It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iran Eyes US, West Over Tehran Protests

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM

Iran Eyes US, West Over Tehran Protests

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran today accused the U.S. and other Western countries of fomenting deadly anti-government protests in the capital this week and said it was summoning Britain's ambassador to file a complaint.

The comments by Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mahmanparast added to growing tensions between Iran and the West, which is threatening to impose tough new sanctions over Iran's suspect nuclear program and has criticized the violent crackdown on anti-government protesters in Tehran.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM
This is Iran’s official response to the violence that has plagued that nation in recent days. The Iranian situation has become a hotbed of interest, debate and even some enmity here on ATS in recent days.

As Americans we often tend to side with the underdog and take pride in what we consider to be our ideal free and democratic principles and look upon them hopefully as a way that everyone can live in prosperity and peace. It therefore becomes quite natural when we feel, imagine or are led to believe for us to lend moral support and sometimes more to those around the world who claim to be or appear to be fighting for those same ideals and way of life.

It is extremely hard to not be emotionally effected by mainstream news media and other sources of news that are typically crafted to appeal to this very emotional aspect of our being and philosophy. Long gone are the days of serious journalists who presented that who, what, why, when and where of a story in purely intellectual and fact driven manners.

Today the news is either sensationalized for maximum emotional effect and ratings or simply provides a picture or a video with little or no real context that allows for emotionally driven people to simply see what ever they want to see in them.

Yet the American and British Governments have a long and sordid history inside of Iran from Operation Ajax in the early 1950’s that toppled Iran’s democratically erected Prime Minister in favor of the monarchal regime of the Shah of Iran and the Peacock Throne.

The United States Congress has authorized several hundreds of millions of dollars through a Presidential finding to covertly destabilize the Iranian Regime for the intended purpose of changing it. This initiative and funds date back to the Bush Jr. presidency and these efforts have been ongoing for that period of time.

Many here on ATS have been rooting for the opposition movements in Iran even though the opposition movement is centered on former President Moussavi and his claims of voter fraud in the recent Iranian elections. These claims were made almost as soon as the voting booths opened and despite the fact that Western Governments and Iranian pre-election polling showed the incumbent likely to win by a significant margin.

Yet as many people abroad and here on ATS rallied around that opposition in support of Moussavi it seems few of them were aware or showed much concern that it was during Moussavi’s reign as Iranian President in the early 1980’s that Hezbollah was born with Iranian funding in Lebanon and carried out the attack on the U.S. Marine Base in Beirut that killed hundreds of Marines as well as a long campaign of kidnapping Westerners and holding them for years and executing many.

We have all seen the YouTube Videos coming out of Iran and the mainstream news media reports all meant to play to our emotions.

Very little has come out to appeal to our intellects that would enable us to make rational decisions in regards to what is really going on in Iran and what and who is truly behind it and what the end game is.

I would like to dedicate this thread to the intellectual side of the issue, the history of the West in Post World War II Iran and the consequences and effect of that.

It is after all through understanding history that we can avoid its mistakes and make better decisions moving forward.

As it stands now Iran is in the crosshairs of the Western War Against Terror Machine, and most of us know ultimately what that means, regime change one way or another, for better or for worse.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:35 AM

America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past

The news has been abuzz recently with stories about President Bush’s alleged plans for "regime change" in Iran. Just last week, rumors were reported of US Air Force fighters violating Iranian air space for the purposes of testing their air defense system. As the nuclear crisis continues to simmer, the next incursions may be of a more belligerent nature.

Obviously, America’s relationship with Iran has been extremely hostile over the past several decades. From the perspective of most Americans, the seminal event of US-Iranian relations was the siege of the US embassy in Tehran and the subsequent holding of its staff as hostages back in the 1970s.

Although that hostage-taking was brutal and unjustified, many Americans lack a more global perspective of the history of American interactions with Persia. One of the most critical events in that relationship occurred over 50 years ago during the Eisenhower Administration. While Americans may know little about Operation Ajax, its memory still evokes intense anger from nearly every Iranian.

The brief version (for a more thorough history of the events surrounding Operation Ajax, I refer the reader to Sandra Mackey’s excellent book The Iranians) concerns the overthrow of Muhammad Mossadeq’s short-lived, democratic government by the CIA in 1953 and the reinstallation of the Shah to the throne of Iran.

