The Great Game

Replaying the 'Great Game'

By Jeffrey Steinberg


Maybe it was unintended in Washington and Langley, but not so elsewhere. Such American naiveté was anticipated in London, where British intelligence had a 200-year history of playing what Rudyard Kipling had dubbed the "Great Game" across the steppes of Central Asia, and where Islam had been probed, prodded, and profiled by the British East India Company, and by the successor British India Office's Arab Bureau, since the time of James Mill, and, later, Lawrence of Arabia.

Great Britain jealously guarded its Great Game, and, at times, fiercely fought to keep the United States out of the picture.

In 1944, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had gone so far as to assert that Afghanistan was "denied territory" to the Americans, when President Franklin Roosevelt dispatched his most trusted military aide, Gen. Patrick Hurley, to Kabul to get a first-hand picture of how Afghanistan might be drawn into FDR's vision of a postwar decolonized world. British intelligence did everything short of assassinating Hurley to prevent him from successfully reaching the Afghan capital. When Hurley did finally get to Kabul and spend four days with the king and senior government officials, he made such a lasting impression that the Afghanis immediately declared themselves anxious to forge a partnership with the Americans, whom they saw as totally different from the two imperial Great Game rivals, England and Russia, who had kept the country in a state of enforced backwardness and poverty for half a century, preventing the construction of even a railroad or a paved highway. Senior British military officials, based out of the Northwest Frontier Province across the border in Pakistan, had, however, put their stamp of approval on the production of vast crops of opium poppy in the rich mountains of Afghanistan, and had facilitated the processing and distribution of that opium in the South Asian and Chinese markets.

With the death of FDR, Afghanistan's vision of economic partnership with America died as well. Once again, Afghanistan fell into the category of denied territory for the United States.

The British destabilization of the "arc of crisis" began with the Khomeini Revolution in Iran, which overthrew the Shah in February 1979. Khomeini had been a longstanding British intelligence tool, and Khomeini's Islamic Revolution was a crucial ingredient in the Bernard Lewis Plan.

Brzezinski, long schooled in British geopolitics, had locked the United States into the British Great Game in the early days of the Carter administration, when he rejected Japanese offers to finance major development projects in Iran and Mexico. Brzezinski had declared that there would be "no new Japans in the Persian Gulf or south of the Rio Grande." That American embrace of British geopolitics doomed the Shah, and drew the United States into the British covert drive to install Khomeini in power. With the taking of the American embassy hostages in November 1979, the United States was drawn ever deeper into the "arc of crisis."

It would be an oversimplification to say that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was the result of a fine-tuned British conspiracy. However, mujahideen operations had been launched inside Afghanistan as early as 1974, when Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was manipulated into sponsoring a 5,000-man guerrilla force under the direction of a young Islamic fanatic, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to destabilize the country and dissuade Afghanistan's President Muhammed Daud from pursuing a "Greater Pushtun" nation extending into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Territory. Back at the height of the Great Game in the late nineteenth century, the British had deliberately created an Indian-Afghan border that cut through the middle of the Pushtun tribal territory, thereby setting up a border crisis that could be manipulated at will.

Although Hekmatyar's forces were soundly defeated in 1974, the effort did result in Muhammed Daud's decision to negotiate a border deal with Primen Minister Bhutto that brought a temporary peace to the area. The situation dramatically changed when Prime Minister Bhutto was overthrown in 1977 by the Pakistani military, under the direction of Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. During the same period, the Soviet-backed Afghani communists launched their own drive to power, which ultimately resulted in the overthrow of Muhammed Daud and the installation of a Soviet-puppet regime in April 1978.

British brains and American dollars

A careful review of the covert apparatus established to support the Afghan mujahideen effort against the Red Army (see other articles in this section) shows that the entire program was directed, top-down, from London—either directly through senior British intelligence figures like the Privy Council head, Lord Cranborne, or through notorious Anglophiles within the U.S. intelligence establishment, like Wall Street banker John Train and International Rescue Committee President Leo Cherne.

Under National Security Directive 3, signed by President Reagan in early 1982, Vice President George Bush was placed in charge of the entire global covert action program. It was Bush's Special Situation Group (SSG) and Crisis Pre-Planning Group (CPPG) at the White House, that deployed Oliver North, Richard Secord, "Public Diplomacy" head Walter Raymond, and the entire Iran-Contra crew. Throughout the 1980s, the Afghan War was the largest single program under this Bush chain of command. And because the Afghan program was sold to the U.S. Congress as an opportunity to give the Soviets "their own Vietnam," it enjoyed nearly unanimous support and financing—and was to remain a well-kept secret.

Private sector figures like John Train and Leo Cherne (who also served on President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, PFIAB), who coordinated the American aid program to the Hekmatyar forces, were senior officials in the Bush-directed program.

Bernard Lewis

British Svengali Behind Clash Of Civilizations

by Scott Thompson and Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review


On Nov. 19, octogenarian British Orientalist spook Bernard Lewis wrote an elaborate apologia for Osama bin Laden, a fervent pitch for the inevitability of the "Clash of Civilizations," in the pages of New Yorker magazine. Under the headline "The Revolt of Islam," Lewis lied that the emergence of "Islamic terrorism" in the recent decades, is completely consistent with mainstream Islam, which is committed to the subjugation of the infidels to Islamic law. He went through 14 pages of a fractured fairy-tale history of Islam, quoting bin Laden's Oct. 7, 2001 videotape, where the Saudi expatriate spoke of Islam's "humiliation and disgrace ... for more than 80 years"—a reference to the crushing of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France in 1918. Lewis invented a tradition of jihad, "bequeathed to Muslims by the Prophet":

"In principle," Lewis explained, "the world was divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which a Muslim government ruled and Muslim law prevailed, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. Between the two, there was to be a perpetual state of war until the entire world either embraced Islam or submitted to the rule of the Muslim state." Among all the different "infidels" ruling the House of War, Lewis asserted, Christianity was singled out as "their primary rival in the struggle for world domination." Lewis cited slogans painted on the walls of Jerusalem's Dome of the Rock from the Seventh Century, assailing Christianity.

