30 Reason US has been in Bed With Iran's Mullahs for 30 Years


by JalilBahar

  1. General ‘Dutch’ Huyser, in his biography has basically confirmed that the Shah was toppled by the U.S. It has now been established that General Fardoost (A Senior Iranian General) met secretly with General Huyser in 1979 who had secretly visited Iran along with two other American Officers. Fardoost was very much in connected to American and European plans within Iran, and made sure the army stayed impotent while mass demonstrations to topple the Shah were going on.

  1. The Theocracy was imposed on Iran by the U.S. with a minority of the clergy under Khomeini's leadership assuming power, with substantial cooperation, assistance and manipulation of the West! Media reports in Iran – specifically from Western sources (while Iran’s National Radio and TV networks were down due to an employee strike) spread the word and engineered the rise of this group of Mullahs…among all opposition groups.

3. There actually is secret (and now not so secret) Accord between the United States and Iran’s Mullahs called Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, brokered by the Algerian government. Among its chief provisions are:

- The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs- The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran - Both countries would end litigation between their respective governments and citizens referring them to international arbitration, namely the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal.

4. On January 28th, 1987 The White House confirmed that President Reagan had sent a signed Bible, a special hand written message and a cake shaped in the form of a key to Iran’s leaders. The confirmation came in remarks by Larry Speakes, the White House spokesman, three months after Iran first disclosed the Bible's existence. The bible, with a signed inscription by Mr. Reagan, was displayed Wednesday at a news conference in Teheran by Iran's Speaker of Parliament, Hojatolislam Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mr. Reagan's signature and the date of Oct. 3, 1986, under a handwritten quotation, had been given by American emissaries to an intermediary in Frankfurt to be passed on to Iranian leaders. ''It was a gesture to indicate that those who were there were truly representing the President, and that the President, too, was a man of God,'' he said. President Reagan, you might recall could not remember anything about sale of arms to Iran; and Vice President Bush claimed he was out of the loop; and then Iran’s Speaker of Parliament Mr. Rafsanjani (one of Iran’s Billionaire Mullahs) during a sermon at Tehran University (the very same week) accused the United States of being an Evil country. Once again rhetoric and reality did not match. Rafsanjani was the Iranian counter revolutionary who received and ate the infamous key shaped Cake with the Iran Contra convict Oliver North in Tehran Airport. They both conspired to finance Contras Death Squads to sabotage revolutionary Sandanistas and indiscriminately kill the civilians in order to ensure the failure of Sandanistas semi-socialist system. Incidentally, one of his brothers headed the country's largest copper mine; another took control of the state-owned TV network; a brother-in-law became governor of Kerman province, while a cousin runs an outfit that dominates Iran's $400 million pistachio export business; one of Rafsanjani's sons took key positions in the Ministry of Oil; another son heads the Tehran Metro construction project (an estimated one billion dollars spent so far).which stretches all over the glob beyond the reach of the Iranian government. Today, Rafsanjani’s octopus family is in control of everything from narcotics, prostitution rings, and illicit alcohols to investments firms in US TV stations, Canada’s private toll ways, Australia Meat packing and wherever his multi national Corporation can operate. Rafsanjani Family operates through various foundations and front companies, that is why he innocently claims that he is a humble man with no assets.. The family is also believed to control one of Iran's biggest oil engineering companies, a plant assembling Daewoo automobiles, Iran's best private airline and control of various media in Iran and abroad. Rafsanjani is role in the staged hostage crisis and subsequent timing of their release made him the darling of Republican Party. That is why his corporations and stamens are behind hundreds of TV, radio, and internet conglomerates across the US, and the Globe. Rafsanjani became Iran’s President three years after receiving the bible from Reagan from 1989 to 1997 and is now the chairman of the powerful Expediency Council, which is the seat of actual political power in Iran.

  1. Oliver North is now a celebrity. Despite often confusing yet patriotic appearances by witnesses many of these key players in the Iran-Contra Affair, and clear violations of law, no serious sentence was ever handed out to anyone (the harshest sentence was two years probation and a $20,000 fine). Secret links with Iran, secret deals with Iran…have no consequences…despite the law.

  1. During the first 10 years of the Islamic Republic, the Regime rounded up and then imprisoned and then killed over 300,000 communists…that had emerged during the early phases of the revolution (in opposition to the Shah).

7. In a book called “Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam” Robert Dreyfuss, an investigative journalist discusses how Western governments supported the growth of Islamic radicals for several purposes. The book addresses a number of different Middle Eastern interventions made by the West, as outlined below.

