My Blog List

My Blog List

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Justice of God: Iran is still run by the CIA. It always has been.

The Justice of God: Iran is still run by the CIA. It always has been.





The French Connection

France recklessly encouraged a succession of Muslim leaders, who proved to be implacably hostile to the Westfrom Gaddafi to Saddam Hussein. Iwas the French who turned Yasser Arafat into a figure on the world stage and tolerated hiterrorists in their midst. And iwas the French who enabled Ayatollah Khomeini to launch his Islamic revolution from a suburb of Paris.”  (DanieJohnson1)


It was while in France that Khomeinis speeches and writings were the most prolific and where the planning for hiIslamic revolution gained momentum. Khomeinithe usurper, gave over one hundred media interviews during his short, four-month stay in Neauphle-le-Chateau. His pronouncements were quickly translated, printed, and sent to Tehran. According to DrParviz Mina, the French gave Khomeini every media advantage and constantly covered his activities. On the French news,” said Dr. Mina, normallthere are two special news programs, one at 1:00 in the afternoon and another at 8:00
p.m. And normally international news takes up teminutes or fifteen minutes.…Durinthe time of Khomeini, every day, fifteen minutes they were talking about Iran and Khomeini, every daythe media was given the free hand.…[the French government] provided him security. I think all the facilities he needed is at his disposal.2 The dour Ayatollah had been transformed overnight into a VIP, the darling of the liberal Westermedia, and France had become command central for the launch of hiIslamic Republic.
France in 1979 boasted three major television outlets: TeleFrance1 (TF1), Antennae 2 (A2), and France 3 (FR3); the latter two were owned by the government. A2 was similar in style and content to America’s Public Broadcasting System. The station set
the tone for stories on Journal 20h” (the 8:00 PM news), the equivalent of the NBC or



1 Daniel Johnson, JAccuse, Literary Review,  http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/johnson_12_06.html. (Accessed June 2008.)
2 Dr. Parviz Mina interview, Paris, France, April 18, 2008.


CBS Nightly News. On October 10, 1978, mere days after Khomeinis arrival, he was pictured in a story on A2. The images showed Khomeini dressed in dark clothing and sitting tailor-fashion on Persian carpets. He was posed in a lush green garden surroundeby children. He was described as being a deeply religious man who abstained from worldly things.3 The images were reminiscent of the beloved Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, the champion of non-violence. Khomeini was clearly being modeled as a modest man compared to the extravagant Shah.
The most influential daily newspaper in France at that time was Le Monde or The World.” Though Le Monde was left-of-center, it was not as far left as the communist Libération. On the other side of the coin was just slightly-right-of-center, Le Figaro. While French President Giscard DEstaing was purported to be Centrist,” his views more nearly matched those of Le Monde.
Many in France thought journalist Paul Balta had been assigned by Le Monde tcover Khomeini; it was more apropos to say that Khomeini assigned him. Balta woultell the story years later of how he landed in Paris just after Khomeini arrived in exile at Neauphle-le-Château., a suburb of Paris:

While I was covering the Iranian revolution for Le Monde, I camto Paris in November 1978. Abu Hassan Bani Sadr, principal adviser to Khomeini and President of the Republic, told me that the Ayatollah, also called Imam, wanted to meet me. To my surprise, he explained to me that
he had had my articles translated from the French press and that Khomeini




had said about me, Who is he? He writes like no other; he knows Islaand Iran. I want to see him.” I went to Neauphle-le-Chateau, where he livein exile since October 5. He shared his frugal meal with me: a large bowl of soup, bread, fruit, and some cakes just for me. He said that first he
would ask me questions before answering mine. Once done, hgranted man official interview, which it was not customary.4

Had the Shah established the same conditions for an interview, would Balta have been as kind to Pahlavi in his writings as he was to Khomeini? For example, in a Khomeini biography/profile by Balta for Le Monde on February 1, 1979, he wrote:

A believer in jihad (in the original sense of the term, generalltranslated as holy war, iis the battle against oneself), he (Khomeini) disciplines himself down to the smallest details in daily activities and to aintense spiritual life. He is an example to all, and even his worst enemiecan never contest that, they say in Iran.5

Did Balta later realize just how clever the Ayatollah had been with him? He posed a question to Khomeini in January 1979: When you win [Not if you win, but
when.], what will be the status of the Iranian women? Khomeinis answer: Our women fight like lions. They deserve our admiration. In the Islamic state, they will have
the status that they deserve.”






French by Dan Godzich
5 Le Monde, February 11979 translated from the French by Dan Godzich


Just weeks later Balta joined Khomeinis entourage on the Air France plane thaflew the triumphant Ayatollah to Tehran. Delivering a significant speech to his adoring followers in Qom, Khomeini returned the women of Iran to the Dark Ages. Baltexplained:

He [Khomeini] outlined the main orientations of the future IslamiRepublic and proclaimed compulsory wearing of the chador  "veil" – which had been abolished by the Shah. At the conclusion of the ceremony, I expressed my surprise about the chador, but he replied to me: I told you they deserve our admiration. Iis always the case, but I added as in the
Islamic state, they will have the status that they deserve.6



Iwas also in France, that most cosmopolitan of countries, that Khomeini receivethe make-over of all times. This son of an Indian fortune-teller was stripped of his past. Hifather became the leader of the Khomeini clan who, supposedly, was murdered bPahlavis father. Khomeini graduated from second-rate mullah to academic and
renowned holy man. If he was the Eliza Doolittle, who was the Henry Higgins? Whacountry (or countries) was so determined to unseat the Shah that it was willing to undertake the transformation?
Dominique Lorenz, a journalist for the French Libération, wrote that having picked Khomeini to overthrow the Shah, [the Americans] had to get him out of Iraq, clothe him with respectability, and set him up in Paris; a succession of events which
could not have occurred if the leadership in France had been against it.7



French by Dan Godzich
7 Une Guerre, (One War”), Ėditions des Arénes, Paris, 1997.


In France, Khomeinis Iranian visitors totaled more than one thousand per day, all of which the French blessed or, at the very least, turned a blind eye. The Ayatollah became the Guru of Hate as he shared his vitriolic dislike for the Shah with all who would listen and learn. These disciples, including a number from various American universities, were not coming just to sit at the feet of the Teacher and learn; their pockets, lined with money collected through the Bazaar, the commercial system in Iran, were empty when they left Khomeinis presence. Some estimates place the contributions at approximately twenty million British pounds.
The Ayatollahs compound was reportedly surrounded by representatives ocovert agencies from the major powers: the CIA, Britains MI-6, Russia’s KGB, and the French intelligence organization, SDECE. One has to wonder why an unknown, uncultured, old cleric was the focus of such attention.
Intelligence officers from Israel, France and the U.S. stated that the U.Sgovernment wrote checks to Khomeini while he was in Paris in increments of approximately $150 million. They were delivered through the CIA.
One visitor to Khomeinis chateau described the mesmerizing effect the Ayatollah had on his visitors:

He [Khomeini] started to speak in his deep, bass voice, and I never heard a voice as serene and moving. It was said that he caressed the ears of his listeners, in soft waves to put them in a trance state.…Here we had aImam, with his long, grey beard and black turban of the Shiites…and hereall of these men representing the social and intellectual elite of Iran, listenein absolute silence, hanging on every word that fell from his lips


with an attentive fascination.…Khomeini was always sure that the drivinforce of the revolution would be religious, and he was therefore destined
to take the leadership role.8



French journalist André Fontaine compared Khomeini to John Paul II, heaping praise upon the [Ayatollah] without reserve. The philosopher Jacques Madaule, referrinto Khomeinis role, asked if his movement did not open the gates of the future of humanity.9
Aiding Khomeini during his French exile was Abol Hassan Bani Sadr. Journalist

Charles Villeneuve related to me that Bani Sadr was responsible for supplying the

cassette tapes filled with anti-Shah propaganda and dispatching them through the networthat would insure their arrival in the mosques in Tehran.10 The Iranian had resisteattempts by CIA operative Vernon Cassin (under the alias Guy Rutherford) to enlist hias a mole. Cassins documents would eventually wind up in the hands of the militants
who seized the American Embassy and would signal the downfall of Bani Sadr.

In my interview with him, Giscard dEstaing shed more light on the messages sent into Iran by the Ayatollah:

During his stay, the Imam was active. He sent messages to Iran to Tehran.…he used tapescarried by followers to Iran...to Chayet, the main charge.…we knew the Interior Ministry was still watching closely the
activities of the Ayatollah. He seems to deliver violent messages.…we



8 Mohamed Heikal, Khomeini and his Revolution, Les Editions Jeune Afrique, 1983, (Translated from
French), pp. 155-159.
9 Cited by Houchang Nahavandi in The Last Shah of Iran, translated from the French by Steeve Reed
(France: Editions Osmonde, 2004), p. 241.
10 Personal Interview with Charles Villeneuve, journalist, Paris, France, April 19, 2008.


