You might try posting some information over at http://iran.whyweprotest.net/

Many of the posters over at the site have technical knowledge and can explain ways to get the video clips posted. My non-technical sense is that the state filters are probably limiting internet speed, which makes it more difficult to post video clips online (e.g. videos eat up much more bandwidth than text).

Your brother might want to try contacting http://tehranbureau.com/ if he wants to share his story and protect his identity. Tehran Bureau’s writer is based in Boston, MA in the US — they’re connected with Harvard University. Some of the bigger news organization reporters like Jim Sciutto and Lara Setrakian with ABC News in the states have been following the stories. If he has a compelling story to share they might be able to get coverage of it. He can reach them through Twitter. CNN too has it’s “ireport” function on its website, which he could use to share a story and protect his identity.

Stay safe. It is crazy that people need to suffer this much just to have their voices heard and their votes counted. Hopefully everything works out OK. I admire the courage and restraint that ordinary people are showing in Iran. It is pretty amazing to witness — even from a safe distance.

Best,
CEG

Now a practical matter: you are unable to upload graphics. The problem might not be with your computer–or not directly. It may be that the state-run server loops a command back at your computer which forces it to reboot. This could (I certainly can’t be sure, but it COULD) be a measure employed by your nation’s security apparatus. My advice: be VERY VERY careful. As much as we want images, we want you to remain safe. Remember: your computer has a distinctive IP address–has to use it every time you handshake with another system, particularly if you are sending out data packages like graphics, videos, etc. And if “they” are recording the IPs that are trying to send out images…well, you see where I’m going with this. Do not risk attracting the attention of the security forces. You are already doing more than enough–more than any 15 y/o woman (not girl: WOMAN) should need or be called upon to do.
Please: for yourself, and for us all, stay safe.
With Best Wishes and Concern,
CEG
PS: there must be a dozen folks reading these posts who know far better than I do if Sophie’s attempts to upload images is diagnostic of a security filter, and what, if any, risk it entails for her. Please: help her and speak up. Share your expertise!

I am certainly not saying that Obama is folding up the field tents and dismantling the bases. Furthermore, that would reduce his options–and Mr. Obama likes having MANY options. Regardless of political stripe, no smart Executive operates otherwise. Bush showed himself both a pawn and untalented (leaving aside the ethical atrocities for one moment of surprassing blindness) by committing to courses of action which left him with very few options other than “forward” or “reverse” (and, oh yes, “ignore”).
However, to conjecture that all remains as it was from the Bush Administration because of:
1) the continued existence of the bases,
2) the retention of earmarked fund, and
3) a rather selective/subjective characterization of Obama with the phrase associated with Teddy Roosevelt

–is a bit of analytical alchemy, wherein two facts and one ad hominem opinion are alloying into what seems a confident assertion of activity. I am not saying the position/conclusion is inaccurate. I’m simply wondering aloud if, at this point, there’s really any basis for such certitude re: ANY alternative. There are certainly many possibilities: there also seem to be woefully insufficient facts to support any of them conclusively.

Respects,
CEG

Timmerman is executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran. I assume that, as one of those who strongly advocate covert ops and was a recipient of NED funding, his complaints about funding for such activities being dropped may be significant.

No one is suggesting a white wash of US history. Many, including myself, perceive a different policy being developed. One which doesn’t include the pursuit of regime change through covert operations.

Rather than hold Obama hostage to history, and assume that policy in Iran has been set on an unstoppable trajectory towards regime change via covert ops, I would suggest you cite some proof of current US covert operations in Iran.

Conjecture based on the policies of Bush, which Obama opposed, is not proof.

Our military has bases in almost every country touching Iran. Given our historical preoccupation with Persian resources, I think it naive to suggest that we have backed away from creating opportunites to rock their boat–unless you have specific facts to support that notion. Obama has quickly shown himself to be a statesman that likes to speak softly while wielding a big stick. Covert ops and diplomacy are not mutually exclusive.

I note, with appreciation, the many times that exogenous commentators on Iran (such as those from Enduring America) are (rightly) upbraided for not having an adequate understanding of the reality (or more precisely, the ecology of *real politik*) that defines and contextualizes the political processes within that country.

With respect, I would suggest that an equal and reciprocal appreciation of the domain of American “real politik” is also desirable. I commend you to study, with a close eye to detail, how line items are funded in the US budget. You are absolutely right that monies do not “disappear”. The flip side of that reality is that neither can funding allowances be rescinded without tumbling a number of very problematic dominoes of further political consequences. Obama spends his political and popular capital very wisely; of course he’s not going to change funding (or any positions) until he has determined exactly what he’s going to do, and that is, in large measure, going to be determined by just how much political capital he has to spend to secure support for that course of action (either from Congress, the body politic, or both). And note the following from the July 2008 New Yorker article, cited by one of the other commentators:

“A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November [2008], “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.” {note: given date, this refers to the Bush Administration}

So is the money still earmarked? Yes: that water is still in the tank, ready to flow. Does that mean the spigot is on? Who knows? I live alongside, and routinely interact with, Beltway insiders: there is very little talk about that, which in this administration usually means the situation is being observed, pending a decision. Note that if the money is RELEASED from its earmark, then it goes back into the public tills. It is no longer available for anything that falls under the “special operations” heading–which can magically transmogrify into humanitarian aid, infrastructure reconstruction, etc.

Real Politick axiom one: never give away earmarked money. With it, the Executive Branch has immense flexibility re: it potential use, and in the current volatile situation in Iran, that “use” could take on many forms. It would be very “clarifying” if Obama were to plough that money back into the budget–clarifying, but not *wise*. In a cash strapped America, Obama has an Iran-committed line of credit: if he gives it up, he will not get it replaced, not in the current economic climate.

Does this mean he’s holding the money to fund further covert ops in Iran, more perfidious and pernicious than the neocons? It cannot be ruled out. Is he envisioning the money as a means to fund prosocial action that is non-military in nature? Equally possible–and probably more plausible. Does he have full control of the situation? That’s a particularly good question, since we’ve seen that Obama has been having an ill-conceald shoving match with the military (not so much with CIA, but they’ve never been the major movers on the combat-related spec ops).

However, there is no reason to conclude that Obama’s silence on the money, and his failure to pull it out of its current earmark, is proof positive that he is continuing or expanding the same operational template that Bush/Cheney were committed to. It COULD be going down that way–but real politick analysis of “Belway Business” suggests other alternatives which are far more consistent with the totality of Obama’s policies and strategies to date.

With respects,
Dr. CE Gannon
Distinguished Professor, SBU
Fulbright Senior Specialist (2004-9)