- Islamic Radicalism as a tool against Pro-Soviet Pan-Arabism

i. The book discusses how Western governments supported the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to sabotage the efforts of Pro-Soviet Arab Nationalist leaders such as Abdul Nasser of Egypt. The goals of Abdul Nasser were to end Western domination and control in the Middle East. This was a great threat to Western interests, who used the Islamic brotherhood to destabilize the Nassar government. The Islamic Brotherhood continues to conduct terrorist activities in Egypt.

- Support of Islamic Radicalism as an Anti-Communist strategy i. Dreyfuss also discusses how the West used Islamic radicalism to suppress Communist movements in the Middle East and the rest of the Islamic world. He provides a comprehensive review of the support of Western governments for the Mujahadeen and Jihadi Islamic fighters, who were trained and sent into Afghanistan. With the close support and advice of CIA paramilitaries, these Islamic jihadists helped defeat Soviet forces in Afghanistan. The book also describes the work of Dr. Bernard Lewis and his model of Islamic Balkanization, where the CIA secretly supported Islamic movements within the Soviet Union to utilize them as Anti-Communist insurgents in the event of war. The consequence of this CIA program is the present-day Islamic Chechan separatist conflict that the Russians are fighting.- Islamic Radicalism as a divisive tactic i. The author also discusses how the Israeli government supported the growth of Hamas as a tool to fight the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO was always viewed as the major threat to Israel, because they were the more educated and secular Palestinians. They had fought a very effective campaign against Israel, whereas Hamas has had very limited success. The book predicts the current Palestianian crisis where (PLO) Fatah and Hamas militias battled each other in the streets of Gaza and in other parts of Palestine for dominance over the Palestinian people. Dreyfuss claims that the political and economic isolation of Hamas is currently suffocating the new government. Gaza is running out of gas and public workers have not been paid for many months. This has been a strategic victory for Israel in a classic example of divide and conquer.

8. On July 3, 1988 towards the end of the Iran–Iraq War, the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus A300B2 on a scheduled commercial flight in Iranian airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, killing 290 civilians from six nations, including 66 children. USS Vincennes was in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will. The United States at first contended that flight 655 was a warplane and then said that it was outside the civilian air corridor and did not respond to radio calls. Both statements were untrue, and the radio calls were made on military frequencies to which the airliner did not have access. According to the Iranian government, the shoot down was an intentionally performed and unlawful act, and even if there had been a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident, because the aircraft was not on a trajectory that threatened the Vincennes and had not aimed radar at it. However, the United States has expressed regret only for the loss of innocent life, refusing to make a specific apology to the Iranian government. Imagine this, a civil aircraft is shot down, 290 people are killed, and Iran’s government sits tight. Does nothing. And the United States, just rolls forward…unthreatened.

9. In 1993, a directive from the U.S. ambassador (Peter Galbraith) wanted his station chief to confirm for Croatian intelligence that the United States did not object to Iran establishing an arms pipeline to the Muslim-led government of neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina. Unwilling to arm Bosnia directly for fear that would collapse the Atlantic alliance and land U.S. troops in the middle of a Balkan mess, yet convinced military pressure on the Serbs was the only way to halt the fighting, the proposal to allow Iran to arm Bosnia via Croatia ensured weapons would reach the flailing Sarajevo government without American "fingerprints." Nothing was said publicly of the deal between the two ideologically opposed governments, one radical Islamic, the other rigidly Roman Catholic, even though a year earlier the United States ordered the Croats to turn back an Iranian jumbo jet loaded with weapons that landed in Zagreb. Because the Iranians distrusted the Croats, whose proxies in Bosnia had been at war with the mostly Muslim government army since March 1993, they made the arms deal contingent on guarantees that weapons would reach Bosnia's Muslim fighters, U.S. government sources said.

  1. In 2001, who provided Military assistance to the US during the Invasion of Afghanistan? Iran’s puppet Afghan army: the Northern Alliance. Without doubt, Iran is the principal backer of the Northern Alliance. Iran not only rendered huge amounts of material and military assistance to the Northern Alliance groups. But Iranian special envoys such as Alae'ddin Broujerdi (chairman of Iran Majlis' - Parliament's - foreign affairs and security commission) was a frequent visitor to the Amu Darya region and Panjshir Valley, cajoling and motivating the anti-Taliban resistance. Without Broujerdi's persuasive skill, Northern Alliance groups, ridden with petty jealousies and personality conflicts and turf problems, would have unraveled. And without the Northern Alliance, US forces would not have had the ‘ground’ support, logistics support, linguistic support to invade and then hold down Afghanistan…in a matter of a few days.