have political refugees, but they must abstain from violence. So we warned himthat we would not accept that [he] would go on sendinmessages.…But he went on…we had the tapes. The second time I was warned by our ambassador in Tehran that Khomeini had sent a messagasking to kill the Shah.…five days later, we haconfirmation that he sent another violent tape to Tehran saying the same thing, which was, kill the
Shah.11

CIA memoranda regarding Khomeini and the Shah seem to have either been deliberately ignored by the Carter administration or lost in the great governmental paperwork shuffle. One such memorandum flatly stated, Khomeini is determined to overthrow the Shah and is unlikely to accept compromise.…Khomeini is anti-communist, but his followers may be susceptible to communist and radical penetration. He hacooperated in the past with Islamic terrorist groups.12
A CIA intelligence memorandum dated January 19, 1979, and released three dayafter the Shahs departure contained detailed information on Bani Sadr and Sadegh Ghotbzadeh (A Syrian-born leader of the opposition movement), including the fact that both men had ties to Palestinian commandos. Questions arise: Why was the memreleased after the Shahs departure from Tehran? Did President Carter and administration officials have access to this information in the months prior to abandoning the Shah and permitting Khomeini to return to Tehran?






11 Giscard dEstaing interview, April 2008.
12 CIA Intelligence Memorandum: The Politics of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, November 20, 1978, Declassified. Chadwyck-Healey, Iran: The Making of U. S. Policy 1977-1980, Alexandria VA 1990.


Early in1977 Khomeini had begun to woo the military in Iran through his tapemessages. The wily Ayatollah knew that to win the revolution he must first charm and disarm the military. He began to indoctrinate the troops with the message of the Shahcorruption and their own place as soldiers of Allah; as such, they were prohibited from shooting at their own brethren. He exhorted them to return to their homes, to the faith, and to service to Allah. Surprisingly, it was not SAVAK or the Shahs inner circle that stumbled onto Khomeinis tactics; it was the Israeli mission to Tehran that had becomapprehensive.
By fall 1977 the Ayatollah was giving the soldiers specific instructions as to how tachieve higoal. He encouraged them to desert their posts in numbers, reminding theit was their God-given right to take their arms with them. Ironically, the very day JimmCarter praised Iran as an ocean of stability in a stormy sea,” a battalion of five hundred soldiers abandoned their post in the Meshed region. Said one journalist, The Ayatollah
effectively disarmed the Shahs military before engaging iin final battle.13

In another ironic twist, the Shah found himself an unwitting accomplice of Khomeinis revolution. In his efforts to modernize Iran, the Shah had installed a costly direct-dial telephone system. It allowed Khomeini to pick up the phone in Neauphle-leChateau and have direct talks with his cohorts in Tehran.
Iwas this telephone system that Azarbarzin was certain the CIA had bugged. He cited one incident to support his theory:

The Shah asked me to bring General Nissiri back into the country;

it seemed the Shah was considering putting him in as prime minister.


Nassiri was then stationed as the Shahs ambassador to Pakistan. I orderean aircraft at the airport, only told the crew where they were going once onboard. We flew to Pakistan at night and returned with Nassiri to a non- descript gate at the airport, and drove back to the palace. I had madarrangements and alerted the Imperial Guard that we would sneak Nassirin through an unused entrance after midnight.
Usually Ambassador Sullivan arrived at the palace at 10:00

AM….That morningSullivan arrived at 8:30 AM and asked to see the Shah. When they met Sullivan immediately began to explain that it was mistake to name Nassiri…because the people demonstrating on the street were there because of Nassiris actions as head oSAVAK. Instead omaking Nassiri the PM as planned, he was placed in jail to please the Iranian masses.
On November 3, 1978, the Shah decided to create a militarcabinet. His nominee was General Oveissi.…The Shah ordered General Oveissi to start selecting his cabinet members. On November 4 botBritish Ambassador Anthony Parsons and U.S. Ambassador WilliaSullivan had audiences with the Shah. They convinced him that people
called Oveissi a butcher for the way he had put down protests in 1963.14



The ambassadors suggested that the Shah appoint General Gholam-Reza Azharas prime minister. Was this just another attempt on the part of the U.S. and British governments to manipulate Pahlavi?


