The Atlantic Council, Russia and Keeping the Cold War Alive

For those of you who may not have heard of the Atlantic Council, it is a "nonpartisan" foreign policy think-tank that is essentially an extension of NATO and a number of nations, high profile corporations and individuals as shown here:

 

...and has long taken an anti-Russia stance on global issues.  That said, a recent opinion piece published in early March 2021 has taken a somewhat less anti-Russian than normal which has led to a significant unintended consequence for the organization.

 

Here is the article in question:

The authors, Emma Ashford and Mathew Burrows are both part of the New American Engagement Initiative as shown here:

 

The New American Engagement Initiative is:

  

"...housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, challenges prevailing assumptions governing US foreign policy and helps policymakers manage risks, set priorities, and allocate resources wisely and efficiently. The United States confronts a range of national security challenges, but the marketplace of ideas defines these too expansively, fails to prioritize them effectively, and limits the range of options for addressing them. Unconventional thinking is needed to help Americans put dangers into perspective, and encourage them to embrace global engagement through diplomacy, trade, and mutually beneficial cultural exchange."

Interestingly, the Scowcroft Center for Security and Strategy received a rather significant donation from the Charles Koch Institute (of the Koch Brothers) as shown here:

In the opinion piece, the authors note that Washington and the newly minted Biden Administration are  is focusing on the wrong issue when it comes to Russia as quoted here (my bolds):

"On January 17, just three days before the inauguration of President Joe Biden, Alexei Navalny returned to Moscow from Germany, where he was receiving medical treatment following a failed Kremlin assassination attempt. Within a week of his return, the noted dissident had been arrested, tried, and sent to prison. The Biden administration has promised both to support human rights and to engage with adversaries to advance American interests. It fulfilled the first of these promises on March 2, when it issued new sanctions against Russian companies and individuals linked to Navalny’s poisoning.

However, these sanctions – in effect, making human rights the focus of Washington’s Russia policy – may well undermine critical US interests. Russian behavior on human rights is deplorable, but the United States has other salient interests pertaining to Russia. Nuclear and strategic stability talks to shore up arms control or effectively deter Russian interference in US elections are more important than imposing largely symbolic sanctions because of human rights abuses. Policymakers should prioritize strategic stability accordingly."

 

The authors also note that Washington's focus on Russia's human rights record risks drvigin a wedge between the United States and its European allies:

 

"The United States’ European allies disagree among themselves over the best way to handle Russia; the small states closest to Russia have often emphasized a harder line, while Germany, Italy, and other states with closer trade ties to Russia are less keen. German leaders have called openly for Navalny’s release, but they have resisted American and French calls to end participation in the Nordstream-2 project. American sanctions–such as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) sanctions on German energy companies–risk undermining core transatlantic relationships for limited gain.

 

Here is the key quote:

 

"Finally, democratization in Russia would not necessarily be good for US foreign policy interests. Alexei Navalny, for example, is an open nationalist who is widely known to agree with Putin on many foreign policy questions; he backed the Russian seizure of Crimea and has made racist and islamophobic remarks. Broader academic research on regime change indicates that it does not typically alter a nation’s foreign policy orientation. In addition, there is always the risk of political uncertainty–never a good thing in a nuclear power like Russia."

 

The authors also recommend the following:

 

1.) Resisting further sanctions against Russia since they have been ineffective.

 

2.) Adapting a realistic attitude to Russia because it is not a minor power than can be punished for its "misdeeds".

 

3.) Find a "carrot" approach that avoids being punitive unlike the sanctions framework that has painted Washington into a "policy corner".

 

Apparently, this rather atypical approach to Russia did not sit well with many of the 'cold warriors" at The Atlantic Council who wrote this rebuttal:

"Dr. Emma Ashford and Dr. Mathew Burrows’ “Reality Check #4: Focus on interests, not on human rights with Russia” misses the mark. Their article is premised on a false assumption that human rights and national interests are wholly separate and that US policy toward Russia was and remains driven by human rights concerns principally. In fact, previous administrations and the current one have sought to integrate our values and other national interests.

 

We the undersigned disagree with its arguments and values and we disassociate ourselves from the report." 

