Neda was shot by the CIA

[JihadJane]

Then get back on topic. We weren't discussing the Iranian green revolution as a whole, nor was that my intention to do so.

By the way, your entire set of 'evidence' in favor of western involvement is a blog post about alleged US involvement in Yugoslav affairs 10 years ago - and it is even stated there the affected Serbs didn't buy it back then.

Way to go, really ...

I give up. I have said nothing about Yugoslavia.

 

[McHrozni]

I give up. I have said nothing about Yugoslavia.

I do admit there is a possibility I've mistaken you for Caustic Logic.

On the other hand, you didn't actually make any solid claims whatsoever until the very end, so assigning an opinion to you is the only thing one could do.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

So I offer you my previous thoughts on the issue (linked twice now, apparently read zero). It explains how US/Euro-Atlantic entities are able to sync interests with, partly steer, and compromise with genuine discontents inside a country. They give money and training, tactical advice, political advice, moral and diplomatic encouragement, and of course as in Serbia sanctions and bombs and such against the government the "youth movement insurgencies" (American planner's phrase) are up against. That's a lot of help, but it does take genuine diaffected people inside the target country. It is NOT either-or.

The issue we're talking about is at most if this is currently being done in Iran. Ability to do so is the first step, not the last. Even previous similar activities are circumstantial at best - I'm quite sure Russia, China and India are 'guilty' of the same actions in other countries in the past, and could also benefit from a different government in Iran, but you conveniently ignore that.

I didn't understand anything you just said. Venezuelanalysis is not even cited in that post. Did you even read it? A third time in case you lost the link
http://guerillas-without-guns.blogspot.com/2007/05/some-notes-on-timing-and-consent.html

This might be the core of the problem. once you understand that a blog post somewhere is not sufficient to prove something right or wrong, you'll be in a much better position already. If you take it to a higher level and see that a vague accusation in such blog is not evidence in any significant meaning of the word even more so. Lastly, if the blog says that probably didn't happen, you can't use it as evidence that it did.

Yes, "the blog" does not contain the details. Did you miss the post I posted right here for you just above this? I don't think you did.

Since this is the only link you posted thus far, I daresay you did

Why am I supposed to? (see below)

Hm, let's see. The topic of the post is that Neda was shot by western agents. You link me to a site about previous CIA activities, and claim certainly previous CIA operations.
Either you're claiming major CIA involvement, or just trolling. Which one it'll be?

You mean the ones I wrote two years ago, or the one you say I cited but that's from this year?

The one from 2007. I wouldn't brag about writing that crap, though.

This is just not true. The CIA did coups and stuff through the 502-70s, then was scaled back after Church Commission, etc... the 1980s saw the emergence of "Overt operations" run by other agencies like NED, USAID, NDI, IRI... It's not the same kind of thing but it tries to fill the same slot, emerging just as the CIA stuff fell out of favor. Do you get this? These groups are known to have a hand in Iran, although the extent is not clear - it's their touchiest arena yet and they don't like to talk about it much. I can provide sources if get the feeling you read anything at all.

Again, allegations without evidence aren't proof. Is that so hard to understand?

This is my final answer to post #22. I'm now going away as that was my contribution to the topic. That and NEDA was probably not shot by the CIA. Tho she may have been working for the NED, twittering orders to the adolescent hordes to remove the regime's "pillars of support."

She may haven't been working for anyone in particular, and was just killed because she was in that spot at that time, however. I guess we'll never know.
How is that relevant is beyond me, however. You seem to think that vilifying her will somehow help anyone other than terrorist-in-chief Ahmadinejad, which is also quite beyond me. Maybe you support him and you're trying to seed doubt about his guilt in all of this? This would explain several things.

McHrozni

 

[GreNME]

Taking control of Iran is the the big ME prize for the US in its project to dominate the region.

Having some kind of control over Iran might be a big deal, but none of the players in the current events in Iran would have anything to do with that, which shows just how ignorant you are on what's been happening there.