It seemed the Shahs government could do nothing to prevent Khomeini from attracting like-minded revolutionaries to his chateau outside Paris. In my interview witSamuel Segev, he confirmed that two of Khomeinis visitors in France were Farouk Kaddoumi, PLO department head, and a Libyan representative of Muammar al-Qaddafi. Khomeini was tendered arms and money in support of the revolution. Soon after, Radio Tripoli broadcast messages in Persian to Khomeini backers in Iran, and PLO terrorists
were dispatched to Tehran.15

As the turmoil fueled by Khomeinis subversive methods in his country increased, the Shah tried appeasement measures to placate the rioters and strikers. He eased
curfews, allowed processions to mark holy days, and ultimately succumbed to the pressure to put a new government in place. He chose Shahpour Bakhtiar, a forthright critic of the monarchy, as the new leader. Ardeshir Zahedi urged General Oveissi to secure Bakhtiar’s agreement that he would work with the army to restore order not undermine it, and Bakhtiar agreed.
At Bakhtiars urging the Shah agreed to leave Iran for what was labeled “rest and recuperation.” Empress Farah Pahlavi writes that even though Bakhtiar urged the Shah tleave, The Chief of Staff General Abbas Gharabaghi was opposed to the move and warnethe empress that if the Shah lefIran, the army would collapse.
This evaluation was supported by Ambassador Lubrani. He dressed himself as middle-class Iranian and went out among the rioters and demonstrators. He related thathe soldiers simply stood by while women in the crowd placed carnations in the muzzles of their rifles. The army was effectively neutralized by the massive crowds of Iranians.


The question then became: Had the Shah given the order to shoot into the crowd, woulthe army have complied?16
The Shah assumed that upon his return, he would become a constitutionamonarcmuch like Queen Elizabeth II in England. Little did he know that once airborne, he would have caught his last glimpse of his beloved country, and that Iran would plunge back into the Dark Ages from which he had tried so hard to lead his people. Pahlavi waconvinced the French government was ignoring Khomeinis clever plot to incitrevolution in Iran.
From Paris, Khomeini had called upon the Iranian military to forestall any attempt by the Shah to promote a military coup. He had also urged the Iranian people to
overthrow the Bakhtiar government, calling iillegal and illegitimate. The Ayatollah wrote:

There is a possibility that the treacherous Shah, now about to depart, will commit a further crime, a military coup d'état. I have frequently warned that this is probable.…The courageous people oIran know that there are only a few slavish and bloodthirsty individuals in the army, who apparently occupy important positions and whose identities are known to me, and that the honorable elements in the army will never
permit these slaves of the Shah to commit such a crime against their nation and religion. In accordance with my God-given and national duty, I alerthe Iranian army to this danger, and I demand that all commanders and officers resolutely prevent the enactment of any such conspiracy and not


permit a few bloodthirsty individuals to plunge the noble people of Irainto a bloodbath. Iranian army, this is your God-given dutyIf you obethese congenital traitors, you will be accountable to God, Exalted and Almighty, condemned by all humanitarians, and cursed by futurgenerations.…The Iranian peoplemust recognize that a few treacherous members of the army cannot sully the army as a whole. The record and responsibility of a few bloodthirsty individuals is something separate from the army as a whole. The army belongs to the people, and the people
belong to the army. The army will not suffer any harm as a result of the

17
departure of the Shah.


According to President Carter’s memoir, Keeping Faith, President dEstaing offered to deport Khomeini to halt the discord and stop Khomeinis rabble-rousing from French shores. Carter writes that the Shah had thought it would be better to keep Khomeini there [France], instead of letting him go to Iraq or Libya or some place where he might orchestrate even more trouble.18 A poll taken among the French people found that half [of those] questioned were sorry that their government granted political asylum to the Ayatollah.19
In July 1979 President Jimmy Carter inked a document launching America on the

path that on September 11, 2001, would lead to the deaths of 2,974 innocent civilians;

another twenty-four individuals are still listed as missing. What was the document? It was




17 Imam Khomeini, Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations, translated and annotated by Hamid
Algar (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 247-248.
18 Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith (Fayetteville, AR: The University of Arkansas Press, 1995), p.454.
19 Discovery Channel, Koppel on Iran, December 31979http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948624,00.html. (Accessed January 2008.)


the first order to send aito the Afghanistan rebels fighting against the Soviet invaders. The aid would provide the weapons and know-how to train the rebels in terror tactics; lead to the creation of the Taliban; and give rise to the scion of a Saudi prince, a ruthless young man named Osama biLaden, founder of the vile and violent al-Qaeda.
In 1980 the Afghan rebels were aided by a $30 million infusion from the Carteadministration. The ante was raised in Carter's 1981 budget to $50 million. Imarked rise in significant aid for the resistance from international sources.
The Iranians under Khomeinis leadership were relentless in the pursuit of the Shahs assets purported to be stashed in American banks. In a move seemingly designetfurther insult the United States, Khomeinis negotiators demanded a total of $24 billion dollars be transferred to a bank in Algeria. On the heels of the ridiculous stipulation, the Iranians distributed a synopsis of their demands. The U.S. retaliated by printing a summation of its own correspondence with the rogue nation. The deadlock between the two countries seemed insurmountable until January 15, 1981. Just days before Carter
was to leave office, Iran capitulated and agreed to Carter’s demands to pay off loans owned to U.S. banks. In marathon sessions, new drafts were produced, new documents drawn and the Bank of England was approved as the repository of escrow funds. Shortlafter 4:00 A.M. on Inauguration Day, January 20, 1981, the Carter administration relinquished $7.977 billion to the Iranians. According to one source, the transfer required
fourteen banks and the participation of five nations acting concurrently.20










20Gary Sick, All Fall Down (Lincoln, NE: iUnvierse.com, Inc., 2001)P. 397398.


