Part of the reason Eric Blehm and I agreed we’d run Eric’s Iran snowboarding piece from 2000 was that some of the interest in it would be historical; “politics” have now made a similar sporting excursion by an average American – me, say -- difficult if not impossible. As I say, it seemed interesting to combine snowboarding and world affairs in a symmetrical, inarguable, and possibly aggravating way. Let’s see if I can pull it off…

So here’s the question I will address in this commentary: Why can’t I go snowboarding in Iran? What circumstances are responsible for this constriction upon my freedom?

I’ll not parse Eric’s finely wrought article for examples of world affairs references, except to reproduce his list of U.S. “mistakes” (his word) regarding Iran:

…the shooting down of an Iranian commercial airliner full of innocent families, the seemingly fickle nature of my government’s support for Iraq, then against Iraq a few years later. Complex politics with interests beyond me. Beyond Tehran.

These “complex politics” are not beyond my interests here, since we are trying to figure out why I can’t go snowboarding in Iran.

Let’s leave the civilian airliner shoot-down alone (as a reason I can’t go snowboarding in Iran), assume it was an accident (and that the Iranians don’t blame me personally).

But how about Eric’s reference to U.S. support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s? The reason this reference resonates now – post the 2000 of Eric’s piece and therefore germane to his epilog -- is that the Cheney/Bush regime is currently accusing Iran of aiding and abetting the Iraq and Afghanistan “insurgencies” – an accusation that is part of the reason I cannot enjoy a snowboard adventure in Iran. Let’s bend as far over backwards as the HUYA guy and assume that Cheney/Bush aren’t merely voicing another untruth (as opposed to lying).

Let’s assume that Iran is aiding the insurgencies. Okay. Are there historical precedents for this sort of meddling in that part of the world?

Here’s the tip of that iceberg: Since the early 1980s and right up to the first war with Iraq a decade later, U.S. corporations made big bucks selling to Iraq poison gas components to drop on and kill Iranians (plus anthrax spores and other goodies), plus the helicopters with which to drop the poison gas. Plus, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies supplied the satellite surveillance that indicated where and when to drop the poison gas from U.S. helicopters, in order to kill a maximum number of Iranians.

From an essay by Tim Wheeler:

Even a right-wing author like Kenneth Timmerman had to acknowledge the U.S. role and corporate profit motive in arming Iraq. In his book, Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Timmerman charges that the U.S., Britain, France and West Germany joined in an orgy of weapons and high technology sales to Iraq which he called “the biggest arms bazaar in world history.”

In July of 1986, Reagan’s National Security Advisor Admiral John Poindexter issued a National Security Decision Directive ordering the Commerce Department to “be more forthcoming on Iraqi license requests” for the delivery of U.S. technology to Hussein.

The Reagan-Bush administration was worried “about being placed in a position where it would have to admit that it had tacitly condoned the creation of an Iraqi chemical weapons manufacturing capability,” Timmerman continues. “A careful analysis of export licenses awarded U.S. companies selling high tech goods to Iraq would show the Department of Commerce, the State Department and the Pentagon knew exactly what the Iraqis were up to and decided to let them steam ahead.”

Did you know any of this? If not, why not? Here’s why not: The media enablers did not see fit to mention it. Here’s an interesting summation of U.S. diplomatic and economic relations with Iraq (external link).

Pay just a little attention while reading the above document and you will realize that the invasion of Iraq never had anything whatsoever (that word again!) to do with WMD (since we were supplying Iraq the WMD components), democracy, terrorism, the defiance of UN resolutions, or anything else Cheney/Bush/the media has told you.

By the way: The number of UN resolutions defied by Iraq: 16.

The number of UN resolutions defied by Israel: 68. (Most of which were more serious than any of Iraq's defiances.)

Here are some other facts about UN resolutions. (Use Back button to return here)

At some point – the sooner the better – you should have an epiphany, if only a creeping one: The shitball motherfuckers don’t just lie about some things, or a lot of things, or most things. If you count whoppers by omission and by context (as part of a larger whopper), they lie about everything.

Everything?

Yes.

President Bush and his advisors explain the Troop Surge...

But back to meddling, and why I can’t go snowboarding in Iran. I’ve mentioned this one elsewhere, so I’ll be brief: In 1953, the CIA overthrew the democratically elected, secular government of Iran (which was friendly to the U.S.), at the behest of an oil company. (If you read Steven Kinzer’s All the Shah’s Men you’ll see that not only am I not lying by omission – leaving out mitigating circumstances -- but it’s actually much worse than my brevity implies.)

