To say that USA was not involved in the regime change in Iran, and that it pursued a policy of total non-interference in its internal affairs and maintain a complete neutrality with respect to the outcome of the result of the elections, is either being too nave in accepting the contrived versions by the US establishment, or utterly hypocritical having vested interests in supporting USA to hide its latent designs for toppling the present regime. That USA and UK indulge in massive involvement in the internal affairs of Iran is a patent reality, no matter how much 'value-loaded' words are used as a 'deception strategy'. What the western 'exploitative powers' fail to realise is that the greater their involvement greater is the 'resistance' to defeat the imperial propensity to control its policies as well as its strategic wealth - energy reservoirs specifically. The Shah of Iran was ousted precisely for the reasons that he was perceived as a policeman to control the region as a surrogate of USA. It was this perception which added fuel to the revolution of late Imam Khomeni. Iranians were amply critical of the way their popularly elected leader Mossadegh was ousted from power in 1953 through a vicious design and the Shah was brought back to replace him. The Islamic revolution has reinforced the Iranian pride, by freeing it from the bondage that Shah symbolised and there has emerged a strong sentiment of national identity. It transformed the nation, no less than what the French Revolution did to liberate the masses from the exploitative elite regime. A new global consciousness has become as a catalyst to social change. The Shah had steered the society towards adopting extra liberal values of the West in following the style of life, which a Muslim country, was not prepared to accept, what Toffler calls the 'future shock', i.e. experiencing a 'cultural shock' within one's own culture. The over-doing of the Shah actually served as an impetus to the restoration of the radical change, which Islamic Revolution brought into its wake. The social pendulum had swung from one extreme to another. It is the law of nature, particularly of the Muslim sensibility that strives to keep the social order in the middle, rather than at the extreme polarities. When the fundamentalist regime rigidly controlled the people, particularly the 'elite' and the educated class in the urban areas, the new generation of the young, which had not experienced the 'Shah-type' openness and freedom verging on vulgarity, started feeling a sense of 'suffocation'. The urban youth, wanted freedom as a natural reaction, and they were waiting for a counter-revolution against the present regime to bring back the 'equilibrium' in social order, leaning neither totally towards the West, nor getting too far right, to accept the obscurantist values. The liberal forces symbolised in Mousavi, represents the real urge for 'change'. The interference, however of the West and substantial money earmarked for the regime change in Iran, either overtly through the Congress or covertly mobilised through CIA, has helped the 'fundamentalists', to mobilise against the West. To say that there was no upsurge for change is also to deny the reality. The 'movement' truly reflected the mood of the people, but to claim that the 'liberal' had a clear victory is also not true. Khamenai's endorsement of Ahmadinejad's success is not based on his partisan approach. He had the full knowledge and information as to who were supporting the 'movement' and to run down the image of the recalcitrant president, who fearlessly condemns USA as well as its 'pampered' ally Israel. This in turn, has created a considerable resistance and sense of honour, not to be intimidated by threats of war or sanctions. This has had a great impact on the success of the present regime, particularly of the rural population. If the elections were 'rigged', the present president would have won from Tehran, which constitutes mostly the liberal elements. The West's propaganda, therefore that the election outcome was a result of total 'fraud', is also a distortion of reality, typical of western countries. It is on this account that the hardliners are demanding judicial action against Mousavi and his main supporters. The student Basiq militia, amply supported the police to quell down the 'uprising', which resulted in the death of 20 people. Iranian officials are genuinely convinced that the present election was the 'healthiest' one, since 1979 Islamic Revolution. The 'clergy' whatever may be said of their style of governance, are endowed with character traits, that will not let them indulge in 'corruption, deception or rigging' true of the imperatives of their faith. Peaceful demonstrations are of course, the right of the citizens, but when 'foreign money' flows in abundance to buy 'votes', and manipulate the results, then in that case, the demonstration would not fall under the domain of democratic norms and values. The local subversive elements played their nefarious role in this respect. It is learnt that a couple of local employees in the British Embassy have been apprehended for their act of sabotage and the embassy is under considerable stress for this reason. In our own context of Pakistan, we have seen when Nizam-e-Mustafa movement against Bhutto had been steered to oust him from the government, there was abundance of foreign currency, under circulation. The track record of USA for supporting 'democracy', is also not impressive at all. Whenever, the results of elections have not been favourable to USA, the CIA has been extraordinarily active in ensuring that the legitimate power, earned through transparent and popular support, has been 'sabotaged'. There are numerous examples to testify it in Algeria, Turkey, Hamas, and even outright assassinations or attempts of assassination of Muslim. Leave the Muslim rulers and countries aside, even the record of US military interventions and outright ouster of the non-Muslim rulers are indeed mind boggling. According to an estimate, US has militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since it gained independence from Great Britain. Since 1945, alone the US has intervened in more than 20 countries and assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and dropped bombs on 23 countries. CIA has been responsible for over a half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state. Military interventions as a strategic tool for gaining power is the most favoured policy of USA. As an example in 1973, ironically on that inauspicious date, 9/11, when CIA engineered a coup, causing death of nearly 3000 people at the behest of Kissinger, the great exponent of realpolitik, by killing President Allenda of Chile, a very popularly elected leader by a Great Tyrant General Pinochet, whose repressive regime outclassed Saddam Hussein, by many times. Pinochet was patronised by USA, whose terror was let loose on the people of Chile. In other words, 'democracy' is only a virtue word, but in actual manifestations, it has been a 'martyr' to US strategic interests as dictated by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Pakistan's political culture could not stabilise because, successively USA installed military dictators, knowing very well that they did not represent the "Will" of the people, the major reason why USA is hated in Pakistan. If objectively evaluated the so-called radical Islamists have delivered much more to USA, than one would expect. The government of Taliban in Afghanistan, failed precisely for the reason that Iran did not support Taliban, and instead patronised the Northern Alliance to be at the helm of affairs, even though it was in considerable minority as compared to the Pashtuns, who are above 50 percent of the population. The US game in Afghanistan would not have succeeded without Iran's covert support. In the case of attack on Iraq, the Iraqi Army mainly the pro-Iran elements did not put up a formidable resistance against USA and maintained an ambivalent approach. They naturally nourished a grudge against Iraq for waging a war on Iran at the behest of USA in which it suffered colossal casualties. In the War on Terror, Iran has gained ample influence in Iraq because of a large number of Shia population. Besides, USA has been able to create an Arch of Shia Power extending from Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Pakistan. USA is manipulating to scare the Sunni countries. George Bush visited Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries and playing on the theme of Iran's extending influence in the region and its ambition to acquire Atomic Weapon, he was able to sell conventional arms to the tune of $130 billion. In Iran, there are three strands of political thought - Leftists, Islamists and Nationalists. They have merged to produce a particularly powerful and socially resonant "myth" of victimisation, according to Ali M Ansari (The National Interest, No. 94, March-April 2008, p. 53). Actually it is not a myth, but an earned reputation due to the experiences of Western interventions. The gradual decay of US power is the basis of Iran's assertive role. The security interests of Iran (Nuclear Israel on its West), perpetually intimidating it determines the foreign policy imperatives, particularly the pursuance of nuclear programme, no matter, who holds the rein of power in Iran. Ahmadinejad only wishes to hasten the process of decline of USA. The writer is secretary general, FRIENDS E-mail: