It is good to see greater cooperation between the two brother Iranian countries.

.
.
.
.
Iranian tribes such as the Alan's and Scythia generally once occupied Ukraine, and Ukraine is essentially still a Iranian nation, even though it identifies itself as a Slavic country. I was their briefly.

Ukraine is no more a Slavic country, as much as Turkey is not a Turkish country.

It is no secret the International Jew has waged racial war against the Iranian nation in Russia, Ukraine, in Iran, and in Afghanistan (Ariana) and else where.

I cannot fathom the reason for this, in the process of rationalizing this simple fact.

Perhaps it could be a simple minutiae fact which often defines hate, that a few powerful Jews such as the Rothschild of London apprehend a severe inferiority complex and in order to expunge this severe inferiority complex they have murdered countless millions of Iranian people under the guise of their funded, backed and organized Jewish Bolshevism which killed up to 60 million people in the Soviet Union between 1918--1991 (Alexander Solzhenitsyn)....this process is continuing where the Jew still run Russia and Ukraine. Russia's population will reach 80 million by 2050 from the present 142 million, and 32 million by 2100.

In Iran the Jew imposed the horrific un-Iranian "Islamic Republic of Iran" through the power of the JEWSA/UK where the Rothschild of London are based. When this Jew backed entity in Iran first came to power in 1979 they tried to destroy important Persian monuments including Cyrus's tomb; they closed all universities, and then implemented a program of Arabification, including black listing people who did not adopt Arab names but persisted with their Persian ones.

What the mullah puppets have done inside Iran and outside to their utter shame is well documented......the JEWSA has left the mullah puppet regime unmolested for 32 years, save for dire diplomatic threats and covert contacts in Europe and the Gulf. The International Jew would like a massive military attack on Iran which kills millions of people, and destroys the country, including its ancient Persian monuments.

In Afghanistan the country has been converted into one giant opium plantation, and the Afghan's as the slaves working for nothing in the Jew plantation......after 30 years of Jewish conspired wars, tricking the Soviet Union into the country in 1979......and ceaseless wars since.

The noble Iranian race constitute no real organized, WELL-FOCUSED strategic threat to the evil, filthy Jew, especially the paranoia and globalist pretensions of the Jew leadership based in the Rothschild of London........but this is not reciprocated by the Jew elite in London, with their various schemes around the world.

So it is good to see that Iran with the puppet Jew imposed regime has slightly better trade with Ukraine the nation also run by Jews.

___________________________

'Iran-Ukraine trade to hit $2.5bn'

By Presstv.com

Iranian and Ukrainian officials have called for increasing the volume of trade exchange between the two countries from the current one billion dollars to 2.5 billion dollars.

The caretaker Minister of Industry and Mine Mehdi Qazanfari and Vice Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament Nikolay Tomenko made the appeal during a meeting in the Iranian capital Tehran on Wednesday.

“Given the high capacities of Tehran and Kiev, the level of (economic) ties could be increased,” Qazanfari said.

He added that Iran will hold a trade exhibition in the Ukrainian capital Kiev on 18-23 October to showcase Iranian products.

Qazanfari asked Kiev to ease visa regime for Iranian businessmen visiting Ukraine.

The two officials also agreed a Ukrainian delegation to visit Tehran in September to discuss ways for expansion of economic relations.

Tomenko, for his part, said that Ukraine attaches great importance to expansion of ties with the Islamic Republic.

He noted that his country exports iron, steel, machinery, locomotive parts and oilseeds to Iran and imports pistachio, nuts, dried fruits, ceramics and tiles from the country.

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.

The mullah puppets of Zion.

Given the delicate situation in the Gulf, I welcome with some reservations the NIE 2007. This is what wise counsels in sensitive security organisations should be doing, not just in the USA, pouring cold water, with a measured response to all the baiting and wild rhetoric coming out of the rectums of politicos. There has been considerable dumbing down led by the Zions of the global security issue; the less questions asked, the more blurrying of issues, the easier to sell their PNAC Master Plan. The NIE 2007 has taken the wind out of their sales spiel for full spectrum domination for a while. They will go into plan B no doubt.