• For those who think Mousavi might be a US-connected figure, they really don't know who Mousavi really is. This is one of the guys who championed the Iranian nuclear program and still argues that Iran has just as much a right to a nuclear program as any other country in the world. For someone who is allegedly a CIA plant, he holds one of the most opposing positions to anyone in the US government. He maintains that he would support brokering a relationship with the West, but removing the nuclear program is out of the question. He also is not on friendly terms with Israel, which would be another sticking point with the US, since he would not likely be recognizing Israel as a legitimate state were he to get into office. On just those two positions alone, Mousavi is very much the opposite of a supporter of the United States as an ally, and is instead concerned primarily and vehemently with the prosperity and strength of the Iranian people and Iran as a nation. Suffice to say, while having Mousavi in office may be somewhat preferable to Ahmadinejad in terms of international rhetoric, since the office of the president of Iran has next to no influence on international policy and must still pass all policies through the Supreme Leader, any arguments that Mousavi being in office will somehow benefit the United States are beyond mistaken and well into the realm of ridiculous-- this man is concerned with Iran and the Iranian people, not the health and welfare of the United States. He's not even as democratically-motivated as many of the protests and protesters who are supporting him, and is instead willing to submit to the Iranian popular vote than to try and dictate some other agenda.
• Rafsanjani, who is another big player in what's been happening in Iran, is actually someone who was part of the original 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. This man isn't a former Revolutionary, he's still operating on the tenets he did back in 1979 when the Shah was ousted. He's strongly interested in a government that is for the Iranian people and that follows the Iranian Constitution that was drafted from the 1979 Revolution, and is instead trying to oppose what is being seen by many as a military coup by the forces of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran. This is a man of the Revolution for the Iranian government, not Western secular democracy or any pre-1979 form of government. As such, Rafsanjani has already issued a statement that he supports Khamenei's move to extend the period of checking disputes of the election results, and has approved of Khamenei's re-counting 10% of the votes. Considering Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts-- the only council in Iran who is capable of unseating Khamenei and replacing him with anyone else-- ignoring the practical and middle-ground stance that Rafsanjani has been taking throughout these last couple of weeks is going to result in an extreme lack of understanding about what's going on.
• One of Mousavi's most notable supporters is the grandson of the first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. This was the figurehead of the Iranian Revolutionary government and one of the faces of the power that ousted the Shah in 1979. His views and Mousavi's views are very similar, and conspiracy theories trying to connect Khomeini to US political or intelligence forces would be laughable considering this man still strongly dislikes the installed government that was the Shah, and as an Islamic scholar his view of the position of the Supreme Leader is one of support. The difference between him and the current Supreme Leader is that he feels the office of Supreme Leader should not be so mired in political battles, that it's a position of religious authority that should not be abused by political posturing and bias. He views Khamenei's behavior as reeking of bias and lacking the ecumenical impartiality that the position requires, and his view is primarily that this is due to Khamenei's entwining the office of Supreme Leader with political duties instead of remaining a position that is supposed to be the religious and political 'conscience' of the nation.
• Any and all of the political players involved, even the 'moderates', are still more hardline than any far right politician in the US or Europe. They are all very nationalistic (about Iran) and I can't think of a single one of them who would capitulate to any US demand, even though some of them are open to a dialogue and getting the ability for their commercial and other business entities to openly have dealings in the US (they want the revenue flow). Oil would be out of the question if these guys had anything to do with it (and they would), except for as an export that is managed and operated by Iranian interests. The chances are that the only military or intelligence contact between the US and Iran would be Iran requesting any and all information the US is able to give them on MEK forces and possible members, which have been coming into Iran through Afghanistan-- the chance of an American military base anywhere in Iran would be slim and none (and slim would be out to lunch).

In other words, none of the players involved in the current events in Iran would be optimal to American interests, with the one exception that (like Libya) Iran might possibly be able to legitimately be removed from the list of known terrorist-supporting states. Considering the amount of money that flows from Iran to Lebanese and Palestinian/Egyptian "organizations," the fact that the major reform players involved in Iran might stop that cash flow and redirect it to the Iranian people is a move that would be indirectly beneficial to American interests and directly beneficial to Iranian interests.

