Puppet Iranian governments, BP and the UK.

.

.

.

Anglo-Persian oil and the UK installed Colonel Reza Khan in 1921. They controlled much of the south of Iran using various local military units and police forces. The Russian domination of the north of Iran disappeared with the 1917 Russian revolution, and thus with the Russian factor gone the British felt confident enough to control the whole country through their puppet, Colonel Reza Khan. The British got rid of their puppet in 1941, when he refused to follow their orders. After being in power for 20 years Reza Khan had developed feelings for Iran, and I may add that this puppet did some useful and constructive things for Iran. Personally I think he should have listened to his puppet masters and got rid of the German nationals in his country and allowed allied aid to go through his country to the Soviet Union at a critical time, but than again he must have felt that it was his sovereign country. There are of course a variety of puppets, and he was one of the better ones.

Anglo-Persian oil and the UK used the USA to get rid of the democratically elected government of Dr. Mossaddeq in 1953 for daring to nationalise Anglo-Persian oil. The UK, with Anglo-Persian oil were the main instigators. The USA the main facilitator. Anglo-Persian/UK/USA re-installed their puppet, a weak minded playboy, as the Shah of Iran, with much greater power than he previously exercised, and thus guaranteeing his demise. Puppet playboys and power don't go well together.

Iran basically was a fully functioning democracy up to 1953, which was compromised by the actions of the UK/USA, and Mosaddeq seeking emergency powers to neutralise the efforts of the UK/USA. Some pro-Shah elements have subsequently argued that the revolt against Mosaddeq was really a reaction to his action of curtailing democracy and declaring emergency powers and that the removal of Mosaddeq had nothing to do with the USA/UK, but this is a little circular/linear way at looking at things.

Had the UK been a little bit more magnanimous in their negotiations with Iran about oil concession rights, and not sabre rattled with a battle fleet in the Persian Gulf, blocking Iran's oil exports (BP used a similar tactic in 1978 against the Shah, by not selling 3 million barrels of his oil out of a total export of 5.2 million barrels, and thus creating a financial crisis in Iran, upon which the Islamic Revolution was built a year later-------do learn this lesson Iran) with general cold undiplomatic behaviour against Iran in the UN and directly against Iran. Had they not allegedly killed Sepahbod Haj Ali Razmara in 1951, who was negotiating a reasonable settlement which was agreeable to both sides. A LOT OF BOTHER FOR ALL SIDES COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED.

SAVAK was created a few years later by the Israelis/USA.

In 1979 BP/UK got rid of the Shah of Iran using the USA/SAVAK/SAVEMA. In 1979 BP/UK installed the mullahs into power believing that they could be more easily controlled than the Shah. The Shah had with OPEC developed an independent pricing policy for oil which angered BP/UK. Since 1973 the British had been thinking about getting rid of him, and the opportunity came when Carter came into power in 1977, and Ex-British officials/academics such as Professor Bernard Lewis using a few eloquent words allegedly tickled the fancy of the new American political leadership, and other people persuaded the new inexperienced Carter administration who lapped up 'The Bernard Lewis plan' like naive idiots thinking they were privileged to great sages, when in fact that all they were acting as were fronts for a section of the British establishment and BP.

In both the 1953 and 1979 coups, destabilisation was used as a tool to change the regime the UK/BP did not like in Iran. 1952-53. 1978-79. It seems once again with action and results in Iranian Baluchistan via Jundallah (American backed) and Iranian Kurdistan via PJAK (USA/Israel backed), and Khuzestan (British backed), destabilisation seems to be the preferred method of removing the regime occupying Tehran. I understand MEX and other terrorist organisations have been lined up for deeper operations inside Persian Iran, and what we have so far seen is probing operations in Iran's periphery to see what the reaction is of the Fundamentalist Islamic puppet government in Tehran. As with 1951-3 and 1978-9 sanctions will be the main weapon.

Though given the military positioning of the USA and UK in Iran's neighbours, military action cannot be discounted. They could not have gone that far, and spent so much for nothing. So no matter what Tehran does, it may have been determined that the mullah's must be removed from power and a new set of puppets must be installed, educated and trained in the UK and USA.