Lewis then claimed that the evolution of modern Islamic terrorism, specifically the al-Qaeda terrorism, had a long proud history within Islam, dating to the Assassins cult of the 11th-13th Centuries. (Lewis wrote a 1967 book, The Assassins, extolling the virtues of this secret society.) He also identified Saudi Arabia and Egypt as two regimes legitimately singled out by the Islamic jihadists, for their corruption by "modernism."

He concluded, ominously: "For Osama bin Laden, 2001 marks the resumption of the war for the religious dominance of the world, that began in the Seventh Century.... If bin Laden can persuade the world of Islam to accept his views and his leadership, then a long and bitter struggle lies ahead, and not only for America. Sooner or later, al-Qaeda and related groups will clash with the other neighbors of Islam—Russia, China, India—who may prove less squeamish than the Americans in using their power against Muslims and their sanctities. If bin Laden is correct in his calculations and succeeds in his war, then a dark future awaits the world, especially the part of it that embraces Islam."

Bernard Lewis Plan, Take II

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Lewis has, not surprisingly, resurfaced in numerous locations. After all, the 85-year old British Arab Bureau mandarin has been London's point-man in the United States since 1974, when he was posted to H.G. Wells' outpost at Princeton University's Center for Advanced Studies, to secure American compliance with British geopolitical manipulations in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Caspian Basin, and Central Asia.

To put it bluntly: British intelligence senior operator Lewis is the guiding hand behind the ongoing U.S. neo-conservative drive for a new "Thirty Years War" in Eurasia. This drive is at the heart of the ongoing coup d'état attempt against the George W. Bush Administration, which began with the Sept. 11 irregular warfare attacks on New York City and Washington.

Lewis' arrival at Princeton, after serving on the faculty of the University of London's Middle East and Africa faculty (the repository of the original India House files, long officially referred to as the Colonial Department), coincided with then-Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger's fomenting of the civil war in Lebanon. That persists to the present day, and served as a laboratory for the later "Islamic revolution" in Iran.

Lewis is no mere British quackademic. After obtaining his doctorate in the history of Islam from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, he joined the university faculty in 1938. From 1940-45, Lewis was, in his own understated words, "otherwise engaged," as a wartime British Military Intelligence officer, later seconded to the British Foreign Office. To this day, Lewis remains mum about his wartime "engagements."

Since arriving at Princeton, Lewis has been demonstrably responsible for every piece of strategic folly and insanity into which the United States has been suckered in Asia Minor. The Wellsian "method to his madness" has been the persistent push to eliminate the nation-state system, and launch murderous wars stretching across the Eurasian region.

* During the Carter Administration, Lewis was the architect of madman Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Arc of Crisis" policy of fomenting Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist insurrections all along the southern tier of the Soviet Union. The planned fostering of radical Islamist war provocations was known, at the time, as "the Bernard Lewis Plan." Among the fruits of this Lewis-Brzezinski collusion: the February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini "Islamic Revolution" in Iran, which overthrew the Shah, and sent the once-proud center of the Islamic Renaissance back into a 20-year dark age; and the 1979-1988 Afghanistan War, provoked by Brzezinski's July 1979 launching of covert support for Afghan mujahideen "Contras" inside Afghanistan—six months prior to the Soviet Red Army's Christmas Eve invasion.

As early as 1960, in a book-length study he prepared for the Royal Institute for International Affairs, under the title The Emergence of Modern Turkey, Lewis polemicized against the modernizing, nation-building legacy of Turkey's Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He argued instead for the revival of an Ottoman Empire that could be used as a British geopolitical battering ram against Russia and against the Arab states of the Persian Gulf—in alliance with Israel.

* It was Bernard Lewis who launched the hoax of the "Clash of Civilizations"—in a September 1990 Atlantic Monthly article on "The Roots of Muslim Rage," which appeared three years before Brzezinski clone Samuel Huntington's publication of his Foreign Affairs diatribe, "The Clash Of Civilizations." Huntington's article, and his subsequent book-length treatment of the same subject, were caricatures of Lewis' more sophisticated British Orientalist historical fraud, which painted Islam as engaged in a 14-century-long war against Christianity. Huntington acknowledged that Lewis' 1990 piece coined the term "Clash of Civilizations."

* In 1992, in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Lewis celebrated in the pages of the New York Council on Foreign Relations' Foreign Affairs that the era of the nation-state in the Middle East had come to an inglorious end, and the entire region should expect to go through a prolonged period of "Lebanonization"—i.e., degeneration into fratricidal, parochialist violence and chaos.

"The eclipse of pan-Arabism," he wrote, "has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer, and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside." The Islamists represent "a network outside the control of the state.... The more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositionists."

He concluded the Foreign Affairs piece by forecasting the "Lebanonization" of the entire region, save Israel: "Most of the states of the Middle East ... are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties."

