Archive | Iran

Western Arrogant Doublethink on Iran

NOVANEWS
Image result for MOSSAD-CIA LOGO CARTOON
Strategic Culture Foundation 

If the shoe were on the other foot, one can imagine the absolute outcry in the Western media. If social protests were to break out in the United States or Europe, and Iranian leaders issued interfering calls in support of those protests, there would be mouth-foaming denunciations of Tehran for “mischievous meddling” in others’ sovereignty.

Yet over the past week, this is exactly what Western governments and news media have been doing in regard to public protests in Iran.

The US government has taken the lead with President Trump labelling the Iranian authorities a “brutal and corrupt regime”.

European governments have been a little more circumspect in their statements, urging the Iranian authorities to be “restrained” and to “allow peaceful protests”.

Nevertheless, European leaders are subtly shoring up the American narrative that the street demonstrations across Iran are a righteous democratic cause against an oppressive regime. That was the implication in statements made by Britain’s foreign minister Boris Johnson and French president Emmanuel Macron. This week, the French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian cancelled an official trip to Tehran. Such moves represent an unacceptable attempt to undermine the Iranian authorities.

Images carried by American media, in particular CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post, of protesters holding up clenched fists have sought to simplify the events in Iran as a “good-citizens-versus-bad-regime” scenario. Notwithstanding that the protests have been relatively small and the grievances are mainly about economic concerns – not a rebellion against state institutions.

By contrast, Russia called on foreign states to back off making prejudiced comments on the Iranian disturbances. Moscow said the events in Iran were an internal political matter for Iranians to resolve without foreign countries interfering.

The irony of Western doublethink is rich. Over the past year, there has been a recurring theme among Western governments and media of “foreign interference” allegedly in their political affairs. Russia has been the focus of these allegations, even though there is no evidence to support such claims. The ever-so pious Western governments and media have no such reservations about “foreign meddling” when it comes to their brazen rush to pile into Iran’s internal politics as shown this week. Or in the forthcoming Russian presidential elections.

Western interference is not just limited to pejorative statements on Iran’s protests. The US State Department has openly admitted that it is communicating via social media with anti-government protesters. This active involvement by Washington is a repeat of similar outside agitation during the so-called Green Movement disturbances in Iran back in 2009. As mentioned above, one can imagine the hue and cry in Western capitals if Iran, or Russia, or some other foreign state, was agitating anti-austerity demonstrations in Washington, London and Paris.

Iranian authorities have sound reason to suspect that Western interference may be even more sinister. The protests – while largely peaceful – have included what appears to be an organized violent element. At least one police officer was reportedly shot dead and police stations have come under armed attack. The rapid escalation of violence and burning of public property suggest a subversive agenda. Comparisons have been made to the way protests in Syria in 2011 were exploited by Western powers for an agenda of regime change which led to all-out war in that country.

For now, the demonstrations in over a dozen cities across Iran appear to have subsided. They have been replaced by much larger public rallies in support of the government and President Hassan Rouhani, as well as the country’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

The economic grievances that sparked the initial protests last week are real enough. Iranians are reportedly enduring hard economic times with soaring inflation of basic living costs and high unemployment among the youth population. But this is a political challenge for the Iranian government to overcome in response to their nation’s grievances.

Ironically, however, it illustrates another aspect of Western doublethink. Western media have reported – with upside-down logic – that President Rouhani “has failed to deliver on economic improvements”. But that “failure” is largely due to the US and Europe not fully implementing the nuclear accord signed with Iran in July 2015, which was also signed by Russia and China and who are abiding by the treaty. That internationally binding accord obliges the end to decades of Western-imposed economic sanctions on Iran.

While the Europeans have begun normalizing economic relations with Iran, not so the Trump administration. Washington has in fact increased the financial blockade under the tendentious pretext of Iran’s alleged “support for terrorism”. Trump has repeatedly threatened to rip up the 2015 nuclear accord. Washington has also intimidated European states, companies and banks from engaging fully with Iran.

The European Union needs to show more backbone towards the US and tell Washington that the nuclear accord is a legal mandate to lift economic sanctions off Iran. Iran’s economic problems are directly related to the bad faith that Western states are showing with regard to the UN-approved nuclear deal. Washington’s policy towards Iran is a continuation of decades of US-led aggression towards the Islamic Republic ever since its 1979 revolution against the American-backed stooge regime of Shah Pahlavi.

The readiness shown by the US and Europe to interfere in Iran’s internal problems is nothing but arrogant doublethink. Get over it.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

CIA Whistleblower: Reports of Iran, al-Qaeda Ties ‘Simply a Lie’

NOVANEWS
Image result for CIA MOSSAD CARTOON

A new Pentagon report claiming that Iran supports terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaeda has been disseminated through American media outlets – but has come under fire for wishy-washy claims about said connections.

For instance, one supposed link came when Saad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden’s sons, fled to Iran after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US. But what isn’t mentioned is that Saad and his family were detained upon arrival and placed under house arrest. Khalid bin Laden, another of Osama’s sons who was killed alongside him during the 2011 US Navy SEALs raid, accused the Iranians in 2010 of subjecting his family members to beatings and severe mistreatment.

Garland Nixon and Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik’s Fault Lines spoke to John Kiriakou, a CIA agent-turned-whistleblower who helped reveal the CIA’s torture program to the American public in 2007.

​”The whole thing rests on your definition of harbor,” said Kiriakou. “Osama bin Laden’s son [Saad] in the immediate aftermath of the [battle of Tora Bora in December 2001] fled to Iran with his wives and his children and a handful of hangers-on. They were promptly arrested at the border. They were not put under house arrest in some beautiful palace with servants and a view of the valley; they were put under arrest and put in a jail. If that’s harbored, man, I don’t want to be harbored.”

“Let me say something unequivocally: there was no cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iran, just like there was no cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq.” Kiriakou referenced a little-mentioned Taliban execution of Iranian diplomats a few years before 9/11: in 1998, in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the Taliban rounded up and killed a number of Iranian diplomats in retribution for Tehran’s support of the Northern Alliance in their war against the Taliban in the 90s — the same Northern Alliance that the US supported when they invaded Afghanistan in October 2001.

“There’s no love lost between between the Taliban/al-Qaeda and the Iranians,” said Kiriakou. “I’m going to say it again unequivocally: there is no connection between Iran and al-Qaeda, this is being made up. There are other countries that would benefit from the proliferation of this lie — but that’s what it is, simply a lie.”

Nixon mentioned that the connection between al-Qaeda and Iran was drawn from a CIA document dump from early November, with all the articles appearing in a three-day period — almost as though the outlets had coordinated to make the story.

“This is what the CIA does to confuse people,” said Kiriakou. “There’s no analysis, there’s no vetting of the documents, they just dump it. This is exactly what the CIA complained was happening during the first four years of the Bush administration, where the president is coming out or his aides are coming out and saying, ‘there’s cooperation between the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda.’ There wasn’t.”

“But what was happening was that people in the [National Security Council] who had their own political agenda were passing the president raw intelligence that had not been vetted, not been analyzed by the directorate of intelligence. Well, the CIA is doing exactly the same thing now, but they’re using the press as their dupe. They’re just releasing this raw data taken off of Osama bin Laden’s computers and saying, ‘here it is!’ No analysis, no nothing.”

On Wednesday, former New York Times journalist James Risen published a story on The Intercept in which he claimed his skepticism that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was linked to terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda were on multiple occasions buried by the Times’editorial staff.

“My stories raising questions about the intelligence, particularly the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, were being cut, buried or held out of the paper altogether,” Risen wrote. “What angered me most was that while they were burying my skeptical stories, the editors were not only giving banner headlines to stories asserting that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they were also demanding that I help match stories from other publications about Iraq’s purported WMD programs.”

Risen, and the others who were skeptical about the US intelligence community’s claims that Saddam had partnered with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in order to garner support for the 2003 invasion, were vindicated by history when the alleged links were revealed to be false.

Posted in Iran0 Comments

US media lies about Iran protests — just like in 1953

NOVANEWS

Who are today’s “Icy Ramadans” and “Brainless Shabans”?