The CIA then installed the Shah as U.S. puppet -- as monstrous a motherfucker as any of them over there. Arguably, worse than the slimeballs running the shit hole now. Don’t have time right now to read the book? Okay, then listen to Kinzer (external link) talk about his other book, Overthrow; America’s Century of Regime Change From Hawaii to Iraq. His talk is over an hour so maybe bookmark and go back to it later. The Iran part of his talk starts at 40:05 minutes in; slide the button to the right. (I’ve read the book and highly recommend it, along with All the Shah’s Men. Also illuminating is his Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala – another CIA violent overthrow of a democratically elected government, this time for a fruit company (United Fruit). And then there was Chile, when the CIA, at the behest of Pepsi, ITT, and Chase Manhattan, overthrew the democratically elected government of Chile… Are you starting to get the idea about spreading democracy?)

Twenty-five years of repression, torture, and slaughter by the Shah was about all the Iranians could take, so they had their revolution. Unfortunately, the only people who could get the masses stirred up were religious fanatics. And so it went.

First we overthrow their government, install a monstrous dictator who tortures and slaughters them in droves, then we collude in the dropping of poison gas on them (by providing the gas, the helicopters, and the sat imagery to do it right.) You want to talk about meddling? (We’ll again leave out the shoot-down of an airliner packed with civilians). A reminder: America, however you define it, has nothing to do with this shit. It’s a crew of lying, murderous bastards who are responsible, along with the media, who lie for them.

The poison gas components: A lot of U.S. corporate dollars were made here.

But let’s meddle some more. Let’s make up another WMD story -- claim Iran is looking to get its hands on The Bomb so it can drop it on everyone (Israel, Europe, the U.S.; I think only Tonga is not on Bush/Cheney/the media’s list of Iranian targets), buttressing the bullshit by lying about what the president of the shit hole wrote in a letter to Cheney/Bush. Then let’s accuse them of aiding the insurgents in Iraq, attack the motherfuckers, blow them up, kill as many of them as we can, then have no plan whatsoever (that word again!) of what to do next. Let’s just keep doing this!

Al-Maliki and Ahmadinejad

By the way: If Iran is aiding the insurgents, why did Iranian prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meet with al-Maliki, his opposite number in Iraq, with Al-Maliki thanking Ahmadinejad, describing Iran’s role in building a stable Iraq as “positive and constructive.” Al-Maliki is inarguably the U.S. puppet – still another one who won’t behave, i.e., back up the lies. The consensus among conservatives and liberals alike is that we should think about “getting rid” of the “democratically elected” al-Maliki. In other words, let’s spread some more democracy!

The deeper you look, the more obvious it is that these claims are just more of the same. More lies. You will of course not hear a whisper of any of this in the media – they’ve even ceased their half-hearted (or nonexistent) mea culpas for aiding and abetting the lies that led to the Iraq invasion; like that never happened.

Regarding history rewrites:

Those who don’t learn from history used to have to relive it, but only until those in power could find a way to convince everybody, including themselves, that history never happened, or happened in a way best serving their own purposes – or best of all that it doesn’t matter anyway, except as some dumbed-down TV documentary cobbled together for an hour’s entertainment.
--Thomas Pynchon

By the way: If you’re wondering how Cheney/Bush and Co. persuade the media to rewrite history, here’s an actual tape recording of Condoleezza Rice's last meeting with the executives at FOX News.

But the result of all this being that I can’t go snowboarding in Iran.

Hold on. This is getting tiresome again. We need more perspective. This footage isn’t from Iran but let’s pretend it is, and, further, assume that I now can’t do this. Watch the video…

...Back? Now that we have some perspective, I’m going to chastise my friend Eric Blehm for not paying sufficient attention to what’s really going on, for which I apologize in advance -- he’s getting paid squat for his snowboarding article.

Eric writes in his epilog:

These individuals (Iranians) I heard from, college age or slightly older, affirmed how they supported our country’s actions (the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) because they agreed with the message it sent to the international community -- in particular, to tyrants and dictators -- and to their own government, which denied its citizens many basic liberties and freedoms that, one youth reminded me, “you take for granted there in America.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but what either Eric or his Iranian friends are saying is that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had something to do with rights we “take for granted in America.” He’s saying that the invasions sent “a message” that has to do with human rights. This is what I get from the above paragraph.

Eric immediately goes on to write about the bad treatment of women in Iran, which indicates that in someone’s opinion (his or his Iranian friends), the invasions were more specifically related to women’s rights.

When we think of women’s rights and abuses thereof in the Middle East, who comes to mind?

The Taliban, for one.

Our ally’s treatment of a woman who forgot to wear her veil in public.

The Taliban was created and nurtured by the CIA, with a lot of help from Pakistan (the ISI, their intelligence service/shadow government, which, by the way, was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks). In fact, the Taliban was courted by U.S. corporations (the oil/gas pipeline) right into the summer of 2001 (by Cheney/Bush Big Oil cohorts).

How about Saudi Arabia?

Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women is arguably the worst of any regime on planet Earth. Makes Iran’s attitude look like the mission statement of a Greenwich Village dyke bar.

Yet not only have we not attacked Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses and treatment of women, we haven’t even attacked them for financing 9/11. We don’t even complain about their treatment of women (or for financing 9/11). A question for Eric: What kind of message does this send to the international community?

Eric’s epilog sure makes it sound iffy in Iran, especially for women. On the other hand…

Saudi money in action

An Iranian woman writes:

The westernized lifestyles that were available to some Iranian women were lost with the Islamic Revolution of 1979. But even the most radical clerics realized that Iran's culture would not stand the strictures imposed in such countries as Saudi Arabia. (Emphasis added) As Nikki R Keddie has observed: "More than many women in the Islamic world, Iranian women occupy public spaces. Even as wives and mothers, they work, vote, drive, shop and hold professional positions as doctors, lawyers, corporate executives and deputies in Parliament."

Read the whole article here (external link).

Scott Ritter on Iran as an “Islamic fascist state” (Bush’s favorite characterization of Iran, reinforced by Eric’s epilog):

What an eye-opening experience to be on your own in a nation that has been called an Islamic fascist state. I have been to dictatorships in the Middle East. I have been to nations that have a high security profile. Iran is not one of these nations. I’m a former intelligence officer who has stated some pretty strong positions on Iran, and yet I had full freedom of movement in Iran with no interference whatsoever. And as a result, although I didn’t have the approved agenda, I had my own agenda, which allowed me to interview senior government officials, senior military officials, senior intelligence officials, and to visit sites that were deemed sensitive. The conclusion is that the American media has gotten it wrong on Iran. It’s a very modern, westernized, pro-Western, and surprisingly pro-American country that does not constitute a threat to the United States whatsoever. (Whatsoever!)

By-the-way:

The Economist, May 6 2006, Cover. [The magazine was bought in Iran.] This cover was not censored in Iran, nor were the articles that are extremely critical to the regime. Leaders and op-ed’s that say that the Iranian regime is outright dangerous. Yet, that is not censored. Not one word of it. It’s all there.

Given the above, it’s hard to picture an Iranian getting executed for an email, but – in deference to Eric, who has been there (and fears for his Iranian friends' lives for emailing him) -- what do I know?

Look. I’m not saying it’s a barrel of laughs over there, nor do I like the asshole in charge of the shit hole (the finger-pointer at left). One more time: I just don’t like being lied to, especially by people who are working for me, which Cheney/Bush/the media are. In theory.

Although this is all maybe too FIAB (fish in a barrel), I’m not quite finished. Seymour Hersh on Iran/Cheney/Bush/the media (after agreeing with Scott Ritter’s observation that there is no evidence whatsoever [he too uses this qualifier] of an Iranian nuclear weapons program):

…(the U.S. plan to attack Iran) is being driven, not by an immediate concern over Iran’s nuclear program (Iran is at least 10 years away from being able to build a nuclear weapon), but by the Bush regime’s goal of gaining radically greater control of the Middle East as a crucial step in its overarching agenda of unchallenged and unchallengeable global hegemony. A U.S. stranglehold on the Middle East is inconceivable without firm control of Iran – because of its size, strategic location, regional influence, and because it has the world’s second-largest proven reserves of conventional crude oil and the second-largest reserves of natural gas…

…U.S. military preparations are secretly accelerating. Hersh reports in The New Yorker that “the U.S. Strategic Command…has been drawing up plans, at the President’s direction, for a major bombing campaign in Iran,” including air strikes of “overwhelming force,” possibly against 1,000 targets. According to one think tank study… (the planned military action would lead to) massive destruction of (Iran’s) civilian infrastructure, an assault which could “cripple Iran’s ability to function as a nation.” (Emphasis added)

You can read the whole article (external link) here, make sure I haven’t left out any important stuff, but the point is inarguable: As he did with Iraq, Bush is lying about everything in order to add another oil-rich country to the American Empire, via military force.

But back to Eric’s epilog. Although he puts quotes around it, his use of “Axis of Evil” in his description of the Iranian regime does not appear to be ironic; plus the subtext of his “human rights” (abuses thereof) comments seems to indicate that a U.S. attack upon Iran – to affect regime change – might not be such a bad idea. Eric writes:

Despite our country’s political faults, most of us can speak our minds without fear. Americans can shout “Fuck the president” from the rooftops and sleep soundly in their beds that night. This is not the case in Iran. Does this mean war is justifiable as a necessary evil?

I’m still not sure if this is Eric’s view or that of his Iranian friends, but what someone is saying here is that the looming US attack upon Iran has something to do with “freedom” and is therefore possibly "justifiable."

The HUYA! (Head Up
Your Ass) Syndrome.

HUYA!

