A Conspiratorial History of Iran

page: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
All Iranian sources, or at the very least somewhat anti-Western sources, so I tried a different tact, and came upon this...


Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK) is the largest and most militant group opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also known as the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, MEK is led by husband and wife Massoud and Maryam Rajavi. MEK was added to the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups in 1997.

MEK was founded in the 1960s by a group of college-educated Iranian leftists opposed to the country's pro-Western ruler, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Although the group took part in the 1979 Islamic revolution that replaced the shah with a Shiite Islamist regime, MEK's ideology, a blend of Marxism and Islamism, put it at odds with the postrevolutionary government. In 1981, the group was driven from its bases on the Iran-Iraq border and resettled in Paris, where it began supporting Iraq in its eight-year war against Khomeini's Iran. In 1986, MEK moved its headquarters to Iraq where it received its primary support to attack the regime in Iran. During the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. forces cracked down on MEK's bases in Iraq, and in June 2003 French authorities raided an MEK compound outside Paris and arrested 160 people, including Maryam Rajavi.


www.globalsecurity.org...

A more mainstream source, and one, that seems to suggest that the US wants to remove this groups from it's anti terrorist list!!!!

I looked a little further...the Council of Foreign Relations confirmed it...


Despite MEK’s violent tactics, the group’s strong stance against Iran—part of President Bush’s “axis of evil”—and pro-democratic image have won it support among some U.S. and European lawmakers, according to a 2005 Center for Policing Terrorism report, and there has been an ongoing, vigorous campaign by its supporters in the U.S. Congress to have it removed from the terrorist list.



The group’s armed unit operated from camps in Iraq near the Iran border since 1986. During the Iraq war, U.S. troops disarmed MEK and posted guards at its bases. In addition to its Paris-based members, MEK has a network of sympathizers in Europe, the United States, and Canada. The group’s political arm, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, maintains offices in several capitals, and used to have a branch in Washington, DC before U.S. officials closed it down in August 2003.


www.cfr.org...

And so I looked to see who it was in the US that was lobbying for this move...


One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). AsThe Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”


terrorismbreedsterrorism.wordpress.com...

Not sure, at this stage, what any of this means, but very interesting none the less...




posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 

Thanks for the greath thread Biliverdin. Here is a bit more information about Jundallah and the MEK:

Jundallah members like Rigi have been caught and interrogated by the Iranians. Rigi has testified under interrogation to have worked for the US. Recently ForeignPolicy.com has put out an article which claimed, that Jundallah has been recruited by Israeli spies, disguised as CIA-agents. I don't know if this story is just put out, to give US spies plausible deniability, or if there is some veracity behind the story.

False Flag A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran.

Buried deep in the archives of America's intelligence services are a series of memos, written during the last years of President George W. Bush's administration, that describe how Israeli Mossad officers recruited operatives belonging to the terrorist group Jundallah by passing themselves off as American agents. According to two U.S. intelligence officials, the Israelis, flush with American dollars and toting U.S. passports, posed as CIA officers in recruiting Jundallah operatives -- what is commonly referred to as a "false flag" operation.

The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah -- a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according to the U.S. government and published reports, is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.

False Flag, by Mark Perry

Antiwar.com has done some good reporting about the MEK and invited lots of guests to talk about this terror group on antiwarradio. Just search for MEK and numerous interesting articles and interviews will appear.
antiwar.com...

Here is a NYT-article about the MEK


WASHINGTON — At a time of partisan gridlock in the capital, one obscure cause has drawn a stellar list of supporters from both parties and the last two administrations, including a dozen former top national security officials.

That alone would be unusual. What makes it astonishing is the object of their attention: a fringe Iranian opposition group, long an ally of Saddam Hussein, that is designated as a terrorist organization under United States law and described by State Department officials as a repressive cult despised by most Iranians and Iraqis.

The extraordinary lobbying effort to reverse the terrorist designation of the group, the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People’s Mujahedeen, has won the support of two former C.I.A. directors, R. James Woolsey and Porter J. Goss; a former F.B.I. director, Louis J. Freeh; a former attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey; President George W. Bush’s first homeland security chief, Tom Ridge; President Obama’s first national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones; big-name Republicans like the former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Democrats like the former Vermont governor Howard Dean; and even the former top counterterrorism official of the State Department, Dell L. Dailey, who argued unsuccessfully for ending the terrorist label while in office.

For Obscure Iranian Exile Group, Broad Support in U.S.

See also this interesting opinion piece from Glenn Greenwald
www.salon.com...

Here is a video which shows the degree of absurdity to which some of those MEK-lobbyists are willing to go. Howard Dean even proposes to recognize the leader of the MEK (starts at 0:35) as president of Iran. Since the MEK is not only on the terror watch list, but is also universally despised in Iran, such a proposal is almost surreal.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenshrew
 


Brilliant. Thank you Drunkenshrew!!! I knew there were still some actual conspiracy theorists still on here (as opposed to those who just like to read about them)...