Ahmedinejad and the mullahs, simple and good reader are all part of this Jewish vaudeville, which is called GWOT. Ahmedinejad, as the article below suggests is an essential part of all this. Remember it is THEY who funded and ran the Communist Revolution in 1918, documented by no less than themselves. Remember it is THEY who funded Hitler initially and did business with him covertly, as it is documented clearly. So Good reader, why is it such a stretch to believe it is THEY, via their UK which manage the mullahs of Iran. Or did you think semi literate mullahs, without a prior strong political organisation, and without any prior political experience just happened to capture power in Iran in 1979 and overturn and defeat one of the most effective security organisations in the world, SAVAK, without loosing or sacrificing any of their lives, and defeat all other competing political organisations along the way BY THEMSELVES----Oi, Oi, Oi Samuel, if miracles could happen every day!

In the summer of 2007 Bush made a speech saying that if America left Iraq, Al-Qaeda could effectively take over the country as a failed state, something vaguely to that effect, and the implication being that these people would then follow the American boys back to the USA. It's a popular meaningless line others repeat in the USA. Ahmedinejad very helpfully, from a PR perspective a few seconds after Bush's speech said that Iran would fill the Iraq vacuum left by America. No more said.

He's been going around the world baiting and cocking a snook at America, whilst wiser counsels would have advised that he keep his head down, and mouth shut. His economic policies and social policies are proving a disaster in Iran, and one is tempted to say that he is no better than a simple rabble rouser/agent of Israel.

Now read on:

September 26, 2007
Iran’s Impending Destruction: Is Ahmadinejad Clueless?
By Kurt Nimmo

Ervand Abrahamian, Iran expert at CUNY, made a few interesting comments to Amy Goodman of Democracy Now in regard to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. Abrahamian was baffled by Ahmadinejad's lack of response to the increasing "tempo" of the neocon plan to shock and awe Iran, kill countless grandmothers and toddlers, and usher in "democracy" by way of cruise missile and bunker buster.


"I was surprised because he didn't really use the opportunity to try to lower the tempo, the serious problem we have now, which is we're at the abyss of war, basically. And there are people pushing for war in the next few months. And this would have been a very good opportunity to try to smooth things over, try to calm the tempo down," Abrahamian told Goodman.

Of course, there will be no smoothing things over, as the neocons, firmly in control of the horizontal and vertical of U.S. foreign policy, are determined to engage in mass murder. In fact, Ahmadinejad's speech was custom-made for the neocons, as it dealt with superficialities. As Abrahamian notes, "most of the questions from the audience missed the opportunity. They dealt basically with important identity questions, but they didn't really deal with the issue that we are really on the abyss of war. And this is a far more serious issue than, you know, either ethnic or gender issues." Obviously, "ethnic or gender issues" will be meaningless if Iran is destroyed, its social fabric rended, if the very institutions presumably tasked with addressing such issues are reduced to smoldering ruins.


No telling exactly why Ahmadinejad did not speak about the impending destruction of his country, although a few seem to believe he is part of the neocon-neolib conspiracy against Iran—a conspiracy with key players inside Iran itself. More than likely, Mr. Ahmadinejad is blinded by pride, as the people of Iran have a long history of nationalism—and nationalism often blinds one to current realities. In addition, Ahmadinejad seems to believe attacking Iran is so crazy the neocons will not engage in such behavior, never mind their vicious and bloody track record, horrifically on display in neighboring Iraq.

Abrahamian continues: Ahmadinejad didn't say it … but his policy is that there is no likelihood of war, because no one in their right senses would think of invading or attacking Iran. And that's the premise he works on, which is, I think, a completely wrong premise, because he doesn't seem to understand American politics, the same people who gave us the war on Iraq, the same people who are running foreign policy now. But he begins from the premise that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran.


Indeed, the neocons have advertised long and hard, telling us repeatedly they intend to destroy Israel's enemies—and enemies of the neoliberal doctrine or rather business plan, i.e., countries will not be allowed to opt out of IMF loan sharking operations and banker-investment fire sale schemes—and Mr. Ahmadinejad comes off as seriously clueless, thus lending credence to speculation he is part and parcel of the neocon-neolib conspiracy.

As Peter Goodgame details in his The Globalists and the Islamists: Fomenting the "Clash of Civilizations" for a New World Order , we are fed the Brothers Grimm story "that Khomeini's revolt was spontaneous and populist, and that it overthrew a repressive dictatorship that was hated by the people but supported wholeheartedly by the United States. It is true that the Shah's government was not a democracy and that his secret service, trained by the CIA, was one of the most effective intelligence organizations in the world. But what is not reported is that prior to the British-sponsored massive public relations campaign on behalf of the Ayatollah the government of the Shah was loved by the vast majority of the population."