* In 1998, it was Lewis who catapulted Osama bin Laden into prominence with a November/December Foreign Affairs article, legitimizing the Saudi black sheep as a serious proponent of mainstream, militant Islam. Lewis' piece, "License To Kill: Osama bin Laden's Declaration Of Jihad," showered praise on bin Laden, pronouncing his "Declaration of Jihad Versus Jews and Crusaders" "a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose ... which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar."

Caught In The Act

Osama bin Laden released his 1998 jihad call on Feb. 23, 1998, six months before the truck bombing attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. The very next day, Bernard Lewis' signature appeared on a widely circulated Open Letter To President Bill Clinton, released by a previously unheard-of entity called the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf, demanding that the U.S. government throw its full support behind a military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Open Letter called for carpet bombing Iraq, and for the United States to aggressively give financial and military support for the Iraqi National Congress, yet another corrupt and inept "Contra" pseudo-gang, created by U.S. and British intelligence elements, and based in London.

In addition to Bernard Lewis, the Open Letter was endorsed by former U.S. Rep. Steven Solarz (D-N.Y.), notorious Anglo-Israeli propagandist and spy Richard Perle, convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Pollard fellow-traveller Steven Bryen, Frank Gaffney, New Republic publisher and Al Gore mentor Martin Peretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) research director David Wurmser, and Dov Zakheim.

Lewis' public alliance at that time with the leading lights of the "Mega" apparatus—now waging all-out war against the Bush Administration's efforts to box in Israeli madman Ariel Sharon—is noteworthy, but not surprising. Lewis is lionized inside Israel, and by the Israeli Lobby in America as a geopolitical giant. On Feb. 19, 1996, Lewis was feted in Jerusalem, where he delivered the ninth annual B'nai B'rith World Center "Jerusalem Address" on "The Middle East Towards the Year 2000." His son, Michael Lewis, is the director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee's super-secret "opposition research section." This is one of the most important wellsprings of propaganda and disinformation, presently saturating the U.S. Congress and American media with war-cries for precisely the Clash of Civilizations Bernard Lewis has been promoting for decades.

The fall of the Shah: The real story.

What Really Happed to the Shah of Iran

By Ernst Schroeder

My name is Ernst Schroeder, and since I have some Iranian friends from school ..............., I thought I'd pass on the following three page quote from a book I read a few months ago entitled, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order", which was written by William Engdahl, a German historian . This is a book about how oil and politics have been intertwined for the past 100 years.

I submit the below passage for direct publishing on your website, as I think the quote will prove to be significant for anyone of Persian descent.

______________________________________________________________________________

"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. 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.

The coup against the Shah, like that against Mossadegh in 1953, was run by British and American intelligence, with the bombastic American, Brzezinski, taking public 'credit' for getting rid of the 'corrupt' Shah, while the British characteristically remained safely in the background.

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. In its lead editorial that September, Iran's Kayhan International stated:

In retrospect, the 25-year partnership with the [British Petroleum] consortium and the 50-year relationship with British Petroleum which preceded it, have not been satisfactory ones for Iran … Looking to the future, NIOC [National Iranian Oil Company] should plan to handle all operations by itself.

London was blackmailing and putting enormous economic pressure on the Shah's regime by refusing to buy Iranian oil production, taking only 3 million or so barrels daily of an agreed minimum of 5 million barrels per day. This imposed dramatic revenue pressures on Iran, which provided the context in which religious discontent against the Shah could be fanned by trained agitators deployed by British and U.S. intelligence. In addition, strikes among oil workers at this critical juncture crippled Iranian oil production.

As Iran's domestic economic troubles grew, American 'security' advisers to the Shah's Savak secret police implemented a policy of ever more brutal repression, in a manner calculated to maximize popular antipathy to the Shah. At the same time, the Carter administration cynically began protesting abuses of 'human rights' under the Shah.

British Petroleum reportedly began to organize capital flight out of Iran, through its strong influence in Iran's financial and banking community. The British Broadcasting Corporation's Persian-language broadcasts, with dozens of Persian-speaking BBC 'correspondents' sent into even the smallest village, drummed up hysteria against the Shah. The BBC gave Ayatollah Khomeini a full propaganda platform inside Iran during this time. The British government-owned broadcasting organization refused to give the Shah's government an equal chance to reply. Repeated personal appeals from the Shah to the BBC yielded no result. Anglo-American intelligence was committed to toppling the Shah. The Shah fled in January, and by February 1979, Khomeini had been flown into Tehran to proclaim the establishment of his repressive theocratic state to replace the Shah's government.

Reflecting on his downfall months later, shortly before his death, the Shah noted from exile,

I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration's sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country.[1][1]

With the fall of the Shah and the coming to power of the fanatical Khomeini adherents in Iran, chaos was unleashed. By May 1979, the new Khomeini regime had singled out the country's nuclear power development plans and announced cancellation of the entire program for French and German nuclear reactor construction.

Iran's oil exports to the world were suddenly cut off, some 3 million barrels per day. Curiously, Saudi Arabian production in the critical days of January 1979 was also cut by some 2 million barrels per day. To add to the pressures on world oil supply, British Petroleum declared force majeure and cancelled major contracts for oil supply. Prices on the Rotterdam spot market, heavily influenced by BP and Royal Cutch Shell as the largest oil traders, soared in early 1979 as a result. The second oil shock of the 1970s was fully under way.

Indications are that the actual planners of the Iranian Khomeini coup in London and within the senior ranks of the U.S. liberal establishment decided to keep President Carter largely ignorant of the policy and its ultimate objectives. The ensuing energy crisis in the United States was a major factor in bringing about Carter's defeat a year later.