So we have MEK tied to killing off all the leaders of the Islamic Revolution, and then, some thirty years later, MEK being pretty much linked to the US. The truth always wills out, but it doesn't half take it's time!

Given that parts of Mossad are confirmed to have been trained and funded by elements within the UK, it is likely that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Aimed at undermining OPEC do you think? Seems the most likely explanation to me.



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I don't know which is the main reason, why Iran is targeted. Oil, the black gold of the devil, is always important. It is currently perhaps the most important resource for geopolitical control.

Alledgedly Iran is also one of only 3 countries which are currently not under control of a Rothschild central bank (I haven't verified this factoid). The complete control of money and debt, with the US dollar as the sole anchor currency could also be an important reason for the push for war.

Israel has made aggressive plans to become the hegemon of the region and the Israel lobby has a very strong influence on US foreign policy. Some of those Israeli plans were even written for the Israeli government by US Neocons like Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle. Before the Iraq War the Neocons were the loudest voices who called for war against Saddam and Iraq. In my opinion, they are also the most visible warmongers against Iran. The Neocons are Zionists and their allegiance to Israel shapes their paranoia and view on foreign policy. But apart from supporting the Likudnik-fraction of the Israel lobby, they have also heavily invested in the military industrial complex and make money from conflict.

Here is an eery account of Wesley Clark about the plans which were pushed by the Neocons right after 9/11



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Stephen Kinzer, correspondent for the New York Times has written a book about the 1953 coup d'etat against Mossadegh called All the Shah's Men. I haven't read the book, but I liked a lecture Kinzer gave about the overthrow in 2003. The lecture is available as podcast (MP3) on unwelcome guests (hour 2, length approx. 1 hour).
www.unwelcomeguests.net...

For me the most astonishing aspect about the 1953 coup was, how willing the Iranian journalists were to sell out their country and support the subversion of their democracy.

Here is a short clip about Mossadegh and Kinzer's book



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



Aimed at undermining OPEC do you think? Seems the most likely explanation to me.


That's exactly where it's aimed at.

I appreciate the fact that you took time and looked into the MEKs involvement in this and whether or not the '79 revolution had anything to do with foreign interests. I believe it did, because as you found out, Khomenei was recording tapes in France. How did he get access to such a huge operation sending so many, not just tapes, but also tape deck players so that the Iranians could actually listen to the propaganda tapes.

You see, the Shah is made out to be a friend of the US, almost to the point of a patsy. This surely is the case within Iran where any kind of support to the Shah is...dangerous. He's made out to be a ''Zionist puppet'' while the real ''Zionist puppets'' hold the power in Iran.

But in his later years the Shah stood up and spoke out quite fearlessly, and that is why I believe he was disposed off with help from Western countries:

Note the underlined bit.


On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel.[5] This new round in the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered a crisis already in the making; the price of oil was going to rise. The West could not continue to increase its energy consumption 5% annually, while also paying low oil prices, and selling inflation-priced goods to the petroleum producers in the developing Third World. This was stressed by the Shah of Iran, whose nation was the world's second-largest exporter of oil and a close ally of the United States in the Middle East at the time. "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise", the Shah told The New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."[6]
source

It really stinks because the Shah is made out to be a puppet of the West to the Iranian people by the Islamic regime while he clearly wasn't:




It really stinks to high heavens.
edit on 26-2-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Ever since the British and later American involvements in Iran's internal affairs (from the time of Qajar dynasty), every 20 to 30 years there has been a regime change in progress ,orchestrated by these governments and their allies,solely for the benefit of their interests in the region....This trend has continued to the present day.And now thirty something years is passed (long over due)...this is exactly like cutting a fig tree just before it starts to fruit.and then planting another one to hope to get some peaches!...and then cut the peach to plant some oranges and so on!...The big point is not to allow the trees to flourish! ....But this time is different,the tree has produced a lot of fruits,and people actually like them whatever they are...they want the same tree, it has got a nice shade!.... most people of the world and people in Iran know what is going on ( thanks mostly to the Internet) This time the west has to come up with much more creative Devious new methods to be able to execute their plans... They can not bet on an open hand and do the same trick all over again...or would they!...Fooled me Once,Shame on you...Fooled me ten times,shame on Georgy!



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


I don't know which is the main reason, why Iran is targeted. Oil, the black gold of the devil, is always important. It is currently perhaps the most important resource for geopolitical control.


Yes, and no. Land, and control of distribution is the other big thing. Hence there being continued hostility towards Germany, or now, rather, to a unified Europe. The Geographical Pivot, or the 'World Island' still seems to be a major factor in this, and that has to be related to control of distribution.


Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Alledgedly Iran is also one of only 3 countries which are currently not under control of a Rothschild central bank (I haven't verified this factoid). The complete control of money and debt, with the US dollar as the sole anchor currency could also be an important reason for the push for war.


Rothschild only represents the City of London. Rothschild are not a power of themselves. A lot of this is about different forms of corporationism...Free Trade, Protectionism, Free-Market/Capitalism, Totalitarianism...etc. The Rothschilds, in world trade terms, merely represent 'Pounds Stirling'. Though obviously, it is not as simple as that, but it is a symbiotic relationship, rather than an outright power.


Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Israel has made aggressive plans to become the hegemon of the region and the Israel lobby has a very strong influence on US foreign policy. Some of those Israeli plans were even written for the Israeli government by US Neocons like Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Richard Perle. Before the Iraq War the Neocons were the loudest voices who called for war against Saddam and Iraq. In my opinion, they are also the most visible warmongers against Iran. The Neocons are Zionists and their allegiance to Israel shapes their paranoia and view on foreign policy. But apart from supporting the Likudnik-fraction of the Israel lobby, they have also heavily invested in the military industrial complex and make money from conflict.



The difficulty is, that in the UK there would be no significant support for any action in support of Israeli aggression. No matter who it was directed at. That makes it very difficult for the US government to sanction such an action. In that knowledge. Since Iraq, which was not supported by the UK population, the UK government is closely watched. And, it is not an aggressive government. Sooo...no special relationship. And no support from Europe, the US cannot afford to back Israel.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Stephen Kinzer, correspondent for the New York Times has written a book about the 1953 coup d'etat against Mossadegh called All the Shah's Men. I haven't read the book, but I liked a lecture Kinzer gave about the overthrow in 2003. The lecture is available as podcast (MP3) on unwelcome guests (hour 2, length approx. 1 hour).
www.unwelcomeguests.net...


Yes, I read about this book when I was researching the thread, and I think I might have included a quote garnered from wikipedia. I have added it to my 'to buy' list, it is my kind of book...I will watch the film tomorrow when I have a little more time.


Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
For me the most astonishing aspect about the 1953 coup was, how willing the Iranian journalists were to sell out their country and support the subversion of their democracy.


Journalism is the traditional domain of the Intelligence Operative, that is why so many of them become writers when they retire. If indeed, that wasn't already what they'd been paid to do anyway.



posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Note the underlined bit.


On October 6, 1973, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack on Israel.[5] This new round in the Arab-Israeli conflict triggered a crisis already in the making; the price of oil was going to rise. The West could not continue to increase its energy consumption 5% annually, while also paying low oil prices, and selling inflation-priced goods to the petroleum producers in the developing Third World. This was stressed by the Shah of Iran, whose nation was the world's second-largest exporter of oil and a close ally of the United States in the Middle East at the time. "Of course [the world price of oil] is going to rise", the Shah told The New York Times in 1973. "Certainly! And how...; You [Western nations] increased the price of wheat you sell us by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement...; You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you've paid to us...; It's only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil. Let's say ten times more."[6]
source


It really stinks because the Shah is made out to be a puppet of the West to the Iranian people by the Islamic regime while he clearly wasn't:


Or he was, but only so far, as are they all...so the article I quoted before, about oil being used as a weapon by the OPEC countries perhaps hits the nail on the head?

Divide and conquer?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



Divide and conquer?


Yup. They want OPEC.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



Divide and conquer?


Yup. They want OPEC.


Agreed. And, I wonder, is it because OPEC can make bloodless war? Is it as much about preventing control of oil pricing and distribution, as it is about proliferating the profiteerism and exploitation of war?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
You know, thinking about it more and more, I remember when the British Navy personnel were seized in 2007, and at the time, there was something too smooth about it, and I thought 'this is a planned exchange of information'. By one side or both.

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, that is pure supposition, but there was definately something abnormal about it. Something that I still can't put into words or explain in any way. But even the way in which the personnel were seperated, and the way in which they were seperated. And then the subsequent hoo-hah about the female onboard selling her story for mega-bucks which seemed to reek of distraction.

Just a side thought, but it is troubling me, what with the MEK/US angle.

Working my way through the clips posted by Drunkenshrew and Infokartel..perhaps they mights help me clarify whatever it is that is bothering me. I could just be thinking too much



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



Working my way through the clips posted by Drunkenshrew and Infokartel..perhaps they mights help me clarify whatever it is that is bothering me.


Which point is bothering you about the MEK? Their ties to the US/the West?

You may be overthinking it with the information exchange but it's not like such a thing hasn't happened in the past before...perhaps an approach of open skepticism is the best regarding the 2007 incident.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Which point is bothering you about the MEK? Their ties to the US/the West?