11. Following Jimmy Carter’s request, Saddam Hussein did in fact invade Iran in 1980. And for sure Iran suffered a brutal invasion and an 8 year war that resulted in more than 500,000 casualties, and the destruction of many of its precious towns and cities. Not unreasonably, for Iran’s Mullahs who were nearly toppled by Saddam’s invasion, Saddam Hussein was a blood enemy. And guess who toppled him? George Bush! Yes, the United States committed almost half a trillion dollars and over 4000 lives to toppling Iran’s number one enemy: Saddam Hussein. And who rules Iraq now? Iraq whole ruling government and cabinet have all spent considerable time in Iran as refugees – all trained and financed by Iran’s Mullahs.

  1. Who is the largest donor to Afghanistan rebuilding effort? Iran of course! $570 Million (committed right after the US invasion) and then another $100 Million when money ran short. Iran has built clinics, schools, universities, roads, power plants… you name it. This is by far the largest sum from any nation. Iran is the most effective aid donor to Afghanistan, with a 93% completion rate on its projects versus 48% for the United States. In fact Iran’s assistance has been crucial for Afghan stability.

  1. Who established the first functioning embassy in Iraq (and for that matter Afghanistan)? Iran of course. Iran recognized the new ‘American Installed’ provisional governments immediately. NO ARAB country had an operating embassy in Baghdad until 7 years after the invasion! Many have promised, a few have delivered.

  1. Iran is Afghanistan’s largest trading partner, during a period of supposed international trade sanctions with Iran.

  1. Iran is now Iraq’s largest trading partner, during a period of supposed international trade sanctions with Iran. Iran exported $1.7 billion dollars worth of non-oil goods to Iraq in the year after the invasion, and is on track to export close to $10 Billion dollars of non-oil goods to Iraq in 2010. Not bad for a country under US trade sanctions. There is not any visible US ally like Iran. Neither Saudi Arabia, nor Jordan, nor Turkey, opened embassies after the invasion. The US ally…is Iran. Speaking at the inaugural ceremony of Tamarchin border crossing point, Mohammad-Hossein Bagh-Enayat (the local custom’s officer) said that the commodities that had been exported to Iraq through 13 border points including Tamarchin in West Azarbaijan included basic supplies needed to maintain stability in Iraq. Bagh-Enayat said that Kermanshah province in western Iran, ranks first in terms of exporting goods to Iraq. Trade is likely to double this year. In the year after the U.S. invasion, 300 tons of kerosene is exported to Iraq every day through the Mehran crossing and this amount is scheduled to be increased to 2000 tons a day. Iran supplies 470 MW of power (electricity) to Basra, 120 MW of power (electricity) to the Kurds in the north, the Iraqi markets are filled with Iranian air conditioners, refrigerators, cars, trucks, tires, ….you name it …Iran supplies it. This is during a period of supposedly ‘increased economic sanctions against Iran’ with restrictions on trade with Iran and increased US military surveillance on the border between Iran and Iraq.

  1. Who is in charge now in Afghanistan and Iraq? Iran’s Shiite allies of course. They completely dominate both governments. Most of the leaders in power in both these countries have spent years living in exile in Iran…under Iranian protection. Iran’s enemies (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban) have been defeated at minimal cost to Iran …all at US expense, and now both Afghanistan and Iraq have essentially been handed to Iran’s puppets. Now that my friend is what friends are for!

  1. Who has given up almost all its legitimate territorial claims in the Caspian Sea to allow US and British Oil companies to steal (Iranian) oil and Gas through Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan? Iran, of course. Iran is on the verge of signing a treaty to reduce its territorial claims in the Caspian to 11% of the Sea; down from 50% established in previous treaties – ratified over 200 years. And who benefits? BP in Azerbaijan, Conoco in Kazakhstan, Unocal in Uzbekistan… The mullahs have given away access to probably the largest reserves of Hydrocarbons on the face of the planet. Literally trillions of dollars…all for US and British benefit! As Vice President Cheney stated "The Caspian Sea is now akin to the Persian Gulf in terms of strategic importance to the United States". The Mullahs not only helped accelerate the demise of the Soviet Union, but also gave away Iran’s interests to the newly formed former Soviet republics. How convenient.

  1. International trade sanctions secured under US leadership in the United Nations have had no teeth, and have had no impact on Iran’s economy. Iran’s Economy has actually grown during the period of these sanctions.

19. The new constitution of Afghanistan, established the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan; and the new constitution for Iraq established the Islamic Republic of Iraq. Guess who wrote the constitutions? Yes, American diplomats and they were modeled on the constitution of guess where? Iran!! If the Mullahs were so bad, and the theocracy in Iran was so counter to the wishes of the United States, why draft identical constitutions to Iran’s. Oh and by the way, the puppet regime in Pakistan (that was provided with Nuclear weapons by the United States as a counter weight to India’s Nuclear weapons) is also (yes, you guessed it) The Islamic Republic of Pakistan!