From the above analysis it seems that the mullahs may well be toppled within the next year or two unless the mullahs display some remarkable tactical maneuvers which out smart the UK and USA. So far though, in response to the aggressive tendencies of the UK and USA, the mullahs in Tehran have not displayed any tactical advantages. It seems they are gradually being manoeuvred into being attacked by the USA and UK, either covertly or overtly. After all, BP/UK correctly calculated with the less educated mullahs heads in the Koran, they could be more easily manipulated than the Shah, whose administration was becoming far more sophisticated by the seventies, even as a puppet.

For Persians who are not puppets of the West and are not Islamic fundamentalists this regular UK/USA inspired puppet show must be frustrating. Iran is filled with intelligent and brave people so why can't they detect and prevent this regular UK/USA puppet show early and quickly? One hears all too familiarly that hundreds of Aghazadeh are flocking to the UK and Canada in anticipation of an attack against Iran this summer. The same happened with the Aghazadeh of the late Shah, as they too flocked to the West. Persians should note the coming and going of prominent Iranian political figures between France and Iran during 1979.

The largest Iranian community outside Iran is in the USA----700,000----so called educated people living in the country which has meddled in Iran before and could attack Iran at any time. They hide themselves in the USA by calling themselves `Persians`. Worse still some of them sell themselves to the USA, and dream one day of coming back into power in Iran, over the dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of Iranians and perhaps more with USA guidance.

The fall of the Shah, oil politics and the Aryan question.

I believe that there is a link between the Carter administration covertly supplying the Afghan Islamic fundamentalists from JULY 1979, which progressed to the Taliban/al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the early 1990's, and the fall of the Shah in February 1979. Why? Because the two countries are next to each other? No, not just that. Why did the Carter administration pressurize the Shah to be more democratic and soft around 1977? Why didn't the Carter administration give the same message to the Saudis, many times worse than the Shah? Or the Argentinian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Brazilian military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Chilean military regime which the Americans installed? Or the Marcos regime in the Philippines which the Americans installed? Why did the Carter administration topple the Democratic government of Bhutto, later executed, and bring in the military in Pakistan, if they believed in Democracy so much? The point is as with the present there was no noble mission for Democracy, but policies to bolster Israel's position vis. Muslim countries.

States often say one thing, but often they can have an hidden agenda for their actions and speeches. The rumour why Carter really wanted the Shah removed are many fold:

1. That the Shah it is alleged gave large sums of money to the American Republican party during the late sixties and early seventies, and when Carter came to power and found out, he wanted revenge. So he destabilized the Shah 1977-79, and humiliated him, an ally of America for 27 years, when he was very ill, by not allowing him to stay in the USA for treatment. There is an element of nasty petty meanness to this, and for me an indication that the Carter administration did indeed topple the Shah.

2. The Shah was instrumental in the oil price rises in the 1970's. During the sixties the Shah resisted pressure to raise oil prices. As the biggest OPEC exporter Iran had a critical role. By the early seventies some of his more well informed advisers started telling him that the oil that was being sold, was way under priced from its real market value. The global oil industry had been for a long time controlled by a the 'Seven Sisters'--Western oil companies, and the Shah's economic advisers told him that the $2.8 a barrel price around 1971, was tantamount to selling the oil at mineral water rates, with the bulk of the profits from the 'mineral water sale' going to Western oil companies. The 1973 Arab/Israeli war, and the Arab defeat again, with the Americans overtly supporting the Israelis, the Arab OPEC producers decided to act, and the Shah for different reasons joined them. In 1971 it was $2.8 a barrel, and by 1979 it was I think around $40 a barrel. A lot of people in the West were not happy with the Shah as the largest OPEC producer--5.5 million barrels.

The British were not very happy especially, as their main oil company BP still managed and sold most of Iran's oil by 1979. A British agent/Foreign Office official/academic/Zionist Professor by the name of Bernard Lewis was sent to Washington to 'soften up' the Americans with his various spurious arguments that Muslims really aren't capable of running their own countries and that they are better off being managed directly by benevolent Western colonial rule, rather like the British Empire.

To help this process you need to use Islamic fundamentalists to destabilise Muslim countries covertly, or overtly, and then go in, invade the country and 'liberate' it from the Islamic fundamentalists (Afghanistan being the perfect example------22 year process, Iran, 28 year process ?). This is called 'The Bernard Lewis plan' and the man who originally coined the false term 'Clash of civilisation'. The plan calls for the Balkanisation of Muslim countries along ethnic lines, whilst Israel is allowed to build its empire of 'Eretz Israel'. The Godfather to the neo-con movement, whose disciples have been responsible for the global security problems around the world. A significant but elusive figure.