In 1951, the control of Iran’s oil fields by a British company (the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, or AIOC) became a hot political topic. The Iranian people believed, with some justification, that the existing deal between the Iranian government and AIOC unfairly benefited the company. Muhammad Mossadeq, then a member of the Iranian parliament, took the lead in demanding a renegotiation of the pact. The masses of the Iranian people rallied to his standard and quickly made him the most revered leader in the land. The Shah, who then ruled as an authoritarian monarch, lost control of events as his previously powerless parliament (the Majlis) took on a life of its own.


To begin to understand the enigma that is Iran one must start with Operation Ajax the successful coup de tat that set up the Shah of Iran’s regime in Iran and gave reign to the notorious and bloody SAVAK Secret Police run by the CIA and not the Shah.

Operation Ajax was so succesful it became the textbook blue print for the CIA in changing regimes around the world.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM

World: SAVAK: Like the CIA

The 5,000-member Iranian secret police force SAVAK (a contraction of the Farsi words for security and information organization) has long been Iran's most hated and feared institution. With virtually unlimited powers to arrest and interrogate, SAVAK has tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents. Last week, in fulfillment of a promise made by Prime Minister Shahpour Bakhtiar, the assembly approved a bill abolishing SAVAK and establishing a new National Intelligence Center, without police powers. The No. 2 man in SAVAK agreed to an unprecedented interview with TIME Correspondent David S. Jackson at the organization's heavily guarded, marble-decorated fortress headquarters in north Tehran. The official stipulated that his name could not be disclosed. His views offer a revealing insight into the thinking of an efficient and dreaded intelligence agency. Excerpts:

The SAVAK was known for its almost unlimited power of life, death and freedom in the Shah’s Iran and it’s human rights abuses were notorious and some of the worst in the world.

This was the instrument that kept the Shah’s regime in power. A Shah who was very pro-western but who reigned over an Iran that except for a small population of jet-setting elites lived in abject poverty.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:47 AM
If Mahmanparast stubs his toe getting out of the shower or if his car doesn't start, why do I have the feeling that he would blame the US or Israel for it?

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:52 AM
I'm all for Iran being a democratic country. However we really need to keep our hands off of Iran and let the Iranian people decide their own fate.

The last time we meddled with Iran we screwed the pooch royally.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:58 AM
The U.S. has no immediate interest in Iran, nor its internal drama, protests and civil unrest.

"Iran Eyes US, West Over Tehran Protests"

Then they have completely overlooked and underestimated the abilities of Israel Mossad. Clever Middle Eastern media manipulations to further and consistently demonized Iran, assassinations, spreading of pro Iranian revolution propaganda, infiltration of Iranian government, bribery and extortion of Iranian military, religious and government leadership, and much more.. and they have only just started!

With any luck they can bring down the Iranian regime from within without having to fire a single shot, or drop any bombs.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:59 AM
From a July, 2009 post of mine, which never got traction, is the playbook on how the U.S. is running it's operations in Iran: Brookings Institution document on Iran - the next false flag outlined in policy recommendations

June, 2009 - The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations.

This think tank, respected by Congress and the President, released the 170 page document, WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran in June, 2009. It reads as a primer and gives recommendations on "dealing with Iran". It is also very straightforward with the idea that lying, cheating, bribery and coverups are necessary in the political realm.

That is not new to any of us, however. What is new, is that contained in this document, on page 150, is the following excerpt:

WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran

A policy determined to overthrow the government of Iran might very well include plans for a full-scale invasion as a contingency. Certainly, if various forms of covert and overt support simply failed to produce the desired effect, a president determined to produce regime change in Iran might consider an invasion as the only other way to achieve that end. Moreover, the United States would have to expect Iran to fight back against American regime change operations, as it has in the past. Although the Iranians typically have been careful to avoid crossing American red lines, they certainly could miscalculate, and it is entirely possible that their retaliation for U.S. regime change activities would appear to Americans as having crossed just such a threshold. For example, if Iran retaliated with a major terrorist attack that killed large numbers of people or a terrorist attack involving WMDs—especially on U.S. soil—Washington might decide that an invasion was the only way to deal with such a dangerous Iranian regime. Indeed, for this same reason, efforts to promote regime change in Iran might be intended by the U.S. government as deliberate provocations to try to goad the Iranians into an excessive response that might then justify an American invasion.