Shaban Jafari, a.k.a. Shaban Beemokh (Brainless), was an important figure in Iranian contemporary history. For more than half a century he has been commonly known as a thug who led his men against opponents of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, notably during the 1953 coup. His spiritual and political descendants are still committing CIA-funded treason in Iran.

By Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

“Stop the presses! Spontaneous protests, driven by economic woes and anti-leadership wrath, are about to bring down Iran’s government!”

That’s what the Mockingbird media told us in August 1953. They rehashed the story in 2009. And now they’re singing the same old tired refrain.

IT WORKED IN 1953. IN THOSE DAYS, THE IRANIAN PEOPLE WERE NAIVE. THEY LET THE CIA’S FABRICATIONS DESTROY THEIR DEMOCRACY.

The “spontaneous protests” of 1953 were anything but. As documented in The Coup by Ervand Abrahamian, the CIA hired the two biggest gangsters of the South Tehran ghetto,  “Icy Ramadan” and “Brainless Shaban,” to mobilize rent-a-mobs. That’s right, the two leading “Iranian anti-government protest organizers” of 1953 were CIA-sponsored hoodlums named Icy and Brainless. They were the icy, brainless brains behind protests scripted by the CIA to show that the people of Iran hated Mosaddegh.

In fact, most of the Iranian people liked Mossadegh. They never forgave the US for destroying their democratically-elected government. In 1979, they overthrew the US-Zionist puppet regime headed by the CIA’s torturer-in-chief, the Shah. Iran has been a democratic, independent, Islamic, socialist country ever since.

The US media lied through its teeth in 1953. Abrahamian’s book shows that American correspondents in Tehran were rolling on the floor laughing at the absurdity of the claims of popular support for the CIA’s anti-Mossadegh movement led by Icy & Brainless. But they dutifully reported the scripted lies about the people of Iran supposedly rising up against their government. If they didn’t, America’s biggest newspapers and TV networks just rewrote the stories to match the CIA script.

The same scenario played out again in 2009. The CIA and its Soros-funded allies hired slightly more genteel rent-a-mobs to try to do to the populist Ahmadinejad—who had just won a fair and honest election—what they had done to Mossadegh. The result this time was very different. Most of the Iranian people made it clear that they had no use for the latest CIA attempt at a Color Revolution.

AND NOW TRUMP IS TRYING AGAIN. AND THE WESTERN MEDIA IS LYING JUST AS OUTRAGEOUSLY AS IT DID IN 1953.

The New York Times, one of the worst liars of 1953, is rehashing the same script, saying that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (like Mossadegh in 1953) has been a target of the protesters.” The whole Western Zionist-dominated MSM is casting the protests as aimed at overthrowing the Islamic Republic. This is complete nonsense – but it is in the CIA script, so I guess they have to keep saying it.

Turnout at the nationwide pro-government rallies held in more than 1200 cities was estimated in the low millions: a mountain compared to the foothills of anti-austerity protests, and the molehills of CIA-sponsored anti-Revolution sedition and rioting.

In fact, the relatively modest numbers of anti-government protestors have been mainly pro-Ahmadinejad populists who are unhappy about current president Rouhani’s mild rollback of socialism. Some of these protests have been hijacked with violence and sedition by small numbers of Icy Ramadans and Brainless Shabans. The Western media has relentlessly focussed on the messages of the CIA-Mossad provocateurs, even though they represent a tiny fraction of the anti-government (i.e. anti-Rouhani) protestors, who themselves are vastly outnumbered by the pro-government demonstrations that have followed.

SO THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PROTESTS IN IRAN, SOMEWHAT SIMPLIFIED, IS THIS:

*Very large numbers of people are in the streets supporting their system of government, the Islamic Republic, and to a lesser extent certain leaders currently in power under that system.

*Modest but significant numbers of people, beginning with Ahmedinejad supporters and other populists, have been protesting economic stagnation and “austerity” (Rouhani’s mild rollback of socialism).

*Small numbers of people, led by today’s versions of Icy & Brainless, have been smashing things up, burning things down, insulting the Supreme Leader, and calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

If the 2018 versions of Icy & Brainless (and their CIA-Mossad backers) have their way, Iran will go the way of Libya and Syria: to hell in a proverbial handbasket. Trump’s BS about “regime change” for the alleged benefit of the Iranian people is just as mendacious as Obama’s and Hillary’s claims that they were helping the Libyan and Syrian peoples by destroying their governments and societies—and before that, Bush’s claim that he was “liberating” the people of Iraq by destroying that country.

As Gen. Clark told us, 9/11 was staged to trigger the destruction of “seven countries in five years.” Iran is the biggest target on that list. But so far the Iranian people and their elected representatives (a category that includes the Supreme Leader, who is elected by an advisory council that is itself elected by the people) have been smart enough to ward off destruction while remaining independent—and continuing to support Palestine.

It’s no coincidence that the “Iranian unrest” immediately followed Trump’s move on Jerusalem. Israel is trying to finish the job it started on 9/11: The destruction of every independent country in the region. It is using the American government it captured on 9/11 to pursue the total destruction of the Middle East on behalf of Israel.

Will Islamic Iran, a key player in the emerging multipolar world, defeat the Zionist war on the Muslim East…perhaps with behind-the-scenes help from Russia, China, and other players who are fed up with the unipolar Anglo-Zionist Empire?

2018 is already shaping up as a very interesting year.

Posted in Iran0 Comments

Iranians to Trump and warmongers: Iran ain’t for sale

NOVANEWS

Paul Sheldon Foote of Cal-State Fullerton, probably the leading authoritative source in the United States on the MEK, and its presently functional relationship with the Israeli Mossad and elements in the American intelligence community, has publicly stated via his own sources that the MEK is the leading tool of Israeli intelligence and American Neo-Conservatives in the latter’s espionage agencies in launching acts of destabilization and violence directed at Iran’s current government and conducted illegally within Iranian borders.

…by Jonas E. Alexis and Mark Dankof

Mark Dankof is the former 36th District Chairman of the Republican Party in King County/Seattle. He was an elected delegate to Texas State Republican Conventions in 1994 and 1996 and entered the United States Senate race in Delaware in 2000 as the nominated candidate of the Constitution Party against Democratic candidate Thomas Carper and Republican incumbent William Roth.

Jonas E. Alexis: Right after a massive protest in Iran a few days ago, Donald Trump tweeted: “Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!”[1]

He obviously got this “time for change” message from Benjamin Netanyahu, who previously advocated regime change in Iran. Netanyahu said: “When this regime [the Iranian government] finally falls, and one day it will, Iranians and Israelis will be great friends once again.”[2]

In another tweet, Trump said: “The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most…Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. The World is watching!”

A few days later, another massive protest ensued in Iran. But this time the protesters were supporting the Iranian government and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Places like Ahvaz, Kermanshah, Bushehr, Abadan, Gorgan and Qom, were flooded with protesters essentially sending a message to Trump, warmongers, and covert operators in the region. “Leader, we are ready!,” the protesters said. “We offer the blood in our veins to our Leader.” And then this: “Death to seditionists.”[3]

The Ayatollah Khamenei didn’t help seditionists and warmongers when he said that the protest was fueled by “enemies of Iran,” who used “money, weapons, politics and security apparatus.”[4] President Hassan Rouhani implicated the Saudi government in the protest against Iran as well, saying that “They [the Saudis] have blatantly said that we will create problems in Tehran.”[5] Rouhani added:

“Our success in the political arena against the United States and the Zionist regime was unbearable to [Iran’s enemies]. Iran’s success in the region was unbearable to them. Don’t you expect that they would seek revenge? Don’t you think they would provoke some people?”[6]

Trump, who would love to see the Iranian government overthrown, declared that Iranians have “little food, big inflation and no human rights,” and the protest shows that Iranians are rising “against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.”[7]

Let’s suppose that Trump is right here. But why doesn’t he say the same thing about Saudi Arabia, who is still liquidating tens of thousands of men, women and children in Yemen? Trump is pretentiously showing compassion toward the Iranians, but Yemeni children do not deserve the same compassion and love? Who is this man really fooling? The mass media? The vast majority of Americans?

Even Newsweek itself published an article last September titled: “Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen but blames humanitarian disaster on Iran-backed Houthis.”[8] Take it from the same Zionist organ:

“Since the war in Yemen began more than two years ago, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed, and some 3 million have been displaced. According to the World Health Organization, an unprecedented cholera outbreak is now ravaging a growing percentage of the country, with 500,000 known cases and 2,000 dead.

“WHO estimates by the end of the year, 600,000 Yemenis—that’s one in every 45 people in the country—will come down with cholera. The U.N. now calls Yemen the world’s greatest humanitarian disaster. Yet it’s a preventable, man-made catastrophe that’s directly the result of the war that the Saudi-led coalition is waging in Yemen.”[9]

Now Trump wants to talk about Iran’s human rights abuse, while he is still in cahoots with the Saudis?

Moreover, why didn’t he tweet about the protesters who supported the Iranian government? Why didn’t he say something like, “The Iranian government needs to protect those people as well”? Wouldn’t that show his impartiality?

You see, the “democracy” and “freedom” ideology that New World Order agents like Trump are propounding is nothing but a smokescreen designed to corrupt the masses. It is what scholar Christopher Simpson would have called psychological warfare. Simpson writes in his study The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960:

“At heart modern psychological warfare has been a tool for managing empire, not for settling conflicts in any fundamental sense…In practice modern psychological warfare and propaganda have only rarely offered ‘alternatives’ to violence over the medium-to-long term.

“Instead, they have been an integral part of a strategy and culture whose premise is the rule of the strong at the expense of the weak, where coercion and manipulation pose as ‘communication’ and close off opportunity for other, more genuine, forms of understanding.”[10]

As we all know, psychological warfare is not only able to strike fear among the enemy and “deprive him of the support of his allies and neutrals,” but it also has the potential to “increase in our troops and allies the will to victory.”[11]

Moreover, in a psychological war, any weapon, including lies and fabrications, can be employed in order to influence the mass media. To put it in Christopher Simpson’s words, “In this light, overt (white), covert (black), and gray propaganda” is possible.

Moreover, “sabotage,” “special operations,” “guerilla warfare,” “espionage,” “political, cultural, economic, and racial pressure are all effective weapons. They are effective because they produce dissension, distrust, fear and hopelessness in the minds of the enemy.”[12] White propaganda has a heavy emphasis on “repetition,” and “it is designed to be perceived by its audience as truthful, balanced, and factual.”

Black propaganda, however, “stresses trouble, confusion…and terror. A variation of black propaganda tactics involves forging enemy documents and distributing them to target audiences as a means of discrediting rival powers.”[13]

This theory was postulated prior to the war in Iraq. It is interesting to observe that this was exactly what happened when the Neoconservative machine mobilized the nation to go to war with Iraq. They spread fear among decent Americans—fear that Saddam was coming, that Iraq had WMDs, that Iraq was the greatest threat to the security of the United States, that terrorism was all across the world and must be fought—and those precious folks had no choice but to support former President Bush to go to war.

The power of this form of psychological warfare had not abated even in 2012,[14] as warmongers in the Wall Street Journal were claiming that allowing a nuclear Iran would be far more costly in the long run than attacking it.[15] Mark Dankof, tell us something about how Israel has infiltrated Iran in the past through terrorist cells such as MEK.

Mark Dankof: Information from non-classified sources is circumstantial but overwhelmingly strong.  Dr. Paul Sheldon Foote of Cal-State Fullerton, probably the leading authoritative source in the United States on the MEK, and its presently functional relationship with the Israeli Mossad and elements in the American intelligence community, has publicly stated via his own sources that the MEK is the leading tool of Israeli intelligence and American Neo-Conservatives in the latter’s espionage agencies in launching acts of destabilization and violence directed at Iran’s current government and conducted illegally within Iranian borders.

Foote identifies the PJAK, the offshoot of the Kurdish separatist PKK, and the Jundallah, as the other elements in this dangerous game. The MEK’s fingerprints in Tehran are joined by what seems to be a cooperative relationship with PJAK directed against the Iranian government in efforts launched from northeast Iraq and the Qandil Mountains and directed against Iranian Azerbaijan.

And suspicious terror activities in Khuzestan and Diyala Provinces in recent years seem to be augmented by bomb blasts and terror killings in Balochistan Province in Iran where it appears that the MEK’s partner-in-crime is the Jundallah based in Pakistan.

But again, the Hidden Hand is comprised of the obvious, bigger ultimate players and assets. The increase in PKK attacks on Turkey since May 2009 coincides exactly with the corresponding time frames of the Turkish government’s public beefs with Israel over the Mavi Marmara shoot-up and other formal Erdogan government protests against the actions of the Netanyahu regime in Gaza and elsewhere.

What does this tell any of us? But for the Israeli Mossad, the American CIA, the British MI6, and their respective Commanders-in-Chief, the operative concept is “plausible deniability.”

America & Israel worked with MEK.

Mainstream American governmental and media sources confirm publicly that the MEK is the source of the information being used by pro-Israeli American Neo-Conservatives to argue for a military attack on Iran to preemptively strike the latter’s alleged weaponized nuclear program and its supposed desire to use it against Israel.

It is noteworthy that this “information” contradicts the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report prepared by the 16 intelligence agencies of the American national security establishment regarding Iran and its nuclear program.

Worse yet, there have been repeated allegations in the international press corroborated by Israel’s critics in the American intelligence community that these MEK-generated reports and the lies in them being repeated incessantly by every War Party news agency from CNN to Fox News, World Net Daily, The Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and National Review, are in fact nothing more than the Israeli government’s brokering of deliberate agitation-propaganda to the voluminously gullible and ignorant consumers of these well-packaged charades which employ the MEK as the broker.

In essence, it would appear to be the case beyond a shadow of a doubt that the MEK is playing the same Judas Goat role for the American and Israeli intelligence establishments that the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and Ahmad Chalabi did with their brokered nonsense before the last American invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein possessed “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

This is a critical angle to this present story involving the MEK. Why should the people of the United States and honest policy makers in Washington (all 10 of them?) now believe sources on Iran in 2011 with every motive for lying and a past record of doing so, especially in the last ten years?

After the last assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran, Newsweek magazine all but confirmed the role of the Mossad and the MEK in that murder (and the previous episodes as well).[16]  The coverage was preposterously positive regarding these killings.

To put into perspective just how this ruthless game is played, your readers may find it interesting that when the late Sidney Harman owned Newsweek, his wife was California Democratic Congressman Jane Harman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee.  According to Pat Buchanan, Mrs. Harman was overheard on an American National Security Agency (NSA) wiretap assuring some Israelis at the other end of the conversation that she would use her considerable and covert influence on Capitol Hill to have American prosecutors drop their espionage case against Weissman and Rosen of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for illegally obtaining classified National Security Council (NSC) documents on Iran from one Larry Franklin, so-called NSC expert on Iran.

This is just one example of how American financial, political, and media power always seems to intersect when it comes to the subject of Israel. And since Israel and the MEK are now full business partners in directing their animus at Iran, the MEK will draw an increasingly free pass in the American media and government, as long as they are doing the Mossad and Israeli Lobby’s bidding.

All of this of course, increases the moral bankruptcy of this policy mix exponentially, when considered in conjunction with the clearly established fact that Israel is the weaponized nuclear monolith of the Middle East; has never and presumably will never submit to any form of international inspection of its nuclear program, not to mention its known stockpile of every biological and chemical warfare agent known to humanity;[17] while the Zionist State’s policies in Occupied Territories and Gaza, as evidenced by its military assault on the civilian Mavi Marmara humanitarian flotilla in international waters in May of 2009, and the earlier Operation Cast Lead in Gaza,[18] are the acts of an increasingly desperate entity led by a criminal cabal of sociopaths.

If the United States is worrying about nuclear weapons in the hands of the wrong people, it should start with taking a hard look at our leading “ally” in the region. But the money trail will keep that from ever happening.


  • [1] James Phillips, “Protests in Iran: Beyond the Tweets, What Trump Should Do Now,” Newsweek, January 3, 2018.
  • [2] “Netanyahu predicts Iran regime change, denies Israel’s involvement in protests,” Russia Today, January 2, 2018.
  • [3] “‘Leader, we’re ready!’ 10,000s march in Iran in support of govt & Khamenei,” Russia Today, January 3, 2018.
  • [4] Ibid.
  • [5] Ibid.
  • [6] “Netanyahu predicts Iran regime change, denies Israel’s involvement in protests,” Russia Today, January 2, 2018.
  • [7] “‘Leader, we’re ready!’ 10,000s march in Iran in support of govt & Khamenei,” Russia Today, January 3, 2018.
  • [8] Jonathan Broder, “Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen but blames humanitarian disaster on Iran-backed Houthis,” Newsweek, September 21, 2017.
  • [9] Ibid.
  • [10] Christopher Simpson, The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare, 1945-1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 8.
  • [11] Ibid., 12.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Ibid.
  • [14] Robert Fisk, “A Word of Advice About the Middle East—We’ve Reached the ‘Tipping Point’ with Cliches,” Independent, Dec. 24, 2012.
  • [15] John Allen Gray, “Should We Bomb Iran to Save Money?,” National Interest, Dec. 27, 2012.
  • [16] For further studies, see Michael Bar-Zoha and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: Harper Collins, 2012); Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars (New York: Levant Books, 2012).
  • [17] For further studies on this, see Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel’s Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010); Michael Karpin, The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006).
  • [18] Norman Finkelstein, Method and Madness: The Hidden Story of Israel’s Assaults on Gaza (New York: OR Books, 2015).

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

US Winks, Nazi regime Bites?

NOVANEWS
US Winks, Israel Bites? The Escalation Scenario. The War on Iran is “On Hold”?

In 2003, the war on Iran project was already Déjà Vu. It had been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since the mid-nineties. 

Since the launching of the Theater Iran Near Term (TIRANNT) war games scenario in May 2003 (leaked classified document), an escalation scenario involving military action directed against Iran and Syria had been envisaged, of which Syria was the first stage in 2011.  

The initial invasion of Iraq under “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was launched on March 20, 2003, April 9 marks the Fall of Baghdad;  officially the invasion was completed on May 1st, 2003.

In May 2003, immediately following the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term) war games scenario were carried out as revealed by William Arkin, a former US intelligence analyst:

“In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “theater Iran near term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form. [This contingency plan entitled CONPLAN 8022 would be activated in the eventuality of a Second 9/11, on the presumption that Iran would be behind it]  (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

Screenshot of WPo article, opinion section

“Theater Near Term”, a scenario of waging a war against Iran following the defeat of Iraq was the unspoken concept. Under the auspices of US Central Command, TIRANNT focussed on both “Near Term” (i.e. following the Iraq war) as well “Out-Year” (signifying the subsequent year) scenarios for war with Iran ” …including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.” (Ibid)

The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces. Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf.

A follow-on TIRANNT Campaign Analysis, which began in October 2003, calculated the results of different scenarios for action against Iran to provide options for analyzing courses of action in an updated Iran war plan. (Ibid)

Needless to say, the “Near Term” plans formulated in 2003 had been postponed.

USCENTCOM’s “Dual Containment”. First Iraq, then Iran

The 2003 decision to target Iran under TIRANNT  as well as all subsequent endeavors and “secret plans” were part of the broader Middle East military roadmap. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated in 1995 under the doctrine of “Dual Containment” “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM’s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States’ vital interest in the region – uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.”

USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy

emphasis  added, the original document of USCENTCOM is no longer available)

The Role of Israel. “Doing the Bombing For Us”

The TIRANNT (2003) scenario was followed by a series of military plans pertaining to Iran. Numerous post 9/11 official statements and US military documents had pointed to an expanded Middle East war, involving the active participation of Israel.

Broadly, what characterizes U.S. foreign policy is to encourage America’s allies “to do the dirty work on our behalf”.

At the outset of Bush’s Second Term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell, hinting, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be doing the bombing for us”, without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them “to do it”.

In contrast, under the Trump administration, according to Professor James Petras, Israel and the Zionist Lobby are playing an active role, pressuring President Trump to take the first step:

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump, like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical ’52 Presidents’ and ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to ‘vaporize’ Israel, ,  The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. (James Petras, Global Research, October 27, 2017)

Who are the Main Actors?

Political rhetoric is often misleading. Israel is America’s ally. Military operations are closely coordinated. Tel Aviv is however subordinate to Washington. In major military operations, Israel does not act without the Pentagon’s approval.

Barely acknowledged by the media, the US and Israel have an integrated air defense system, which was set up in early 2009, shortly after the Israel invasion of Gaza under “Operation Cast Led”.

The X-band radar air defense system set up by the US in Israel in 2009 would “integrate Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”  (Sen. Joseph Azzolina, Protecting Israel from Iran’s missiles, Bayshore News, December 26, 2008). )

What this means is that Washington calls the shots. Confirmed by the Pentagon, the US military controls Israel’s Air Defense:

”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

At the outset of  Obama’s Second Term, the US and Israel initiated discussions pertaining to a “US personnel on site” presence in Israel, namely the establishment of a “permanent” and “official” military base inside Israel. And on September 17, 2017, a US Air Defense base located in the Negev desert was inaugurated. According to the Israeli IDF spokesperson, the objective is to send a “message to the region, ” including Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine.

Israel would not be able to act unilaterally against Iran, without a green light from the Pentagon which controls key components of Israel’s air defense system.

In practice, a war on Iran, were it to occur would be a joint US-Israeli endeavor, coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with America’s allies playing a key (subordinate) role.

The Evolving Structure of Military Alliances

Since the formulation of USCENTCOM’s “in war theater” plans in the mid-nineties, and more specifically since the onslaught of the war on Syria in 2011, the geopolitics of the broader Middle East Central Asian region has evolved dramatically with Russia and  China taking on a major role.

In this regard, the shift in the structure of military alliances has served to weaken US influence. Iran is now supported by a powerful China-Russia block. In turn, Pakistan and India have joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which has contributed to undermining US-Pakistani relations.

In turn, Iran’s bilateral relations with China including strategic oil, gas and pipeline deals (as well as military cooperation) have developed since President Xi Jinping took office in 2012.

Moreover, while Tehran has reached a “pact of convenience” with Ankara, the unity of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States is now in jeopardy, with Qatar, Oman and Kuwait building an alliance with Iran, to the detriment of  Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Since the war on Syria, Iran has not only established a strong bilateral relationship with Syria, it has also reinforced its ties with Lebanon and Yemen.

In other words, US hegemony is threatened in the broader Middle East Central Asian region. The structure of alliances and “cross-cutting coalitions” in 2018 does not favor a US-led military operation against Iran.

  • The Atlantic Alliance is in crisis and so is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
  • The US and Turkey are clashing in Northern Syria, where Turkey is fighting US sponsored Kurdish rebels.
  • Turkey, which constitutes NATO’s heavyweight (in terms of conventional forces) has acquired Russia’s S400 air defense system. Does this signify that Turkey (as a member state of the Atlantic Alliance) no longer fully shares the US-NATO-Israel defense system?
  • Another consideration is Turkey’s rapprochement with both Russia and Iran.

presidents Putin and Erdogan (right)

Demise of the “Triple Alliance”: US, Israel, Turkey

How does Turkey’s “pact of convenience” with Iran affect the Israel-Turkey  Security and Secrecy Agreement (SSA) launched by the Tansu Çiller government in 1994?

The SSA agreement was a carefully designed instrument of US foreign policy (sponsored by the Clinton administration) which set the stage for a firm and close Israel-Turkey relationship in military and intelligence cooperation, joint military exercises, weapons production and training.

The SSA largely served US strategic interests in the Middle East. The intent of the SSA Israel-Turkey bilateral military-intelligence agreement was to create a triangular relationship between the US, Israel and Turkey. This de facto (rather than de jure) “triple alliance”, under the helm of the Pentagon, was intended to integrate and coordinate military command decisions (as well as intelligence) between the three countries pertaining to the broader Middle East.

The “Triple alliance” was based on close military ties between Israel and Turkey with the US, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and Ankara. From a strategic standpoint, the Pentagon was intent upon “using” both Israel and Turkey in Middle East military operations (i.e to act on our behalf).