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/alam06282003.html http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/Ralph_Peters_solution_to_Mideast.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Israel

The Republican administration obviously were not going to buy this lie as they were close to the Shah, and they had promoted him to the 'Policeman of the Gulf'. The American arms industry wasn't doing to badly selling $30 billion worth of arms to the Shah. The Shah was a good reliable ally in a strategic position, who basically did what he was told by the Americans. The benefits of such a relationship were far greater to the Americans than it was to Iran. Then Carter came in via the Jewish dominated Democratic party and the situation suddenly changed.

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/26/reviews/971026.26gwertzt.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9703.htm

By the way some American oil analysts are now saying that $100 a barrel may be sustainable and possible in the future which will not harm the global economy and the oil industry, as long as it is done gradually. So Iran had some far sighted and good economists. I hope the mullahs have not frightened off any of the modern ones into California who go around earning a living driving taxis, and calling themselves 'Persians'.

3. Iran I believe translated means 'Land of the Aryans'. The Shah may have called himself the 'Light of all Aryans'. Jews who are a little basic and take things literally (Extremist Zionists) believe that the Aryan race caused the Holocaust 1933-45--Hitler/Nazism. Some obviously flushed with American power and unquestioned American backing may want to settle scores. This reminds me of American soldiers shooting on sight surrendering German soldiers in Normandy and saying, 'You nasty Japs'. In fact they were Tartars from the Ukraine. As with the Tartars its a case of mistaken identity.

The term Aryan has very different meanings in Europe and Asia. In Europe the term 'Aryan' is a racial superiority statement. The Master race. An idea/Unfounded myth not based on reality, cobbled together by a regime headed by a fruity megalomaniac without knowledge of the actual facts, a mere 80 years ago, and based on a mishmash of ideas and names from formidable thinkers from Germany, Nietzsche, Hegel and Kant, wrongly taken out of context, and applied with such appalling results.'I am Aryan and I am better than any body else, and further more I can treat others with less respect'.

The Holocaust was the product of European colonialism in the eighteenth and ninetieth century, and is not the responsibility of the real Aryans residing in Asia, the belief that non-Europeans are inferior and to be treated with less respect--Jews, Gypsies and of course Eurasian Slavs. Remember that 50-70 million people died in Asia, Africa and Central and South America when under colonial rule.

In Asia where the real Aryans originate from, Central Asia, and where 80% of all 'Iranians' live, it is an ethnic statement; 'I am Iranian' , ' I am Vietnamese' " I am Chinese" etc. No better than any body else. Now of course most Aryans refer to themselves as Indian, Pakistani, Afghan, Central Asian, Ukrainian etc. In Asia the long term existence of Aryan's is a historical fact and not merely an idea. Persia has been called Iran for at least four thousand years. The same with Afghanistan (Ariana) and the Subcontinent. When Aryan's in significant numbers move into an area they make their presence felt naturally, in various ways. Thus when Aryan's moved into India they called their new land 'Aryavarta' a term a few thousand years old. In Afghanistan the land was called 'Ariana' over a thousand years ago. They write poetry and other thousand year old scriptures such as the 'Mahabhrata' 'Rig Veda' or the 'Shahname'. They build fire temples or the like found in Iran and Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_peoples , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan . Such basic facts don't exists in Europe.

But some Jews with simple minds may have taken a different message when they read about Iran's Aryan background, and so they toppled the Shah, and installed mullahs in his place, the primary purpose of the mullahs is the propagation of what is essentially an Arab/Jewish religion--Islam. The same in neighbouring Afghanistan "Ariana'. Two steps behind the Jews on this issue are a very small number of Europeans who do believe what Hitler said that Aryans are in certain parts of Europe only-----a historical fact not provable, beyond the fact that certain Iranian tribes crossed from the Ukraine into Hungary and Bulgaria . Iranians as a race are not tall, blond and blue eyed.

