Archive | November 29th, 2013

The Victory Hour

The Victory Hour Nov 27, 2013

by crescentandcross



Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on The Victory Hour

One killed, nine wounded in shelling of Russian Embassy in Damascus


One mortar round landed at the embassy’s premises and the other exploded close to it, the statement posted on said, killing and injuring local residents, including guards.

Damaged vehicles and the Russian embassy building are seen after an explosion in central Damascus, February 21, 2013, in this handout photograph released by Syria's national news agency SANA. REUTERS/Sana
Damaged vehicles and the Russian embassy building are seen after an explosion in central Damascus, February 21, 2013, in this handout photograph released by Syria’s national news agency SANA. REUTERS/Sana
 One Syrian was killed and nine others were injured during a mortar shelling of the Russian embassy in Damascus, the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

“We consider them (shellings) acts of terrorism, whose executors and those inciting and supervising them, should receive a deserved punishment,” the ministry said.

Russia, a staunch supporter of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, has criticised the West for aiding Zio-NATO Rat’s who have been fighting to topple him for more than two years in a war that has cost well over 100,000 lives.

Zio-NATO have launched several mortar and rocket attacks in recent months into the centre of the Syrian capital, where many embassies and senior Syrian officials are based.

A mortar shell landed on the compound of the Russian embassy in September inflicting light injuries to two people.

The Russian mission was also damaged in February when a car bomb exploded nearby on a busy Damascus highway, killing 50 people. No one was wounded at the embassy, but that blast blew out windows in the building, Russian officials said.

Posted in Russia, SyriaComments Off on One killed, nine wounded in shelling of Russian Embassy in Damascus

Jewish Court forces mother to circumcise son


High Rabbinical Court rules man may perform Jewish ritual on infant despite wife’s objection, expressing concern that circumcision will be used as tool in divorce battles


The High Rabbinical Court has ruled that a man may have his son circumcised despite the mother’s objection, rejecting a petition filed by the woman against a district court’s decision.

The high court’s judges said they were under the impression that the woman’s refusal to circumcise the infant was simply a tool to improve her achievements in the divorce battle, and therefore decided not to accept it.

This comes as a legal precedent by a rabbinical court seeking to force a parent to circumcise their child.

The initial ruling was delivered last month in a district court in the Sharon region. It stated that the father was entitled to circumcise his son, who is several months old, under the supervision of a specialist. The judges instructed the father to hold the circumcision ceremony within a week and imposed a fine of NIS 500 (about $140) for every day of delay due to the mother’s objection.

‘Why does the court bind the two together?’

The woman claimed through attorney Marcella Wolf that the court had no authority to discuss the matter, and filed a petition with the High Rabbinical Court with a request to delay the implementation of the order.

In a discussion held last week, the woman’s representative argued that the circumcision was not a “religious ceremony” but a surgical procedure, and that therefore it should not be tied to the custody issue being discussed by the court.

“Let’s assume that a husband comes to the court and wants to stop her from having an abortion. Can he just bind it due to the fact that there is a divorce claim, and the court can prevent it?” asked attorney Wolf.

The man’s representatives, attorneys Itzhak Gilboa and Natan Tzur, said in response that until now rabbinical courts were not required to deal with the circumcision issue because there was a consensus over the mitzvah and no one had raised a demand to avoid it as part of a divorce case.
According to the attorneys, the religious judges were authorized to discuss it just like they discussed the issue of whether children should be educated in religious or secular institutions. .

Judges: Baby’s brit must not be delayed
High Rabbinical Court Judges Rabbi Zion Boaron, Rabbi Masud Elhadad and Rabbi Israel Shchur wondered how it was possible that in a discussion on the divorce the woman asked for “matrimonial reconciliation” while delaying the circumcision the father wanted to perform on his son.

According to the judges, this “will surely drive the husband away from her desire for domestic peace, and there is also an aspect that this could join the reasons to force her to accept a divorce, as he has no desire for a woman delaying his children’s circumcision and refusing to trust specialists.

“It appears that the woman’s desire to delay the circumcision stems from her attempt to force her husband to accept her demand for domestic peace and go back to her,” the judges added.

“If the woman received bad advice to oppose her husband on the circumcision issue, thereby forcing him to agree to go back to her for domestic peace – this is not the way and this is not the place, and such a thing creates distance rather than bringing them closer.”

The judges further added that “this is wrong in itself, and a baby’s circumcision must not be delayed and must not be mixed with the possibility to restore peace, and it should not be claimed that this is allegedly not an issue the court is authorized to discuss.”

They noted that “delaying the circumcision may stop this person from marrying according to Jewish law – and this is undoubtedly an issue subject to the court’s authority.”

Brit left to consideration of court
As part of the discussion, the court wrote that an absolute majority of the Jewish people sacrificed themselves throughout the generations in order to perform the circumcision – and not just religious people. They stressed that the baby’s father must observe the mitzvah.

Addressing the woman’s claim that she did not want to damage her son’s body, the judges commented: “The Jewish people have always seen the circumcision as an act of repairing and completing the Creation, and not causing damage God forbid.”

They added that “there is no doubt – and this is a judicial cognizance – that from the social aspect as well it is in the favor of every Jewish child to be circumcised like the entire society he lives in, and he should not be given the feeling that he is different from the rest of his friend.”

The High Rabbinical Court protested the woman’s objection to the circumcision, stating that they had not encountered such an incident as part of a divorce case for decades. They warned against a precedent that would turn the matter into a tool in similar battles.

“We may find ourselves facing an outburst of such cases, which will add another intimidating dimension to divorce procedures,” they wrote. “We believe this trend must be stopped immediately in favor of public welfare, which overrides individual welfare.

“In this case we don’t need this argument to reject the petition, but even if there anyone who hesitates on this matter, or in other causes in which binding the two is questionable, this argument is enough to tip the scales.”

The judges further implied that it was wrong to leave the circumcision issue to the consideration of the parents or the court: “We have been witnessing for a long time now public and legal battles against the circumcision in many countries in Europe and in the United States, and the public in Israel stands as one against these phenomena and sees them as another aspect of anti-Semitism which must be combated…

“What will the world say if here too the matter of circumcision will be subject to the consideration of every person according to his perceptions? It is unthinkable that the matter of performing or failing to perform the circumcision will be taken away from Jewish scholars and be subject to the consideration of a civil court, when each one has his own opinions and worldview – this will not happen in Israel, God forbid.”

As for the authority to discuss the issue, the judges wrote that after it was tied by the appellee to the divorce claim itself (even if not to begin with), “there is no doubt and no question that this is subject to the court’s authority.

“Our eyes can see clearly how the woman’s war to prevent the circumcision only fans the flames of disagreement, prolongs the discussion between the parties in different courts, and serves as a means of pressure against the husband to give up on other issues, as the case reveals,” they wrote.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Jewish Court forces mother to circumcise son

Al-Qaeda operates on behalf of I$raHell, West (Press TV


-Press TV (watch interview)

The al-Qaeda mercenaries in Syria operate on behalf of the Israeli regime and the West, aiming to break up the Middle East and spread sectarianism, an analyst tells Press TV.