  • Is the Israel-Turkey SSA agreement currently in jeopardy?
  • How can joint military and intelligence operations directed against Iran be carried out when Turkey (a NATO member state and an ally of Israel) is  “in bed with the enemy”?
  • Another consideration is the de facto demise of GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), a loose US-NATO sponsored military alliance of five former Soviet republics created in 1999, slated to be used against Russia and Iran.

For the above reasons, the Pentagon’s TIRANNT “Near Term” scenario of a conventional war against Iran at this juncture is unlikely.

While a conventional war on Iran is currently on hold, the US has indelibly opted for nonconventional warfare including destabilization, economic sanctions, infiltration, cooptation and regime change.

The Pentagon, nonetheless retains its longtime strategic option of inducing its closest allies including Saudi Arabia and Israel to “wage war on its behalf”.

We are nonetheless at a dangerous crossroads in our history. While Pentagon analysts are fully aware that the US cannot win a conventional war against Iran, a first strike tactical nuclear weapons attack is still “on the table”. So are intelligence ops, the recruitment of hired “jihadist” terrorists, the funding of insurgencies, etc. (not to mention the use of a panoply of nonconventional weapons systems including electromagnetic, chemical and biological weapons).

***

 


 

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

Iranian Protests: U.S. Meddling and the Deep State’s Unfinished Business

NOVANEWS

Protests have been reported across several cities in Iran over the last  several days of December 2017. Protesters allegedly decry Iran’s economy as well as the nation’s involvement in nearby Syria.

The Western media has attempted to cultivate two narratives – one focused on portraying the protests as widespread, spontaneous, and having focused first on “economic grievances” before becoming political – another narrative openly admitting to US involvement and praising US President Donald Trump for “standing up” to the “Iranian regime.”

Of course, neither narrative is even remotely grounded in reality.

US Meddling in Iran Stretches Back Decades 

US regime-change operations targeting Iran stretch back decades and have continued within a singular geopolitical strategy, regardless of who has occupied the White House, including under the more recent US administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump.

While pro-war circles in the US claim the 1979 Iranian Revolution was an instance of Iran drawing first blood, the revolution was in fact a direct response to then already decades of US meddling in Iran stretching back as early as 1953 with the US Central Intelligence Agency’s Operation AJAX.

Regarding Operation AJAX, in an entry on the CIA’s own website titled, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,” it admits (emphasis added):

The target was not an oppressive Soviet puppet but a democratically elected government whose populist ideology and nationalist fervor threatened Western economic and geopolitical interests. The CIA’s covert intervention—codenamed TPAJAX—preserved the Shah’s power and protected Western control of a hugely lucrative oil infrastructure. It also transformed a turbulent constitutional monarchy into an absolutist kingship and induced a succession of unintended consequences at least as far ahead as the Islamic revolution of 1979—and, Kinzer argues in his breezily written, well-researched popular history, perhaps to today.

The article – a review by the CIA’s own history staff of a book regarding Operation AJAX – admits that US policy regarding Iran merely picked up where the British Empire left off in an effort to reassert rapidly-slipping Western control over the globe. In no way was US efforts to undermine and control the government of Iran described in terms of protecting US national security or promoting democracy – and in fact was characterized instead as undermining Iranian self-determination.

It is this admission that reveals the core truth of today’s tensions between Iran and the United States. The West still seeks to reassert itself and its economic interests in the Middle East. Notions of “freedom,” “democracy,” as well as threats of “terrorism,” “nuclear holocaust,” and even the ongoing conflict with nearby Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Persian Gulf States are but facades behind which this self-serving neo-imperial agenda is pursued.

Today’s Protests Openly Plotted by US Policymakers for Years   

The Brookings Institution in its 2009 Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran,” report dedicated an entire chapter to plotting the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Titled, “THE VELVET REVOLUTION: Supporting a Popular Uprising,” the policy paper lays out (emphasis added):

Because the Iranian regime is widely disliked by many Iranians, the most obvious and palatable method of bringing about its demise would be to help foster a popular revolution along the lines of the “velvet revolutions” that toppled many communist governments in Eastern Europe beginning in 1989. For many proponents of regime change, it seems self-evident that the United States should encourage the Iranian people to take power in their own name, and that this would be the most legitimate method of regime change. After all, what Iranian or foreigner could object to helping the Iranian people fulfill their own desires?

The paper then admits:

The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one whose views would be more compatible with U.S. interests in the region. 

In essence, Brookings quickly admits that its “velvet revolution” would be the fulfillment of Washington’s desires, not the Iranian people’s – pursued merely under the guise of helping Iranians fulfill their own desires. As the CIA itself admits in its own historical records that US “interests in the region” are based on economic exploitation and the enrichment of Wall Street and Washington, not lifting up, empowering, or enriching the Iranian people.

It is an open admission regarding US designs for Iran demonstrated on multiple occasions elsewhere from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine and Yemen – what is promoted as progressive political revolution supported by the “democratic” West is in fact the destruction and subjugation of a nation, its people, and its resources at the cost of global peace and prosperity.

Creating an Opposition from Whole Cloth 

The Brookings paper openly states (emphasis added):

The United States could play multiple roles in facilitating a revolution. By funding and helping organize domestic rivals of the regime, the United States could create an alternative leadership to seize power. As Raymond Tanter of the Iran Policy Committee argues, students and other groups “need covert backing for their demonstrations. They need fax machines. They need Internet access, funds to duplicate materials, and funds to keep vigilantes from beating them up.” Beyond this, U.S.-backed media outlets could highlight regime shortcomings and make otherwise obscure critics more prominent. The United States already supports Persian language satellite television (Voice of America Persian) and radio (Radio Farda) that bring unfiltered news to Iranians (in recent years, these have taken the lion’s share of overt U.S. funding for promoting democracy in Iran). U.S. economic pressure (and perhaps military pressure as well) can discredit the regime, making the population hungry for a rival leadership.

It should be noted that economic and military pressure were both cited by the BBC and other Western news sources as “grievances” by the so-called “opposition” amid Iran’s most recent protests.

Brookings lists “intellectuals,” “students, labor, and civil society organizations” under a subsection of the chapter titled, “Finding the Right Proxies.”

Under a subsection titled, “Military Intervention,” Brookings admits:

…if the United States ever succeeds in sparking a revolt against the clerical regime, Washington may have to consider whether to provide it with some form of military support to prevent Tehran from crushing it. 

The report continues by stating:

…if the United States is to pursue this policy, Washington must take this possibility into consideration. It adds some very important requirements to the list: either the policy must include ways to weaken the Iranian military or weaken the willingness of the regime’s leaders to call on the military, or else the United States must be ready to intervene to defeat it. 

Armed with this knowledge, Iranian protests quickly turning violent due to mysterious gunmen and nebulous armed groups that suddenly appear can be viewed instead through the more realistic prism of pre-positioned US-armed gangs rolled out to expand unrest and hinder security operations aimed at pacifying US-organized mobs.

Step 2: Armed Insurrection

Considering Brookings’ realization that any mob the US stirs up in Iran is likely to be simply swept off the streets – it followed its “Velvet Revolution” chapter with one titled, “INSPIRING AN INSURGENCY: Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups.”

Here, an important admission is openly made and extensively built upon – the arming and backing of terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands – a causal “option” shamelessly considered by American policymakers in 2009 that would become a matter of fact during the 2011 “Arab Spring” and the subsequent US-fueled wars from Libya and Syria fought via Al Qaeda and the myriad of franchises it inspired.

Brookings unabashedly admits:

As much as many Americans might like to help the Iranian people rise up and take their destiny in their own hands, the evidence suggests that its likelihood is low—and that American assistance could well make it less likely rather than more. Consequently, some who favor fomenting regime change in Iran argue that it is utopian to hold out hope for a velvet revolution; instead, they contend that the United States should turn to Iranian opposition groups that already exist, that already have demonstrated a desire to fight the regime, and who appear willing to accept U.S. assistance.

Among the groups considered, Brookings admits:

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). 

Of the MEK, Brookings admits (emphasis added):

…the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take American hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread. Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations. 

It was no coincidence that while Brookings penned its 2009 report, efforts were already well underway to remove MEK from the US State Department’s list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations – and was fully removed from the list by 2012, according to the US State Department itself.