More trying to identify the factions involved. The thing about Iran is that it has everything needed to wage war. The Zagros are continental folds, which means there are weapons grade minerals in 'them there hills'. As mentioned before, that range of mountains is essential on an ecological level, and mining would have a devastating effect, but either way, combined with the presence of oil, and with it now being able to produce the necessary uranium, it is as important that access to those resources are in the right hands. It is also important to maintain a situation where food resources are dependent on imports, and similarly it's need for an external steel supply is a factor...but then, I should imagine, if it had to, it could recycle much of it's existing steel. Iran could easily maintain itself as an island and see out a seige situation if needs be...dependent on whether it can feed it's populace. One way or another, it would be a fool of a country that started a war with them.


Originally posted by InfoKartel
You may be overthinking it with the information exchange but it's not like such a thing hasn't happened in the past before...perhaps an approach of open skepticism is the best regarding the 2007 incident.


It is a factor, but not necessarily one worth expending too much thought process on, I agree.



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



More trying to identify the factions involved.


Oh, that's very troublesome research!
edit on 29-2-2012 by InfoKartel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
reply to post by Biliverdin
 



More trying to identify the factions involved.


Oh, that's very troublesome research!


Just the way I like it, I do love a challenge


Thanks for your input.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Biliverdin
 


Just send me a PM if you come across any obstacles and I will do my best to try and help you out, if I can. Thank you for creating this thread in the first place!



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
This thread has really inspired me to dig deeper into the history of relations between Iran and America. I have been looking at the Eisenhower presidential papers during the time period of 1953.

www.eisenhowermemorial.org...


When I dig deeper into a topic I like to ask myself critical questions, odd questions. Such as. We all know that the Mossadegh coup occurred in August of 1953. I asked myself the question : Where was Nixon?

I know it seems like a strange question. To truly understand the Conspiratorial History of Iran we have to ask new questions. Here is what I found out.

Nixon visited Tehran in November 1953 only 2 1/2 months after the CIA assisted Mossedegh coup. Nixon took his wife with him.

This is how Eisenhower wrote to Zahedi in November of 1953:


Dear Mr. Prime Minister:1 I am very much pleased that Vice President Nixon has the opportunity of visiting Iran and of talking with you and your colleagues. He carries with him my personal greeting to you.2

The Vice President's primary purpose in making this visit is to increase our knowledge and understanding of your country and to learn more of the problems, hopes, and aspirations of the Government and people of Iran. His visit will serve, I am confident, to affirm the basic friendship of the American people for your countrymen. It is in reflection of this friendship that the Vice President resolved to become better acquainted with Iran. He will listen with interest to what you may wish to tell him regarding Iran's efforts to achieve that prosperity which people of goodwill everywhere desire for your country.

I thank you for the hospitality and courtesies which are being shown to Mr. Nixon and his party, and I send you good wishes for your health and the prosperity of Iran.


I also found, by chance, this website made by the son of an American pilot who flew for Nixon in Iran during that trip. I hope you can see what a wonderful historical perspective this gives us about Iran/US relations.


source whiskeybravo.net...

Nixon was actually on the final leg of his 2 month world trip. Nixon would visit Iran from December 9 to December 12 as part of his two-month trip to the Far and Middle East (Nixon, Memoirs, pp. 146-64; see also State, Foreign Relations, 1952-1954, vol. X, Iran, 1951-1954 [1989], pp. 850-52).

Here is how it looked in the newspapers.




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 03:02 AM
link   
Ike wrote to Nixon on July 10th which basically said : I am going on vacation, you should stay in Washington to deal with anything that might come up, basically leaving Nixon in charge.

Ike to Dick: I do believe that your presence here to represent me if there should arise any need for calling a hasty Cabinet meeting or doing anything else in which I could empower you to act in my behalf, would be most desirable.4 I should like to have a talk with you about this as soon as possible.

www.eisenhowermemorial.org...


During the days of the Mossadegh 1953 coup, August 18/19th, Pres. Eisenhower was having his Camp David getaway which was interrupted at least twice by current events.

President and Mrs. Eisenhower would leave Washington, D.C., on August 8 and return on September 19 (see nos. 383 and 386).
www.eisenhowermemorial.org...

Yes, Ike was on vacation having hardly spent 6 months on the job as president, but he returned promptly to the White House on August 19th, which was the 4th day of the successful CIA coup.


Where was Ike?
18 Camp David, Maryland.
19 Camp David, Maryland. Returns early evening to White House.

Eisenhower chronology here : www.eisenhowermemorial.org...

But I'm having trouble tracking down exactly where was Nixon on the 18th 19th and what was he doing that week. Maybe I am wrong but it helps me to understand how Nixon and his wife were directed to Tehran in December of 1953. Perhaps it was a "business meeting" and Nixon was there to consolodate power for the Shah by appearing with the Shah's regime at the time.
edit on 3/2/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix tags





new topics
top topics
 
30
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join