There was never a real shortage in the world supply of petroleum. Existing Saudi and Kuwaiti production capacities could at any time have met the 5-6 million barrels per day temporary shortfall, as a U.S. congressional investigation by the General Accounting Office months later confirmed.

Unusually low reserve stocks of oil held by the Seven Sisters oil multinationals contributed to creating a devastating world oil price shock, with prices for crude oil soaring from a level of some $14 per barrel in 1978 towards the astronomical heights of $40 per barrel for some grades of crude on the spot market. Long gasoline lines across America contributed to a general sense of panic, and Carter energy secretary and former CIA director, James R. Schlesinger, did not help calm matters when he told Congress and the media in February 1979 that the Iranian oil shortfall was 'prospectively more serious' than the 1973 Arab oil embargo.[2][2]

The Carter administration's Trilateral Commission foreign policy further ensured that any European effort from Germany and France to develop more cooperative trade, economic and diplomatic relations with their Soviet neighbor, under the umbrella of détente and various Soviet-west European energy agreements, was also thrown into disarray.

Carter's security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, implemented their 'Arc of Crisis' policy, spreading the instability of the Iranian revolution throughout the perimeter around the Soviet Union. Throughout the Islamic perimeter from Pakistan to Iran, U.S. initiatives created instability or worse."

-- William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, © 1992, 2004. Pluto Press Ltd. Pages 171-174.

---

[1][1] In 1978, the Iranian Ettelaat published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent. The clerics organized violent demonstrations in response, which led to the flight of the Shah months later. See U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies, Iran. The Coming of the Revolution. December 1987. The role of BBC Persian broadcasts in the ousting of the Shah is detailed in Hossein Shahidi. 'BBC Persian Service 60 years on.' The Iranian. September 24, 2001. The BBC was so much identified with Khomeini that it won the name 'Ayatollah BBC.'

[2][2] Comptroller General of the United States. 'Iranian Oil Cutoff: Reduced Petroleum Supplies and Inadequate U.S. Government Response.' Report to Congress by General Accounting Office. 1979.

Response to a comment on Iran

"Im iranian iv been reading some of you stuff many are good some false shit. I take up one quiston. You said that mullahs in iran are british puppets. they got help to trow down the shah. But khomeni was wery wise. you dont walk into tornado. you wait u use it. Then when e overtroned the shah and got to power. He went back aganist the british. thats why they attacked iran.

ahemenidejad is wery wise. He is not e puppet. Where do you get these cheap imginatations. If He was puppet for british ,jews. then he must be doing bad advertise for them and making bad desicions for iran. In fact he has done wery much and fighting these zionists. Making countreys come together and stans against the e zionists"


Well David, puppets come in different shapes and sizes. You at least acknowledge that the mullahs had help getting into power in Iran in 1979 from the British/Americans. Most Iranians I suspect do not know this fact------'Ayatollah BBC' :

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

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_02_12/article4.html

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2846b_lewis_profile.html

Otherwise basically politically illiterate Mullahs could not have come to power by themselves in the real rational world, and at the same time overcome ALL politically seasoned opposition groups operating in Iran, such as the left wing Tudeh party alliance, the constitutional democratic forces, and in addition of course the existing elite power structure of the Shah, trained by the Israelis and Americans from the 1950's, including SAVAK and the other security forces.

From 1979-82 the mullahs systematically sidelined and eliminated ALL their political opponents in Iran, and exercised power exremely ruthlessly, which suggests to me that the mullahs were getting guidance and advice from the British, if not the Americans whose embassy was closed. The 1980's Gulf war with Iraq, backed by the Americans and British amongst others in addition also helped the mullahs in Tehran, because ordinary Iranians had to rally around their national leadership, and not ask too many awakward questions about the mullahs, after the initial euphoria of over throwing the Shah had died down.

This is the same thing Bush is doing in America, conducting war and calling for more war, as a way of covering up massive criminality at home. Bush and the late Ayatollah Khomenei are in many ways similar politically, as both seem to want endless wars, and sacrifice the lives of young good men, by using patriotic speeches around their national flags, whilst they consolidate more power at home. These are the actions of politically cynical men with criminal intentions, not real patriots-----the desire to stay in power, for the sake of staying in power.

Having looked at the mullah record over the last 29 years, one can summise that whilst they have been disasterous in all aspects of governance within Iran: the economy; educational policy, industry and manufacturing; the banking sector; the petro-chemicals sector..................the one thing they have been good at is staying in power, RUTHLESSLY. That can only be attributed to the British and their close allies, Canada and Australia. Oh, one more thing; if you thought the recent Iranian oil bourse, and conversion to non-dollar currencies was just another clever idea from the mullahs, you would be wrong-----the idea came from the UK---follow it up.

But in the international game the British have to pretend to oppose the mullahs to keep up a clever facade, much like Khomenei's speeches against America, whilst he collaborated with them indirectly and through other parties.

Then of course if you study this fact and area a little bit more, you will discover that the mullahs have had close relations with Western intelligence since the 1950's at least. They were active against the Mosaddeq government in 1953.

http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/Kazemzadeh/28mordad.htm

http://www.chris-floyd.com/iran/index2.htm

From my perspective people like that who are used as tools of Western intelligence for their own purposes cannot be respected, trusted or considered wise/clever. A true national leader should not rely on outside forces to come to power, least of all the British, a nation that has exercised negative power over the Persian nation, about which I assume you know about quite well.