 

[Travis]

When some Iranian politician starts mysteriously gaining power who likes to talk about how "it's every Iranians duty to work in sweatshops for US corporations" and proposes a law allowing US troops into the country then I might give some credence to the guy being a puppet to the West.

Here we're are talking about a new group that, if it does come to power, will still not cow to US interests though there is a slight chance the US might establish an embassy again. If that's all this "CIA engineered discontent" can bring us then I propose it's a waste of money and crazy dangerous.

 

[Caustic Logic]

a blog post somewhere is not sufficient to prove something right or wrong <snip> I wouldn't brag about writing that crap, though.

Course you wouldn't, you'd rather proudly misconstrue on point I made in a blog to prove the CIA wasn't behind the Serbian Bulldozer Revolution.

and it is even stated there the affected Serbs didn't buy it back then.

For someone who seems to miss a lot of what's going on, you're pretty good at finding cherry pits to pick for your own points. The operative words back there were "at the time." What came after is in the long post I put up just for you (#47).

So I think I've made my point well enough. I think the derail was more a matter of misunderstanding on your part. Before you deny it, please make sure you even know who you're talking to, and maybe even some of what's been said. Mkay?

My points about Democracy Promotion activities is just to add some context, not try and prove some conspiracy. You all make some good points about the co-optability of the expected replacements, raising questions of how worthwhile any plotting would be. GreNME, in particular, thanks. I'm really not up-to-date on Iranian politics (which is why I'm using tangential cases I do know), and the stuff you posted is helpful.

OTH this does not disprove some plotting by the Great Satan-types. Some countries are relatively easy marks, with less endurance, weaker governments, more extensive ideological penetration by "pro-freedom" forces, etc. Others refuse to crack and instead crack-down - China. The moons go easy, the planets not so much. I think Iran is a planet. The full extent of outside help will not be openly revealed in such cases for politial reasons and that would apply in Iran. There's help but we can't say how much. I'd bet money it's larger than it seems and by a bit.

The issue we're talking about is at most if this is currently being done in Iran. Ability to do so is the first step, not the last.

The ability is absolutely there, credible people say it's been being done to some degree or other. Maybe it's a long-term campaign, and this was only mean to be a tremor before the big quake down the road? It's an X-factor, which means it's a factor.

Even previous similar activities are circumstantial at best - I'm quite sure Russia, China and India are 'guilty' of the same actions in other countries in the past, and could also benefit from a different government in Iran, but you conveniently ignore that.

No, it's just not really germaine here. Or is it??? It's power politics, anyone who can does it. I'm open to evidence...

Hm, let's see. The topic of the post is that Neda was shot by western agents. You link me to a site about previous CIA activities, and claim certainly previous CIA operations.

switch-out every instance of "CIA" and "western agents" and that summary is correct.

Either you're claiming major CIA involvement, or just trolling. Which one it'll be?

She may haven't been working for anyone in particular, and was just killed because she was in that spot at that time, however. I guess we'll never know.
How is that relevant is beyond me, however. You seem to think that vilifying her will somehow help anyone other than terrorist-in-chief Ahmadinejad, which is also quite beyond me. Maybe you support him and you're trying to
seed doubt about his guilt in all of this? This would explain several things.

McHrozni

I do look like an ***h*** on this point. It's only a possibility, and it doesn't justify it but it might help explain. Context... the world is more complex and nuanced than you're used to seeing it, M.

 

[Skeptic]

You've got to be kidding me.

Why?

The Islamic world is full of conspiracy theories. Everything bad is due to either (a) The CIA, (b) the Mossad, (c) internal "traitors".

The reason is obvious: the Islamic world, having missed the scientific and technological and political revolution the west passed through, is dealing now with the realization that the "inferior" and "infidel" west is doing far, far better than they are in, just about everything, from science to quality of life to freedom.

Since looking inwards and seeing the real reasons -- one's own failing -- is hard (thought there ARE indeed many Muslims who are doing just that), conspiracies are invented, which make one the innocent, pure victim of nefarious forces.

It's the same sort of psychological inferiority (or perhaps superiority) complex that most individual conspiracy theorists -- usually bitter losers who have to find some nefarious cause to blame for their shortcomings -- have.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Since looking inwards and seeing the real reasons -- one's own failing -- is hard (thought there ARE indeed many Muslims who are doing just that), conspiracies are invented, which make one the innocent, pure victim of nefarious forces.

I think Salman Rushdie would agree with you, as do I.

Does he still have a fatwa calling for his death?

 

[JihadJane]

Having some kind of control over Iran might be a big deal, but none of the players in the current events in Iran would have anything to do with that, which shows just how ignorant you are on what's been happening there.


For those who think Mousavi might be a US-connected figure, they really don't know who Mousavi really is. This is one of the guys who championed the Iranian nuclear program and still argues that Iran has just as much a right to a nuclear program as any other country in the world. For someone who is allegedly a CIA plant, he holds one of the most opposing positions to anyone in the US government. He maintains that he would support brokering a relationship with the West, but removing the nuclear program is out of the question.

Who has alleged that Mousavi is a CIA "plant"? Applying fertilzer to an old Iran-Contra buddy might be a more accurate analogy than planting.

The fuss about Iran's nuclear program is a PR smoke-screen to disguise US inc's long-term interest in its huge oil and natural gas deposits. Remember Iraq's WMDs?

He also is not on friendly terms with Israel, which would be another sticking point with the US, since he would not likely be recognizing Israel as a legitimate state were he to get into office. On just those two positions alone, Mousavi is very much the opposite of a supporter of the United States as an ally, and is instead concerned primarily and vehemently with the prosperity and strength of the Iranian people and Iran as a nation.

If he thinks opening up Iran's energy market to US friendly companies will bring prosperity to his friends, his attitude to Israel is irrelevant.

Suffice to say, while having Mousavi in office may be somewhat preferable to Ahmadinejad in terms of international rhetoric, since the office of the president of Iran has next to no influence on international policy and must still pass all policies through the Supreme Leader, any arguments that Mousavi being in office will somehow benefit the United States are beyond mistaken and well into the realm of ridiculous-- this man is concerned with Iran and the Iranian people, not the health and welfare of the United States. He's not even as democratically-motivated as many of the protests and protesters who are supporting him, and is instead willing to submit to the Iranian popular vote than to try and dictate some other agenda.

The US is interested in splitting and destabilizing the theocratic regime by creating chaos and violence. Mousavi is a pawn. His premature, groundless and reckless declaration of victory suggests he is a willing one.

Rafsanjani, who is another big player in what's been happening in Iran, is actually someone who was part of the original 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. This man isn't a former Revolutionary, he's still operating on the tenets he did back in 1979 when the Shah was ousted. He's strongly interested in a government that is for the Iranian people and that follows the Iranian Constitution that was drafted from the 1979 Revolution, and is instead trying to oppose what is being seen by many as a military coup by the forces of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran. This is a man of the Revolution for the Iranian government, not Western secular democracy or any pre-1979 form of government. As such, Rafsanjani has already issued a statement that he supports Khamenei's move to extend the period of checking disputes of the election results, and has approved of Khamenei's re-counting 10% of the votes.

Hasn't this already happened?

Considering Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts-- the only council in Iran who is capable of unseating Khamenei and replacing him with anyone else-- ignoring the practical and middle-ground stance that Rafsanjani has been taking throughout these last couple of weeks is going to result in an extreme lack of understanding about what's going on.
[*] One of Mousavi's most notable supporters is the grandson of the first Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. This was the figurehead of the Iranian Revolutionary government and one of the faces of the power that ousted the Shah in 1979. His views and Mousavi's views are very similar, and conspiracy theories...

Are you using the word "conspiracy theories" descriptively or propagandistically?

... trying to connect Khomeini to US political or intelligence forces

Who has tried to do this?