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri recently called for support for the foreign-backed insurgents in Syria in their fight against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Meanwhile, despite a temporary truce that took effect in Syria on Friday, the insurgents launched attacks in several areas, killing dozens of people and injuring tens of others.

Syria has been experiencing unrest since March 2011. Many people, including large numbers of security forces, have been killed in the turmoil.

Damascus blames the West and some of its regional allies, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, for arming and funding the insurgents.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Kevin Barrett, an author and Islamic Studies expert, from Madison, to further discuss the issue.

Barrett is joined by two additional guests: Sheikh Omar Bakri, a Salafist activist from Tripoli; and Omar Nashabi, with Al-Akhbar newspaper, from Beirut. The following is a rough transcription of the interview with Barrett.

Press TV: Why do you think that the Syrian government even agreed, to begin with, to this ceasefire?

Barrett: I think the Syrian government has a lot of tough choices in front of it. In the long run, the Syrian government knows that it’s going to have to reform; but right now, it’s fighting a destabilization campaign which is being led by the US-Zionist axis of evil, as we might term them, with support from Saudi Arabia and, unfortunately, Turkey, which looked like it was going to be an honest player in the Middle East just a year ago.colorado lottery

Of course, a ceasefire is a good idea. It’s Eid al-Adha. Eid Mubarak to everyone. Muslims should not be killing fellow Muslims any time and especially not on Eid al-Adha. Naturally, the idea of a ceasefire is very appealing.

As I understand it, the Syrian government entertained or accepted the idea of a ceasefire, and the first party that rejected it was one of these groups that called themselves an al-Qaeda affiliate.

The idea of an al-Qaeda affiliate which claims to be fighting for Islam, to be destabilizing an Islamic country on behalf of the Zionists and the American empire is kind of laughable.

I think one of the reasons that they won’t honor a ceasefire for Eid is that al-Qaeda is essentially an infiltrated organization that operates on behalf of the empire rather than fighting against it.

If you look at who al-Qaeda has actually killed over the years, they’ve killed almost entirely their fellow Muslims. In these embassy bombings in Africa that they claimed credit for, they killed almost entirely Muslim Africans. In the fighting that they’ve done against the Russian empire, they ended up killing a lot of fellow Muslims there.

They’ve killed very, very few Americans and Israelis.

Al-Qaeda, of course, did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. That was an inside job run by people in the US and Israeli intelligence apparatus.

Al-Qaeda is really a manipulated group that serves to smear Islam. It’s created a negative brand name that only about seven percent of Muslims like, and the other 90 percent-plus don’t like. It’s destabilizing the Middle East on behalf of Zionism and the US empire.

That’s what we’re seeing in Syria today. When it rejects a ceasefire for Eid al-Adha, that just shows us that this group is really not much more of a Muslim group anymore than the people who are pretending to be 9/11 hijackers in Florida were actual Muslims. These were people who were well known to be taking drugs, visiting prostitutes and so on…

(In response to rhetoric by previous guest speaker, Sheikh Omar Bakri) He’s kind of insisting that al-Qaeda is a wonderful Sunni group fighting on behalf of Sunnis; is a perfect example of the sectarian nature of this group.

These people are tasked by the Zionist and the empire with spreading sectarianism in the Muslim world, that is breaking up Muslim countries into different sects and different nationalities.

Of course, al-Qaeda is mainly about sectarianism and it’s part of this crazy takfiri ideology of this tiny minority of extremist Muslims who say that anybody who doesn’t believe exactly what we believe is an evil apostate that could be killed – an evil unbeliever. This is nonsense…

Press TV: Looking at the situation now, the Syrian government said that it was going to abide by the ceasefire. Of course, we know that there have been attacks and now the opposition is claiming that the Syrian government is actually the one that broke the truce.

Your perspective, from a political perspective, do you think that it would be in the interests of the Syrian government, on the one hand, to say that they would stand by a ceasefire and then breaking it themselves? Let’s look at this, from your perspective. I would like to hear your take.

Barrett: As I understand it, the Syrian government did some serious reflection before they accepted the ceasefire proposal. There was some dissidents within the ranks of the Syrian army. There were people who thought that a ceasefire would be in the interests of those fighting against the Syrian government.

But in the end, as I understand it, the Syrian government did accept the ceasefire, and that it was first broken by these people claiming to be al-Qaeda.

One never really knows precisely what’s happening on the ground in these kinds of situations. The first casualty of war is always the truth. The narrative, as I understand it, that makes the most sense is the way I described it.

Again, I think that stabilization in Syria, calming things down, ending the killing, ending the suffering and bloodshed that the other guest referred to is in the interests of the Syrian government and in the interests of the people of the Middle East.

It’s not in the interests of the people in the region to have the situation deteriorate and fall apart into bloodshed and chaos.

I agree that the Syrian government does need to evolve and become more representative of its people. There’s no question about that. The way to make that happen is not through a divisive civil war pitting different Alawites against Sunnis, against Kurds and so on, breaking it up into little pieces.

That’s exactly the… Israeli plan, to destroy the Middle East by breaking it into tiny little pieces along ethnic and sectarian lines. That’s exactly what these al-Qaeda people are working for. If one didn’t know better, one would think al-Qaeda was a brand invented by the Israelis themselves.

In fact, it may have been because Bernard Lewis, the Zionist strategist and Orientalist, has been talking for years before there was al-Qaeda, for decades, actually, about needing to create a group modeled on the Ismaili assassins of the Middle Ages to destabilize the Middle East on behalf of Western intervention.

I think that stability is obviously in the interests of the people in the Middle East and in the Syrian government. So, I think that they did accept the ceasefire. It’s the forces of destabilization that have rejected it and broken it.

Press TV: What is the key to bringing peace to Syria, your perspective?

Barrett: I don’t know if there’s a single key. I think we have to get back to the spirit of Islam. We’re in the Eid al-Adha holiday right now and we need to think about the spirit of unity.

“Tawhid”, which is the absolute Unity of God, is reflected in the unity of creation and all of God’s creatures, all Muslims and all people. We shouldn’t be splitting off into different sects, hating people who don’t believe what we believe.

We need to reach out to people from other sects. As Muslims, especially, we need to reach out to other kinds of Muslims who don’t think the way we do, and cross this kind of divide, and end this kind of crazy sectarian conflict that’s being sponsored by the enemies of the Middle East, the enemies of Islam, the people who want to break it up into pieces. We really need to start talking to each other instead of killing each other.

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Al-Qaeda operates on behalf of I$raHell, West (Press TV

The CIA’s Muslim “Outfit,” – The Muslim Brotherhood


The Muslim Brotherhood Subsidiary

 by Dean Henderson for Veterans Today

[Editors Note:  Dear Readers, Brother Henderson has done his homework. You might want to print this one out and save this well researched material…Jim W. Dean]


Excerpted from Chapter 10: The Iran/Iraq War: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

The irrational deep-seated hatred which the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment holds towards Iran is rooted in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which overthrew the Four Horsemen stooge Shah and nationalized Iran’s oil and banking industries.

