformateurs & dissidents : Shirin Ebadi |
| Mots Clefs | Resistance : FAUSSE(s) OPPOSITION(s) |

| Mots Clefs | Histoire : Révolution Islamique |

| Mots Clefs | Décideurs : OBAMA |
| Mots Clefs | Pays : France |
| Mots Clefs | Pays : Grande-Bretagne |