I have often pointed out that on Twitter I could spend 100% of my time bashing progressive trolls and barely make a dent in mass ignorance. This doesn't mean they are my only target. I've written dozens of posts and/or tweets critical of Republicans and Trumpkins (and thousands of tweets or posts on Trump or his administration).
I know I have targeted Fox News and Fox Business, sarcastically referring to them as the "Trump Propaganda Network". I'm particularly appalled by the nature and extent of political content on FBN; if it isn't hosts like Varney's constant parroting White House talking points and Trump's "achievements", it's obsequious interview guests like Mo Brooks (R-AL), who repeat, without any challenge, one trite soundbite after another. I know I've written a small number of tweets specifically addressing Varney and Brooks.
To a certain extent, I find almost every Varney commentary objectionable, so it's not just necessarily the case that this one is particularly objectionable, so yes, to a certain extent my selection of this commentary is arbitrary. Maybe this is a case of the straw breaking the camel's back. I have sometimes published a series of rants, e.g., on Bill O'Reilly's talking point memos, from a particular author. I'm really not trying to promote Varney's material. If I do post on Varney in the future, it may well be in the form of digests vs. separate one-off posts.
I did briefly check on transcripts but didn't find one, like I often found for Bill O'Reilly. There may be one, but my search didn't find it. I would prefer quoting from a transcript. [I've subsequently discovered there is an "open transcript" option under "..." to Youtube videos that have been close-captioned. It is slightly cropped at the beginning and end:]
TO AMERICA," THEY KNOW THEY AREFirst, let me be clear: I have no sympathy for the Iranian theocratic dictatorship, whether we are talking fundamental violations of individual rights or meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, including the support of their proxy allies. But likewise, I similarly oppose the US meddling in the Middle East (or other regions of the world) in general.
00:05
IN TROUBLE.
00:05
IT IS A REVOTE, BROKE OUT OF THE
00:08
CAPITAL TEHRAN AND SPREAD TO
00:09
OTHER CITIES.
00:09
IT IS A REVOLT AGAINST
00:12
INCOMPETENCE AND LIES
00:13
SURROUNDING LEADERSHIP DOWNING
00:14
OF THE JET.
00:15
IT IS REVOLT OF ECONOMIC
00:18
COLLAPSE AND ENDLESS WAR.
00:19
IT IS REVOLT ENCOURAGED BY
00:21
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
00:22
HE TWEETED IN FARSI, THAT IS THE
00:24
IRANIAN LANGUAGE.
00:25
MY GOVERNMENT WILL CONTINUE TO
00:26
STAND WITH YOU.
00:27
YOUR COURAGE IS INSPIRING.
00:29
HE WARNED THE MULLAHS IN
00:32
ENGLISH, NOT TO SHOOT THE
00:34
PROTESTERS AND DON'T EVER
00:35
THREATEN THE UNITED STATES
00:36
AGAIN.
00:38
SERIOUS STUFF.
00:39
IRAN'S ISLAMIC REVOLUTION IS
00:41
40 YEARS OLD AND HAS NEVER BEEN
00:42
CHALLENGED LIKE THIS BEFORE.
00:44
CERTAINLY NOT BY THE OBAMA
00:45
ADMINISTRATION WHICH OFFERED NO
00:47
SUPPORT TO PROTESTERS AND
00:48
ACTUALLY PUT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
00:49
INTO IRAN'S TREASURY.
00:51
IT IS PRESIDENT TRUMP WHO HAS
00:53
PUSHED IRANIANS INTO A BOX.
00:54
HE HOLDS ON TO A HARD-LINE AND
00:57
IT TURNED THE IRAN SITUATION
00:59
UPSIDE DOWN.
01:00
TWO WEEKS AGO, QASSEM SOLEIMANI
01:02
WAS ORGANIZE ATTACKS ON
01:05
AMERICANS AND THREATENING
01:06
REGIMES THROUGHOUT THE
01:08
MIDDLE EAST.
01:08
NOW HE IS DEAD AND IRANIANS
01:10
TURNED AGAINST THEIR OWN
01:11
LEADERS.
01:12
NO OTHER RECENT PRESIDENT HAS
01:13
BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS.
01:14
IRAN HAS BEEN RUINED BY THE
01:16
ISLAMIC REVOLUTION.
Second, Varney's assessment is crudely over-simplistic, disingenuous and wrong. Varney is comparing apples and oranges from the Green Revolution in 2009 and recent protests. Keep in mind the Green Revolution was truly massive and reflected mass protests after an election scandal where a cleric-backed hardliner, who clearly lost the election, was declared winner. The protests were far more significant in size and urban nature than recent more spontaneous, unfocused, and decentralized protests; the government has not cracked down like in 2009, but this has nothing to do with Trump's provocative actions and more to do with a more moderate leadership in the Iranian government.
The US is in a delicate position with Iran. If and when the US moves against Iran militarily or economically, it reinforces the hand of hard-liners and clerics who use the US as a scapegoat for Iran's problems. Any crude gimmick, like Trump's recent Farsi tweet politically exploiting dissent in Iran, which of course Varney praises, will simply be used to brand current dissenters as traitors and another attempt of the US to intervene and overthrow the Iranian government (re: the late Shah).
Trump is hardly the brilliant, strong POTUS Varney imagines him to be. Trump basically scrapped Kerry's negotiated agreement with the regime, has exacerbated economic sanctions which basically hurt the Iranian general population, not the political elite, and assassinated Soleimani, an Iranian general, which is an illegal act of war. Let's be clear: many Iranians haven't seen a lot of improvement in their way of life, which is part of the expectations from the Kerry agreement. So, yes, the Iranian government's accidental downing of a Ukrainian jetliner has been a factor in current protests, but certain elements Varney reports, like the painted American image being avoided vs stepped on (as hard-liners hoped) or thousands of Iranians "liking" Trump's Farsi tweet, are more about thumbing their nose at the theocracy than approving Trump's provocative policies. Iranians ten years ago were more patient and willing to work within the existing political framework. In the decade since then, they are seeing little benefit from working in the system, which seems to corruptly benefit the elite, including the clerics and the Revolutionary Guard, not the common man.
A final note over Varney's polemical discussion of the Obama Administration's part in releasing long-frozen Iranian assets. The US did not "pay" Iran with American taxpayer money as part of Kerry's negotiation. And exactly what Iran did with the release of their own assets is unknowable and quite frankly none of our business. Was any of it used to fund their proxy allies? Well, money is fungible. Iran could have funded those disbursements from other, internal resources. Could/should have the Obama Administration been more supportive during the Green Revolution? Yes. Why weren't they? My guess is they may have seen it as counterproductive, and apparently they were negotiating with the regime behind the scenes.
Trump's Iran policies have been consistently wrong, totally political, and counterproductive. He has exacerbated regional tensions and radically upscaled Obama's (and Bush's) unconstitutional drone wars. As I have repeatedly pointed out, his America First policy, part of what he was elected on, has been contradicted by his decisions, including naming neo-cons to important positions in the Administration.
What would be a better policy? First, drop all economic sanctions and liberalize trade with Iran. Second, radically reduce the American footprint in the Middle East. We are part of the problem, not the solution.