20. US funds dry up for Iran rights watchdog. Just as the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center was ramping up to investigate abuses of protesters after this summer’s disputed presidential election, the group received word that - for the first time since it was formed – it’s federal funding request had been denied. “If there is one time that I expected to get funding, this was it," said Rene Redman, the group’s executive director, who had asked for $2.7 million in funding for the next two years. "I was surprised, because the world was watching human rights violations right there on television." (10/6/09)

21. The US Administration plans to use Iranian troops to help clean up the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at how Defense Secretary Robert Gates and former Carter National Security Advisor Zbignew Brzezinski propose to enlist Iran’s help in stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan in a 2004 report for the Council on Foreign Relations: “From the perspective of U.S. interests, one particular issue area appears particularly ripe for U.S.-Iranian engagement : the future of Iraq and Afghanistan. The United States has a direct and compelling interest in ensuring both countries’ security and the success of their post-conflict governments. Iran has demonstrated its ability and readiness to use its influence constructively in these two countries, but also its capacity for making trouble. The United States should work with Tehran to capitalize on Iran’s influence to advance the stability and consolidation of its neighbors. This could commence via a resumption and expansion of the Geneva track discussions with Tehran on post-conflict Afghanistan and Iraq. Such a dialogue should be structured to obtain constructive Iranian involvement in the process of consolidating authority within the central governments and rebuilding the economies of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Regular contact with Iran would also provide a channel to address concerns that have arisen about its activities and relationships with competing power centers in both countries.”

22. While Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium, Iran is the world's largest consumer. In an age when spy satellites can read a newspaper on the ground -- does anyone doubt the U.S. government's capability to find the poppy field plantations in Afghanistan? Is any one telling me that they have been scouring the terrain to find bin Laden and they haven't come across any poppy fields? And, the US government even had the audacity to pen up an editorial in the Washington Post, basically saying nothing will be done in Afghanistan (to eliminate drug production). The Mullahs have bought into America’s redevelopment plan for Afghanistan, at the price of Iran’s next generation.

  1. The Jewish lobby in the United States has become a power onto itself. No American politician can challenge Israel directly on anything…and get elected. It’s both sickening and frightening to America’s political elite. In a twisted turn of events for Iran’s mullahs, the United States enjoys using Iran as Israel’s bogey man to persuade Israelis to make peace. On the one hand, the President can sound very pro-Israel, very anti-Iranian, yet simultaneously scare the pants off the Israelis with the potential threat of Iran’s ‘nuclear missiles’ landing in Tel-Aviv. Suddenly, Israel has a viable and legitimate enemy – large enough to support Hamas and Hezbollah; and a formidable military rival. Bush can pretend to hate the mullahs, be very pro-Israeli (maintain Jewish Lobby support) …and at the same time scare Israel into making a deal. It’s brilliant. One of Jimmy Carter’s biggest mistakes was the ‘neutralization’ of Egypt as a political foe to Israel. Israel, no longer fears any of its neighbors. And with the political influence it has in the United States, Israel can unilaterally dictate any settlement – without fear. We all know, anyway, that Christian fundamentalists in the United States hate the Jews. Iran is therefore now a pawn, being used by the U.S. to exert pressure on Israel.

24. Iran can also put useful pressure on the Arabs. Here is a transcript of an interview with a very senior Air Force officer: “Believe it or not, there are some potential benefits to the United States should Iran build a bomb. Five possibilities come to mind. First, Iran’s development of nuclear weapons would give the United States an opportunity to finally defeat violent Sunni-Arab terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Here’s why: a nuclear Iran is primarily a threat to its neighbors, not the United States. Thus Washington could offer regional security — primarily, a Middle East nuclear umbrella — in exchange for economic, political and social reforms in the autocratic Arab regimes responsible for breeding the discontent that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Until now, the Middle East autocracies have refused to change their ways because they were protected by the wealth of their petroleum reserves. A nuclear Iran alters the regional dynamic significantly, and provides some leverage for us to demand reforms. What about the downside — that an unstable, anti-American regime would be able to start a nuclear war? Actually, that’s less of a risk than most people think. Unless the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, and his Guardian Council chart a course that no other nuclear power has ever taken, Iran should become more responsible once it acquires nuclear weapons rather than less. The 50-year standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States was called the cold war thanks to the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

25. Iran has probably lost a complete generation of doctors, scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, you name it. A very large group of highly educated, trained and experienced professionals were lost to the ’79 revolution. More than 1 million Iranians live overseas in a Diaspora of professionals producing more value and wealth (estimated at greater than $200 Billion) more than the entire nation of Iran today (with a GNP of $118 Billion). A wise government in Tehran would have recognized the immense value of this generation and found a way to harbor them for the nations benefit, but they prefer to have them be productive for the West.