 

The rebuttal was signed by the following 22 Atlantic Council employees:

 

Given that Washington hardly has clean hands when it comes to human rights and the support of dictatorships around the world, the recent opinion piece on the Atlantic Council's website is rather pragmatic, unlike the response by the 22 Atlantic Council employees who have made it quite clear that they want to "integrate our values and other national interests" (i.e. American exceptionalism) in Washington's approach to Russia, an approach that has made absolutely no impact on Russia and its behaviour whatsoever.

The Bidens, Burisma and the Atlantic Council - The Tangled Web

In the past I have posted musings on the Atlantic Council, one of Washington's most influential think tanks and a group that is often thought of as the braintrust behind NATO.  With the recent business links between Burisma, a Ukraine-based gas producing company and former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, it is interesting to note that there is yet another twist to this saga that has led to the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump.

Let's look at some background about the Atlantic Council to help put the group into a broader perspective.  The Atlantic Council has the following mantra:

"The Atlantic Council promotes constructive leadership and engagement in international affairs based on the Atlantic Community's central role in meeting global challenges. The Council provides an essential forum for navigating the dramatic economic and political changes defining the twenty-first century by informing and galvanizing its uniquely influential network of global leaders. Through the papers we write, the ideas we generate, and the communities we build, the Council shapes policy choices and strategies to create a more secure and prosperous world."

Here's a very short video which provides a bit of background on this "nonpartisan group of foreign policy change-makers":

The Atlantic Council was formed in 1961 by former U.S. Secretaries of State Dean Acheson and Christian Herter and other "distinguished Americans" who recommended the consolidation of U.S. citizen's groups that supported the Atlantic Alliance  (i.e. NATO).  Throughout the turbulent 1960s, the Council produced reports on the state of public opinion towards Alliance member nations and aimed to educate the public about the need for engagement in international affairs through television commercials starring Bob Hope.

Here is a list of current directors of the Atlantic Council:

It certainly appears to be a who's who list of the American Deep State, doesn't it?  We find James Baker III, Ashton Carter, General Wesley Clarke, Henry Kissinger, David Petraeus, Condoleeza Rice, George Schultz, Brent Scowcroft and Dov Zhakeim among its illustrious board members.  You may also recognize these two individuals who have been awarded by the Atlantic Council for their "leadership":

The Atlantic Council is also home to the relatively newly formed Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) which is described as follows: 

"The Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) is a start-up housed at the Atlantic Council that aims to create a world where disinformation is analyzed and repudiated rapidly and effectively by accurate, publicly sourced reports, thereby enabling citizens and policy makers to make informed decisions.

Since its launch in 2016, the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has operationalized the study of disinformation to expose false narratives and fake news, document human rights abuses, and build digital resilience worldwide. DFRLab continually tracks global disinformation campaigns, fake news stories, covert military developments, and subversive attempts against democracy while teaching the public skills to identify and expose attempts to pollute the information space."

DFRLab was founded in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's defeat in the 2016 presidential election with the goal of preventing Russian electoral interference, being hired by Facebook to ensure that the war for your mind remains pristine as you can read here and see here:

The DFRLab's strong anti-Russia, anti-Putin spin is quite clearly shown in this article about Crimea and Russia:

...and this article about how American, Ukrainian and pro-Kremlin media outlets have covered the impeachment proceedings in the United States:

Here's a quote from that article showing the Atlantic Council's take on narratives pushed by Kremlin-owned television channels in Russia:

"In the Russian information space, the DFRLab analyzed talk show programs aired by the top three pro-Kremlin TV channels — Rossiya 1, Perviy Kanal, and NTV — and identified three narratives regarding broader Ukrainian-U.S. relations. Television represents the main news source for 57 percent of Russian citizens, of which these three outlets dominate the market, comprising 42 percent of the total audience share.

Narrative: Ukraine is interfering in the U.S. presidential election; both Ukraine and the United States are corrupt.

Pro-Kremlin TV channels intensively pushed a narrative about Ukraine’s interference in the U.S. elections, conflating Trump’s demand to investigate former Vice President Biden with supposed Ukrainian interference in the affairs of the United States and characterizing the U.S. President’s demand as a prime example of double standards in U.S. politics.

Perviy Kanal claimed that, when opponents accused Donald Trump of having backchannel communications with Russia during the 2016 presidential election campaign, the entire political establishment treated this accusation as objective fact. Additionally, the author claimed that, when Trump allegedly demanded an investigation of Ukrainian interference — again, a conflation with Trump’s actual request regarding the supposed corruption around Biden — into the affairs of the United States, he was accused of violating the U.S. Constitution.

