As with "al-CIA-duh" in Libya the Mullahs of Iran were installed by the West.

.
.
.
.
I have already covered this, as one of my very first posts on this blog or there abouts.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the Mullahs of Iran were installed by the USA/UK using the intelligence services working through the Foreign Offices of certain countries.(My fondness for spooks grows by the years)

Many Middle Class Iranians in Iran and outside of the country sense this fact, but are powerless to topple the regime with its extremely brutal human rights record, and covert expert security backing from the UK, guiding the notorious regime via the British embassy.

5,000,000 Iranians have emigrated from the country since the Mullahs came to power (an unprecedented number) and most are from the middle class. As one well to do Iranian refugee told me, Iran run by the mullahs was simply unbearable. You had to see the expression on his face to understand this, with his family in toe (I was working at a Law Center in the UK).

However when all is said and done, the medieval puppet mullahs of Iran, installed by the USA/UK .....must ultimately be removed by the GOOD Iranian people themselves through "struggle". There must not be any regime change in Iran brought about by Western intervention yet again,

......as in 1921(UK), 1941(UK/Soviet Union), 1953(UK/USA) and 1979(UK/USA).

I do not know the true nature of the "Green Movement" in Iran. But color coded revolutions make me suspicious, and understand them to be Western intelligence gimmicks (If you know you are happy then clap your hands....).

The title below is misleading, since the Mullahs shut down the American embassy, CIA ops in Iran have been limited to the SE carrying out terrorist operations from Af/Pak.

If you are a Third World country experiencing some problems, and are reasonably suspicious....just shut down everything American from the embassy down. It is THAT EASY.

It is the UK which runs and controls the mullahs. 52 American hostages held for 444 days.....yes?

___________________________

IRAN IS RUN BY THE CIA by aangirfan

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.(Mubarak and Ben Ali also just recently)

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.

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."

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.

"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 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."

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..."

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.


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.

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.


4. The Shah signed petroleum agreements with ENI, the Italian oil company.

(The BP gave Iran 16% of oil sales revenue, up to a period...Jewish run company linked to the notorious Rothschilds of London.

The Americans 40%

The Italians 100% ENI Enrico Matai

As one UK MI retired officer told me the British are tight fisted gits. Naturally the Shah looked to sell his wares to other more "generous" countries, and this led to his downfall when the British super agent Bernard Lewis sold to the Americans the idea of creating and backing Islamic Fundamentalists to topple his regime and others. In Syria it was tried in 1982, resulting in the death of 30,000 people after the Muslim Brotherhood uprising was suppressed......the same is being tried in Syria now using the services of Deonme Turkey, with the supreme irony of Mullah Iran backing the Socialist Assad regime, as it is a steady ally of Mullah Iran since 1980)

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.


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...

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.

(Iran Contra....involving CIA drugs)

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?

(The delicate secret negotiations were conducted in Paris by Ahmed Khomenei Ayatollah Khomenei's son,with the CIA.....he taking direct orders from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei, the British agent since 1954)

But, Khomeini was not an enemy (To the USA....only in speeches to the donkey Iranian masses), 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...(Ayatollah Shariatmadari.........Ruhollah Khomeini the British agent since 1954 had to be protected from the British perspective, and hence as I understand it, the head of SAVAK General Hassan Pakravan also played a role in saving Ruhollah Khomeini in 1963, as he was going around the country giving anti-modernization speeches, and complaining why ALL Americans in Iran were legally immune from prosecution regardless of whatever crimes they committed)

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

Banana Republic mullah puppet regime of the Zionists...and their statistics

.
.
.
.
When you are the only country in the world with mullahs running the country, installed into power by the USA/UK in 1979.....obviously there is going to be some problems with the economy.

When your countries import figures for 2012 is $60 billion only and is the same as the import levels of 1977 price adjusted, then obviously there is something really wrong with the economy.

When you have exports of $150 billion for 2012, and your imports are only $60 billion then there is something seriously wrong with the economy.

When 4--5 million educated and skilled Iranians leave mullah Iran 1979-2011, taking with them $1,000 billion worth of Iranian capital then obviously there is something seriously wrong with the Iranian economy.

When you have living standards index which are a mere 65% of what they were in 1979, when the average salary was $1000 then there is something seriously wrong with the Iranian economy.

When you have Revolutionary Guards involved in business, running large parts of the economy secretly at their whim, then obviously there is something seriously wrong with the economy.

When you have mullahs running huge charity trusts which are not economically accountable then obviously this will create great problems and distorting effects on the economy.

When you have 9 national and private banks which give out loans to friends of the mullahs and Revolutionary Guards based on corrupt loan practices, and where the loans are never paid back, then obviously this will create significant problems for the Iranian economy.

The Jewish run IMF as always likes to cut subsidies within government expenditure in various countries as a pre-condition to giving out their loans, BUT IN REALITY....subsidies are not the main challenge to finding an efficient effectively run economy.