  1. Look at all this money being banked in USD (why not use Russian or Chinese Banks or other currencies? Why USD?) by Iran’s corrupt leaders:

1- Gholam Hossein Elham: 25 M USD at Dubai, 13 M USD at Turkey, 17 M USD at Swiss, 0.7 M USD at Beirut2- S.H. Panahian: 11 M USD at Islamic Bank of Sharjeh, 4 M EU at Malaysia,3- Masoud Kazemi: 45 M EU Germany, 4.2 M USD at Dubai4- Ali Hashemi Bahramani: 5.2 M USD at Kuwait, 11 M EU at Belgium, 23 M USD at Dubai, an Unknown account in Swiss5- Mohamad Mohamadi: 12 M USD at Dubai, 17 M USD at Kuwait, 8 M EU at Turkey
6- Mehdi Ahmadi Nejad: 18 M EU at Belgium, 45 M EU at Swiss, 44 M USD at Islamic bank at Sharjeh
7- Naziyeh Khamenehiee : 7 M USD at Turkey, 65 M EU at Germany, 122 Pound M at Great Britain
8- Sadegh Mahsouli: 14 M EU at United Arab Emirates, 24 M USD at Turkey, 3 M EU at Malaysia
9- Mojtaba Khameneiee: 1 B Pound Great Britain (has been blocked), 2.2 B EU at Germany, 766 M USD at Qatar, an unknown account at Swiss
10- Hossein Ma`adi khah: 15 M USD at Kuwait, 45 M EU at Austria, 7 M USD at United Arab Emirates
11- Isa KAlantari: 3.2 M EU at Belgium, 1.2 M USD at Italy
12- Hossein Taeb: 122 M USD United Arab Emirates, 42 M EU Italy
13- Masoud Hajarian Kashani: 92 M USD at Austria, 13.7 M USD Qatar
14- Sardar Ahmad Vahidi: 32 M USD United Arab Emirates, 65 M USD at Turkey, 122 M USD at Germany (has been blocked)
15- Abas Kadkhodaiee: 2.5 M EU Itay, 7.1 M USD Kuwait, 32 M USD Dubai
16- Mojtaba Mesbaah Yazdi: 184 M USD Dubai, 221 M USD at Alnakhl Corporation, 55 M EU at Spain
17- Ali Mesbaah Yazdi, 45 M USD United Arab Emirates, 17 M USD Turkey, 65 M Pound at Barkley Bank at Britain, 75 M USD at South Africa, 110 M EU at Germany
18- Hessin Firouz Abadi: 320 M USD at Malaysia, 65 MUSD United Arab Emirates, 103 M USD Kuwait, 17 M USD at Turkey, Unknown bank account at Swiss
19- Parviz Fatah: 16 M USD Turkey, 5.2 M EU at Turkey, 22 USD Swiss
20- Hassan Shajooni: 66.5 M USD Dubai, 39 m USD Kuwait, 11.2 M USD Beirout, 8 M USD Malaysia
21- H Asgar Oladi: 172 M USD Belgium, 120 M EU Germany, 420 MUSD Alnakhl Company, 42 MUSD turkey, 219 M USD Malaysia, Unknown bank account at Swiss
22- Hossein Jannati: 288 MUSD dubai, an Unknown amount at a bank in Turkey which has been guaranteed for 200 M USD, 150 M USD at Japan, 32 MUSD at Malaysia
23- Sakineh Khamenehie: 25 M USD at Malaysia, 14 M USD Qatar, 112 M USD at Dubai
24- Esfandyar Rahim Mashaiee: 5.2 M EU Germany, 32 M EU Italy, 41 M USD Dubai
25- H Mohamadi Araghi: 48.4 M USD Dubai, 2.4 M USD Beirut, 56 M EU Spain
26- Ali Akbar Velayati: 244 M EU germany, 6 M EU Austria, 56 MUSD Malaysia
27- Mohamad Mohamadi Reyshahri : 241 M USD Alnakhl Company, 121 M USD Dubai, 48 M USD germany, 43 M EU Italy
28- Mohsen Hashemi bahramani: 35 MUSD United Arab Emirates, 65 M EU Belgium
29- Masoomeh Hashemi Samareh: 11 MUSD Qatar, 5.9 M USD Malaysia
30- Ali Larijani: 185 M EU Austria, 16 M USD United Arab Emirates, 112 M EU Malaysia
31- Abas Akhondi: 9 M USD United Arab Emirates, 5.2 M USD Beirout Bank
32- Mohsen Rafighdoust: 129 M USD Belgium, 44 M USD Kuwait, 92 M USD Malaysia
33- Hamid Hosseini: 30 M USD Malaysia, 82 M EU spain,
34- Mohamad Hosseini: 14 M USD United Arab Emirates, 7 M USD Kuwait, 3 M USD Turkey, 11 M Pound Britain