Rossiya 1 talk show co-host Yevgeny Popov claimed that Zelensky turned out to be the one interfering in the U.S. elections, not Russian President Vladimir Putin. He also insinuated that the U.S. political establishment does not care about the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine at all and “money was allocated to Ukraine for only one reason: to convince Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden’s son’s business in Ukraine,” which the Ukrainian President agreed to do. The show’s other co-host, Olga Skabeeva, added that Trump had asked Zelensky a reported eight times to commence the investigation in exchange for military aid money that the U.S. President had put on hold and that, in acquiescing, Zelensky “sold himself to the Americans.”

NTV also claimed that Biden’s ongoing presidential campaign is funded with Ukrainian money and asserted that Trump had fired his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, because the latter had failed to compel President Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden.

Narrative: Biden’s family was involved in a corruption scheme in Ukraine.

Echoing both fringe and mainstream U.S. outlets such as Breitbart and Fox News, pro-Kremlin TV channels claimed that the Biden family was undoubtedly involved in a corruption scheme in Ukraine, but none of the stories provided evidence to support the allegation.

NTV aired a video that claimed that, in 2015, then-Vice President Joe Biden had pushed the Ukrainian government to boost extraction and production of natural gas; his son Hunter Biden was then made a board member of the Ukrainian gas production company Burisma. While Hunter Biden was not involved in the management of the company or in regular board proceedings, he earned millions of dollars from his formal membership on the board. Thus, Biden’s family had direct financial interests in Ukraine and TV anchor concludes that this case is worth investigating in order to expose how Joe Biden tried to cover up corrupt schemes in which his son was allegedly involved. space."

Part way through the article, we find this disclaimer:

"Burisma contributes funding to the Atlantic Council, though not in direct support of the DFRLab. Both the DFRLab and, more broadly, the Atlantic Council maintain strict intellectual independence from the company, as with all donors from any sector."

I'm sure.

Let's look more deeply at this aspect of the Burisma - Biden - Atlantic Council story.  In the 2019 Annual Report for the Atlantic Council, we find this "Honor Roll of Contributors" which, once again, has that distinct Deep State look to it:

Notice that Burisma, the Ukrainian company involved in the current controversy swirling around Washington, is a significant contributor to the Atlantic Council, right up there with military-industrial complex members General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, United Technologies and American taxpayers through the United States Air Force Academy and the United States Department of Defense.

And, just in case you didn't think that was enough to confuse the issue, here is a video from the 2011 Atlantic Council Awards ceremony featuring none other than Joe Biden:



Given the current kerfuffle in Washington, it is interesting to see the ties between one of Washington's most influential think tanks and the company behind the Biden soap opera.  With the Atlantic Council driving much of Washington's anti-Russia narrative and its views on the global geopolitical landscape and the company affiliated with Joe Biden's son being a significant contributor to the think tank, one can see how there is a very, very tangled web that makes ascertaining the truth of the matter nearly impossible for Americans.  The truth IS out there somewhere; good luck finding it with this cast of characters.

  

The Atlantic Council and Leveraging the Khashoggi Murder for Good

While I generally do not post on the same organization two days in a row, a recent little-covered blog posting on the Atlantic Council website is just begging to be exposed, particularly since it relates to Saudi Arabia, the recent death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the revelations about the possible connections to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The posting was written by Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe.  Here is his biography:

He is obviously a very influential individual, particularly with his connections to the Wall Street Journal.

Before we dig into the posting, here is what appeared on the Atlantic Council's Twitter feed on November 25th, 2018:

With that background, let's look at the contents of the posting itself.  The author opens by noting how the "toxic aftermath" of the Khashoggi murder could trigger the worst regional war that the Middle East has experienced with the following potential scenario:

"Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen break a fragile ceasefire with a missile launched at Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Unlike so many before it, this missile slips through Saudi air defenses and lands on a shopping mall in early evening, the busiest time of the day. 

             

The strike takes mass casualties and sets off panic.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, already rattled by US and European backlash from the Khashoggi killing, blames Teheran for the attack, knows he must respond, but is unsure what allies he can count on. Advisers argue he must strike Iran itself, given the scale of the carnage, the pointlessness of striking targets in Yemen, and questions swirling about his leadership.

