It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What corporations would benefit from Iran regime change?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The "world is watching" as protesters in Iran flood Tehran's squares. We are being led to believe that "spontaneous" economic protests are occurring in Iran and the media is 100% behind this narrative.


Via AP


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A wave of spontaneous protests over Iran’s weak economy swept into Tehran on Saturday, with college students and others chanting against the government just hours after hard-liners held their own rally in support of the Islamic Republic’s clerical establishment.


But we should also be aware of the US involvement in promoting regime change.


Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s comments in June to Congress saying American is working toward “support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government” has been used by Iran’s government of a sign of foreign interference in its internal politics.


So, we have the SOS stating openly that "American" is working towards a peaceful change using "elements" inside Iran. This sounds very familiar. Let's go back and explore the Brookings Institute Report from June 2016 which details several ways to bring about regime change to Iran. Of note, on page 103 of the report, is the current method we see playing out today.


The Velvet Revolution

The true objective of this policy option is to overthrow the clerical regime in Tehran and see it replaced, hopefully, by one whose views would be more compatible with U.S. interests in the region. The policy does, in its own way, seek a change in Iranian behavior, but by eliminating the
government that is responsible for that behavior without the use of American military forces. Indeed, inherent in this option is the assumption
that the current Iranian regime is uniquely problematic for the United States—that a successor would not attempt to acquire a nuclear weapons
capability, nor seek to overturn the regional status quo by stoking instability. It is worth noting that if a future democratic Iranian regime did continue these policies, that might prove more of a problem for the United States than their pursuit by what is clearly an autocratic regime.


At the end of the report, which I suggest you read if you are interested in learning more about this topic, it states with almost tongue in cheek certainty:


All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official positions or views of the CIA or any other U.S. Government Agency. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or Agency endorsement of the authors’ views. This material has been reviewed by the CIA to prevent the disclosure of classified
information.


So, that brings me to a few suppositions:

1) The CIA is working to bring about change in Iran.

2) The CIA is working the goals of the 2016 Brookings Institute report.

But, who is behind the funding of the Brookings Institute? Surely if a regime change in Iran being conducted by the CIA in support of the progressive think tank, what corporate donors are behind it? More poignantly, which corporate donors or non-donors stand to gain the most from regime change?


Help me out here, ATS, and let me know what corporations you think would benefit the most.




posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Internet corps?



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Forget corporations, I think Iran is one of the few countries that are a roadblock to the creation of a NWO.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
en.m.wikipedia.org...


Years later, Brookings gained funds from the Carnegie Corporation to establish the Institute of Economics.


I’m not sourcing the bolded here...
You can look into that name.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


In 1952, Robert Calkins succeeded Moulton as president of the Brookings Institution. He secured grants from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Ford Foundation that put the Institution on a strong financial basis. He reorganized the Institution around the Economic Studies, Government Studies, and Foreign Policy Programs. In 1957, the Institution moved from Jackson Avenue to a new research center near Dupont Circle in Washington, D.C.



Suffice to say... this has NWO written all over it!
edit on 30-12-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   

But we should also be aware of the US involvement in promoting regime change.

Read that subversive, coercive, meddlesome, interference in the nations harmony from within and from without, a smear campaign in the world press, coupled with sanctions to stifle their economy, thus destroying peoples faith in their gubment. Followed by Humanitarian intervention (military invasion) to overthrow the gubment, destroy infrastructure, any resistance, then emplace a puppet regime so the country can be subjugated and exploited by Exxon, Mcdonalds and WalMart.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The human race would benefit, has that been incorporated yet?



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
In the short term probably western oil companies. British Petroleum would certainly be interested. The Zionist Propaganda agencies would also have a field day.

The balance of power in the region would also swing back to Saudi Arabia being regional the hegemon. We'd probably see yet another Iraqi Civil War and prolong the Syrian Civil War even further.

None in the long term.

Last time Western corporations meddled in Iran they created such resentment towards the West that the servile Shah was ousted and his ministers shot.

Give them another regime change and 40 years later at the maximum the newly installed regime will find itself against the firing line.
edit on -060012pm12kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Iran’s trade with the European Union topped €9.9 billion in the first half of 2017, double last year’s trade in the corresponding period. Moreover, large European companies have since secured major projects in Iran, including the French automaker Renault, the French energy giant Total, the Swiss MECI Group, Peugeot Citroen’s joint venture, Airbus, the French construction firm Alstom, and the German Siemens AG.
link



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
The vocabulary we use is very telling. "Regime change".