The Eight Families banking cabal much preferred themullahs to the leftists. By 1982 CIA and MI6 were passing targeting information to the Ayatollah aimed at Iranian leftist groups like the Tudeh Party, the National Front and the People’s Mujahadeen.

The mullahs unleashed a reign of terror, assassinating over 4,000 Tudeh Party leaders, while torturing and imprisoning over 10,000 Tudeh members and supporters.  In 1989 many of those imprisoned were sentenced to death. [412]

Khomeini banned Tudeh, terming them “Marxist satanic elements” – something even the Shah hadn’t done. The Tudeh Party spearheaded the Iranian Revolution through their Committee of 60 oilfield strikes in Khuzistan.  The party earlier ushered in Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, whose attempts to wrest better terms from the Four Horsemen-controlled Iranian Consortium made him the target of a successful BP-financed coup in 1953.

The US was now once again helping Islamic extremists, this time to exterminate the Iranian left.  One US official assured reporters that the executions “would not hinder the warming of US/Iran relations”. [413]  Big Oil was dealing with the Ayatollah as well, secretly shipping Iranian crude to Saudi Arabia for refining.

The Israeli Mossad was walking the same high-wire in their country, where in 1978 it allowed the fundamentalist Hamas to become the only Palestinian group registered in Israel.  Within a decade Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin had built a powerful organization that ruled the Gaza Strip under Israeli watch. [414]

The Israelis found Hamas a convenient bludgeon which they could deploy against Yasser Arafat whose Palestinian Authority had emerged from Fatah and the PLO, both of which put forth a secular left of center political agenda based on Arab unity and nationalism.

Hamas has a much different agenda.  They are Islamists whose goal is to set up an Islamic state with funding from the undemocratic right-wing GCC sheikdoms, especially the House of Saud.  Hamas regularly receives funds from the Saudis without intervention by the Israelis, while money bound for the PLO is routinely seized by Israeli authorities.  Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon played a critical role in the founding of Hamas in 1988, when his Likud Party doled out 800 licenses to Islamists in the occupied Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank.  The right-wing Israeli Likud uses Hamas to sew division among the Palestinians.

The Saudis favor Hamas since their interests are firmly aligned with those of the international bankers and the Four Horsemen.  The Saudis prefer fundamentalist groups that talk of “infidels” and “the decadence of Western culture”, to those more radical nationalist groups who rail against the injustice of neo-liberal globalization, a system from which the House of Saud derives its vast wealth.  After the Gulf War the House of Saud cut funding to the PLO to punish Arafat for his opposition to the US bombing of Iraq, while the Saudis continued to fund Hamas. [415]  Many House of Saud members are members of the secret society Muslim Brotherhood-Benoist-Mechin.

Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which traces its roots back to the Grand Lodge of Cairo and the Assassins secret society which fought alongside Knights Templar invaders in their attacks against Muslim Saracen nationalists during the Crusades.  Hamas, wittingly or not, serves that same “divide and conquer” role today in Sharon’s attacks on the nationalist Arafat.  Hamas suicide bombers are modern-day Assassins, whose actions serve as a pretext for further Israeli aggression against Palestinians.

It was no coincidence that each time Sharon flew to Washington in 2002 to discuss the increasingly explosive Israeli/Palestinian conflict with President Bush, Hamas activated its suicide bombers.  The bombings enabled Sharon to escape US scrutiny. Each time the Butcher of Shatila was soon on his way back to Tel Aviv to grab more Palestinian land.  In 2005 Hamas won the elections in Palestine, giving the Israelis another excuse to harden their stance.

Sharon served as ideological guru of both the Gush Emunim and Kach Movement/JDL Jewish underground right-wing terror networks during his 1977-1992 tenure in Israeli Likud governments.  Sharon was also part of the Landscam gang which made millions recruiting Jews from Manhattan to Moscow as buyers of homes built on illegal settlements on Palestinian lands during the 1980’s and 1990’s.

His Landscam partners included Rupert Murdoch, Sir David Ormsby-Gore, Prince Johannes von Thurn and Taxis, Sir Edmund Peck and World Jewish Congress President Edgar Bronfman. [416]

Also attending the initial 1982 planning sessions for this land grab at Sharon’s Negev ranch were Henry Kissinger, MI6 MidEast specialist Nicholas Elliot and Permindex crony Louis Mortimer Bloomfield.  The meeting came on the heels of Sharon’s June 4, 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

From 1984-1990 Sharon served as Minister of Construction & Housing for Likud, where he greatly expanded illegal Israeli settlement activity. [417]

According to former Mossad case officer Victor Ostravsky, Mossad armed the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood with mujahadeen arms from Afghanistan in 1986.  Mossad even told these Islamic Jihad terrorists which targets to hit.  That same year they planned to arm Islamists in Jordan to destabilize that nation as part of their “Jordan is Palestine” plan to push all Palestinians into Jordan, while seizing the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [418]

In October 1991, angered at the Bush Sr. Administration’s willingness to mediate peace talks in Madrid between Israel and the Palestinians, Ostravsky says Mossad used three Hamas extremists in an attempt to assassinate Bush in Madrid.  When their plan failed, these Palestinians, like many before them, were shipped off to Nes Ziyyona, an Israeli nuclear, biological and chemical weapons testing facility where experiments are routinely conducted on Palestinian militants.  A similar Mossad facility exists, disguised as a hospital, in Soweto, South Africa, where poor blacks are subject to experimentation. [419]

The global elite use Islamic extremists to achieve its geopolitical goals on a regular basis.  In 1982 the socialist government in Syria put down a revolt led by Islamic militants.  One of the revolt’s leaders was Abdallah Azzam, who later supervised the CIA training of mujahadeen in Peshawar.

Shiek Hassan Turabi, leader of the Sudanese military government, is backed by the leader of that country’s Muslim Brotherhood offshoot known as the Islamic National Front.  Until the media began reporting that Osama bin Laden was using Sudan as his mid-1990’s al Qaeda base, the US had close ties to the Sudanese fanatics.  Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the cleric who CIA brought to the US to recruit Islamic fighters got his visa at the US consulate in Khartoum. [420]

In the US the Muslim Brotherhood coalesces around Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of Islam.  On February 21, 1965 Nation of Islam operatives gunned down black leader Malcolm X, who had fallen out with the Islamists after a journey to Mecca altered his worldview.

Prior to the trip, Malcolm X spoke in the divisive manner of Farrakhan, preaching black power against the “white devils”.  In his autobiography, he writes of his transformation at Mecca.  Upon his return he ditched his racial analysis and focused on class, reaching out, as Dr. Martin Luther King had begun to do when he was assassinated, to labor unions and impoverished whites.  He even talked of a coalition with King.

Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad was a self-proclaimed messenger of Nation of Islam founder Master Fard.  Fard instructed Muhammad to study the origins of Islam, Freemasonry and the Kabala.  According to Fard, the black race emerged from the powerful Tribe of Shabazz, whose members possessed the all-seeing eyevia their operative pineal lottery

In a story strikingly similar to that of the Annunaki Sumerian invaders, Fard said a “big-head scientist named Yakub” appeared around 6,000 years ago and began experiments to genetically engineer a wicked race who would be “masters of deceit”.

Fard claims the white races produced by Yakub, whom he claims is the Biblical Jacob, were represented in ancient Egyptology as the tribe of Seth, who was known by the Greeks as Satan.  Fard says that mankind’s pineal gland was damaged through these experiments and that these “white devils” usurped the many achievements of black culture, terming their new slaves Negroes, after the word necro, which means “dead”. [421]

Fard also states – as do the Knights Templar – that Jesus Christ never died on the cross.  Fard said Christ was only in an herb-induced stupor when he was laid in the tomb by Roman soldiers and that he later married, had children and died in Kashmir, Pakistan. [422]

This helps explain why, while the Priory of Sion bloodline Kings are the Merovingans of France (where the Templars claim Christ later lived), the spiritual God/King of the Muslim Brotherhood is Aga Khan, who resided in the Kashimir region of Pakistan.  It may also explain why ill-fated modern-day Assassin Osama bin Laden hid out in Pakistan.

The sniper that claimed thirteen victims in the Washington, DC area in October 2002, John Mohamed, was a recent convert to the Nation of Islam.  Its donors have included Texas billionaire H. L. Hunt, who met with Jack Ruby the day before the JFK hit, then disappeared to Mexico for a month.

Louis Farrakhan came up missing in similar fashion after the Malcolm X hit.  The assassins of Malcolm X were likely paid by CIA, which was concerned with his pan-Africanism and his UN petition declaring the US to be a racist imperial power.

Islamic fundamentalism began its modern day meteoric rise in British administered India and found a permanent home in Pakistan. That country came into being in 1947 in a British attempt to divide Muslims from their Hindu Indian counterparts.  Pakistani Islamism was carried forth by Mawdudi and a succession of military juntasbacked by the US. [423]

The Saudi Muslim Brotherhood government embraces Wahhabist fundamentalism and finances its export to places like Egypt – where it once printed and distributed a manual advocating “Islamic political economy”.

The US-allied Gulf Cooperation Council embraces Islamic fundamentalism, which is quite congruent with global monopoly capitalism and feudalistic monarchy.

Meanwhile US enemies in the region embrace secular socialism, which aims to stop the exploitation of oil resources by the Four Horsemen and their Eight Families-owners.

Great regional leaders including the Egyptian Nasser, the Iranian Mossadegh, the Algerian Boumedienne, the Libyan Qaddafi and the Iraqi al-Bakr all advocated secular socialism (though Qaddafi proclaimed himself precisely to be an anarcho-syndicalist), which poses a very real threat to the Illuminati elite.

[412] “War Criminals, Real and Imagined”. Gregory Elich. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.21

[413] “Heart of Darkness Department”. Alexander Cockburn. The Nation. 2-6-89. p.151

[414] “Israel and Hamas: Dancing the Zionist-Islamist Waltz”. Rezeq Faraj. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.24

[415] “Islamic Terrorists: Creature of the US Taxpayer?” John K. Cooley. International Herald Tribune. 3-13-96

[416] “Ariel Sharon: Profile of an Unrepentant War Criminal” Jeffrey Steinberg. Executive Intelligence Review. 5-17-02

[417] Ibid

[418] The Other Side of Deception. Victor Ostravsky. HarperCollins Publishing. New York. 1994

[419] Ibid

[420] Faraj. p.25

[421] The Judas Factor: The Plot to Kill Malcolm X. Karl Evanzz. Thunder’s Mouth Press. New York. 1992

[422] Ibid

[423] “Political Islam”. Samir Amin. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.3

Posted in USA, EgyptComments Off on The CIA’s Muslim “Outfit,” – The Muslim Brotherhood

Benghazi Massacre: Fox/Huffington CIA Tale Nonsense


AC 130 Gunships, Typically in Aviano, 1700 miles away if at all, providing radio hadn’t been jammed

Imaginary Planes, Imaginary CIA Armies, All Invented as Election Ploy

By Gordon Duff, Senior Editor (with Top US Intel Specialists)

A trained team of up to 120 special forces personnel with radio jammers and heavy weapons killed the US ambassador.  There were only two America CIA employees in Libya.  The news stories are all fabrications.

md lotteryThe killing of Ambassador Stephens in Benghazi has become a ghoulish election ploy played by Fox News, Huffington Post and others.  All are printing and broadcasting conjecture, total falsehood and the usual biased and unreliable garbage they are famous for.

RF Jammer Trucks, Gaddafi Had Dozens in Libya

Neither publication/network has qualified intelligence and/or military advisors.  To be former military and work for Fox is considered prostitution.

The ambush at Benghazi required careful coordination.  There was no Al Qaeda involvement and there has never been any history of Al Qaeda on the ground in Libya.  Moreover, intelligence insiders use the term “Al Qaeda” when looking for money from “congressional critters” too stupid to know that the CIA has always run “Al Qaeda” as a way of avoiding explaining why dozens of small organizations and even friendly intelligence groups will, for obscure reasons, attack American targets.

Fox reported that a large convoy of Libyan milita relieved the compound at 3AM but that there had been no aid until 4 AM:

They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours  after the attack on the consulate began — a window that represented more than  enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe,  according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired  at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the  annex.

A motorcade of dozens of Libyan vehicles, some mounted with 50 caliber  machine guns, belonging to the February 17th Brigades, a Libyan militia which is  friendly to the U.S., finally showed up at the CIA annex at approximately 3 a.m.

Generously one can call this kind of reporting inconsitencies.  Either they are there or they aren’t, either it is 3am or 4am but not both.

Nothing is simple enough for congress and the American people, this is the belief.  When in doubt…lie.

The attack in Benghazi was coordinated with the broadcast of the Terry Jones/CATO Institute/Tea Party telethon worldwide.  Rioting broke out in Tripoli but not Benghazi.

Ambassador Stephens had a 6 man detail, former SEALS, all private contractors from L3 Communications, a British company contracted to supply diplomatic security.

The team used was one of the best in the world, equal to any normal task, and by normal, we mean “high risk.”  This is standard State Department policy and those used were not only top quality operators but went through months of specialized training at Blackwater’s facilities here in the US.

The second problem was tied to the Ambassador being, not in the Capitol, Tripoli, but in Benghazi to open a museum.  I am deeply suspicious of this and as the CATO Institute and State Department are “co-mingled,” it would have been easy for information on the movements of the ambassador and his team to have been telegraphed to the enemy forces who had been positioned in Benghazi.