In that thread I made this comment: Can anyone doubt that the Obama Administration is engaging in covert regime change operations in the Iranian government?

And, I stick to it... we are exactly following this playbook... I'm just glad the Iranians haven't reacted to the U.S. by this playbook...

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:02 PM

Iran and the Politics of Israel

Today America as it has for many decades is a staunch supporter, funder, benefactor and protector of the Israeli State.

This was not always the case though.

World War II demonstrated to Western Governments one critically important thing and that is that it takes oil, a steady and constant readily supply of oil to run mechanized armies and successfully win a war.

It could be argued that in both Germany and Japan’s case that they ceased being effective offensive and defensive fighting machines as their mechanized armies ran out of oil.

As a consequence the Middle East’s vast Oil Reserves became critical to European War.

Yet as President Roosevelt made is way home from the Yalta Summit with Stalin and Churchill to discuss and plan for the Post World War II landscape he stopped the aircraft carrier he was traveling aboard to meet with the Saudi King who informed it would be disastrous for Western relations with the Arab world if it were to support continued immigration of European Jews into Palestine and especially if they were allowed a state in the region. The Saudi Monarch cautioned Roosevelt that this would lead to instability and turmoil throughout the Middle East.

Roosevelt as was his successor were both opposed to the formation of the Israeli State and Freedom of Information Act documents released by the CIA show that the independent new state of Israel was considered the number one threat to the vital security of the United States between 1948 and 1952.

In 1952 we did an about face on that policy.

What led to that about face? Operation Ajax and the successful installation of the Shah’s regime beholden to the West for putting him in power, is what made embracing and aiding Israel a possibility for America.

Iranians are Persians from Asia; Iran sits inside of Asia just across the Persian Gulf from the Middle East. Iranians are not Arabs but Asian Persians and are Shiite Muslims not Sunni Muslims as most of the Middle East are.

In Middle Eastern Culture the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so for the Shiite Persians there has never been any love lost from a long standing schism between those two sects of Islam and ethnic differences.

The Iranians under the Shah were actually an especially behind the scenes supporters of Zionist Israel.

Iran was needed to offset the damage that an Arab Oil Embargo could create.
And Arab Oil Embargos did in fact happen as our support for Israel intensified and broadened.

Second Arab Oil Embargo, 1973-1974

The Second Arab Oil Embargo, which lasted from October 1973 to March 1974, posed a major threat to the U.S. economy. Moreover, the Nixon Administration?s efforts to address the effects of the embargo ultimately presented the United States with many foreign policy challenges.
During the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War, the Arab members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) announced an embargo against the United States in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the war. Arab oil producers also extended the embargo to other countries that supported Israel. The embargo both banned petroleum exports to the targeted nations and introduced cuts in oil production. Several years of negotiations between oil producing nations and oil companies had already destabilized a decades-old system of oil pricing, and thus the Arab oil embargo was particularly effective.

Implementation of the embargo, and the changing nature of oil contracts, set off an upward spiral in oil prices that had global implications. The price of oil per barrel doubled, then quadrupled, leading to increased costs for consumers world-wide and to the potential for budgetary collapse in less stable economies. Since the embargo coincided with a devaluation of the dollar, a global recession appeared imminent. U.S. allies in Europe and Japan had stockpiled oil supplies and thus had a short term cushion, but the longer term possibility of high oil prices and recession created a strong rift within the Atlantic alliance. European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from the U.S. Middle East policy. The United States, which faced growing oil consumption and dwindling domestic reserves and was more reliant on imported oil than ever before, had to negotiate an end to the embargo from a weaker international position. To complicate the situation, Arab oil producers had linked an end to the embargo to successful U.S. efforts to create peace in the Middle East.

U.S. Department of State

Our support of Israel made keeping Iran friendly and under the Shah’s rule was vital to our national interests both strategically and economically.

Iran’s Oil barely kept America and American’s going during the second Arab Oil Embargo as heavy rationing and long lines for gas existed for months.

This all subsequently led to the rise of OPEC and punitive price increases in Oil that would take it from a cheap readily available commodity that could be had for pennies a gallon to one of the most expensive and profitable commodities on the planet, and one of the most sought after.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
The U.S. has no immediate interest in Iran, nor its internal drama, protests and civil unrest.