Many of President Donald Trump’s political supporters played a direct role in lobbying to get terrorist organization MEK off the US State Department’s FTO list. Their work began under Bush and continued under Obama. It was in fact under Obama’s administration when MEK was finally delisted.

It is telling that MEK only found itself removed from a list of terrorist organizations because the US required it for a terror campaign of its own design against Tehran – the organization itself having reformed itself in no shape, form, or way and intent – by Brookings and other US policymakers’ own admissions – to carry on further atrocities – simply in the name of US regime change in Iran.

MEK is joined by other terrorist organizations the US has cultivated along Iran’s peripheries since 2011 and America’s multiple proxy wars in the region. These include Al Qaeda, Kurdish militias, and the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS).

Brookings lays out under a subsection titled, “Finding a Conduit and Safe Haven,” that:

Of equal importance (and potential difficulty) will be finding a neighboring country willing to serve as the conduit for U.S. aid to the insurgent group, as well as to provide a safe haven where the group can train, plan, organize, heal, and resupply…

…without such a partner, it would be far more difficult for the United States to support an insurgency. One thing that the United States would have in its favor when searching for a state to play this role is that many of Iran’s neighbors dislike and fear the Islamic Republic.

Since 2009, the US has secured for itself multiple conduits and safe havens – which has been the primary reason Iran has been involved so deeply in Syria since the 2011 war erupted. Western Syria now hosts multiple US military bases as well as a large proxy contingent made up of Kurdish militias and extremists from Al Qaeda/ISIS being retrained by the US for redeployment in continued proxy wars across the region.

Had Iran failed to prevent the entire overthrow of the Syrian state, the nation would have been transformed into a single springboard for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Kurdish militants to invade and decimate Iran before moving on to southern Russia.

It should be noted that Brookings – among its conclusions regarding the creation of an “insurgency” against Iran – states:

Properly executed, covert support to an insurgency would provide the United States with “plausible deniability.” As a result, the diplomatic and political backlash would likely be much less than if the United States were to mount a direct military action. 

Of course, Brookings’ own publicly-published conspiracy coupled together with the US’ demonstrated use of proxies in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and now Iran, lays bare this strategy and mitigates whatever “plausible deniability” Washington hoped to maintain.

Regardless, the West, through its formidable influence in the media, will attempt to maintain plausible deniability regarding US involvement in Iranian unrest until the last possible moment – not unlike how it hid its role in executing the so-called “Arab Spring” during its opening phases despite plotting and organizing the mayhem years in advance.

US Hopes to Break Iran, Would Settle for Setting it Back

Just as the US hoped for speedy regime change in Syria in 2011, but settled for the destruction of the nation, the division of its territory, and the weakening of the Syrian military, the US likewise has primary and secondary goals already laid out for regime change plans versus Iran.

The Brookings report admits:

…even if U.S. support for an insurgency failed to produce the overthrow of the regime, it could still place Tehran under considerable pressure, which might either prevent the regime from making mischief abroad or persuade it to make concessions on issues of importance to the United States (such as its nuclear program and support to Hamas, Hizballah, and the Taliban). Indeed, Washington might decide that this second objective is a more compelling rationale for supporting an insurgency than the (much less likely) goal of actually overthrowing the regime.

In other words, US regime change again is openly admitted as an act of geopolitical coercion, not self-defense. The strategy laid out by Brookings is more than mere “suggestions.” It is an enumerated list of prescribed actions that have demonstrably been executed since in Syria, Libya, and Yemen and are now manifesting themselves in nearby Iran.

In the world of geopolitical analysis, it is not often that a signed and dated confession can be cited when describing conspiracies against another nation-state. In the case of US meddling in Iran, Brookings provides just such evidence – nearly 200 pages long – detailing everything from fabricated opposition, US sponsorship of terrorism, and even engineered provocations by the US and Israel to trigger a full-scale war.

As the West probes Iran and stories of “unrest” make headlines, looking past the Western media’s diversions, excuses, and outright lies, toward the engineered nature of this conflict helps quickly decipher the truth, assign blame, and reveal deceivers and collaborators in yet another campaign of Western aggression thousands of miles from American shores to be fought with US taxpayers’ money and perhaps even the blood of US soldiers.

Posted in USA, Iran0 Comments

Syria Redux in Iran?

NOVANEWS

The external expressions of Western-orchestrated Regime Change War are now surfacing in Iran. None of this is surprising since the war plans have been publicly available for years.[1]

Peaceful protests are being co-opted, and now displaced by violent actors. No doubt Western intelligence agencies and their operatives are “destabilizing” the protests. We’ve seen this before, most recently in Syria and the Ukraine.  Snipers will shoot both security personnel and protestors to create chaos and mayhem.  Reportedly, “protestors” have already killed a police officer  – and a number of protestors have also been killed.[2]

Already propaganda outlets are at work. Ken Roth of the discredited Human Rights Watch is playing the very fraudulent “democracy and freedom” card.

Source: Tim Anderson

We can expect more violence and Iranian government atrocity stories soon. Fake news outlets (ie CNN and all Western media) will soon be screaming that the “brutal Iranian dictator is killing his own people”. It’s a time-honored formula, no sense reinventing the wheel. Fake pretexts of “going after terrorists” will soon be evoked, and the propagandists will start selling the notion that Western bombing campaigns are necessary for humanitarian reasons. The will of the Iranian people will be displaced by Western terrorism, just like Syria.

Weapons shipments are likely already on site, and sectarian mercenary terrorists are likely on the sidelines, well-paid and ready to go.

Once the destabilization escalates, the Western-created and sustained holocaust will deepen.

Western populations have yet to realize that they too are being victimized by the warmongers and their agencies.

We can hope that Western populations will awaken from their state of mass indoctrination and mass political infantilization. But this is not likely.

Notes

[1] Prof Michel Chossudovsky, “Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran.” Global Research. 1 August, 2010. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/preparing-for-world-war-iii-targeting-iran/20403). Accessed 1 January, 2018.

[2] Paul Antonopoulos,”Breaking!!! “Protesters” shoot dead Iranian police officer, injure another 3.” Fort Russ News

1 January, 2018. (http://www.fort-russ.com/2018/01/breaking-protesters-shoot-dead-iranian.html?m=1) Accessed 1 January,  2018.

Posted in Iran, Syria0 Comments

The US Persistently Seeks to Destabilize Iran

NOVANEWS

The US Persistently Seeks to Destabilize Iran. Why is Washington So Deeply Concerned about Tehran’s Regional Influence in the Middle East?

 

Thirty eight years ago, in 1979, a revolution against a client regime installed and propped up by the United States succeeded in Iran. This was followed by the establishment of an independent state, the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Ever since, the US’s presence, plans and attempts to maintain, deepen and expand its dominance throughout the Middle East has been seriously challenged  and thwarted.

Hence, the US has persistently sought to make up for this loss and to this end, has supported individuals, tendencies and terrorist groups to bring down the revolutionary establishment in Iran  and  returning the old order of neo-colonial dependence. The hallmark of these attempts has been its support of the infamous Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, in his aggressive war (1980-1988) against the newly founded Islamic Republic in Iran and its active involvement in Saddam’s many war crimes, including the widespread use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops and civilians. However, in spite of the huge number of dead and injured, the extensive infrastructural destruction and social detriments, this war failed to derail the revolutionary objective of independence from foreign control.

Faced with the repeated and very costly failures of its military plans, the US  found it more feasible to invest more heavily on political approaches vis-a-vis Iran. Therefore, political plans had to be devised and/or cultivated to crush the strong waves of liberation from foreign domination and the struggle for independence in Iran. These plans had to also look beyond Iran; to the larger Middle East, which had been awakened and moved to action by the resistance struggle in Iran, particularly in Palestine which had suffered for decades under criminal Israeli occupation, and in Lebanon, devastated by its colonial past, Israeli aggression and foreign interventions.

Therefore, as early as the mid-1980s, the US and its allies, determined to impose crushing international sanctions on Iran, accused  Iran of threatening international peace through its support for Palestinian and Lebanese freedom fighters – labeled as ‘terrorists’-, its alleged interference in the internal affairs of regional states closely dependent on the US, and Iran’s missile and civilian nuclear programs.