  

However, he lacks the offensive and defensive wherewithal for a sustained war with Iran. He considers two options: a secure call to President Donald Trump to request he join his Saudi Allies against their common foe. Or, alternatively, the Saudi Air Force strikes Iran, provoking a counterstrike that it hopes will bring American allies into the fighting."

He goes on to note that the Trump White House will face a conundrum; does the United States back a "tainted ally" or take no action at all and risk the consequences of inaction to the fragile Middle East/Saudi Arabia/Iran "peace"?

While the author does allow that the murder of Khashoggi was "brutal, foolish and irresponsible", his greater concern is that the ultimate consequences could be the weakening of United States relations with its European partners, resulting in a "strengthening (of) the growing role of China and Russia".  He also notes that:

"...it would be better to leverage the current situation to achieve larger US aims in the region – consistent with values and interests – rather than to respond in a manner that might be satisfying over the short-term but self-defeating strategically."

The author goes on to state that the "biggest prize" is the ability of the United States to keep Saudi Arabia on a course that prevents the laying of groundwork for the formation of another al-Qaeda and that Washington must consider that it is entirely likely that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman will survive this inconvenient truth and that he will rule Saudi Arabia for decades to come.  As such, the United States must focus on a long-term strategic project to prevent new conflicts, end the regions civil wars in Libya, Yemen and Syria and prevent Islamic extremism.

Here are Mr. Kempe's closing paragraphs:

"Though Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman can’t undo the Khashoggi crime, he could refocus Western thinking over time by redoubling his efforts to reform Saudi society, not only providing women more rights but also releasing from prison the activists he recently arrested.

For starters, Western and Middle Eastern leaders need to avoid worst outcomes in the region. Even better would be to leverage the crisis to achieve some good."

In other words, Mr. Khashoggi's death was completely acceptable when framed in terms of  the good that it might do in reforming Saudi Arabia's medieval society under the rule of the man who may well have ordered his death.  That's quite a trade-off.

Given this from August 2018:

...this from August 2018:

...and this from November 2018:

...it certainly looks like Mr., Kempe, the head of a think-tank funded by the military-industrial complex and governments in the Middle East, is living in a technicolour dreamworld when it comes to Saudi societal reformations under its future King, no matter how he may think that the world can leverage this crime "to achieve some good".

The Atlantic Council - Marching Us Closer to War With Russia

Recent news that Ukrainian ships had attempted an unannounced marine passage from the Black Sea through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov created a significant crisis that could easily have escalated to war.  Not surprisingly, the Atlantic Council, a card-carrying member of the American Deep State, weighed in with its opinion on the events.

Here is a map showing the region with Russia located in the west and centre part of the map (Crimean peninsula), the Sea of Azov in the centre of the map and Ukraine in the northeast corner of the map:

Here is a photo of the ship blocking passage under the recently opened 745 foot long, $3.69 billion Kerch Strait Bridge which connects mainland Russia with the Crimean Peninsula:

Here is a map showing how marine traffic has backed up as a result of Russia's blocking of the Kerch Strait in an effort to control its territorial waters since Crimea is now part of Russia:

Let's now take a look at what the Atlantic Council had to say about this brewing storm:

"Escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine in the Sea of Azov bear echoes of Russian provocations that led to the war with Georgia in the summer of 2008.

“For months, Russian forces have been working to make the Azov Sea an internal Russian body of water in order to both cut off Ukraine’s eastern ports and cement Moscow’s hold on Crimea,” said Damon Wilson, executive vice president of the Atlantic Council. 

“Moscow’s incrementalist approach is like the ‘creeping annexation’ we witnessed in Georgia in 2008—any single move tends not to be dramatic, but in the aggregate Russia makes strategic gains. Today, the Russians escalated with the aim of intimidating Ukraine into backing off its own effort to assert its access to these international waters and its own ports,” he added.

Tensions between Ukraine and Russia dramatically escalated on November 25 with Kyiv saying a Russian coast guard vessel rammed one of its navy tugboats in the Sea of Azov, while Moscow shut off access to the sea accusing Ukrainian vessels of passing through its territorial waters without permission. Russia reportedly seized three Ukrainian naval vessels. Ukraine said Russian forces fired on the vessels and six crewmembers were injured. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said he would propose that parliament declare martial law in the country in response to the situation.