It is worth quoting Goodgame at length:

The attack on the Shah's government came through the Muslim Brotherhood and through the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, supported and manipulated by British Intelligence. Dr. John Coleman, a former British Intelligence agent and author of a number of books and monographs detailing the Establishment's plan for a socialist world government, states in his report on Iran's Islamic Revolution that the Muslim Brotherhood was created by "the great names of British Middle East intelligence, T.E. Lawrence, E.G. Browne, Arnold Toynbee. St. John Philby and Bertrand Russell," and that their mission was to "keep the Middle East backward so that its natural resource, oil, could continue to be looted…"


Dr. Coleman writes that in 1980 the broadcasts of Radio Free Iran divided the enemies of the Shah into four categories: 1. Iranian politicians bought by the Israeli Shin Bet, 2. The CIA's network of agents, 3. The feudal landowners, 4. The Freemasons and the Muslim Brotherhood (viewed as the same enemy).

In his report Dr. Coleman writes that in Iran, "At one time there was even a joke about the mullahs being stamped 'made in Britain.'"
[…]
After the Shah stepped down in 1979 and fled the country his "firm ally," the United States, even refused to allow him asylum forcing him to move with his family to Egypt. During the subsequent takeover of the American embassy when supporters of the Ayatollah kept Americans hostage for 444 days it became crystal clear to the entire world that the anti-democratic, anti-Israel Islamic movement was also very anti-West. Nonetheless the Anglo-American Establishment continued to support and promote radical Islam.


In 1977 Bhutto of Pakistan, who we will cover shortly, was removed; in 1979 the Shah of Iran was removed; in 1981 Sadat was assassinated, and in 1982 the Muslim Brotherhood revolted in Syria. Before 1977 the Middle East was on the verge of achieving stability and industrial and economic parity with the West through nationalist policies and high oil prices, but by the early '80s the Middle East was in flames. Egypt was reeling and Mubarak was consolidating a shaky hold on power. Iran and Iraq, both armed by the West, were beginning their long war. Israel and Syria were invading Lebanon that was fighting a civil war, and Russia was invading Afghanistan whose rebels were being supported by Pakistan.

The de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British and adopted by the Americans was off to a great start.

Indeed, we are witnessing the neocon phase of the "de-population and de-industrialization scheme advocated by the British," a scheme that feeds conveniently into Israel's interests as well. "Israel has for a very long time been a critical factor in America's formulation of a policy vis-à-vis Iran," Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American organization in the U.S., told Democracy Now.

"During the 1980s, in spite of the Iranian Revolution, in spite of Ayatollah Khomeini's many, many harsh remarks about Israel, far, far worse than what anything Ahmadinejad has said so far, Israel at the time was the country that was lobbying the United States to open up talks with Iran to try to rebuild the US-Iran relations, because of strategic imperatives that Israel had. Israel needed Iran, because it was fearing the Arab world and a potential war with the Arabs."

Israel did not need Iran—it was simply playing it off against more immediate enemies, viz., Iraq under faux nationalist Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Syria. Now that Israel's errand boy—under the direction of neocons ensconced in the Pentagon—have flattened Iraq and isolated Syria, Iran has predictably morphed into Israel's numero uno "security threat," complete with fantastic Brothers Grimm stories of mad "Islamofascist" mullahs with nukes. In the wake of these developments, Parsi admits, "the Israelis and the pro-Israel interest in the United States have lobbied to make sure that there is no dialogue or there's no rapprochement between the United States and Iran. And the Iranians have done similar things. They have undermined every US foreign policy initiative in the Middle East that they feared would be beneficial to Israel. So the real shift in Israeli-Iranian relations come after the Cold War, not with the revolution in 1979," a revolution, if we are to believe the research of Peter Goodgame, was fomented at the behest of British intelligence and the "Establishment," that is to say the same old neoliberal suspects.


Either way—if Ahmadinejad is sincerely clueless or an agent working for British-U.S.-Israeli intelligence—it is truly astounding the president of Iran glossed over what should be considered, with a heaping dose of trepidation, the brutal and criminal shock and awe reduction of his country to a "failed" Neolithic condition, a fate front and center and gobbling up more newspaper column inches and bytes on the web than ever before.