Still now there are Persians in America and the UK who hope to come to power in Iran, over the dead bodies of their countrymen, by relying on the British and Americans----they do not learn from history, and as they say if you do not learn from history, you are condemned to make the mistakes of the past and repeat it-----in addition this is unwise and unacceptable. The Shah's son and MEK are two prominent groups that come to mind amongst thousands of organisations like their's based in the West. Their focus in getting into power, and killing as many mullah followers as possible------------but this is not the political solution for Iran. Granted that the mullah's must be removed from power as soon as possible.

Then under Ayatollah Khomeini's rule, Iran was still involved in covert ops with Western intelligence, namely the October Surprise of 1980, where he used his own son for this operation, and of course Iran/Contra. National leaders should be morally pure, and there should be no great contradictions between what one preaches and what one does. Khomenei on the one hand ordered that no Iranian official in the Islamic Republic should make contact with Western officials covertly or overtly----saying that this would compromise the security of the Islamic republic, but covertly and secretly he authorised his son Ahmed to meet with Western officials in Europe over the October Suprise issue in 1980.

Once he broke his own rule on such a serious matter by using his own son, he than went about executing Iranian officials who were loyal to the Islamic republic for doing the same, taking falsely their ques from what Khomenei had done, and thinking that Khomenei's statement on the matter was only for public consumption. Utter deceitfulness, and obviously the actions of a paranoic, power hungary madman, controlled by the British.

Politics is dirty, that much is accepted, but for a leader in one breath to call America the 'Great Satan' and then on the other hand deal with them covertly is dishonest, and deceitful----not something a true man of God should be doing. If Ayatollah Khomeini's had his way, Iran would have been fighting the Gulf war, until Saddam was eventually toppled or defeated by the Iranians. Something that was of course never going to happen, as Iraq was backed by Russia, the USA, France and the rest of the world. Yet Ayatollah Khomeini, the 'great wise leader' wanted to continue the war for ever---FOR EVER. This is not the wisdom of a wise leader, but the actions of a criminal psychopath.....(Ayatollah Montazeri rightly criticized that wasteful war)....................1 million Iranian men and boys died for a war, which could have been stopped in 1982, when Saddam sent messages for a truce, but Khomeini the 'wise leader' ignored this truce.

Iran only stopped fighting the Gulf war because Iran's puppet masters ( UK/USA) stopping supplying Iran with Arms (via Israel/Singapore/Chile-----Iran fighting another Muslim country, with the help of Israel!), and thus the globally backed Iraqis were suddenly very successful in mid 1988. Undoubtedly the Iranians were the better and braver fighters. Would the prophet Mohammed send little children to fight for him in the battle field, whilst his sons were busy making contact with the agents of the 'Great Satan' in Europe.

Also I would ask you to read some of Ayatollah Khomeini's declarations on personal and moral issues related to the individuals personal conduct-------for me it is truly bizarre---really bizarre, that any sane Iranian would follow such advice about ones personal conduct. I will be writing about this later--so watch this space----

My overall point is Ayatollah Khomeini was their puppet from the 1950's, and continued to be their puppet, as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic------he suddenly didn't break free from them, and find wisdom, because there wasn't much wisdom in his 10 year rule, of which 8 years were spent fighting another Muslim country.

"you dont walk into tornado. you wait u use it."

I am not familiar with this term. It must be Persian. But see if this makes sense--'If you play with mud your hands will surely get dirty"

"Then when e overtroned the shah and got to power. He went back aganist the british. thats why they attacked iran."

I am not aware that Khomenei went against the British. Their embassy wasn't closed in 1979. Good business continued between the two countries. The British have not attacked Iran, except for conducting a few covert ops in Southern Iran, in Khuzestan. But I would not describe it as attacking Iran. Shell oil ( A British Dutch operation, which is close to the Rothschilds of London) is in the process of signing some big contracts with Iran. The regimes elite, mainly relatives of the mullahs such as Rafsanjani are flying to London and Canada and depositing the national wealth of Iran in these countries. So in reality the relationship of Iran with the UK/British is strong as ever, with an increased number of tourist exchanges and student exchanges between the two nations.

As to Ahmedinejad, well we will see how his supporters do in the up coming parliamentary elections, in March, even though over 2,000 'moderate' delegates have been barred from contesting them. Ahmedinejad won in 2005, promising to put bread on the tables of poor Iranian families and fight corruption (a domestic agenda), but in reality that is all it is......poltical posturing ...promises...promises....promises.......nothing new. He was mandated by Iranians to clean up the country, as most Iranians had become tired of mullah rule.

However in reality, he has done nothing for the country. What Ahmedinejad has provided is pure theater, but nothing of substance, which might be called true leadership and sound policies at a very critical time when Israel with America might attack Iran---theatrics, gimmicks and sound governance don't go well together. Even Khomanie who covertly funded and backed him in 2005, criticized him publicly, because of his disastrous mismanagement of the Iranian economy, despite the huge oil revenue. His domestic economic policies and reforms are a disaster.

As to foreign relations he has stirred up a hornets nest, by unnecessarily goading the pathological Jews. There is no great wisdom when a poor man shouts and screams meaningless words, slogans, rhetoric to his poor illiterate audience at home trying to impress them, and then getting your nation attacked by two of the most powerful nations on earth, with nukes-------this is not wisdom---this is donkey stupidity. Any idiot can make inflammatory speeches-----its cheap, easy and feels good for a while, to 'let it out' but as a leader of a nation, you have responsibilities. As countless newspaper editorials in Iran have stated, and the uttering of many senior Iranian figures have mentioned, Ahmedinejad has put his political ambitions above the interests of his nation.