The forces themselves were spotted at the Tripoli airport several days in advance.  Some may have entered from Egypt and some from Tunisia but 50 had come in from the UAE and were identified as Special Forces, UAE Special Forces, who had completed an extensive training program by retired US Special Forces and through the specialized American school for “irregular warfare,” located 45 miles outside Budapest, Hungary.

The attack itself involved pre-positioning two levels of blockade, one tying up any possible relief in Benghazi a kilometer away and another setting up a perimeter about 200 yards around the compound.  Streets were blocked and heavy weapons, RPGs, truck mounted anti-aircraft guns and large mortars were used.

Mortar fire was so accurate that the compound had to have been pretargeted in advance.  The first round hit the roof of the main building in the compound of 7 homes, all with minimal security.

The primary reason for no additional forces to have been available was the controversy during the civil war.  Anti-war activists and “anti-imperialists in the pay of the Gaddafi family along with David Welch of Bechtel Corporation and Israeli mercenaries and advisors, along with troops from across Africa, specialists from Serbia and Belarus and other nations, created something more than a “fog of war” but rather a “fog of truth.”

Paid “shills” working for Gaddafi continually warned of Americans coming into the country armed as an occupation force.  Thus, when the war ended, no armed Americans were brought in, only one small team and two CIA agents.

There were 3 additional armed local militia members providing security for the CIA who could have reached Stephens except for the blocked communications, the blocked roads and being outnumbered 30 to one.

The US does maintain 2 C130 gunships in the region.  These are slow moving transport aircraft stationed at times in Northern Sardinia but more often further away at Aviano in Italy, North of Venice.

These are Air Force planes, not Navy.

The gunships are extremely effective weapons and would have been of help had they been available, had they been called though all radio and telephone traffic was jammed as with the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty and had the personnel in need of support been stationary and secure with strobe markers to secure them from the 20mm, 40mm and 105mm weapons on the AC130.

Instead, we have been informed, a two pronged and highly coordinated attack drove the US group to a safe house, into vehicles and corralled them in a pre-positioned ambush where their vehicle was attacked by a “quad 50″ anti-aircraft gun mounted on the back of a truck.

Such a weapon could destroy a Bradley Armoured Personnel Carrier or shoot down an Apache attack helicopter.

What is clear is that help was not available, that America moved into Libya with a minimal presence so as to seem unaggressive, to please critics of President Obama’s foreign policy among Republicans in Congress.

Blame them.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Benghazi Massacre: Fox/Huffington CIA Tale Nonsense

Imran Khan Interviewed by “Nutcase” on CBC (Kanada video)


Next President of Pakistan Subjected to World’s Worst TV Journalist


Canada’s Version of Now Dead (so far) Andrew Breitbart

by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor


It’s no secret that Veterans Today and its sister publication in Pakistan, Opinon-Maker are strong backers of Imran Khan.

Let’s keep this simple, I know Khan well, know he could eater either American presidential candidate “for breakfast” in a debate and am amazed at his patience in this CBC interview:virginia lottery


YouTube – Veterans Today –

As for myself, I would have likely throttled the little son of a bitch, but that’s just my PTSD talking, or is it?

What do you think?

Another vital question, which is worse as to Mr. Solomon’s attire, the tie or shirt?  I wonder if he is wearing pants.

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Imran Khan Interviewed by “Nutcase” on CBC (Kanada video)

Rinaldo Francesca: The Role of the BBC in the Syrian Conflict (Video)

Posted by: 

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, Syria, UKComments Off on Rinaldo Francesca: The Role of the BBC in the Syrian Conflict (Video)

Dr. Stephen Sniegoski: The Triangular Relationship between Iran, I$raHell and the United States – The Early Decades

Posted by:  

Exclusive: Dr. Stephen Sniegoski dissects the  history of the relationship of Iran, Israel, and the US from the end of WWII through to the end of George W. Bush’s first term (2004) .The greatest focus is on George W. Bush’s first administration. The essay shows some “inconvenient history” that the mainstream has thrown down the memory hole. It points out that the caricature of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a crazed state bent on suicidal warfare does not comport with the facts, but is rather disinformation promoted by those who identify with the interests of Israel. Iran has cooperated with the US a number of times since 2000 and has sought to make peace agreements with the US which have been rejected due to interference by members of the Israel lobby. Moreover, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s position on nuclear energy is quite like that of the Shah’s Iran. And its foreign policy currently only differs from that of the Shah in one fundamental way—opposition to Israel. While the issue of the attack on the US embassy in Tehran and the US support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s did cause mutual hostility in the earlier years of the Islamic Republic,  it is the issue of Israel that currently makes the Islamic Republic of Iran the major enemy of the United States, notes Dr. Sniegoski.

The manipulation of U.S. foreign policy by the neocons is all about reconfiguration of the Middle East for Israeli hegemony.

by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski

Can Israel force US into Iran war ?


Can Israel force US into Iran war ?

“What’s past is prologue,” a quotation from Shakespeare’s play “The Tempest,” is engraved on the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C.   In line with this idea—that past events set the stage for what comes afterward–the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel “1984”  discarded information from the past that conflicted with the current official version of the truth down the “Memory Hole” so that it would essentially no longer exist.  And since the  mainstream media in America likewise consigns much of the inconvenient past to the “memory hole,” it is highly enlightening to go over the triangular relationship between the United States, Israel, and Iran during the past few decades in order to get a better understanding of the present situation.  And in so doing, it will become  apparent that the depiction of Iran as a crazed state bent on suicidal warfare does not comport with the facts and that this caricature has not reflected the thinking of American foreign policy experts but is rather disinformation initially promoted by those who identify with the interests of Israel.

In the post-World War II period the United States looked upon Iran as a key player in the Middle East in protecting the oil flow to the West and in restricting the expansion of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and Central Asia.  The Soviet Union had occupied northern Iran during World War II, beginning in 1941, while Britain had occupied the southern part, because of the fear of the pro-German proclivity of the Iranian regime. During the war, Iran provided a conduit for the transport of extensive American military aid to the Soviet Union. While Stalin had promised to evacuate his forces from Iran upon the war’s termination, the Soviet Union delayed its departure and supported a number of pro-Soviet groups, and only left in 1946 after pressure from the United States.  This issue has been interpreted as a factor in the start of the Cold War.

It was largely this fear of Soviet penetration in Iran that led the CIA to play a fundamental role (along with the British) in the coup that overthrow the Mossadegh government in 1953 and enabled the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to have absolute power in Iran.  The idea that Mossadegh’s liberal nationalist government, which antagonized Britain because of its nationalization of the large British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later renamed British Petroleum or BP) would advance Soviet Communism was overwrought but was not farfetched in the political atmosphere of the time along with the aforementioned previous Soviet actions in Iran.  (Britain, in contrast, was largely motivated by the desire to protect the interests of its oil company and the vestiges of its imperial role.  It should be added that the United States regarded Britain as a key ally and thus felt obliged to defer to its views.)

While the U.S. wanted the Shah’s Iran to serve as a major pillar for its own security interests in the Persian Gulf, the Shah actually aspired to regional pre-eminence, which would entail independence from American control. Because of Iran’s rapidly expanding oil wealth that was channeled into lavish military spending—which took up one third of the Iranian budget– the Shah was moving in that direction in the 1970s before his dramatic downfall at the end of the decade. (The revolution was in part caused by the fact that huge military spending drained wealth from a civilian economy that was marked by dramatic disparities in wealth between the elite and the masses, though the standard of living of the latter had improved somewhat in the Shah’s top-down effort to modernize the country.)

In the Shah’s effort to make Iran a modern power, the creation of a nuclear program loomed large.    Iran’s nuclear program began in the 1950s under the auspices of America’s Atoms for Peace program. And Iran was one of the first countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which was ratified by its parliament in 1970.  Although the NPT prohibits Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it simultaneously stipulates that it has “the inalienable right…to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”  Iran, under both the Shah and the Islamic Republic, has placed great emphasis on these treaty rights when it appears that efforts are being made to curtail them.

In 1973, a study by the prestigious U.S.-based Stanford Research Institute concluded that Iran would need an electrical capacity of 20,000 megawatts by 1990. To achieve this much-higher level of energy production, the Shah decided to rely heavily on nuclear energy, and approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by 2000. Thinking of the future, he wanted Iran to have a source of energy when Iran’s non-renewable oil and gas reserves were depleted, and he reasoned that these resources could be better used as exports to obtain foreign exchange.  The Shah’s view on nuclear energy should belie the often-made claim that the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program could only be attributed to the quest for nuclear weaponry.

As is the case today, the United States in the 1970s expressed its concern about Iran’s possible development of a nuclear weapons capability, and both the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter administrations would only allow American companies to sell nuclear reactors to Iran with strings attached intended to prevent such a development. In a nuclear agreement with Iran in 1978, the United States was given the right to receive and store all the spent reactor fuel (which could be reprocessed to extract weapons-grade plutonium) from any reactors it constructed in Iran.

While the Shah had publicly disavowed desiring a nuclear weapons capability, he also claimed that Iran had the right according to the NPT to a full nuclear fuel cycle, including reprocessing of spent fuel and even the processing of plutonium — a faster way to a nuclear bomb than enriched uranium.  While this was prohibited in the agreement with the United States regarding American reactors, other European countries and India might have been willing to sell reactors to Iran without the same stringent restrictions. (This became a moot point with the Islamic Revolution in 1979.)

President Gerald R. Ford and the Shah of Iran confer over a map during the Shah's May 1975 visit to Washington, D.C. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sits in the background. (Photo courtesy of Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library)


President Gerald R. Ford and the Shah of Iran confer over a map during the Shah’s May 1975 visit to Washington, D.C. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger sits in the background. (Photo courtesy of Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library)

“U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations in 1970s Featured Shah’s Nationalism and U.S. Weapons Worries,” National Security Archive,

The Shah apparently considered a nuclear weapons option. According to the first head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) from 1974 to 1978 and architect of the Iranian nuclear program, Akbar Etemad,”The Shah had the idea at the time that he’s strong enough in the region and he can defend our interests in the region [and] he didn’t want nuclear weapons. But he told me that if this changes ‘we have to go for nuclear’. He had that in mind.”

In regard to Iran, Israel’s position harmonized with that of the United States and represented Israel’s fundamental security concept of establishing military relationships with non-Arab countries on its periphery in order to counter its nearby Arab enemies. Iran under the Pahlavi dynasty was one of the key peripheral states involved.  Iran had, to a significant degree, reciprocated Israeli support, but as it became more powerful in the 1970s, and thus less dependent on Israeli support (arms), Iran moved toward the Arabs and during the 1973 Yom Kippur War provided limited support to both sides.  Furthermore, as provided by the terms of the  Algiers Accord with Iraq in 1975, Iran would terminate support for the Kurdish separatist rebels in Iraq, who were closely connected to Israel, which regarded them as being vital in the prevention of any Iraqi military move westward towards Israel. Despite Iran’s indifference to Israeli security interests, however, Israel had no alternative but to maintain positive relations with it.

The 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah and soon replaced his rule with an Islamic regime led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, which was ideologically hostile to both Israel and the United States, but  did not affect these two countries’ geo-strategies in the same way.  Denouncing the United States as “the Great Satan,” the Islamic Republic, in its preaching of “Islamic revolution,” opposed American interests throughout the region, which included the threat to overthrow the pro-American Gulf monarchies that were deemed vital for the flow of oil to the West.

A key event in heightening the hostility between the United States and Iran was the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979 by radical Islamic students, in which more than fifty Americans would be held in captivity for 444 days (November 4, 1979 to January 20, 1981).  Although Khomeini had not authorized the seizure of the Embassy, he quickly saw that it could serve as a means to unify the Iranian populace behind his new revolutionary government. Condemning the Iranian action as a flagrant violation of the international principle of diplomatic immunity and the inviolability of embassies, the United States stopped the sale of arms and spare parts to Iran, froze Iranian assets, and enacted a limited international embargo.

Iran, in turn, referred to the embassy as a “den of spies” and demanded that the United States return the now cancer-ridden Shah, who was in the U.S. for medical treatment,  to Iran to be punished for his crimes against the Iranian people; that the United States apologize for its support for the Shah’s regime;  and that it firmly promise never to meddle in Iranian internal affairs again.

The U.S. made an effort to rescue the hostages that utterly failed when two helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm and another crashed into a transport plane. Eight U.S. personnel lost their lives and some of their bodies were paraded through the streets of Tehran during subsequent massive protests.

The entire hostage crisis was a major humiliation for the United States, severely tarnishing its image as a global superpower.  And it poisoned the relationship between Iran and the United States. As Trita Parsi puts it in “Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States” (2007): “To this day Iran is wrestling with the disastrous consequences it brought on itself as a result of the   hostage-taking.” (p. 90)  It should be pointed out that this issue did serve to aid the interests of Israel when it would come to treat Iran as its major enemy since many Americans would be predisposed to back such a policy.  Israeli policy did not move in this direction during the 1980s, however.

In reaction to Iran’s efforts to export its anti-American Islamic revolution to its neighbors, the United States tended to support Saddam’s attack on Iran in 1980 and would begin to provide considerable aid when Iran appeared to be winning.  Most egregiously, the U.S. aided Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against Iran. U.S. satellite intelligence facilitated Iraqi gas attacks against Iranian troop concentrations. And Washington allowed Iraq to purchase poisonous chemicals, and even strains of anthrax and bubonic plague from American companies, which were subsequently identified as key components of the Iraqi biological warfare program by a 1994 investigation conducted by the Senate Banking Committee.

Israel’s position diverged significantly from that of the United States regarding the Iraq-Iran conflict. Despite the Islamic Republic’s vehement anti-Zionist rhetoric, Israel continued pursuing its periphery strategy, perceiving Iran as a lesser threat than Iraq, and thus covertly providing it with military aid.  It also has been argued that Israel’s goal was to generate a lengthy war of attrition in which both of its enemies would exhaust themselves.