Interviews

My deepest gratitude goes to the men and women who have agreed to interviews: HeMajesty Farah Pahlavi, wife of the former Shah of Iran; Mr. Atabai Kambiz, chief of stafto Empress Farah Pahlavi; editorial journalist Samuel Segev; journalist and terrorism expert Charles Villeneuve; Robert Baxter, research associate in Paris; DrParviz Mina, Director, National Iranian Oil Company (under the Shah); Dr. Abol-Majid Majidiminister of planning and budget (under the Shah); Valerie Giscard dEstaing, formePresident of the French Republic; Hubert Vedrine, adviser to President FrancoiMitterrand, and secretary-general, 1991-1995; Benjamin Netanyahu, former primminister of Israel; Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; Yitzhak Rabin, former primminister of Israel; Shimon Peres, former prime minister of Israel; UrLubrani, formeIsraeli ambassador to Iran; former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Dore Gold; Marvin
Kalb, award-winning reporter for CBS and NBC; Dr. Alan Dershowitz, professor, Harvard School of Law; Israeli Mossad agent Eliezer Zafrir; General David Ivricommander Israeli Air Force and ambassador to U.S.; General Yitzhak Segev; Dr.
Ahmed Tehrani; Lt. General Shapour Azarbarzin; Ambassador Ardeshir Zahedi; researcassistant Dan Godzich, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Ronen Cohen who provided invaluablresearch information from Israel; and Arlen Young, who spent hours proofreading the pages of this manuscript.

This story began with late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and my talks with him during the Carter presidency. This book would not be complete without recognizing hiinfluence and that of many others over the years: Dr. Reuben Hecht; Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir; Major General James E. Freeze, assistant deputy director for Plans and Policy, national security; General Jerry Curry, department of defense in the Pentagon; General George Keegan (retired), chief of Air Force intelligence from 1972 to 1977; Lt. General Richard F. Schaeffer (retired) Deputy Chairman of NATO Military Committefrom January 1974 to June 1975; Isser Harel, former head oIsraeli intelligence and security; Lieutenant General Moshe Ya’alon, former chief of staffIDF; and to Mr. JameWoolsey, former director, CIA; General Hugh Shelton, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Yossi Peled, chief of the Northern Command, Israel; General Dani Yatom, head of Mossad, Israeli intelligence Service; General Ya-akov Amidrorformer chief of IDF intelligence; Lt. General Tom McInerney; Masoud Barzani, president of Iraqi Kurdistan; and the late General Robert Dutch” Huyser, Deputy Commander-in- Chief, United States European Command.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

aangirfan: IRAN IS RUN BY THE CIA

aangirfan: IRAN IS RUN BY THE CIA



IRAN IS RUN BY THE CIA


On 3 November 2011, Saman Mohammadi, at The Excavator, points out that:

The British and U.S. governments put Khomeini into power in Iran in 1979
From this we learn:

1. The CIA and its friends toppled both Gaddafi and the Shah.

In each case the West trained the Islamic extremists and then put them into power. 

Historian F William Engdahl says that the Arab Spring is a creation of the U.S. State Department.

U.S. policy consists of provoking revolutions, stirring up troubles, and overthrowing governments.

(The Greeks might agree with that.)

Three Iranian village girls

Three Iranian village girls by Damon Lynch
2. The Shah said: "If you lift up Khomeini's beard, you will find Made In England written under his chin."

The Shah told David Frost:

"Do you think that Mr. Khomeini, an uneducated person ... could have planned all this, masterminded all this, set up all the organizations...

"I know that a tremendous amount of money was spent...

"I know that top experts in propaganda were used to show us like tyrants and monsters, and the other side as democratic, liberal revolutionaries who wanted to save the country.

"I know how mean the BBC, British Broadcasting Corporation, had been towards us... So it seemed that it was really a very well orchestrated conspiracy."

cute boys from Isfahan

Boys from Isfahan by Detengase
3. The BBC promoted Khomeini, according to Dr. Ronen Bergman, an Israeli investigative journalist and author of the 2008 book, 'The Secret War with Iran'.