So now he is off to Iraq to rub it in with the Americans-------where the Americans are doing poorly, and presumably to help his delegates in the up coming elections on 14th March. This surely is not wisdom. Dancing around the world with the likes of Chavez and others, and fingering at superpowers.

As to Ahmedinejad uniting the Ulema, tell me which Muslim country has signed a security pact with Iran that can be relied on to join Iran against more Israeli/American aggression in a time of war? None.................Not one Muslim country will come to Iran's defense if attacked by Israel/America, except small weak Socialist Alevi run Syria.

Response to some points on Iran.

"some of your statements bear some truth but you sound very naive. Especially when you say the shah should have been more nationalistic since he was a puppet under control"
Yes he was a puppet. He was first installed in the 1940's as a child, by the British, and again in 1953, by the British and Americans. But you know that puppets come in various shapes and sizes. Most puppets being human don't follow their masters wishes 100%.

Qaddafi was installed by the USA/UK, because they made a hard realistic assessment that King Idris of Libya couldn't survive long in power sandwiched as he was by Socialist Egypt and Tunisia geographically, so in 1969 they engineered a 'coup' and installed their new puppet, who had received military/intelligence training in both the USA and UK, Colonel Qaddafi (Homosexual psychopath with an acute sense of humor).....---the rest is history.

Much has been said about Qaddafi, but I don't personally think he conducted any terrorism against Western targets as he had no real incentive, using his state organs, beyond supporting some 'liberation' movements around the world. He was however for the West and Israel an useful poster child for Arab terrorism, together with MOSSAD run Abu Nidal from the 1970's-----culminating in 9/11 a false flag ops by the usual suspects. The only terrorism he practised was against his own people, to keep himself in power, and again not in the scale of say Saddam Hussain (Megalomaniac psychopath-----Western intelligence sure do pick em). He was sending his wife and children for their education to the UK, as if business was normal--during the nineties.

Qaddafi steered his own policy, and tried to articulate and mark himself out in response to Arab nationalism ignited by Nasser, and things only got worse when the Americans decided to accuse him of terrorism, and they subsequently bombed him in 1986. He responded partly by arming the IRA, against the British for providing the bases for bombing Libya---F-111. Which consequently resulted in the British trying to over throw him using Islamic Fundamentalists in the 1990's----clearly documented---He survived because he was security savvy. Now the British and Americans are friends with him again. So my point is you can have policy differences with your puppet master, and survive in power, EVEN without following the extreme policies of Qaddafi.