To this end, through fabrications, extensive lobbying and use of pressure in the international scene, the US succeeded in pushing through United Nations Security Council resolutions which placed Iran under international sanctions (2006) for its peaceful nuclear activities.

The UNSC sanctions were followed by the illegal US/EU comprehensive sanctions in 2011 targeting Iran’s financial system, shipping and energy industry. Sanctions dealt a heavy blow to the nation’s  petroleum dependent economy but also had unintended positive consequences, in that, Iran’s chronic and deep-rooted dependence on its petroleum sales changed in favour of a more diversified economy and Iran’s flourishing nuclear activity made a huge leap forward, in both qualitative and quantitative terms.

However, after more than a decade of diplomatic interactions with world powers, which became  significantly more meaningful towards the end of this period with Zarif as Foreign Minister, Iran’s right to nuclear enrichment and its pursuit of other peaceful nuclear activities was recognised. This important recognition came through after two years (2013-2015) of extremely tight negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.

This achievement was set in the context of a multilateral agreement, namely, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The achievement was hard won due to the forces bluntly opposed to the multilateral negotiations. These most notably included neo-con members of the US Congress, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

The change in the US administration, and especially with the person of Trump in office, who saw the JCPOA as the “worst deal ever” provided the US neo-cons, Israel and Saudi Arabia with an extraordinary opportunity. Now, there was the unprecedented possibility to significantly increase the pressure on Iran, particularly through reinstating, and strengthening the old sanctions and devising new ones.

Therefore, they tried extremely hard to pressure the P5+1, the European Union side in particular, into accusing Iran of being in violation of the nuclear agreement. They tried equally hard to force a renegotiation of the nuclear agreement.

Having failed on both counts to reinstate international sanctions on Iran and to terminate the JCPOA, the Trump administration is now working desperately to pressure the big powers and the EU in particular, regarding the need to limit and to stop Iran’s formidable, though proven defensive, conventional missile program and Iran’s outstanding and growing regional influence.

Iran’s civilian nuclear activity is fundamentally very important to the country’s technological and industrial development. In contrast, the missile defense capability is of strategic importance to Iran’s defense and essential defence and security needs, with highly positive implications for the preservation of regional and international peace and security.

Iran’s civilian nuclear activity and its missile defense capability are both strategically very important to the country’s technological and industrial development on the one hand, and its essential needs for national defence and security, on the other.

These capabilities, however, are basically of a hard nature which many countries possess in various degrees. In contrast, regional influence is in essence a soft national capability, one which cannot be taken away, transferred or bought overnight. In this respect, it is potentially a most important national capability, deeply rooted in the beliefs, culture and history of a nation and a region.

With this in mind and in the context of the on-going political developments in the Middle East, it is necessary to examine why the US is so deeply concerned about Iran’s regional influence? I will next examine what in the US’s view is threatened by Iran’s regional influence. (To be continued)

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

U.S.- Nazi regime Sign Secret Plan to Take on Iran. Report

NOVANEWS

U.S. and Israel Sign Secret Plan to Take on Iran

An Israeli TV report details that the U.S. and Israel have signed a far-reaching joint memorandum of understanding to counter Iranian activities across the Middle East. U.S. and Israeli officials said the joint understandings were reached in a secret meeting between senior Israeli and U.S. delegations at the White House on December 12th. The document marks the beginning of a new cooperative effort against Iran, a senior U.S. official told The Jerusalem Post.

What it means: A senior U.S. official said that after two days of talks the U.S. and Israel reached at a joint document which articulates full cooperation to deal with Iran’s nuclear drive, its missile programs and its other threatening activity in the region. The U.S. official said the document goal’s was to translate President Trump’s Iran speech to joint U.S.-Israeli strategic goals regarding Iran and to set up a joint work plan.

At what the TV report described as a “secret” meeting at the White House, the U.S. and Israel specifically agreed to set up joint teams to handle various aspects of the Iranian threat. This includes a joint team, the report said, which will deal with Iranian activity in Syria and Tehran’s support for the Hezbollah terror organization. This working group will also deal with drafting U.S.-Israeli policy regarding the “day after” in the Syrian civil war.

Another joint team will deal with both diplomatic and intelligence activities designed to grapple with Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. This group will further monitor and verify that Iran is not violating existing terms of the deal. It also includes diplomatic steps outside of the nuclear deal to put more pressure on Iran. The working group will deal with possible covert steps against the Iranian nuclear program.

A third joint team, it was reportedly agreed, would grapple with Iran’s ballistic missile program and its efforts to build accurate missile systems in Syria and Lebanon.

Finally, a fourth team would oversee U.S.-Israeli preparation for any escalation by Iran and/or Hezbollah. This team is also tasked with different escalation scenarios in the region concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

Player at the table: The Israeli team was headed by national security adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat and included senior representatives of the Israeli military, Ministry of Defense, Foreign Ministry and intelligence community. The U.S. side included national security adviser H.R. McMaster and included senior representatives from the National Security Council, State Department, Department of Defense and the intelligence community.

Senior Israeli officials confirmed that the U.S. and Israel have arrived at strategic understandings regarding Iran that would strengthen the cooperation in countering regional challenges.

The Israeli officials said:

“The U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals.”

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

What Is Happening in Iran? Is Another “Color Revolution” Underway?

A familiar sight is taking place across Iran tonight and it has been for the last three days. Protests are taking place in numerous cities citing grievances and demanding that the Ayatollah and Iranian President step down. For a few days, the protests remained non-violent but now violence has indeed flared up as protesters have laid waste to a number of government properties and those belonging to “pro-government militias.”

Neo-cons in the American media and the U.S. President are all demanding that Americans stand with the “Iranian people” and the “protesters” in their “fight for freedom.”

The reason this sight is familiar is because we have seen it in Egypt, Libya, and Syria in the past as well as in Iran itself in the late 2000s. Protests that turn violent, a subsequent crackdown that either is violent or is reported as such, and the weight of American propaganda against the target government are all “Arab Spring” repeats that are themselves nothing more than the color revolution/destabilization apparatus that has been used by the West in countries all across the world for decades, particularly in the last twenty years.

What Do The Protesters Want?

The alleged demands of the protesters seem reasonable and legitimate enough. The Western media has, up until this point, been reporting that the main argument being made by the demonstrators center around economic concerns, i.e. falling living standards, unemployment, and rising food prices. However, as the third day of protests took place, the Western media began reporting that the protesters are demanding an end to religious dictatorship and policies of both the Ayatollah Khamenei andPresident Rouhani. According to some reports, female protesters have gone so far as to shout “death to Khamenei” and shed their hijabs in order to construct makeshift flags. Others say the protesters are focused on government corruption.

However, there is much question about these protests. The first question is “Are they organic Iranian protests?” This question has yet to be answered fully. Iran is most certainly a religious dictatorship and many Iranians want freedom from religious rule. However, it should be remembered that the United States and Israel have openly stated a desire to see Iranian influence broken and as recently as 2009, the United States attempted to engineer a color revolution in the country. The first three days of the Green Movement in Iran looked very much like the first three days of this current movement.

Clearly, economic concerns are a major issue in Iran, a country whose economy has been suffering for years under Western sanctions and whose own inability to capitalize on a state-owned National Bank. Official unemployment in Iran is around 12% and it is likely that the real rate is much higher. Despite lifting of some sanctions, there is hardly economic growth in the country, another result of neo-liberal economic and trade policies. Yet, it is also worth noting that Khamenei has also been critical of the poor economy and the handling of economic issues by the government yet Khamenei is being insulted at the protests.

These demands are not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. However, the religious protests come at a very odd time. Iran recently liberalized its laws regarding women’s forced head coverings, so why protest now over religious laws?

In addition, special attention must be paid to the concept of “government corruption,” a hallmark of color revolutions since government corruption is often more of a conceptual issue than anything concrete. A step down from power from a few key people, wrist slaps, and token reform can all achieve an “end” to corruption while more concrete demands need concrete applications and thus present a minor loss to those who will taking over the rains of power after the demonstrations have ceased.

There are also more concerning demands that can be found in the slogans being chanted by the demonstrators. First, in case it could be missed, the demonstrators are calling for the Ayatollah and the President to step down. In other words, they are calling for regime change. This is precisely what the United States, GCC, NATO, and Israel also want to see happen.