A "propaganda tool for Khomeini was none other than the Persian-language broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation," wrote Bergman.

"The BBC gave free hours of free broadcast to Khomeini from Paris," said Bergman.

4. Historian F. William Engdahl, in his 2004 book A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, wrote:

"In November 1978, President Carter named the Bilderberg group's George Ball, another member of the Trilateral Commission, to head a special White House Iran task force under the National Security Council's Brzezinski.

"Ball recommended that Washington drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the fundamentalistic Islamic opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. 

Friends for Ever 

Iranian kids by Hamed Saber
"Robert Bowie from the CIA was one of the lead 'case officers' in the new CIA-led coup against the man their covert actions had placed into power 25 years earlier.

"Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States.

"Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines.
"Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth.

"The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

Takht e Soloman, Iran

Iran by Jeremy Curl Photography
"The coup against the Shah was run by British and American intelligence...

"During 1978, negotiations were under way between the Shah's government and British Petroleum for renewal of the 25-year old extraction agreement.

"By October 1978, the talks had collapsed over a British 'offer' which demanded exclusive rights to Iran's future oil output, while refusing to guarantee purchase of the oil.

"With their dependence on British-controlled export apparently at an end, Iran appeared on the verge of independence in its oil sales policy for the first time since 1953, with eager prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere."

Afghani children in Iran

Children in Iran by Ivan Mlinaric
5. In his 1981 book, Hostage to Khomeini, journalist Robert Dreyfuss wrote:

"The mullahs did not come to rule in Iran on the basis of their own power; they were placed in power by men more evil than they - who would use the depravity of backwardness for their own ends.

"In September 1975, the Aspen Institute held a symposium in Persepolis, Iran... 

"In the behind-the-scenes discussion, the plans for reversing the Shah's industrialization program and for turning Iran into a model dark ages regime were mapped out..." 

Two girls and a bicycle

Two girls and a bicycle by Damon Lynch
6. There is a theory that Khomeini was a British agent.

An MI6 journalist was on the plane with Khomeini when he landed in Iran after the Shah went into exile.

According to The Guardian, British Intelligence recruited Benito Mussolini.

Fritz Springmeier wrote in an article called, To Love Or Hate - Know Your Enemy:

"The Christian Patriot movement and the Islamic fundamentalists are infiltrated with agent provocateurs who will encourage both groups to run to their own destruction...

"The Ayatollah Khomeini was British MI6.

"And tying together Saudi intelligence, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence and Egyptian intelligence (and previously the Shah’s CIA-led SAVAK) is a group called the Safari Club set up by French espionage."

Old man and the boys

Old man and the boys, Iran, by Kamshots
7. The Shah's nationalist policies were making him more popular in Iran and making his country more independent and more powerful.

This worried the CIA and MI6.

Keeping nations poor is the best way to control them.

1. The Shah bought land from the upper classes and, along with the crown's own land, sold it back cheaply to tenant farmers.

Over one a half million people to became land owners, thus ending the old feudal system.

2. The Shah allowed women the right to vote. He brought an end to the wearing of the veil.

3. He developed plans for a $90 billion nuclear power program.

Boys Army

Boys Army by Sharto
4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

The Shah's decision to increase Iranian oil production angered U.S. oil companies and others who wanted to maintain artificial scarcity in the international oil market in order to keep prices high and make more profits.

The Shah said that a couple of years before the Revolution he "heard from two different sources connected with the oil companies that the regime within Iran will change."

5. The Shah began to close down the opium industry. This had been created during the days of British influence.

6. The CIA and its friends want to create a clash of civilizations, in order to bring about a new world order and a global authoritarian government.

Gonbad Kavous

Iranian kids by Shapour
8. Israel provided financial and political support for Hamas in its early days to create an anti-Zionist resistance movement that spoke the language of violence and extremism instead of love and tolerance.

The CIA and MI6 have deep connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and use this alliance to silence democratic voices in Muslim countries and scare the people of the West about Islam's agenda.

The fundamentalist Mullahs in Iran were used by the CIA and MI6 throughout the post-World War II years as attack dogs against the central government. 


The Taliban in Afghanistan were funded and trained by the CIA and Pakistani ISI. Osama Bin Laden was created by the CIA-MI6 network.

What is the basis of this intriguing relationship? Both the Islamic radicals and the anti-growth Western elite share the same goals: demodernization and war. Khomeini was told to turn back the clock, transform Iran into a medieval country, and brainwash a generation of youth into sacrificing themselves for Islam...
Al Qaeda flag over government building in Libya
9. Why did the U.S. and other Western powers delivered arms to Iran in the 1980s if they considered the regime to be its enemy.

