July 4, 2009
Why does it have to be either/or?
I get frustrated by those who see CIA conspiracies lurking under every rock and hiding in the shrubbery every time there is an international incident. The recent situations in Iran and Honduras are both prime examples of this kind of thinking.
Some tin-foil hatters are absolutely convinced that the CIA is the prime mover behind the demonstrations in Iran ( and the military coup in Honduras).
On the other hand, some would make the argument that the actors in both situations are simply homegrown groups responding to their country’s situation.
It is rarely as simple as either side on this argument would have one believe.
Both assertions could be equally and simultaneously true.
In other words, the CIA may be plotting and trying to influence events while local groups are trying to do the same. Sometimes the CIA and these other forces interact in both positive and negative ways. Sometimes alliances are formed and sometimes these same alliances are discarded.
Why is it so impossible to admit that there are forces/movements/aspirations within Iran that may be opposing Ahmadinejad for their own reasons not having any thing to do with the CIA? There seems to be real opposition to the Iranian regime from many levels of society within the country.
Let’s not try to pin everything happening in Iran in response to the recent elections on the CIA. They’re probably not smart enough to initiate something like this. They would be smart enough to climb on the bandwagon, however.