The greater Islamic and thus Arabic Iran and Afghanistan become the more satisfaction is gained by a few Europeans and the Jews for two different reasons. In small pockets of the West it is to do with the male ego and racism. With the Jews it is to do with religious fantasy, and the desire to expand Israel's boundaries, and vengeance. Israel was always a little geographical strip throughout history, and 'Eretz' Israel was an idea.

The Jew confident that he controls America now feels strong enough to turn this religious fantasy into reality via America and Europe (NATO troops are doubling in Afghanistan---getting into a permanent mode). But ultimately this mad Jewish idea must fail because you can't conquer states after states, and Lebanonise them without a fight. Hence the Jews propaganda that fighting 'terrorism' will take many years, perhaps a century. What they are really saying is attacking more Muslim states one by one will take a long time, because the Americans and the Israelis obviously need to catch their breath, after attacking another MUSLIM COUNTRY: Afghanistan 2001; Iraq 2003; Somalia 2006.....................Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt,...........and so on.

The facts are simple, Aryans did not cause the Holocaust. Nearly all Aryan countries are dirt poor and quite unremarkable. Their existence in Asia should not cause any insecurities or unwarranted anxieties elsewhere, though I appreciate that certain groups are experts at creating animosity out of nothing, diversion and playing groups against each other whilst they carry out their own real interests uninterrupted and unhindered.

What educated Iranian's have to ask are three small questions:

1. Why are the mullah in power with such a poor record of government? Why did they come into power in 1979? Why is Iran the only country in the world run by religious figures when 192 other UN general assembly countries are not? Iran is not a Democracy, but has the facade of a Democracy. Real power resides with the politically inept/disastrous mullah's via the Guardian Council, The Expediency Council, and the Supreme Leader. Controlling who is a candidate in elections is tantamount to controlling elections outcomes. Of course because of the Israelis, real Democracy could not function in the Middle East and one has only to look at Iraq, the situation in Palestine where they have captured a whole democratically elected cabinet, and finally Lebanon where they are destroying a democracy to be replaced by splinter groups of extreme groups running a none state without infrastructure. Once you have asked yourself this question then ask the next.

2. Are Iranians by nature very religious? Are they fervently more Muslim than say Arabs who do not have mullahs running their country? The answer is of course no! Iranian females have more freedom than their Arab female counterparts even under mullah rule.

3. Then you must ask yourself how on earth the mullahs came to power in the first place in Iran? who helped them into power? For what purpose? Who sustains them in power now with such crazy policies? Fidel Castro spent many years in political and armed struggle before he came to power in 1959. The Communists in Russia spent many decades in political and armed struggle before they finally controlled most of the former Russian empire in 1921. The Communists in China spent many years in political and armed struggle before they came to power in 1949. How did the politically inexperienced mullah's, without any political organisation come to power in Iran suddenly in 1979, without shedding any of their blood , and defeat the TUDEH and the various other anti-SHAH GROUPS.

My articles published in the Tehran Times http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=7/11/2006&Cat=14&Num=001 and Mehran News http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=351191
tried to differentiate between foreign backed insurgency groups and those that are domestic and home grown. Perhaps my conclusions were a little too simple.

Have a read of this excellent article by Justin Raimondo,"Hamas, Son of Israel" published in 01/27/2006 at Antiwar.com http://antiwar.com/justin/archives.php?offset=60, and think again if Hamas is really home grown, or the creation of Israel. Also this article at the excellent antiwar.com by Johnathan Cook, Israel's Disproportionate Violence No Surprise: J. Cook , http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9390 .

Thus if the Israelis created Hamas in the 1970's, could not they have also been behind the backing of Fundamentalists in Afghanistan from 1979, and Iran 1979, with the help of the American's, as a long term strategy to destabilise and attack Muslim countries. Hence my theory that the Israelis have been at this covert backing of fundamentalists since the seventies. Initially as a tactical move to counter Nasser's Pan Arabism, and then later to undermine the Socialist PLO, within whose ranks were many prominant Christian's. Then it developed into something wider in Iran and Afghanistan.

The enrichment stand off

The nuclear question seems to be the biggest issue concerning Iran. It is treated by the USA/UK as the biggest issue facing Iran, and the Iranian leadership have unfortunately responding by treating it as the biggest issue for Iran when in fact there are other more pressing internal issues. Worse still the mullahs have rallied the country around it instead of defusing it and dealing with it a lot earlier. They have not effectively and quickly neutralised the problem as they should have done. They have played the USA's/Israel's game when they should have avoided it and steered well clear of it.