...would be laughable considering this man still strongly dislikes the installed government that was the Shah, and as an Islamic scholar his view of the position of the Supreme Leader is one of support. The difference between him and the current Supreme Leader is that he feels the office of Supreme Leader should not be so mired in political battles, that it's a position of religious authority that should not be abused by political posturing and bias. He views Khamenei's behavior as reeking of bias and lacking the ecumenical impartiality that the position requires, and his view is primarily that this is due to Khamenei's entwining the office of Supreme Leader with political duties instead of remaining a position that is supposed to be the religious and political 'conscience' of the nation.
[*] Any and all of the political players involved, even the 'moderates', are still more hardline than any far right politician in the US or Europe. They are all very nationalistic (about Iran) and I can't think of a single one of them who would capitulate to any US demand, even though some of them are open to a dialogue and getting the ability for their commercial and other business entities to openly have dealings in the US (they want the revenue flow). Oil would be out of the question if these guys had anything to do with it (and they would), except for as an export that is managed and operated by Iranian interests. The chances are that the only military or intelligence contact between the US and Iran would be Iran requesting any and all information the US is able to give them on MEK forces and possible members, which have been coming into Iran through Afghanistan-- the chance of an American military base anywhere in Iran would be slim and none (and slim would be out to lunch).

The US has been supporting and funding opposition and terrorist groups in Iran. Iran/US/military/intelligence connections allowed Iran-Contra crimes to happen. Are we to assume that these networks no longer exist?

In other words, none of the players involved in the current events in Iran would be optimal to American interests, with the one exception that (like Libya) Iran might possibly be able to legitimately be removed from the list of known terrorist-supporting states. Considering the amount of money that flows from Iran to Lebanese and Palestinian/Egyptian "organizations," the fact that the major reform players involved in Iran might stop that cash flow and redirect it to the Iranian people is a move that would be indirectly beneficial to American interests and directly beneficial to Iranian interests.

The "War on Terror" is a fraud. Terrorism is normally good for advancing US foreign policy objectives.

Optimal doesn't matter. The US backs some of the most unsavory politicians in the world if it perceives them as better for the US economic imperial interests than the alternatives. The "color" revolutions operate by encouraging opposition groups further down the food chain. It appears that the green one has failed. Iran is still a powerful obstacle to US geostrategic ambitions.

The US is playing a long game in the region, though, so we can expect more charades about "democracy" and the evil of Iran.

 

[JihadJane]

I do admit there is a possibility I've mistaken you for Caustic Logic.

On the other hand, you didn't actually make any solid claims whatsoever until the very end, so assigning an opinion to you is the only thing one could do.

McHrozni

Have a nice life.

 

[funk de fino]

The most important documents, from Cheney’s pre-911 Energy Task Force, discussing ME energy resources, remain classified.

The world is approaching a peak in global oil production after which it will go into permanent decline. Energy-hungry competitors to the gas-guzzling USA are rising. With the establishment of US military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is the only country still posing an obstacle to US ambitions for regional hegemony. Here's map for you to contemplate:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/263894a42629b336b0.jpg[/qimg]

The Iraqi prime ministers spokesman was on UK TV last night laughing at suggestions that it was a War for Oil. They are very much in control of all their oil than you very much. The US do not want Irans oil at a cost of billions.

Your knowledge of oil is pitiful.

The US will soon be out of Iraq. The UK are pretty much gone also. The same will happen in Afghanistan. Fantasy over.

 

[funk de fino]

I won't make the same mistake again.

Ooooohhhhhhhh yes you will.

 

[McHrozni]

For someone who seems to miss a lot of what's going on, you're pretty good at finding cherry pits to pick for your own points. The operative words back there were "at the time." What came after is in the long post I put up just for you (#47).

The point of the words "at the time" are quite significant - the unrest was there, and CIA wasn't needed to get it going.

I thought you linked it. Let me point out the operative words:
"According to" (a leftlist journalist)
"helped"
"His post was terminated"
"likely"
etc, etc, nothing solid with no evidence.
It may qualify as an editorial, but not as evidence.

So I think I've made my point well enough. I think the derail was more a matter of misunderstanding on your part. Before you deny it, please make sure you even know who you're talking to, and maybe even some of what's been said. Mkay?

Jihad Jane made points which seemed to support your opinions, even though it (he/she) didn't make any solid points whatsoever. It's a convenient setup for an ad hominem, really.

My points about Democracy Promotion activities is just to add some context, not try and prove some conspiracy. You all make some good points about the co-optability of the expected replacements, raising questions of how worthwhile any plotting would be. GreNME, in particular, thanks. I'm really not up-to-date on Iranian politics (which is why I'm using tangential cases I do know), and the stuff you posted is helpful.