"Iran Eyes US, West Over Tehran Protests"

Then they have completely overlooked and underestimated the abilities of Israel Mossad. Clever Middle Eastern media manipulations to further and consistantly demonized Iran, assassinations, spreading of pro Iranian revolution propaganda, infiltration of Iranian government, bribery and extortion of Iranian military, religious and governemt leadership, and much more.. and they have only just started!

With any luck they can bring down the Iranian regime from within without having to fire a single shot, or drop any bombs.

Ahh yes but you haven't considered the historically long-lasting reasons they would be blaming the U.S. Read the first chapter (The Trouble with Tehran) of the report I linked above: WHICH PATH TO PERSIA? Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran. That will give you all the reasons why the U.S. has interests in Iran, its internal drama, protests and civil unrest and why Iran is blaming the U.S.

[edit on 29/12/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
That will give you all the reasons why the U.S. has interests in Iran, its internal drama, protests and civil unrest.

Look again and think, I said no "immediate interest".

The covert missions must first be given time for success before any overt operations are considered, "no options are off the table" But some of those options have been ongoing for quite some time, operations so covert that it gives the U.S. plausible deniability and the Israelis culpable deniability.

The war against Iran has been ongoing for several months now, when it was clear that diplomatic efforts were going nowhere.

Iran can't seem to figure out exactly who to blame for the internal chaos, and that alone is indicative of the covert missions successes so far.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:42 PM
Guys straight off the press, make of it what you will.

Report: Iran seeking to smuggle raw uranium

Diplomats are concerned about an intelligence report that says Iran is trying to import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions.


Associated Press Writer

Diplomats are concerned about an intelligence report that says Iran is trying to import 1,350 tons of purified uranium ore from Kazakhstan in violation of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Such a deal would be significant because Tehran appears to be running out of that material, which it needs to feed its uranium enrichment program.

A summary of the report obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday said the deal could be completed within weeks. It said Tehran was willing to pay $450 million, or close to 315 million euros, for the shipment.

An official from the country that drew up the report said Kazakh government employees acting on their own were behind the deal. The official demanded anonymity in exchange for discussing intelligence matters.

After-hours calls put in to offices of Kazatomprom, the Kazak state uranium company, in Kazakhstan and Moscow, were not answered. There was no immediate reaction from Tehran.

Iran is under three sets of Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze its enrichment program and related activities that could be used to make nuclear weapons. Tehran denies such aspirations.


[edit on 29-12-2009 by jonny2410]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by jonny2410

Straight off the press too!

POLITICS: U.S. Intelligence Found Iran Nuke Document Was Forged

WASHINGTON, Dec 28 (IPS) - U.S. intelligence has concluded that the document published recently by the Times of London, which purportedly describes an Iranian plan to do experiments on what the newspaper described as a "neutron initiator" for an atomic weapon, is a fabrication, according to a former Central Intelligence Agency official.

Philip Giraldi, who was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1976 to 1992, told IPS that intelligence sources say that the United States had nothing to do with forging the document, and that Israel is the primary suspect. The sources do not rule out a British role in the fabrication, however.

The Times of London story published Dec. 14 did not identify the source of the document. But it quoted "an Asian intelligence source" - a term some news media have used for Israeli intelligence officials - as confirming that his government believes Iran was working on a neutron initiator as recently as 2007.

The story of the purported Iranian document prompted a new round of expressions of U.S. and European support for tougher sanctions against Iran and reminders of Israel's threats to attack Iranian nuclear programme targets if diplomacy fails.


[edit on 29/12/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Just a minor little mistake in an otherwise brilliantly crafted and masterfully executed joint covert operation.

Then again, this too could be a part of the overall strategy.

Either way, if they (whoever they are) can bring down the Iranian regime from within without actual major military strikes or war, then more power to em'.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by Walkswithfish

You assuming that this will lead to the Iranian state being better off.

Afghanistan is certainly no better off today, and Iraq is neither. Ultimately the cost in blood for upsetting well entrenched status quos far exceeds the blood shed in keeping those status quos and rarely ends up even in the course of time creating a net positive effect.