35- Mahmoud Hosseini: 3.2 M USD turkey, 11.4 M USD Kuwait
36- Mojtaba Hashemi samareh: 28 M EU Spain, 76 M USD United Arab Emirates, 124 M USD Malaysia
37- Kamran Daneshjou: 76 M EU Austria, 7.2 M USD Malaysia
38- Ahmad reza Radan : 98 M USD United Arab Emirates, 65 USD Kuwait, 121 M USD South Africa
39- Yadollah Javani: 22 M USD United Arab Emirates, 5 M USD India, 23 M EU Portugal
40- Gholam Reza Fayaz: 65 M USD Malaysia, 40.9 M USD Kuwait
41- AliReza Fayaz: 23 M USD United Arab Emirates, 17 M EU Turkey, 7 M EU Italy
42- Ali Mobasheri, 12M Belgium, 19 M USD Malaysia, 42 M USD Kuwait
43- Mohamad Naghdi: 142 M EU United Arab Emirates, 24 M USD United Arab Emirates, 66 M USD Malaysia
44- Farhad Daneshjou: 2.3 M USD United Arab Emirates, 5.6 M USD Turkey
45- Khosro Daneshjou: 11 MUSD Turkey, 7 M USD Zcheck Republic
46- Hamid Hosseini: 4.2 M USD Malaysia, 28 M USD United Arab Emirates
47- Mohamad Bagher Kharazi: 120 M USD Lebanon, 86 M USD United Arab Emirates, 42 M USD at Barkley Bank South Africa Branch
48- Mehdi Hashemi Samareh: 5.7 M USD Turkey, 44 M USD Kuwait
49- Hamid Rasay:62 MUSD Hungry, 32 M EU Germany, 18 M Pound Britain, 14 M USD United Arab Emirates
50- Hossein mousavi Ardebili: 21 MUSD Kuwait, 110 M USD United Arab Emirates, 32 M USD Malaysia
51- Ali Mobasheri: 7 M Eu Austria, 22.4M USD United Arab Emirates
52- Hossein Shariat Madari: 225 M USD United Arab Emirates, 54 M USD Alnakhl Company, 65 M EU HSBS Bank Britain, 156 M USD Malaysia, 600 M USD St. Peterzburg Bank, Russia,
53- Hossein Shahmoradi: 56 M USD United Arab Emirates, 64 M USD Malaysia, 7 M USD India
54- Kamran Daneshjou: 24 M USD Japan, 43 M USD Malaysia
55- Davoud Ahmadi Nezhad: 55 M USD United Arab Emirates, 48 M EU United Arab Emirates, 8 M USD St. Peterzburg Bank, Russia,
56- Abdollah Araghi: 84 m USD United Arab Emirates, 127 M USD Lebanon, 76 M USD Malaysia, SecretAccount at Swiss
57- Baha-odin Hosseini Hashemi: 45 M USD United Arab Emirates, 80 M USD Malaysia
58- Mohi Odin Fazel Harandi: 52 M USD Omman, 45 M USD Saudi Arabia
59- Ahmad Jannati: 450 M Eu Belgium, 143 M USD Alnakhl Company, 124 MUSD United Arab Emirates, 267 M USD Malaysia, 118 M USD South Africa, Unknown Bank account at swiss
60- Ali Janati: 35 M USD United Arab Emirates, 155 M USD Turkey, 55 M EU Germany, Unknown Bank account at swiss
61- Hossein Safar Harandi: 38 M USD United Arab Emirates, 20 M USD Malaysia, An unknown account in Turkey
62- Morteza Rafighdoust: 120 M EU Germany, Unknown Bank account at swiss
63- M H Parsa: 43 M USD Turkey, 12 M USD Malaysia
64- Fatemeh Asgar Oladi: 43 M USD Qatar, 16 M USD Turkey
65- Ali Akbar Mohtashemi: 125 M USD Sharjeh, 85 M USD Kuwait, 200 M USD Malaysia, Unknown Bank account at swiss
66- Yaser Bahramani Hashemi: 22 M EU Germany, 12 M EU Austria, 14 M USD United Arab Emirates
67- Gholam Ali Haddad Adel : 12 M USD Turkey, 2.4 M USD Malaysia, 43 M USD United Arab Emirates

27. Although federal law prohibits U.S. companies from trading with Iran, it does not forbid foreign subsidiaries from such business ties. Halliburton's Cayman Islands subsidiary sold $63 million worth of oil products to Iran in 2003. Former US vice-president Dick Cheney was Haliburton’s former CEO.