That's good, because it doesn't even prove something happened 10 years ago 2000km from Iran, much less what is happening in Iran now.

OTH this does not disprove some plotting by the Great Satan-types. Some countries are relatively easy marks, with less endurance, weaker governments, more extensive ideological penetration by "pro-freedom" forces, etc. Others refuse to crack and instead crack-down - China. The moons go easy, the planets not so much. I think Iran is a planet. The full extent of outside help will not be openly revealed in such cases for politial reasons and that would apply in Iran. There's help but we can't say how much. I'd bet money it's larger than it seems and by a bit.

Considering how desperately Iran tried to portray US and even more so the UK as the perpetrators of the violence, I suspect the above statement to be in error. There is certainly very little to support it.

The ability is absolutely there, credible people say it's been being done to some degree or other. Maybe it's a long-term campaign, and this was only mean to be a tremor before the big quake down the road? It's an X-factor, which means it's a factor.

Or maybe, there was nothing. The evidence points to just that at this time. It is not an option which we can ignore.

switch-out every instance of "CIA" and "western agents" and that summary is correct.

Why would French agents do the whim of the USA in Iran? Why would France actively support US efforts at Iranian domination?

Unless you can adequetely answer these, or name certain western countries with the ability to conduct such operations and a motive to do so, CIA is the only logical word to use here.

Trolling. Got it.

McHrozni

 

[GreNME]

Who has alleged that Mousavi is a CIA "plant"? Applying fertilzer to an old Iran-Contra buddy might be a more accurate analogy than planting.

Except that the link you gave is providing false claims. Mousavi is not friends with any military or political entity in Israel, and there is no provable connection between Mousavi and any current US intelligence. Throwing rhetorical spaghetti at the idea to see if it sticks reeks of confirmation bias. Also, considering Mousavi isn't the only one at play here and the fact that he's even pleading with the government to uphold the ideals of the Islamic Revolution, the suggestion that Mousavi is somehow against the current government is ridiculously opposite to his actions.

The fuss about Iran's nuclear program is a PR smoke-screen to disguise US inc's long-term interest in its huge oil and natural gas deposits. Remember Iraq's WMDs?

The nuclear program is real. Whether Iran is making any weapons or seeking to make weapons is debateable. For both counts-- energy and nuclear weapons-- Mousavi stands firmly in the "Iran is entitled to have it" camp. Just because this fact is inconvenient for the conspiracy purveyors does not make it any less a fact.

If he thinks opening up Iran's energy market to US friendly companies will bring prosperity to his friends, his attitude to Israel is irrelevant.

You're making up reasons to ignore evidence that doesn't fit your conspiracy. Mousavi does not support recognizing Israel, and is not trying to open up the oil market-- he wouldn't have to, Iran has a strong oil market already (it makes up nearly 70% of the nation's revenue). You seem to be operating on the faulty conclusion that Iran's oil reserves are under the same type of sanctions that Iraq's were, which is completely untrue.

The US is interested in splitting and destabilizing the theocratic regime by creating chaos and violence.

Prove it.

Mousavi is a pawn. His premature, groundless and reckless declaration of victory suggests he is a willing one.

Spouting (Iranian) partisan rhetoric isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

Rafsanjani, who is another big player in what's been happening in Iran, is actually someone who was part of the original 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. This man isn't a former Revolutionary, he's still operating on the tenets he did back in 1979 when the Shah was ousted. He's strongly interested in a government that is for the Iranian people and that follows the Iranian Constitution that was drafted from the 1979 Revolution, and is instead trying to oppose what is being seen by many as a military coup by the forces of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran. This is a man of the Revolution for the Iranian government, not Western secular democracy or any pre-1979 form of government. As such, Rafsanjani has already issued a statement that he supports Khamenei's move to extend the period of checking disputes of the election results, and has approved of Khamenei's re-counting 10% of the votes.

Hasn't this already happened?