The Shah was not security savvy, he was essentially a weak minded playboy with some good intentions for his country, but very naive, and he paid for it. You must always take into account and anticipate the whimsy of your puppet master as a Third World leader who sponsored you into power ----there are a few million waiting in the queue.
Qaddafi is still a puppet of theirs, and his children are educated in that country, and no doubt they have excellent English accents. Mugabe too is their puppet, and he could be killing lawful white farmers driving them out of the country, and of course running the economy into ruin, where at one time it was an effectively managed African nation, with 500,000 whites co-existing peacefully. He can do all manner of ugly things, and say ugly things but he will still remain in power. Whilst his wife regularly visits London to do her shopping, with the impoverished nations money.
So you see a puppet can do all sorts of things, and not follow their master. Perhaps this is an example that the world has moved on, and has become more diverse, nuanced and more complex. We are no longer frozen in the nineteenth century, where a few colonial soldiers taught the grass skirted thing what for.
"or when you infer that Saddam's war on Iran wasn't on behalf of western powers"
I don't infer that it wasn't on behalf of Western powers; Saddam was their puppet, carefully groomed since the early 1960's as new documents and articles show.
This was a classic case of weakening two sides to take them over. But the opportunity for entertaining the idea of attacking Iran in the first place would not have come about if the Shah was still in power, with his armed forces intact. Even puppets have to rationalize sometimes.
Jordan is a puppet state clearly (close to the UK/USA), but does that mean tomorrow they mobilize their little effective army and attack Ba'athist Socialist Syria---of course not---the Jordanian puppet rationalizes his chances.
Saddam the western puppet rationalized in 1980 that with the Iranian armed forces which had disintegrated with 60% desertion, with American/British backing and encouragement, and French backing and encouragement, and Russian backing and encouragement (70%--80% of his conventional arms was Russian), and GULF GCC backing and encouragement, he felt that he had a fair chance. So just after the Islamic Revolution, in 1980 he invaded Iran with 500,000 troops. By this action he basically saved the mullahs, as the mullahs could now rally the country behind them. If the West really wanted to get rid of the mullahs, all they had to do was impose 100% sanctions; and covert ops financing opposition groups----------with propaganda, as in 1953, classic textbook simple overthrow of a regime which is popular with the people------BUT the West wasn't interested in getting rid of the mullahs of Iran then in 1980, whom they had just installed, what their objective was to weaken both countries by providing/supporting poor governments and continued war between the two. With the intention that sometime in the future they could invade as 'liberators'.
"or that the Brits still control Iran,then why would the west want to attack Iran?"
The West is not one united entity. There are considerable policy differences as to what policies to pursue--in relation to international relations. Even within the British elite there are considerable policy differences, between what the Jews of London within 'The City' think and what other elite groups within Britian think. Internationally, what 'the Brits' think is not necessary how 'Washington' thinks, or how the unhinged 'Israelis' think, or how traditionally the French without Sarkozy think. Their perspectives are diverse.
So whilst the British try and maintain their hold over mullah Iran, quite successfully one may add for 29 years, others obviously in the West do not want this status quo. Remember the genocide in Rwanda was the result of competing interests between French intelligence and British intelligence. Around the world you can find examples of competition for control of nations and, and their resources by the West which manifest themselves in local conflict.
Also the fact that the British control Iran is not something they would want to advertise to everybody----because the next logical question from interested parties is who are the agents of the British in Iran, and what are the means of control by which the British exercise power over Iran (organizationally), and how can one compromise these assets to ones advantage.
Britain first became involved in Persia in the early 17th century, and very active politically and economically in the early parts of the 20th century. Let me tell you quickly and very briefly about Tipu Sultan, a character the British empire preferred to forget, and if remembered briefly, than only as another cruel Asian despot. In fact he was an enlightened leader of a medium sized South Indian state called Karnataka. He was an enlightened good ruler effectively ruling a non-Muslim state.
He was an innovator of technology, and was the first in the world to use missiles en masse in the field of war. He with his father fought four wars against the Jewish London based East India company; 1st Mysore war 1767-69; 2nd Mysore war 1780-84; 3rd Mysore war 1790-92; 4th Mysore war 1798-99. He was a major obstacle to British expansion in South Asia, and his little state had been responsible for the death of thousands of colonial soldiers and generals. By the fourth war things were going against him and prior to that he sought the alliance of Revolutionary France, Ottoman Turkey and Afghanistan, but not Persia. Napoleon Bonaparte landed in Egypt in 1798, with the objective of joining forces with Tipu Sultan. The British sunk his navy, so he couldn't sail any where least of all to India, and the Ottoman Turks naturally took exception to their country being used as a staging post without being asked, and having part of their country being treated like an occupation territory------so two possible allies neutralised.
Finally in 1798 the British persuaded the Persian Shah to attack Afghanistan, which prevented the Afghans from joining forces with Tipu Sultan. Yes, as far back as 210 years ago the British were exercising considerable power in Persia. I do not know what influence the British exercised over Nadir Shah of Persia, who effectively ended the Mughal empire, by attacking India in 1737, and ransacking Delhi and massacring its residents.
point being that they have built up a vast network of local Iranian agents---Colonel Reza Khan, the Shah's father was installed by the BRITISH in 1921, as the point man for all of Persia, after the departure of the Russians in the North of the country----He was removed from power by the BRITISH in 1941, and then the BRITISH installed his son in the 1940's, and again in 1953 with American help. Then the BRITISH decided that he outlasted his usefulness, i.e. he was developing Iran too quickly----------Article in Time magazine called Iran the New Japan in the early Seventies (Britain has always been a Islamophobic nation---which has waged cold covert/hot overt wars against Muslim nations-----Iran is another example, using Islamic fundamentalists---cold covert war. Since the advent of Jews in the British power structure in the UK from the middle of the seventeenth century, allowed reentry by Oliver Cromwell, with their prominence in London in 'The City' , and the creation of Israel, this has added to the British Islamophobic dimension)
and so the BRITISH removed the Shah in 1978-79, using the Americans again, through their Rothschild CFR/Trilateral commission agents in the Carter administration.

So now we have two possible scenarios over Iran. The British London Jew model (billionaire criminal Jews from Russia and Israel have been congregating there for a couple years now, the centre of global evil) which means continued mullah misrule, international theatrics by the mullah's and their hand picked 'elected' cronies; human trafficking/slavery from Iran mainly into the Gulf; narcotic epidemics within Iran the like of which Iran has never experienced; Capitol flight into the UK, Canada and other countries from Iran-----$100's billions; the flight of the Middle Class.................or the Israeli Jew neocon model, which means the attack of Iran by Israel and America, possibly with nukes, and the dismemberment of the country into small pieces, in order to facilitate Eretz Israel. Judging by the presidential election nominees in America, that seems to be the direction America is heading.

Iran's elite problem.

The problems of Iran are many fold. Problems that many other Third World nations share.

The elite in Iran over the last one hundred years, contrary to previous ages has been uninspiring, and lacking in leadership. So as a result of this weakness, they reside in Iran, under a foreign backed regime which promises nothing but eternal misery, or in exile, sorrowfully reading about their country and all its woes.

It is widely perceived in Iranian society that the British are major 'troublemakers' in their nation. This is not a false rumor, or mere gossip, but a widely held belief based on actual historical experience. However, what you have historically, is an elite which when it actually comes to exercising power, allows this 'fox' to compromise Iranian society in a variety of ways, instead of taking standard safety measures.

The Shah can be faulted in his own down fall. He should have taken proper safety measures against the British, and their allies the clueless Americans based on clear historical experience, but instead he:

1. Cooperated with them in security matters----both military and intelligence.

2. Bought masses of arms from them----his military could not function without spares from these countries.

3. Allowed their security personnel to be stationed in his country, and to train very sensitive security personnel.

4. Allowed BP to continue to be a major stake holder in his nations oil business----the British used the oil weapon again to over throw the Shah in 1978-9. After all the British had done to Iran, and common knowledge of this fact in the streets of Iran, the British were still selling 60% of Iran's oil exports up to 1978.

5. He deposited $10-15 (Probably more--at 1975 prices) billion of his nations money in their banks, which has not been returned to Iran. Worth at least $40-50 billion at today's prices-----but the corrupt Americans will not return this to the Iranian people.