  1. Virtually every American product is available in Iran through Dubai. Dubai has a huge roll on- roll off port, where all products are brought in duty free, and then re-exported to Iran with amazing efficiency. And the whole world knows it.

  1. Coke and Pepsi are readily available in Tehran to help Mullahs chow down their chelo-kebabs during a period of supposed international trade sanctions with Iran.

30. The volume of trade between Iran and the United States hit $623 million in 2008. According to the US Census Bureau, the value of US exports to Iran reached $93 million in 2007 and increased to $537 million in 2008. However US imports from Iran decreased to $86 million in 2008, while the figure stood at $148 million in 2007. This data does not include trade through third countries to circumvent the trade embargo. Top US exports to Iran include cigarettes ($73 million), corn ($68 million); chemical wood pulp, soda or sulphate ($64 million); soybeans ($43 million); medical equipment ($27 million); vitamins ($18 million); and vegetable seeds ($12 million). The value of cigarettes sold to Iran was more than twice that of the No. 2 category on the export list, vaccines, serums and blood products ($73 million).There is this constant air of deniability when it comes to admitting America’s secret relations with Iran’s Mullahs. Every once in a while there is a newspaper article about an imminent invasion, or a naval blockage, or a new round of sanctions or a covert war against Iran, yet strangely, nothing of substance ever happens. Iran you see is part of the Axis of Evil.

The simple fact is that the severe negative qualities of the Iranian regime appear fit well into U.S. foreign policy. The mullahs have served the United States in ways the Shah of Iran never could! It has been 30 years of non-stop back room deals, with upmost deniability by Iran’s Mullah Masters – the U.S. It seems that for most of 30 years, we seem to have had an Evangelist Christian in the White House and an Islamic anti-Communist group in charge of Iran. They remain bosom buddies. They have fooled everyone!


Recently by JalilBaharCommentsDate
Republican Party Hatred
Sep 30, 2010
BP's Caspian Disaster
May 05, 2010
Europe vs USA – A New Reality in Iran
Feb 04, 2010
more from JalilBahar


by timothyfloyd on




by timothyfloyd on



Tim, are you sane, man?

by Spear on

How dare you compare Reagan with Obama? They're polar opposites. Reagan represented American power, while Obama represents American weakness. Reagan dealt with terrorists like Colonel Qaddafi with an iron fist (bombing his palace), while Obama wants to befriend America's enemies by chit-chatting with them. Reagan stood up to the Soviets and called them the "evil empire" and admonished them to remove the Berlin Wall. Obama waited 10 days to condemn the crackdown in Iran after the elections in June (while it took Obama only 3 hours to condemn the legal removal of a lefty president in Hondurous).

Reagan supported the Shah when the Shah was alive. What do you want him to do, support his corpse when he's dead (the Shah died in July, 1980). When the mullahs came to power, Reagan dealt with them because he was surrounded by realists like Jim Baker and Scowcroft, etc. The Iran-Contra affair had multiple layers, one of them being to free American hostages, one of 'em to produce financing to support their "freedom fighters" in Nicaragua. Politics is dirty, and sometimes it makes stange bedfellows -- after all, even Israel was running weapons to the IRI during the Iran/Iraq war.

Most of all, Reagan celebrated American power, Obama resents it ("whether we like it or not, we're still one of the major powers in the world"). He doesn't even say we're a super-power (the only one, by the way), but rather, "one of the major powers." He almost sounds like he wants to apologize (as that's what he does best) for America's power and standing in the world! That makes him the polar opposite of President Reagan! 

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran


Spear I agree with

by timothyfloyd on

Spear I agree with you.

Reagan was a talker like Obama,and he was good at manipulating people.He supported the Shah and he also had ties to the Mullah's.

That's what you have to do,comes with the job of being a World Leader,just like getting the blame for things and also being able to make a difference in things.

Great point about Carter brokering peace with Isreal.

Also I might add the point is missing about Saddam next door who was actually the de-facto President of Iraq (Al-Bakr was elderly) during the first demonstrations against the Shah in Jan,1978 and the year and half leading up to the Revolution.

He sat and watched with 'Babylonia' in his eye.Understanding his nature and power in the region,He may have even been involved himself in the overthrowing of the Shah,who know's eh?