It is well known that the USA/UK/Israel are seeking confrontation with Iran, it is a matter of when and with what the Iranian leadership provides the excuse for confrontation.

The continued unqualified Iranian cooperation with the IAEA which has been taking place for the last couple of years has yielded Iran NOTHING tangible, but has resulted in the loss of 'National sovereignty' and the simultaneous loss of `Security sovereignty`. These are grave sacrifices to make for any nation, especially when Iran does not receive anything tangible back in return for such total cooperation.

The IAEA year after year make their reports, and say that they have not uncovered any programs which indicate that Iran is conducting a covert nuclear program. In addition in the same report they always leave a proviso saying that they are not 100% sure about everything, and that they need to continue visiting any and all military/security sights in Iran.

No nation in the world except Iraq has submitted to such intrusive foreign inspections. Such intrusive inspections for over 10 years did not save Iraq from invasion eventually again in 2003, because the findings of the inspectors were totally ignored by the Americans anyway. Besides Iraq in 1991 was a defeated nation which had to accept tacitly to intrusive inspections as a result of being defeated militarily for wrongly invading another neighbouring country. In addition It had been proven to the international community that the state of Iraq had used WMDs against it's own citizens. Such negative assertions, such as they existed against Iraq does not exist against Iran. Iran should not feel such weakness as to fully prostrate itself against the will of the Americans to full and intrusive inspections for so long, AND receive no diplomatic reciprocity in return, but further and worse vilification from the USA and Israelis mainly.

This cooperation with the IAEA is leading nowhere, however a sudden and untimely withdrawal of cooperation with the IAEA may be deemed by the USA, UK, Israelis with the Zionist media a major security incident and affront which will require an appropriate 'response'. I am not calling for Iran to unilaterally with draw cooperation with the IAEA, but done in conjunction with another policy, that of cessation of nuclear enrichment for a temporary period of a few months. The loss of uranium enrichment is a TEMPORARY loss of 'technical sovereignty' and not as some have said a full loss of 'inalienable rights' . The two are quite different. The loss of uranium enrichment is not the end of the world for Iran. The loss of uranium enrichment is not that a big deal. You stop for a while because it is pragmatic to do so, and start again later. It would be a pity if the regime should fall after war because of this small issue. The Iranian leadership should thus tone down the propaganda this area. Though I accept Ahmedinejad will continue with the wild rhetoric because he is sure to loose in the next Presidential elections unless the Majlis votes him out before his tenure finishes.

The IAEA was established by the Eisenhower government in the 1950's to safely regulate the civilian nuclear industry, as more and more countries sought to use nuclear power. Naturally hyper sensitive Israel realised that such an organisation could be an excellent cover for espionage work against potentially hostile nations and their peaceful nuclear programs. Thus from the 1950's Israeli intelligence has developed close relations with the IAEA. In fact many of its operatives are Israeli intelligence operatives. The same is true of many Western intelligence agencies, such as Germany:

1.' Target Iran: The Truth About the US Plans for Regime Change “ By Scott Ritter, who himself was an weapons inspector for USA intelligence in Iraq.
2.http://fanonite.org/2007/02/28/the-nuclear-option-and-iaea/


IAEA-Israel Nexus

“Israeli intelligence teams would often travel to Vienna, and rendezvous with IAEA personnel in hotel rooms used as impromptu safe houses. On the issue of Iraq, the Israelis had established a similar level of cooperation with the IAEA’s Iraq Action Team…The relationship involved not only the provision by Israel to the IAEA of intelligence information, but also placing at the disposal of the IAEA the extensive resources of Israel’s intelligence analytical community, where the IAEA could pose question to selected technical experts, or have the results of inspections or other intelligence data reviewed by the Israelis. This relationship…operated with the expressed permission of the Director General… [emphasis added] (p. 49)

Thanks to the IAEA inspections, the United States (and Israel) had extremely detailed intelligence on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program… (p. 147)

“The IAEA has no moral authority to check Iran’s peaceful nuclear development, when it has done nothing to raise attention to, let alone prevent, Israel’s aggressive nuclear program”

I am saying the IAEA is not merely a nuclear inspections organisation, but a covert military intelligence gathering organisation which works for the USA/Israel/UK.