Let me put it to you this way, I have always been considered a politcal radical, and I have always been against constitutional abuses in government.

Yet the majority of my peers have always rejected my notions and contentions in favor of the status quo even while admitting the status quo is not ideal.

If I should decide to lead a movement that favored my political ideals only a small number of people would embrace it and it would have little impact or effect.

If the Soviet Union though gave me millions of dollars and furnished some personnel so I could hire and pay people and make it lucrative for them to join that movement, more lucrative than the status quo then my movement would be many times more powerful because of that foreign aide.

Yet the reality is it still would be rejected by the vast majority of my peers who favor the status quo.

I am better prepared to fight against those forces because of the foreign aide and assistance and to make my presence more readily felt and considered but then it boils down to hubris and arrogance.

Do I for the sake of my own ego and convenience and quest for power and control wish to impose at any and all costs a new political system and thinking on the majority of the masses who reject it based off of my personal belief driven by ego that they are not smart enough or wise enough to know what's best for them. Only I know what's best for them.

This is what is happening in Iran in a nutshell!

Foreign aide and assistance is propelling a minority to have a far greater impact than they would if they were left simply to their own devices to be rejected or accepted simply by their natural and indeginous peers.

The Islamic Theocracy exists in Iran because of a popular revolution fought by the people against a monarchy.

It was the majority of the people's will.

The person who won the Presidency actually did win it through a popular democratic vote.

We are simply opposed to the regime in Iran and covet all of the Middle East and it's oil reserves and will stop at nothing to include a standoffish Iran into that fold, including imposing the will of a minority of Iranians on the majority of Iranians because in theory it favors us in that endeavor.

That's not democracy that's imperiallism and crass manipulation.

In time entirely left to their own devices arguments and debates develop within all societies that transform them based on the will of the people.

It can be a slow process, but its rarely a violent or destructive process.

We are sewing a violent and destructive process that people are really dying because that would not be dying if we let matters run their own course and did not meddle.

That's a reality that many Americans and Westerners looking for feel good causes to champion mentally while they ignore their own plights don't really see.

They don't see it because all the propaganda is designed to effect people emotionally and not intellectually.

Good leadership is the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one.

U.S. Leadership has more and more become the needs of the one or the few outweigh the needs of the many, and that is exactly what we are trying to impose on Iran and throughout the Middle East and Asia and most especially oil producing countries.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 01:58 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Walkswithfish

You assuming that this will lead to the Iranian state being better off.

I assumed nothing, except that my sarcasm would not be missed.

We all know the hornets nest Iran would present militarily, so the first and best option for Israel and the U.S. is a covert war on Iran with the clear objective to create civil unrest and revolution, and also to create division and subversion within the Iranian leadership in government and Iranian military. It is beginning to work, but obviously has a long way to go.

The best of the best from the Mossad, U.S. and British covert agencies are all working together in this "war" effort.

Finally, don't accept or trust ANYTHING in the news media regarding ANYTHING to do with Iran.

Unfortunately the first casualty in this covert war was, is and will be the truth.

Unless you are there and witness it in person, it simply can't be trusted.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Walkswithfish]

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:55 PM
Stoking the fires...

Iran Unrest Could Boil Over Jan. 16

As simmering unrest continues to sweep Iran, the country’s opposition is casting about for possible endgames to the ongoing crisis. Frustrated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi proposed a five-point reconciliation plan last week but the government appears unyielding.

In the struggle currently gripping the streets of the Islamic Republic, an upcoming anniversary could prove significant.

Jan. 16 marks 31 years since the Shah of Iran fled his country, effectively handing victory to the revolution led by Ayatollah Roohollah Khomeini. Green movement activists are hoping the date could once again be the tipping point, this time for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

And as the anniversary approaches, Tehran isn't the only city to watch. Historical precedent suggests that revolutions can start in provincial cities not thought to be hotbeds rebellious activity.

“The current regime has broken the social bonds that tie it to the public and thus is eventually due to fall,” said Bill Beeman, a Persian-speaking Iran expert who is professor at the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota and former president of the Middle East section of the American Anthropological Association. “Killing people on Ashura is a complete symbolic disaster. Even the Shah didn’t execute prisoners on Ashura - and these folks are supposed to be religious!”

Ah, but who will actually be doing the killing?

new topics

top topics


log in