Governments MUST always subsidize food, education, health care, welfare, fuel as a mechanism of transferring some basic goods for the COMMON MAN. It is a moral requirement, and if done effectively has a good effect on the economy in addition. This is what transpired successfully in 19th century UK, and Germany under Bismark.

So subsidies are not the main problem in Iran or in any other countries in the world.....the main problem and challenge is poor governance, lack of governance, lack of transparency in government and obviously corruption; a few benefiting at the cost of the majority. India being the extreme example.

Turkey will have GDP growth of 8/9% for 2011/2012, with imports reaching $260 billion, without the benefits oil/gas exports. Iran with massive oil/gas exports can only manage a paltry 3% GDP growth rate for 2011--2012, with a meager $60 billion imports. This is not a problem of cutting subsidies, but a problem of corruption led by the mullahs.































































__________________________________

Iran’s Untenable Economy

By The Diplomat blog and Dina Esfandiary

With spiraling inflation, Iran’s economy is in need of re-balancing. Poor implementation of vital reforms is undermining government claims of success.

Mention of the words ‘structural reform’ these days usually conjures up images of the unrest in Greece. But according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund, Iran has also been restructuring its economy, introducing changes that have resulted in an unexpected growth rate of 3.2 percent in 2010-11.

Maybe.

Following a two week visit to Iran and discussions with Iranian officials in the spring, the IMF reviewed its initial criticisms, and applauded the regime’s removal of its decade-long subsidy programme. But economic mismanagement by Tehran has prompted scepticism of these findings – and is threatening to wipe out the potential for long-term growth.

Until December 2010, Iran was spending about a quarter of its GDP on food, fuel and electricity subsidies, and the dismantling of the subsidies system therefore removed a major financial burden for the government. The promise of $40 per month, deposited straight into the accounts of registered lower income families, has supposedly raised disposable income and acted as a stimulus to the Iranian economy.

Iran was also able to open up its economy and adjust prices to market level. The rise in global oil prices has, according to the IMF report, improved current account and budget surplus, and helped ‘maintain comfortable international reserves.’ The jump in energy costs from the removal of the subsidies has reduced wasteful demand and lowered pollution in big cities. And all of this occurred without a peep from the opposition, allowing the government to publicize it as a major success.

But the IMF’s findings should be taken with a sizable pinch of salt.

Following the removal of the subsidies, the fear that consumers would change their spending habits and switch to buying foreign goods, which were not affected by the rise in prices, is being realized. This means that the publicized rise in disposable income isn’t being spent on Iranian goods, and so is not being re-injected into the Iranian economy.

The $40 compensation scheme is controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, which means cash transfers can and have been blocked when the receiver is not in their good books. Industrial and agricultural producers, meanwhile, haven’t always received the financial aid promised to them, leading many of them to shut down. Some within the regime have also questioned the provenance of the funds needed for the cash transfers, saying that the subsidies haven’t led to the anticipated hike in government revenues.

In addition, Iran’s economy has been performing poorly. Unemployment is high, stagnating just below 15 percent for the past few years, leading to criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said in March that his government had created 1.7 million jobs in the past year.

According to Behrouz Moradi, the Subsidies Reform Organization Chief, the inflation rate for the first three months of the Iranian calendar (beginning 20 March 2011) was 13.2 percent, 14.2 percent and 15.4 percent respectively. But even some Iranian officials find these figures dubious. Khabar Online, a news site linked to Majles speaker Ali Larijani, estimated that the inflation rate would reach 26 percent by the end of 2011. In addition, there’s a great deal of evidence on the streets of Tehran suggesting that the cost of living has gone up beyond what is being advertised. The cost of food, clothing and home bills have been soaring, up 137 percent according to an Iranian financial newspaper. As a result, some Iranians have refused to pay their utility bills, taking them to Khomeini’s tomb and shredding them in a sign of protest.

The country’s dependence on the energy sector, especially oil, may have benefited the economy so far, due to the rise in oil prices. But it also leaves it exposed to fluctuations on the world market and means that as the oil runs out, the government’s revenues and exports will fall dramatically.

Iran’s economy is still largely state-owned, with the Revolutionary Guards involved in a large portion of transactions and trade. Corruption and nepotism, which extend into the public sector, have seriously restricted economic development and foreign investment. Transparency has been snubbed in favor of secrecy to avoid ‘analyzing the situation from a negative viewpoint and launching smear campaigns’ according to Ayatollah Khamenei; justifying the decision not to allow the Iranian Central Bank to release any statistical information in July. It’s not surprising, then, that Iran ranks 171 out of 179 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom.

International sanctions haven’t helped. Regulations imposed on the banking sector have made it hard for Iran to do business with its trading partners, and have also contributed to the growth of an informal sector, further distorting the economy and generally raising the cost of doing business with Iran.

The structural weaknesses of the Iranian economy are largely due to its mismanagement by the regime. Although the removal of the subsidies (so dear to the IMF) should lead to growth in the long-term, for now, it has only contributed to worsening an already untenable situation.

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.