6. Sent hundreds of thousands of his students to study in their country (UK/USA)--some of whom would end up being recruited as spies.

The Shah's daughter may even have been killed in the UK. Of course the Shah was essentially a weak minded play boy, with some good intentions. He came into power through their good grace, as their puppet. I think a nation cannot complain that others are harming them, and thus the source of the nations eternal woes are based on the misdeeds of others. Especially a nation the size of Iran.

He deserved what he got. He should have used the 25 years in power to make his country more independent from these two, and especially the British. He should have learnt from history. He should have anticipated that the British were going to do the dirty on him, once he decided that he was seriously going to develop Iran into a modern country, a national policy which the British were against. For his lack of fore sight and leadership he died in a foreign Arab country. Many of his elite friends were executed in Iran by the British through their psychopaths, in 1979 through into the eighties, whilst others went into exile. This was not a mere take over, but a social, economic and political revolution the like of which had never been experienced since the Russian revolution.

He enabled the vile mullahs to come into power, the like of which has never been seen before in Iranian society and history. If the British model is followed then the mullahs will be in power for a very long time, and if the Jew model is followed Iran will be no more-----like Iraq.

Now the British have sole control of Iran, stead of sharing power over Iran with the USA. The mullahs have accomplished four major goals for their British masters. You will note dear informed reader that the puppet mullahs of the British rarely criticise the British publicly, and the speed at which any diplomatic 'misunderstanding' is patched up between the two nations.

• The destruction of Iranian society, into ethnically aware enclaves, with active separatists groups in Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Khuzestan and other places. The huge drug problems--none existent in 1979. 4 million educated Iranians leaving the country. 1 million dead from war. Massive state repression to maintain the mullahs in power. Civil war in early 1980's.
• Economic destruction. Capitol flight from the country in the region of $ 1 trillion, along with sections of the old elite and skilled classes. Selling of state assets to foreign Jewish run Capitol. Living standards being 60% of what they were in 1979. Massive corruption, with business cartels being run by mullahs and their cronies. Economic mismanagement, with Iran being run as a socialist/communist command economy, with anything goes rules. Absolutely no business confidence as expressed by Iranian businessmen, and private foreign businesses, except for state to state business with Pakistan, China, India and Russia.
• The destruction of the security apparatus. Creation of two separate, competing, non-coordinating state security organs tasked to defend the country--The Revolutionary Guard and the conventional armed forces. No other country in the world has such an 'unique' system. To further weaken the military, in the face of daily threats from the USA, Israel and the UK, the mullahs spend 3% of their GDP on defense, when 12--15% would be a better amount given the dangerous critical situation. The armed forces are woefully small consisting of 400,000 conscripts who will not fight adequately, and are not professional. 1,000,000 men filled by full time professionals would be a better option. We note that around Iran there have been excellent examples of popular resistance movements whilst not great in number, they were and are highly organised, well trained, well motivated and well supplied, able to fight for many years----Hezbollah 50,000; the Iraqi Sunni resistance 30,000, and finally the Afghan Mujaheddin in the 1980's 70,000. These are simple prime examples for Iran to copy. But instead the puppet mullahs of the British want to jump from a conscript force of 420,000 (545,000 including the Revolutionary Guard---125,000-----London Jew boy numbers game-----dogs of the Jew in London) ----- I call upon all true Aryans/Iranians to stand here and take heed. during peace time to 20,000,000 during war time. Utter military disaster must follow, at least logistically (aka Romanov Russia 1917). How does a Third World nation sustain 20 million men for a long time? It can't and will only result in economic and social chaos. Iran only needs 200,000 men to rebel against the central government during war, for the whole system to collapse. The whole point of defensive guerrilla warfare, is maintaining a small sustainable force, highly trained and motivated, and supplied that fights for decades, without any decisive open engagements against the enemy---you merely pick at them, and leaves you standing whilst your opponent, takes flight from your country. It is simple, not really sophisticated, and the anals of history has many examples of this. Iran only needs 1,000,000 highly trained well motivated, professionally trained men, not 20 million men. This is another evidence that the UK is writing Iran's defence policy. Mullahs have problems signing military alliances with nations who share common threat situations--namely Russia. But instead sign alliance agreements with Syria which can drag Iran into war early---Ba' athist Socialist run Syria.
• Reducing the credibility, international standing, and reputation of Iran. So when the mullah regime speak a patent truth, the Jew some how is able to sell it as a lie in critical circles in the West---whose armed forces the Jew wants to expend against Iran.

The advent of the mullahs, with the disintegration of Iranian society and security, encouraged Saddam to attack Iran. Something which Saddam would never have contemplated if the Shah was in power, with his armed forces fully intact.

So long as the mullahs remain in power with their antics, it does not matter whether they ACTUALLY do anything wrong, they WILL continue to attract negative coverage because of who they are, mullahs running a modern country in a very sensitive strategic area.

Finally whether by British design (they drew the boundaries and map of Israel, and bought it into existence) or accident mullah Iran has earned the wrath of global Jewry, one of the most vile, organised, criminal sects in the world today. Iran now is constantly threatened from without---by the USA/Israel, until the mullahs are removed from power, and a new Iranian regime begs forgiveness from the Americans and Israelis as a vassal state. AND threatened from within with MULLAHS running the country, who use a book written 1400 years ago as a guide for state craft, maintained in power by the British through their agents in Iran.

In English this is known as being between a rock and a hard place.