“For those who follow Kremlin policy in its neighborhood, this  looks dangerously familiar,” said John E. Herbst, director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

“Moscow committed provocations against Georgia for years:  military overflights, random missiles landing in Georgian territory and, of course, firing across the internal demarcation line between parts of Georgia hosting Russian troops and the rest of Georgia.  Such firing from South Ossetia led to the Russia-Georgia war in 2008,” he explained.

Michael Carpenter, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said: “Russia's seizure of Ukrainian ships transiting the Kerch Strait between the Black and Azov Seas is part of a larger Russian strategy to gain control over the Azov Sea and blockade Ukrainian maritime traffic in and out of the Kerch Strait." 

“This move is clearly a violation of international law and adds a new dimension to Russia's four-and-a-half-year-old war against Ukraine,” he added.

Carpenter said the United States should "respond immediately by giving Ukraine radars to boost its maritime domain awareness and land-based anti-ship missiles so it can defend its Azov Sea littoral."

“The United States should also impose a complete asset freeze on at least one major Russian bank, such as Sberbank, VTB, or Gazprombank. The sanctioning of a Russian bank—or several banks if Russia fails to respond initially—should be made conditional on Russia restoring Ukraine's access to its own ports and withdrawing its troops from the Donbas. Until this happens, the costs on the Kremlin should continue to mount,” he added.

Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said: “NATO and the United States should send in naval ships in the Sea of Azov to guarantee that it stays open to international shipping.”

Such action, Åslund said, “would be in full compliance with the UN Law of the Sea Convention of 1982 and the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits of 1936.”

The Sea of Azov has become a point of friction between Moscow and Kyiv since Russia seized Crimea in March 2014. 

“Ever since Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014, it has prepared for turning the international Sea of Azov into internal Russian waters, blocking a large share of the Ukrainian coasts and two major commercial ports, Mariupol and Berdyansk,” said Åslund." (my bolds)

It's pretty obvious that the Atlantic Council's aim is to further inflame tensions in the region by adding anti-ship missiles, ships from the United States Navy and further anti-Russian sanctions into the mix and by accusing Russia of attempting to start another war in the region.

In case you have forgotten, here is a list of major contributors (or what they term as "Communities of Influence") to the Atlantic Council:

Notice the following major contributors:

Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom

United States Department of State

General Atomics

United Technologies Corporation

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Raytheon Company

Thales SA (a French Aerospace and Defense company)

United States Air Force Academy

The Boeing Company

Textron

Ukrainian Canadian Congress

United States Air Force

US Mission to NATO

Influence, indeed.  One would almost think that the Atlantic Council is pandering to its  major contributors by recommending further military actions against Russia over the Kerch Strait events.

It is also important to remember that, back in May 2018, Facebook retained the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensic Research Lab (aka Digital Sherlocks) to help protect those of us who are too stupid to discern Russian-based propaganda from Washington-based propaganda.  This is the same group that is protecting us from that nasty Iranian propaganda as well.

Let's close with this excerpt from the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

"1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defence or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defence or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of wilful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage." (my bold)

One at least has to question the motives of Ukraine's navy for taking this action, particularly in light of point (d) in the aforementioned excerpt from the Law of the Sea.

As we can see from this posting, the American-based non-elected and completely war-biased machinery is doing its very best to march us ever closer to war with Russia.  It is obvious that the powerful Atlantic Council is acting in the best interests of its military-industrial-Congressional benefactors.  Sadly for all of us, none of the members of the seedy underbelly of Washington will ever find themselves close to the front lines of the battle.

Atlantic Council Digital Forensics Research Lab and Iranian Propaganda

While the vast majority of people in the West have not heard of the Atlantic Council, it is becoming an increasingly important organ of the "censor the internet and remove all disinformation" movement that has taken over the global media since Hillary Clinton lost her birthright to the Oval Office in November 2016.  In this posting, I want to take a very brief look at the people behind the Atlantic Council, its affiliate, the Digital Forensic Research Lab aka Digital Sherlocks and how it is handling so-called misinformation from Iran.