You are either deliberately ignoring what was said or you're completely naive about what's going on over there. Rafsanjani has been against Khamenei since the early 1990's, and the two have battled politically for nearly two decades. Not only is Rafsanjani a major player in the political theater for what's happening in Iran, he also holds the lead political and theological office for the only group that can unseat the current Supreme Leader (Khamenei), and has been for two weeks calling meetings with the Assembly of Experts to accomplish precisely that. He hasn't stopped doing that. Just because you wish to ignore this fact and the fact that Rafsanjani isn't sympathetic to the United States doesn't mean these facts cease to exist.

Are you using the word "conspiracy theories" descriptively or propagandistically?

I'm calling a spade a spade. There are zero facts linking the US to any of the political unrest that is occurring in Iran at this time. There are sparse arguments that could be made about US support for MEK in Afghanistan that have been attempting to cause problems in Iran for several years, but MEK doesn't even factor into what's going on there.

trying to connect Khomeini to US political or intelligence forces

Who has tried to do this?

Anyone insisting Mousavi is a pawn or a plant of the CIA. Mousavi and Khomeini follow the same theological school of though, which also happens to hold a strong following in Qom, Iran's religious and theological scholarship center. Several mullahs have stepped up and voiced their opinion in support of the ideas that Mousavi is saying, and all of them are including in their statements that this is to strengthen the Islamic Republic, not to topple it.

The US has been supporting and funding opposition and terrorist groups in Iran.

Terrorist group, not groups. The People's Mujahedin (MEK) are said by some to have been the original source of the nuclear program intelligence in Iran, which was gotten during alleged support given them by the US military. This is the only documented and arguable group that the United States has had dealings with who have been in Iran. Any other intelligence has been achieved through the Swiss embassy. If you'd like more information on how much contact the US has had with Iran over the last decade or so, Google Flynt Leveritt for a good source of information.

Iran/US/military/intelligence connections allowed Iran-Contra crimes to happen. Are we to assume that these networks no longer exist?

What networks? You're imagining things if you believe there was an entire network. The actions of the Iran-Contra affair had the United States playing both sides of the Iran-Iraq War. Since US intelligence didn't maintain a friendly relationship with Saddam Hussein (and eventually attacked him twice and deposed him), what is your basis that anything different happened to the lines of communication with Iran?

The "War on Terror" is a fraud. Terrorism is normally good for advancing US foreign policy objectives.

Which is totally irrelevant to what's happening in Iran.

Optimal doesn't matter. The US backs some of the most unsavory politicians in the world if it perceives them as better for the US economic imperial interests than the alternatives. The "color" revolutions operate by encouraging opposition groups further down the food chain. It appears that the green one has failed. Iran is still a powerful obstacle to US geostrategic ambitions.

And yet you have no proof, only assertions. It's not Iran that is strategic in the region, it's the entire Middle East that is strategic, and has been for centuries. You can't even get that right, viewing these incidents through your narrow-scoped lenses, but you expect me to take the word of your claims and others' claims that speak with complete ignorance of the political dynamics of this country and instead are insistent on making this about the United States? Give me a break-- the sheer vanity in your argument that something could not happen in the world without the United States' causing it is just as much ethnocentric jingoism as any stereotypical "patriotic" idiot who thinks the US is the center of the universe.

The US is playing a long game in the region, though, so we can expect more charades about "democracy" and the evil of Iran.

And everyone else can expect that whenever something bad or troubling or politically unstable happens in the world, there will always be some who are ready to champion the problems of the world as the fault of the CIA and the Mossad (the latter of which isn't even the right agency, for crying out loud).

JihadJane, you literally have no clue what you're talking about here, and neither do any of the "sources" you've linked to. I've spoken directly with people who have political connections in Iran, and every indication from anyone who is either from there, is already there, or who knows someone who's already there has been that what is happening is a people's protestation against what has been a growing military coup by the Revolutionary Guard and its leadership, and the refusal of Khamenei to remain impartial (as the position of Supreme Leader should) to the problems of corruption and partisan maneuvering in the Iranian government. Trying to make this about the United States is a cop-out and a show of extreme arrogance that the people in the Middle East couldn't have their own problems with their own governments if it weren't for the US.