Why did Khomeini decide to release the American hostages on the day that Reagan was declared the new president of America. Why give a victory to your enemy?

But, Khomeini was not an enemy, but a willful pawn of the U.S. and British elite...

And he wasn't even a legitimate Ayatollah.

A superior Ayatollah granted him Ayatollah status in 1963 to prevent his execution. He returned the favor in 1979 by putting him under house arrest and erasing the evidence of his gracious deed...

Modern wars are fought as a means to build a global totalitarian state, make obscene profits for the military-industrial complex, put governments into debt to international banksters, and reduce the population.

~

Palestine Cry: Iran is Tying to Penetrate the Ranks of the Syrian Opposition « Kawther Salam

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

The Mujahedin-e Khalq Delisting and its Consequences — The International


The Mujahedin-e Khalq Delisting and its Consequences — The International



The Mujahedin-e Khalq Delisting and its Consequences
By IranPolitik: The Iran Political Analysis Project
MONDAY OCTOBER 01, 2012
Phpthumb_generated_thumbnailjpg
On Friday 28 September 2012, The US State Department formally revoked the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK):
“The Secretary of State has decided, consistent with the law, to revoke the designation of the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its aliases as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under the Immigration and Nationality Act and to delist the MEK as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order 13224. These actions are effective today. Property and interests in property in the United States or within the possession or control of U.S. persons will no longer be blocked, and U.S. entities may engage in transactions with the MEK without obtaining a license.”
In delisting the MEK, the Obama State Department made it clear that it was not doing so out of warm feelings toward the group, and noted “serious concerns”:
“With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.”
Whether the Obama administration likes this decision or not, its ripples could have serious consequences for the Iranian opposition in exile, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and potentially US-Iran relations.
The Mujahedin-e Khalq: A short history
The MEK’s history can be divided into a number of distinct phases. The organization was originally founded by a group of university graduates, Mohammad Hanifnejad, Saeed Mohsen, and Ali-Asghar Badizadegan, in 1965. Espousing an ideology which attempted to fuse Marxism with political Islam, the organization (like many during this period) advocated the use of guerrilla warfare to violently overthrow the Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979), which it viewed as being a lackey of the United States and highly repressive and corrupt domestically.
The group was soon accused of involvement in the kidnapping and murder of a number of Americans alongside acts of domestic terrorism. Brutally repressed by the Pahlavi regime, in 1975 MEK members in prison soon turned on each other in a bloody schism that resulted in the creation of two distinct groups: One which continued the legacy of the original MEK and another which advocated a turn to Marxism, calling itself Peykar. Both groups emerged from prison during a general amnesty in 1979 to take part in the revolution, although Peykar did not long survive the revolutionary upheaval. The MEK’s successor, retaining the organization’s original name and now under the leadership of Massoud Rajavi , became popular during the revolution because of the way it captured and combined the leftist and Islamist spirit of the times. With the overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty, Islamists under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini quickly turned on the opposition. The MEK put up a tenacious and violent resistance but was repressed by 1981.
After moving into exile abroad, the MEK took what would become perhaps its most controversial decision in September 1981: The organization began mustering a military unit, the National Liberation Army (NLA), and sided with the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) against the Islamic Republic. From bases inside Iraq, the NLA is alleged to have cooperated with the Iraqi military on intelligence and conducted its own ill-fated incursion into Iranian territory in Operation Eternal Light. Some maintain that this decision ended any popular support that the organization had left inside Iran. Operation Eternal Light in particular was used by the Islamic Republic as a propaganda tool to justify the execution of thousands of political prisoners in 1988.
In the years immediately following the war, the organization consolidated itself into an armed branch in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, and a political branch based in Paris, France, with smaller political sub-branches across the West. As the Islamic Republic began normalizing relations with the outside world during the 1990s, especially under Reformist president Mohammad Khatami, the MEK increasingly found itself under attack in its diaspora outposts and was designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and European Union. This resulted, among other things, in a French police raid in 2003 which arrested but eventually released some of the group’s most senior leadership, including the MEK’s president-elect Maryam Rajavi. Nonetheless, the group sustained its vehement opposition to the Islamic Republic and continued to be linked to attacks and assassinations targeting the regime. It was during this period that the group is accused of aiding Saddam in suppressing Shi’a and Kurdish uprisings as well as using “cult-like” practices to keep its own members in line.