First, let's look at the backers of the Atlantic Council.  Here is a complete list of executives and directors:

Note the presence of Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor, Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security, Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor and David Petraeus, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Here are the contributors to the Atlantic Council, a list that reads like a who's who of the Deep State along with state and quasi-state organizations:

Now, let's take a brief look at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Lab (DFRLab) also known as Digital Sherlocks.  Here is a screen capture of their lead-in webpage:

When you click on the "discover" button, this is what you find:

Here is some additional information about DFRLab:

"The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) has operationalized the study of disinformation by exposing falsehoods and fake news, documenting human rights abuses, and building digital resilience worldwide.

We continually track global disinformation campaigns, fake news stories, covert military developments, and subversive attempts against democracy while teaching the public skills to identify and expose attempts to pollute the information space.

Using open source, social media, and digital forensic research DFRLab's Digital Sherlocks have conducted ground breaking investigations into war crimes committed during the siege of Aleppo and ceasefire violations in Ukraine." 

The DFRLab team consists of eleven members with very wide-ranging backgrounds with this gentleman as their Managing Editor and Director, noting that he served in the Obama Administration:

Here is one of the other members of DFRLab who worked in the Obama Administration:

Here is one of the founding members of DFRLab, Ben Nimmo:

With that background, let's look at some recent investigatory work that DFRLab has done on the use of disinformation by Iran in an article entitled "An Iranian Message Laundromat" According to the unnamed author(s) of the article, there are a cluster of at least ten websites known as International Union of Virtual Media or IUVM which appears to have been linked to the Iranian state.  IUVM's purpose was to claim messages from the Iranian government and its proxies, claiming it as their own and repackaging it and passing it along to other users without showing that its original source was the Iranian government/stat-controlled channels.

Here is the lead-in webpage for IUVM:

Here are IUVM's policies and goals and its other services:

Here are IUVM's principles and objectives:

Here is a link to IUVM's downloadable "Statute" which is where you will find these pages:

IUVM clearly states that its headquarters are in Tehran and that it raises funds by individual donations, fundraising through other organizations, selling products, running technical services and membership fees from Founding members.

If you click on IUVMTV, this is what you will find:

IUVMTV also had an account on YouTube, but this is what you will find on IUMV's YouTube account now:

According to IUVMTV's "About Us" page, it is a "Nonprofit Autonomous Organization that devotes itself to present the people with facts which the Mainstream Media Hides, Manipulates or Transforms".  According to DFRLab, IUVMTV was a news aggregator for outlets including Iran's news agency Fars, the Iran state broadcaster Press TV, Russia's RT, Syria's pro-Assad Al-Masdar and America's "conspiracy site, Veterans Today".  

Under the IUVMTV banner, you will also find this page entitled "U.S. Hypocrisy":

If you click on IUVMPress, you will find a series of pro-Iran and anti-American/anti-Israeli articles:

The rather lengthy analysis on IUVM by DFRLab goes on to compare what appears on IUVM's various websites to its original, Iran-sourced information as shown here:

It also links other websites including "RPFront.com", "Britishleft.com" and "LibertyFrontPress.com" which appear to be Iranian-sourced according to research by FireEye as shown here:

DFRLab's biggest beef with IUVM was that it didn't properly attribute its content to its sources, making it difficult for readers to assess the validity of its content.  I would choose to disagree since, to me, it is very clear that the source is non-American, non-Israeli and has a pro-Palestinian, pro-Iranian stance and, as such, should be consumed with those predispositions in mind.   If it is IUVM's goal to divide Americans, I would suggest that the United States has already become severely politically and socially polarized and that IUVM is wasting its time. 

Please note that this article is found on the Medium website, an online publishing service that was founded in 2012 by Twitter/Blogger co-founder, Ev Williams.  In August 2018 alone, Medium has published 26 articles submitted by DFRLab as you can see here and is acting as a bit of a shill for the Atlantic Council's view of the world.

What we can learn from this information is that disinformation is in the eye of the beholder.  One simply can no longer accept anything that one reads on the internet as truthful; all organizations and governments have their own agenda and just because the narratives don't agree doesn't make one more right than another.  The Atlantic Council and the Digital Forensic Research Lab, both organs of the Deep State, are doing their best to function as an internet censor, insisting that the narrative proposed by Washington is the only narrative that is valid.  It also acts as though the rest of the world is incapable of making decisions on important issues like Iran without its invaluable assistance.  Given that 46 percent of Americans have heard little about the nuclear deal with Iran and 26 percent have heard nothing at all, it would not be out of the realm of reality to suggest that Iran simply doesn't matter to a very significant portion of Main Street America.