Second, numerous demonstrators are chanting “Let go of Palestine,” and “Not for Gaza, Not for Lebanon, I’d give my life (only) for Iran.” Again, protesters are now chanting foreign policy demands identical to that desired by the United States, NATO, GCC, and Israel. All this in a protest that is supposed to be about economic concerns.

Moon of Alabama, in its article entitled “Iran – Regime Change Agents Hijack Economic Protests,” reveals a number of important reports regarding the beginning of the protests and where they stand currently. MOA writes,

Protests against the (neo-)liberal economic policies of the Rohani government in Iran are justified. Official unemployment in Iran is above 12% and there is hardly any economic growth. The people in the streets are not the only ones who are dissatisfied with this:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has repeatedly criticized the government’s economic record, said on Wednesday that the nation was struggling with “high prices, inflation and recession”, and asked officials to resolve the problems with determination.

On Thursday and today the slogans of some protesters turned the call for economic relief into a call for regime change.

. . . . .

Today, Friday and the weekly day off in Iran, several more protest took place in other cities. A Reuters report from today:

About 300 demonstrators gathered in Kermanshah after what Fars called a “call by the anti-revolution” and shouted “Political prisoners should be freed” and “Freedom or death”, while destroying some public property. Fars did not name any opposition groups.

Footage, which could not be verified, showed protests in other cities including Sari and Rasht in the north, Qom south of Tehran, and Hamadan in the west.

Mohsen Nasj Hamadani, deputy security chief in Tehran province, said about 50 people had rallied in a Tehran square and most left after being asked by police, but a few who refused were “temporarily detained”, the ILNA news agency reported.

Some of these protests have genuine economic reasons but get hijacked by other interests:

In the central city of Isfahan, a resident said protesters joined a rally held by factory workers demanding back wages.

“The slogans quickly changed from the economy to those against (President Hassan) Rouhani and the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei),” the resident said by telephone.

Purely political protests are rare in Iran […] but demonstrations are often held by workers over layoffs or non-payment of salaries and people who hold deposits in non-regulated, bankrupt financial institutions.

Alamolhoda, the representative of Ayatollah Khamenei in northeastern Mashhad, said a few people had taken advantage of Thursday’s protests against rising prices to chant slogans against Iran’s role in regional conflicts.

“Some people had came to express their demands, but suddenly, in a crowd of hundreds, a small group that did not exceed 50 shouted deviant and horrendous slogans such as ‘Let go of Palestine’, ‘Not Gaza, not Lebanon, I’d give my life (only) for Iran’,” Alamolhoda said.

Media and Neo-Con Support

While it is to be expected from a virulently anti-Iran administration and mainstream press in the United States, it is interesting how the U.S. President immediately has latched on the protests, encouraging Americans to stand with the protesters and their demands. This is coming from a man who rarely sees a protest that isn’t directed at him. Meanwhile, Neo-Con organs like FOX News are also repeating calls for Americans to support the brave “freedom fighters” in Iran. It is seldom, if ever, true that evil does good in the world so when Neo-Cons call for support to protests, eyebrows should be raised in skepticism.

It is also important to question just how popular these protests are. While mainstream western media and various terrorist organizations also conveniently supporting them paint them as involving tens of thousands at each demonstration, video and pictures tend to show only dozens to hundreds at the most while others wander about around them.

“A video of that protest in Mashad showed some 50 people chanting slogans with more bystander just milling around,” writes MOA. . . . . “Two videos posted by BBC Persian and others I have seen show only small active protest groups with a dozen or so people while many more are just standing by or film the people who are chanting slogans.”

Trump Administration/Israel Agreement

The protests taking place in Iran are taking place only a month after the White House and Tel Aviv met to discuss a strategy on Iran.

“A delegation led by Israel’s National Security Adviser met with senior American officials in the White House earlier this month for a joint discussion on strategy to counter Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, a senior U.S. official confirmed to Haaretz,” wrote Haaretz agency. (Israeli Delegation Met U.S. Officials to Discuss ‘Iran Strategy,’ Syria)

AXIOS provides a quote from the meeting:

[T]he U.S. and Israel see eye to eye the different developments in the region and especially those that are connected to Iran. We reached at understandings regarding the strategy and the policy needed to counter Iran. Our understandings deal with the overall strategy but also with concrete goals, way of action and the means which need to be used to get obtain those goals.

Could this apparent color revolution be the result of that US/Israeli meeting?

Color Revolution In Iran

The idea that a color revolution could be attempted in Iran is no fantasy. It would be a repeat of history. Remember, in 2009, an attempt at a color revolution deemed the “Green Revolution” was launched but was quickly put down by the iron fist of the Iranian government.

The Path To Persia

The plan for a Western or a Western/Israeli attack on Iran, along with the theatre of alleged US-Israeli tensions leading up to a strike and outright war, has been in the works for some time. For instance, in 2009, the Brookings Institution, a major banking, corporate, and military-industrial firm, released a report entitled “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,” in which the authors mapped out a plan which leaves no doubt as to the ultimate desire from the Western financier, corporate, and governing classes.

Screenshot from Brookings report: “Which Path To Persia? Options For A New American Strategy For Iran,”

The plan involves the description of a number of ways the Western oligarchy would be able to destroy Iran including outright military invasion and occupation (see table of contents above). However, the report attempts to outline a number of methods that might possibly be implemented before direct military invasion would be necessary. The plan included attempting to foment destabilization inside Iran via the color revolution apparatus, violent unrest, proxy terrorism, and “limited airstrikes” conducted by the US, Israel or both.

The report states,

Because the Iranian regime is widely disliked by many Iranians, the most obvious and palatable method of bringing about its demise would be to help foster a popular revolution along the lines of the “velvet revolutions” that toppled many communist governments in Eastern Europe beginning in 1989. For many proponents of regime change, it seems self-evident that the United States should encourage the Iranian people to take power in their own name, and that this would be the most legitimate method of regime change. After all, what Iranian or foreigner could object to helping the Iranian people fulfill their own desires?

Moreover, Iran’s own history would seem to suggest that such an event is plausible. During the 1906 Constitutional Movement, during the late 1930s, arguably during the 1950s, and again during the 1978 Iranian Revolution, coalitions of intellectuals, students, peasants, bazaari merchants, Marxists, constitutionalists, and clerics mobilized against an unpopular regime. In both 1906 and 1978, the revolutionaries secured the support of much of the populace and, in so doing, prevailed. There is evidence that the Islamic regime has antagonized many (perhaps all) of these same factions to the point where they again might be willing to support a change if they feel that it could succeed. This is the foundational belief of those Americans who support regime change, and their hope is that the United States can provide whatever the Iranian people need to believe that another revolution is feasible.

Of course, popular revolutions are incredibly complex and rare events. There is little scholarly consensus on what causes a popular revolution, or even the conditions that facilitate them. Even factors often associated with revolutions, such as military defeat, neglect of the military, economic crises, and splits within the elite have all been regular events across the world and throughout history, but only a very few have resulted in a popular revolution. Consequently, all of the literature on how best to promote a popular revolution— in Iran or anywhere else—is highly speculative. Nevertheless, it is the one policy option that holds out the prospect that the United States might eliminate all of the problems it faces from Iran, do so at a bearable cost, and do so in a manner that is acceptable to the Iranian people and most of the rest of the world.

Conclusion

While the situation in Iran continues to develop, it appears that another color revolution is underway. While many of the demands are legitimate, all signs are pointing toward Western treachery in an attempt to break Iran in the final domino to fall in the Middle East before an even bigger confrontation is ignited. Destroying Iran would also destroy Hezbollah, weaken Syria and Russia, and threaten Israel. Whether or not it will succeed will depend on the level of subversion that has been possible by the United States intelligence apparatus since 2009 and the ability of Iran to squash the revolt. If anything can be learned from the 2009 revolution, Iran will move quickly and will smash the protests with an iron fist. However, if the protests taking place in Iran today are indeed a color revolution and if the West is committed, the Path to Persia will likely see an escalation in activity, violence, and ultimately directly military confrontation by proxy and even by the U.S. military itself.

We will be following these protests in detail over the coming days.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, Iran0 Comments

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

January 2018
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031