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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA —
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.
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.
Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Walkswithfish
You assuming that this will lead to the Iranian state being better off.
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!”