Regarding a “justifiable” war on Iran:

…massive destruction of (Iran’s) civilian infrastructure, an assault which could “cripple Iran’s ability to function as a nation.”

Eric’s friends supported the U.S. invasions of two neighboring Muslim countries and it didn’t occur to them that they might be next? And how that might go?

One thousand targets. Whoa! I hope none of Eric’s friends live near any of them. You wanna talk about messages being sent? (If you want to know how dumb those fucking “smart” bombs really are, do some googling.)

Plus: No infrastructure, no electricity. No electricity, no ski lifts.

No snowboarding.

Hold on! Enough! I can’t take it anymore either!

In the end, this commentary is not about my inability to go snowboarding in Iran – duhhh! – nor is it about the coming U.S. attack on Iran, nor is it directly about Cheney/Bush/the media’s lies and crimes committed.

Bear with me a little longer, please. I’ve got to go in through the back door to get to my real point…

From my old newsletter, last year:

A while back a writer named Eric Blehm wrote me, thanking me for some inspiration. Eric said In Search of Captain Zero had helped him get through the writing of his nonfiction book, The Last Season. A really nice email. Made me feel good. Eric sounded smart and literate so I checked out his book -- bought and read it.

It's really good. Here's a quote from a real reviewer (I swiped this off Amazon):

In 1996, after nearly 30 seasons as a park ranger in the Sierra Nevadas, Randy Morgenson set off on a routine patrol and never came back. His body was found in July 2001, almost exactly five years after he disappeared. To this day, the circumstances of his death remain unclear. In this fascinating account, the product of several years' investigation, Blehm explores the many mysteries surrounding Morgenson. Why did the veteran ranger, a man whose knowledge of his territory was virtually encyclopedic, seem suddenly to be disillusioned with his life's work? Was his death an accident, foul play, or suicide? Did his single-minded quest to preserve the wilderness finally seem futile? Despite obvious comparisons to such best-sellers as Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild (1996), Blehm's book stands on its own just fine. A vibrant and ultimately tragic story of a man whose life was full of passion until the very end. David Pitt, American Library Association.

David Pitt's description of The Last Season is a good one, accurate, and so forth, but I'd go further and say that The Last Season does better than "stand on its own just fine."

My little review from last year goes on a bit more, an unequivocal thumbs up for Eric’s book. A personal reason for liking The Last Season so much was that I’d also done an investigation that, while it was different in important ways from Eric’s – a double murder in outback Costa Rica – it re-enforced what I already knew as a simple “reader”: how difficult a feat Eric had pulled off with his book.

Eric Blehm wanted to know the truth and he relentlessly pursued it. Used his innate intelligence and instincts and deductive and inductive logic and a whole lot of stamina (years of research) and so on and so forth.

Further – and I know whereof I speak here – Eric’s relentless pursuit of the truth was not motivated by a desire for fame and fortune (a bestseller, say). It was truth for truth’s sake.

Point being: If a smart, talented, truth-dedicated writer like Eric Blehm is pretty much clueless about world affairs, what hope is there? How will the truth ever be known? And if the truth is never known, how will we straighten out this sorry ass world?

Is there any hope? Is delving into all this crapola worth alienating a fine writer and nice fellow like Eric Blehm (by pointing out that he’s pretty much clueless), and aggravating people who might otherwise buy my new book (I’m referring to you).

Hold on. Strictly speaking, clueless is not the correct word in describing Eric’s state of mind regarding the subjects covered. Clueless: “Totally uninformed about what is going on; not having even a clue from which to infer what is occurring.” This is obviously not the case (there are clues aplenty, and of which Eric is aware) but this shit does get complicated, if you think about it, mostly because of… of Orwell’s optimism.

Let’s try this as the definition of the adjective we’re in search of: “Mistaken in one’s assumption about history, current events, and cause and effect due to being relentlessly misdirected, misinformed, and outright lied to."

We also have to add something about denial, which I know plenty about. Denial: “A refusal to accept or even see the truth.” In the case of all this “world affairs” crapola, because the truth is just too awful to live with.

Is there a word that fits this definition?

Well, there should be.

The truth is that I don’t know if there’s any hope or if it’s worth it; if anything I write will make any difference at all.

But I figure you have to give it a shot.

Speaking of which, the video at right is one man’s solution to the whole fucking mess. Might work.

Whadda you think about all this? Who’s got the HUYA! Problem? Me? Use the forum.

If you got here from someplace else, this story is part of our Alert the Media/Orwell is an Optimist section.

If you did get here from the Orwell section, click your back button to return to where you left off. There's still more: About Osama bin Laden, Keith Olbermanna, plus still more lies the B-boys (Blitzer, Brokaw, Brit) told you, plus still more on Georgie O's optimism. DGMS!

---

Mountains and Mullahs Epilog The Visual Arts