The neoconservatives in the Reagan Administration attempted to alter American policy regarding the Iran-Iraq war in order to make it more favorable to Iran. This effort reached its peak in the Iran-Contra affair but ultimately failed to replace America’s pro-Iraq policy. As Trita Parsi puts it in “Treacherous Alliance,” “neoconservatives were masterminding a rapprochement with Khomeini’s government.” (p. 110)

One of the neocons involved in the effort to improve Iranian-American relations was Michael Ledeen, who wrote in a New York Times Op Ed on July 19, 1988 that it was essential for the United States to begin talking with Iran, stating that the “The United States, which should have been exploring improved relations with Iran before . . . should now seize the opportunity to do so.” (Quoted in Parsi, “Treacherous Alliance,” p. 242.)

Writing during the Gulf War in 1991, Ledeen held that the failure of the United States to have relations with Iran added difficulties in its fight against Iraq. “For there is no country in the world that American diplomats have shunned so totally, indeed avoided so compulsively, as Iran,” he bemoaned. “We have done so primarily for political reasons; ever since the Iran-Contra affair, no American leader has wished to be caught talking to an Iranian, even though many recognized the many sound geopolitical reasons for dealing with Iran.” But the war with Iraq was forcing the United States to take a more reasonable approach with Iran. “It would have been wiser to have dealt with the Iranians earlier,” Ledeen emphasized, “but we now have little choice in the matter. Our contacts will surely increase, and President Rafsanjani and company will likely sit at the postwar negotiating table, thereby producing the great historical irony that Saddam Hussein, the conqueror of Persia, will have forced us to resume sensible relations with a reemerging Iran.” (“Iran – Back in the Game,” “Wall Street Journal,” February 1, 1991, online edition; Quoted in “Transparent Cabal,” endnote 60, p. 422.)

(When Israel later perceived Iran to be a crucial threat, Ledeen would become a leading proponent of the view that Iran was the center of world terror and that regime change was the only solution. In early 2002, one year before the U.S. would invade Iraq, Ledeen set up the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran.)

When Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait in August 1990, the United States would go to war against the Iraqi dictator, perceiving him as a significant threat to America’s Gulf allies, and being influenced, in part, by concerns expressed by Israel and its American lobby. After quickly defeating Saddam, the United States would pursue a policy of dual containment against both Iraq and Iran.


With Iraq’s defeat, Israel would perceive Iran as its major external threat.  Israel would support the U.S.  attack on Iraq in 2003 because it was presented by the war’s neoconservative formulators as the first step toward the reconfiguration of the Middle East in the interest of Israel, which would include the removal of the Islamic regime in Iran as a fundamental aim.

While shortly prior to 9/11, the neoconservatives articulated a strongly hostile position toward Iran, a number of elite elements in the United States had advocated improved relations. Oil companies, for example, wanted to end sanctions on Iran as they also did for Iraq.

And post-9/11 America and Iran found much in common in the effort to remove the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Prior to 9/11, Iran had already been the primary sponsor of the Northern Alliance in its civil war against the Taliban regime and was quite willing to collaborate with the United States, contributing to its successes in Afghanistan.  The State Department and the CIA had explicitly sought this support.  And Secretary of State Colin Powell, in line with the general thinking within the State Department, wanted this development to be the start of a strategic opening to the Iranian government, not simply limited to a focus on the tactical issues of the war in Afghanistan.

This budding improvement in U.S.-Iranian relations, however, was cut short in January 2002. Israel intercepted an Iranian-owned freighter, the Karine A, loaded with arms, which Israel claimed was en route from Iran to Palestinian resistance groups.  While Iran denied this charge, the United States believed the Israelis.  In the “Treacherous Alliance,” Parsi describes this event as a “heaven-sent gift for [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon,” writing that “[t]o the Bush administration, any doubt that may have existed about Iran’s continued ties to terrorism was removed.  This was a major setback for proponents of dialogue with Iran such as Powell.”   (Parsi, pp. 233-34)

Israel also began warning of Iran’s allegedly dangerous nuclear weapons ambitions. Consequently, Iran was then named as part of the “Axis of Evil” in President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002.   This rhetorical attack would have a major impact on Iran, undermining its belief in the possibility of rapprochement with the United States.   Parsi contends that “Tehran was shocked. Khatami’s [Iran’s moderate president] policy of détente and the help Iran provided the United States in Afghanistan was for naught.” (p. 235)   Iranian hard-liners believed that their distrust of America had been confirmed.  This was exactly what Israeli and their neocon supporters wanted to happen.

Despite the heightening tensions, however, Iran still had not abandoned its quest for improved relations with the United States.  Talks resumed as the United States prepared to attack Iraq.  Iran was fearful of the geopolitical implications of such an attack, which would result in Iran’s encirclement, but when its leaders saw the attack as inevitable they believed that limited cooperation with the United States was the best approach to take.  Cooperation provided by Iran did not reach the levels achieved in the war in Afghanistan in 2001, but Iran especially helped the United States by instructing its Shi’ite supporters in Iraq to cooperate in the reconstruction of the country rather than to engage in resistance to the occupation.

The easy American defeat of Saddam’s army–which had withstood Iranian forces in eight years of conflict—intensified the Iranian leadership’s fear, causing the government to offer major concessions to the United States in an effort to appease.  On May 4, 2003, a document embodying what became known in diplomatic circles as Iran’s “grand bargain” was sent to the U.S. through Switzerland, which represented American interests in Iran. The “grand bargain” provided for broad dialogue on all major issues of contention between Iran and the United States, which included numerous Iranian concessions to the United States.  The Iranians proposed to sever support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which opposed Israel.  They pledged to transform Hezbollah in Lebanon from an armed guerrilla group into a purely political organization.  They promised to address U.S. concerns over nuclear weapons, which included allowing for more intrusive inspections.  Tehran pledged to oppose all terrorist organizations and to coordinate policy with the United States to stabilize Iraq and establish a non-religious government there.   Finally, the Iranians promised to make peace with Israel based on the Saudi peace plan from March 2002, in which the Arab states offered to make peace collectively with Israel. This peace agreement would also require Israel to withdraw from all territories acquired in the 1967 war; accept a fully independent Palestine; and establish a fair settlement of the Palestinian refugee problem. This part alone was so unacceptable to Israel and its supporters as to cause them to reject the entire offer outright.

As quid pro quo, Iran expected the United States to lift sanctions; drop threats of a regime change and interference in Iran’s internal affairs; recognize Iran’s national interests in Iraq and the broader region; and respect Iran’s right to have access to peaceful nuclear, biological, and chemical technology.