The election of Republican president George W. Bush in 2000 and 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks once again changed the MEK’s fortunes, this time for the better. While the 2002 invasion of Iraq deprived the MEKof its military branch, the Bush administration’s policy of regime change toward Iran meant the group was well placed to receive American government support in its opposition activities. Sy Hersh has alleged that during this period the group’s supporters received training from US special forces to conduct operations inside of Iran, and rumors of strong ties with the Israeli Mossad abound. At the same time, MEK affiliates publicly revealed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in 2002 and are believed to potentially be involved in the assassination and attempted assassination of at least four Iranian nuclear scientists since 2010.
With its military branch effectively incapacitated, the MEK has spent recent years attempting to get itself off terrorist lists in the US and EU, and was successful in doing so through a well-funded and multi-faceted campaign that resulted in it being delisted in the EU in January 2009 and delisted in the US on 28 September. Its campaign in the US included the bi-partisan support of such Democratic and Republican luminaries as ex-presidential candidate Howard Dean and ex-speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.
Delisting: Important consequences
The nature of the Mujahedin-e Khalq, and specifically two of its key characteristics, mean that the recent delisting could have important consequences for the Iranian opposition in exile, the Islamic Republic, and perhaps even US-Iran relations.
First, the MEK has been one of the most consistently anti-Islamic Republic opposition groups in exile. While the rise of the Reform movement, including the Second Khordad Movement in 1997 and Green Movement in 2009, led many opposition groups in exile (ranging from monarchists to leftists) to at least consider the possibility of positive change in Iran through gradual political reform and compromise with the regime, theMEK stuck to its regime-change guns. Going forward, this could help give the MEK enormous credibility as a consistently anti-regime force. Already for some time now Neoconservatives and other advocates of regime-change toward Iran have looked to the MEK as an alternative to the current regime.
Second, the MEK is very likely the most well organized Iranian opposition group in exile. Founded and maintained along paramilitary lines, the MEK has a well-established chain of command capable of simultaneously organizing and directing thousands of members across North America and the European Union. Anyone who has been to Iranian political rallies in the West knows the imposing figure they cut: Legion in number, color coordinated, with professional signs and flags, all marching to a single tune. While the group likely has very limited support inside Iran and perhaps not even a plurality among Iranians living abroad, its discipline and high level of organization mean that it is the most potent force among the Iranian opposition in exile.
The recent decision by the State Department may mark the beginning of an interesting new phase for the MEK. As part of the delisting process, the MEK had to agree to the closing of Camp Ashraf and the relocation of the camps over 3,000 MEK members to Camp Liberty, from which they will be resettled across the globe. At the same time, the delisting now allows the group to operate openly in the most powerful country in the world. Mustering its reputation as a consistently anti-Islamic Republic force and its organizational prowess, theMEK is poised to establish itself as one of the most powerful Iranian lobby group in Washington and thereby transform the Iranian opposition space through polarization. Iranian opposition groups may have to make a choice which they were able to put off as long as the Reform movement seemed viable inside Iran and no single opposition group in exile could establish hegemony. They may have to choose between joining the regime-change agenda or reconciling with the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian government for its part, finding a deeply hated enemy in a new position of power to lobby against its interests in Washington, may in turn be induced to reach out to segments of the opposition in exile in order to prevent the large and potentially powerful Iranian diaspora from being monopolized by the MEK’s agenda. This may be especially critical if a future American president decides to once again back a policy of regime change toward the Islamic Republic. In such a scenario the MEK and its allies would be well placed to seize power on the back of US military might. Regardless, this could also be a new source of tension in US-Iran relations.
A less likely scenario is that the MEK would attempt to seize power through a popular movement inside Iran. While the organization is very well organized and highly disciplined, it is very likely unpopular among both ordinary people inside Iran and the Iranian diaspora. Whether rightly or wrongly, the MEK is seen by many as treasonous because of its association with Saddam Hussein and is regarded antagonistically due to its cult-like and militaristic public image. As such, the group’s attempt to distance itself from its Islamic-Marxist roots and portray itself as an advocate of democracy and human rights has been greeted with suspicion. Given the new circumstances however, this too may change over time. For example, if an Iraq-style US military backed regime change in Iran appears unlikely, the MEK may attempt to transform itself into a popular political party. Granted, this would require a significant public “makeover” as much of the groups cadres, symbols, and its very organizational structure and style appear to be something out of the 1960s and 70s. Is it up to the challenge?
Stranger things have happened in politics. If the MEK has proven anything, it is that it can adapt to even the harshest of circumstances. As the MEK approaches its 50th anniversary and its leaders look back over nearly five decades of guerrilla combat, imprisonment, revolution, war, and exile, such questions are likely to weigh heavily on them.