That personnel in the IAEA are mainly individuals who work for foreign intelligence agencies--- as shown when Scott Ritter and David Kay later openly revealed after they had finished their work in Iraq.

Germans Spying for Israel

“Many Germans secretly supported the Isareli position concerning the ndeed for a preemptive strike. German intelligence agents, operating under economic cover, had been inside Iran for years, often times in support of joint German-Israeli mission objectives…So even while German diplomats negotiated in support of an incentives-based approach towards resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis, German intelligence officials secretly hedged their bets towards an American-backed effort to undermine and overthrow the regime of the Mullahs” (pp. 154-155. Target Iran: The Truth about the US plans for regime change )


Military homing devices and other pathfinder equipment used to mark out all strategic and military sites in Iran for a possible military attack as was done against Iraq.

1.http://www.linkspoint.com/wsj.html
2.http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979STIN...8011441N
3.http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier1.htm

That contrary to state propaganda, with special personal announcements by Ahmedinejad every few months (odd political behaviour for a man who is loosing his domestic popularity because he is not dealing with the REAL ISSUES related to the Iranian economy etc), the nuclear uranium enrichment program is probably having problems given the fact that Iran does not have access to the full international civilian nuclear market. Then rather than struggle on, Iran should shut the enrichment program down, and re-access it again. The cost of continuing the program does not equal the benefits.

http://fanonite.org/2007/04/08/ahmadinejad-leader-of-the-arab-people/

Recommendations:

Shut down the uranium enrichment program immediately, as have been requested by Iran friendly countries such as Russia, China and India.

Sign a temporary uranium enrichment contract with Russia, as they have generously offered. If they do not comply with the strict terms of the contract, as with any commercial contracts it can be immediately cancelled. I doubt, given the nature of the contract, and the international profile that the Russians will fail to live up to their end of the contract as it is too high profile. They will honour the agreement.

Then when all that is done, get the IAEA inspectors out of the country as soon as possible. Their presence in Iran and their work is a serious threat to Iran's 'national sovereignty', and is also a threat to Iran's 'security sovereignty'.

The Iranian government ceases false Israeli/UK/USA propaganda that uranium enrichment is the only and main issue facing Iran. The Iranian leadership stops playing these countries games. There are other more important pressing issues which requires the full attention of the Iranian government/international community .........such as the genocide in Iraq....unemployment in Iran....the emigration of millions of educated Iranians from Iran with their capitol worth over $800 billion........Iranian economy is a Communist economy.........The poor situation of the oil/gas industry.......The massive corruption inside Iran.........inflation........poverty........homelessness......diplomatic isolation in many respects............poor governance.............arbitrary/banana republic laws.............banana republic judiciary..............slave trading.............narcotics/drug dependency epidemics..............low infrastructure investment levels..............so on and so on..........The ability of the UK/USA/Israel to control/fool/manipulate the Iranian leadership so easily.

The Iranian government thus also quickly recognises that Iran is not Iraq:

The reason Iraq cooperated with foreign inspections of its sensitive military sights after 1991 was because it was defeated by the USA, and coalition of other countries, including many Arab and Muslim countries. Iran has not yet been defeated by the USA.

The reason Iraq cooperated with foreign inspections of its sensitive military sights after 1991 was because it had been defeated by the USA, and it had lost the moral high ground by invading two neighbouring countries. Iran has never invaded a foreign country for the last 200 years. It is not an aggressive expansionist power.

The reason Iraq cooperated with foreign inspections of its sensitive military sights after 1991 was because it had been defeated by the USA, and it had been proven that the Iraqis used WMDs against its neighbours, and against its own people. Iran has not. It\'s Supreme leader and others have loudly and clearly stated that their use is fundamentally un-Islamic.

In light of the above facts, the Iranian leadership thus should not facilitate further cooperation with the IAEA, and as per the suggestions above should defuse this matter as quickly as possible, and cease aiding foreign agents/spies from gaining sensitive information about Iran's security capabilities. No nation correctly submits to such inspections of such magnitude, for so long, without any clear reciprocity and continue barking about 'inalienable rights'. If they continue to do so one may well ask who are the true foreign agents and spies in Iran.