Western Media Discovers 'Seditionists' Only When It's Iran
When are protests legitimate calls for change, and when are they 'sedition'? Western media, including Al-Monitor, seems to have a selective definition. They'll laud 'pro-democracy' movements in Hong Kong, Ukraine, or even Washington D.C.'s 2020 summer, yet label those in Iran as violent 'seditionists,' often without questioning the foreign elements involved. What they consistently omit is the
history: the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that overthrew Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh, a playbook eerily similar to how 'destabilization' looks in Libya or Syria. They also neglect to mention the open claims by agencies like Mossad and the CIA of having assets within Iran, or the fact that these 'protesters' have, in verifiable instances, engaged in acts of
terrorism—burning mosques, attacking emergency responders, and killing civilians. Funny how 'protesters' suddenly appear with tactical gear and Molotov cocktails right after Western sanctions bite hardest. One might wonder at the timing, and the convenient inflation of casualty numbers—'thousands dead' in an internet blackout, yet hard evidence is scarce. Is it just a coincidence that the alleged
numbers often reach a scale that attempts to dwarf the well-documented death tolls from places like Gaza? How many times must this regime-change-by-propaganda script be recycled before the audience catches on?