Literally, it means the transfer of power from one "regime" to another "regime".

Do we want a "regime" or do we want a democratic republic?

We want a regime. We want oppression and the stifling of dissent as a cornerstone of foreign policy. Allowing Iranians to choose their own destiny would be a disaster for western corporate interests.

Which is why they say "regime change". They don't want to eliminate tyranny--they want to give it a different flavor to fool the people into thinking things are changing.

They aren't. The names change, yet the song remains the same.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry much about it dude.

I'm fairly sure Donald Trumps tweets on the topic will solve everything...
edit on 30-12-2017 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Tempter

Check the main beneficiaries of the war on terror, that'll pretty much cover the profiteers then fling in all your Haliburtons etc if it goes end up!! Also all the iranians on the ground now pocketing american doĺlars to "facilitate peace"
P.s google,big pharma,tech giants
edit on 30-12-2017 by RealityCheque because: Spelling eŕror



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP


The human race would benefit...


I’m ever so confident that you will stick to that assertion when Iranian refugees join the rest of the Middle East diaspora and flood the West.

Yep. I’m certain of it.




posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
The vocabulary we use is very telling. "Regime change".

Literally, it means the transfer of power from one "regime" to another "regime".

Do we want a "regime" or do we want a democratic republic?

We want a regime. We want oppression and the stifling of dissent as a cornerstone of foreign policy. Allowing Iranians to choose their own destiny would be a disaster for western corporate interests.

Which is why they say "regime change". They don't want to eliminate tyranny--they want to give it a different flavor to fool the people into thinking things are changing.

They aren't. The names change, yet the song remains the same.


Regime doesn't mean oppression. It's a form of government. Regime change means the form of government has changed.

The current American Regime has been around since 1789. It replaced the one that existed during the war years which itself changed from the colonial administration.

Russia experienced regime change twice within a century. First the Tsardom was overthrown and replaced by a Socialist Republic, which itself was dissolved into what is Russia now.

I could list more examples but it'd be tedious and pointless. It is a very misused word.

America is a big fan of bringing about these changes of government. Hence the negative connotation the word has today.
edit on -060001pm12kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

However misused the word is, it nonetheless invokes images of totalitarianism. If that's the word you want to use...

SMH

Another ATS semantic pissing contest. Not playing.




posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Ohanka

However misused the word is, it nonetheless invokes images of totalitarianism. If that's the word you want to use...

SMH

Another ATS semantic pissing contest. Not playing.



Not to anyone with a command of the language not influenced by Bush era jargon.

But that's beside the point.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I dont have a clue who would profit from a regime change. How ever the first two people mentioned, Ford and Rockerfeller are very interesting names. One supplied Hitler with oil and the other supplied him with engines. Thereby allowing Hitler to invade France ect and start ww2. So I guess it wont be long before we have another war in that region. Iran against the fake Saudi jews and Israel backed by the west.
edit on 30-12-2017 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: TinfoilTP


The human race would benefit...


I’m ever so confident that you will stick to that assertion when Iranian refugees join the rest of the Middle East diaspora and flood the West.

Yep. I’m certain of it.



I will stick to the opinion that all military age males must be deported back to where they came from and occupy refugee camps on the borders of their own nations.



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The human race would benefit, has that been incorporated yet?


The only hope for the Iranian people is regime change. They need it RIGHT NOW if they are going to escape being Iraqified to oblivion by the west. The idiotic Iranian regime has been pulled into one gigantic mouse trap in the Syrian quagmire and is now on the Israeli border. By going that far they are in teeth of the trap door. One single mess up by Iranian forces or Iranian backed forces and the trap will close. Poor Iranians will get it just like the Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, Libyans got their countries destroyed and their people ravaged. Their only hope before this trap is effected is regime change from within................ Good luck to them



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: illuminnaughty

You dare to highlight the integral part played by Israel...
You must be an anti-Semite.

/sarc



Love your avatar!



posted on Dec, 30 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   


So, we have the SOS stating openly that "American" is working towards a peaceful change using "elements" inside Iran.


Not really.

Since Operation boot/Ajax was a joint venture between the US/UK.

The US gets all the blame while the UK/BP got all the oil.

ETA:

The country with the MOST to gain is SAUDI ARABIA / GIP and her seven sister Saudi Aramco.

IF yall want to play this game at least tell the people ALL the players.
edit on 30-12-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)







 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join