Moreover, the Iranians wanted the United States to hand over members of the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq or People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran) terrorist organization (designated as such by the State Department), which, based in Iraq, has sought to overthrow the Islamic Republic.  In exchange, Iran would turn over Al Qaeda terrorists to the United States.  The MEK, however, had strong supporters in high levels in the American and Israeli governments. Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the neoconservatives viewed the MEK, which had collaborated with Saddam, as a valuable instrument to bring down the Islamic regime in Iran. Consequently, members of the organization were not only allowed to retain their weapons, including tanks, but were authorized to police checkpoints in southern Iraq along with American troops.

Secretary Powell, reflecting the State Department’s thinking, wanted to make a positive response to the Iranian offer. However, as a result of staunch opposition from the neocon-dominated Department of Defense and the Vice President’s office, the offer was precipitously rejected.  In recollecting this event, Lawrence Wilkerson, who had been chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, said that it had been a “very propitious moment” to enter negotiations with Iran.  The failure to do so, he maintained, was the result of obstruction by neoconservatives led by the Vice-President’s office. “The secret cabal got what it wanted,” Wilkerson wistfully recounted, “no negotiations with Tehran.”  (Parsi, p. 248)

After the defeat of Saddam’s army, the neocons pressed for regime change in Iran.  “The liberation of Iraq was the first great battle for the future of the Middle East,” wrote Bill Kristol in the “Weekly Standard” in early May 2003. “The next great battle—not, we hope, a military battle—will be for Iran. We are already in a death struggle with Iran over the future of Iraq.” (It should be pointed out that the neocons also initially claimed that Iran could be “liberated” without a significant American military attack.) And AIPAC moved ahead in pushing for economic sanctions by Congress.   

who's to blame for iraq war

This rejection of the Iranian offer, however, did not mean that the administration would adopt the neocon war agenda toward Iran. While neoconservatives argued for regime change, and Israel ominously implied the need for an armed attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the foreign policy establishment “realists” in the Bush administration still seemed to have some influence on the Iranian issue. And various unofficial negotiations with Iran continued to take place in which the State Department was involved.

In October 2003, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Congress that the administration did not seek “regime change” in Tehran and would consider “limited discussions with the government of Iran about areas of mutual interest.”  As late as the eve of the 2004 presidential election, Powell attempted to shift U.S. policy on Iran by telling key allies he wanted to offer “carrots” to the Islamic Republic to halt its nuclear ambitions, according to neocon John Bolton, then undersecretary of state, in his book, “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad” (pp. 158-64).  Bolton said that he had to work hard to undercut Powell’s plans.

Outside the administration, a major “realist” policy prescription on Iran, produced by a Council of Foreign Relations-sponsored task force, was released in June 2004. The task force was co-chaired by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director Robert M. Gates (who would become Secretary of Defense in December 2006); among other task force members were Brent Scowcroft, the elder Bush’s national security advisor, and Frank Carlucci, who served as national security adviser and defense secretary for President Ronald Reagan.


Titled “Iran: Time for a New Approach,” the report held that the United States should abandon the idea of overthrowing the Islamic Republic of Iran, which it described as “solidly entrenched” and “not on the brink of revolutionary upheaval.” On the contrary, it was incumbent for the United States to deal with the current regime.  According to the report, the Iranian government was gradually becoming more responsive to its citizenry and more cooperative in international relations, but American threats of regime change tended to impede this natural evolution by inflaming nationalist sentiments.

Although the report viewed as unrealistic a “grand bargain” to settle all outstanding issues between America and Iran, it proposed engagement with Tehran on selected key issues involving regional stability, terrorism, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The report stressed that the promise of commercial relations with the United States would serve to make Iran more amenable on political and military issues.

A discussion of the triangular relationship between the United States, Israel, and Iran after 2004 will be made in a subsequent essay.  But what this present essay illustrates is that Iran has tended to be much more the victim than the victimizer, which has shaped the Iranian view of the outside world.  Ranked a close third in the Middle East in population and second in both land area and the production of oil, Iran has sought to shape its own destiny and play a role in the region commensurate with these factors. Thus, it is quite understandable that a country of its large size would act in this manner and would not tolerate domination by others.

Moreover, after its initial revolutionary outburst, the Islamic Republic has been willing to negotiate with the United States and make concessions.  And much of the U.S. foreign policy establishment, after the shock of the Islamic revolution and the attack on the U.S. embassy, has been willing to establish at least a limited rapprochement with Iran.  That this has not become U.S. policy is largely due to the efforts of the Israel lobby—spearheaded by the neoconservatives—which, in line with the position of Israel, has perceived Iran as the great danger to that country.  However, as this essay discusses, before the end of the Gulf War in 1991 Israel had not perceived such a dire danger from Iran, and the neocons had actually sought to have the U.S. improve relations with the same Islamic republic that it later would present as led by crazed religious fanatics who were the ultimate danger to the world.  Looking objectively at this, the question all thinking Americans should ask themselves is whether American foreign policy in the Middle East, and the not unlikely decision to engage in a devastating war, should be based on the security interests of the United States or those of a foreign country, Israel. 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Dr. Stephen Sniegoski: The Triangular Relationship between Iran, I$raHell and the United States – The Early Decades

Ticking Bombs – New Attempts to Silence Cafe Palestine Freiburg

Over the last three years Cafe Palestine Freiburg has been harassed by both major and minor institutions in the City of Freiburg. We took the mayor and also the University of Freiburg, influenced by Holocaust scholar Dr. Schwendemann, to court and won both cases and we also easily survived Henryk M. Broder (infamous German Hasbara-Islamophobe), German Israeli Society and Antideutsche’s attempts to destroy the Cafe’s reputation.But apparently, Zionists and supporters of Israel, still determined to stop us, are now reverting to terror.

Yesterday, we hosted Israeli filmmaker Yotam Feldman and his latest documentary ” The Lab” – a film that discloses the Israeli military industry and presents Israel, its weapon dealers and death merchants in a very dark light.

However, as soon as the screening commenced, we learned that alarm clocks had been planted in the hall, set to go off during the screening in order to evoke panic.

Despite this shocking attempt at disruption we decided to continue with the screening. However, once the Q&A session with filmmaker Yotam Feldman was over we found a threatening note attached to one clock: Antisemitismus bleibt nicht ungestört (Anti-semitism will not go unchallenged).

This incident has, of course, been reported to the Freiburg police and today it will be decided whether it will be forwarded to a government agency, passed onto the prosecuting authorities or buried in a filing cabinet.

But whatever the outcome, it seems that in the light of the current growing affinity between the United Nations and Iran and the downfall of Israeli Hasbara, we are already encountering a new and vile wave of Zionist intimidation.

The events of Cafe Palestine Freiburg are free and open to the public. Israelis, Zionists and anyone else who opposes our campaign for justice are more than welcome to attend all our gatherings.
We don’t believe in terror and we won’t be intimidated!
But we hope that the supporters of Israel find the courage to attend our events and voice their opposition in a civilised manner – assuming, that is, that they are familiar with such behaviour.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Ticking Bombs – New Attempts to Silence Cafe Palestine Freiburg

Shoah’s pages


November 2013
« Oct   Dec »