I don't think he really cared if he had the green light or not to attack.Notice he didn't hesitate too long after making it 'Official' that he was the President..

My feeling overall tho is still despite internal affairs and dealing of other countries,the Iranian's have acted on their own behalf..Well  except for the times that Iran was completely occupied by foreign forces.But overall,the people themselves have had a good share of taking their own responsibility.Even it means they put a pack of trolls in power.

The sad part is the lack of Freedom and lack of being armed to protect themselves from this Oppressive regime.


you're so smart

by i_support_khamenie on

Man, are you brilliant!!!

Did you have a hand in founding Google or maybe MySpace.com or Facebook

The things that you are aware of is just beyond anything anyone in the normal world is aware of!!

Hmmm, are you sure you;re not seeing pink Elephants too???


Very well said, Shushtari!

by Spear on

The Shah always considered the left as his real threat, thinking that the mullahs (the reactionary right) could always be an asset in fighting communists. That was the flaw in his thinking. He became aware of this flaw, of course, sometime in mid-1970's, but it was too late by then. The cancer had metastisized and grafted onto the host nation like a bastard. The Shah had started to wage war against the Ulama and their backers, the Bazarris, sometime around 1973 and he would've succeeded, had the Americans not elected a monumental jackass into the White House in 1976.

That election (1976) in many ways changed everything. If Reagan, who had visited the Shah in Iran on two separate occasions, had not lost the republican nomination to Ford in 1976 and had become president, perhaps we would not be in this mess. Reagan was a huge supporter of the Shah, this is a very well known fact.

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran


spear......I agree with you

by shushtari on

perhaps I'm being a bit selfish, as it was our generation that lost their country....instead of staying in iran and helping make it a superpower.

you are right in that nekbat khomeini's ability to survive showed everyone what a akhoond dynasty really means.

the shah should have eliminated nekbat khomeini back in 63 or even in the summer of 78- I read in a book recently that sadam's son had went to tehran in august of 78 and urged him to give the green light to 'take care' of khomeini while he was still in iraq- before the bucket hit the fan- if you know what I mean.

so, as you said, there were many chances to take care of the akhoonds, but the shah never thought they would pose a real threat, perhaps worrying about the communists and tudeyies instead.

I grew up in khuzestan, and I can also attest to your point about keeping the natives 'in the dark'

the brits have always felt that iran was their property....in fact, that is why they were so pissed at dr mossadegh, since he slapped the taste out of their mouth in the hague and humiliated them so badly that they went to kermit roosevelt and begged him and cia to get rid of dr mossadegh

either way, the cat's out of the bag, but it's too bad that we can only imagine what iran would have been like today, without the vile akhoonds ruling it- I never thought that I would look at the turks or the south koreans and be a bit jealous as to what our vatan could have been!


one last thing, the akhoonds are extremely afraid of people exposing their secrets, that is why I think they may have eliminated ayatollah montazeri, and taleghani....

god knows if their agents are monitoring websites like this.... 


In other words,

by Spear on

The mullahs and the British always had a mutual interest -- they both needed Iranians to remain backward in order for them to survive and succeed in Iran. Those who are enlightend don't depend on every word that comes out of a mullah's mouth for their prosperity and survival. The mullahs have long feared turning into the equivalent of pastors and priests in America, and for them to maintain their influence over the masses, it was in their interest to keep the nation backward and ignorant, which is why the British were the perfect ally for the Ulama, because that is exactly what they wanted for Iranians as well: a nation of superstitious dahatis.

In this sense, the Ulama and the British were bossom bodies, the perfect partners, with one unifying goal: to keep Iran and Iranians in the dark. The former (Ulama) gained prestige and influence as a byproduct of this backward abyss, while the other gained access to natural resources.

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran



by Spear on

Why would you need 30 reasons?

One is more than plenty: energy. The British found and built Abadan -- to this day they think they own it. Think about it, the Brits, unlike the Americans, were a colonial power. Their success absolutely depended on keeping the natives backward (and in the dark) while they stole its resources. Who better than a charlatan mullah to keep the masses in the dark?

The mullahs were given an influential platform by the British, where they could practice and disseminate their unholy black magic, and in return, the British benefited from all sorts of concessions from the hosts. Every time Iran has had a modernizing leader since 1851, the British and the mullahs have joined forces to destroy that leader -- in that year, Amir Kabir and his dreams of an enlightened Iran was destroyed, later it was Reza Shah, then Mossadegh, and then the Shah.

Colonial powers per se can only operate successfully (and cheaply) when the host country is made up of an ignorant, backward populace. The British and the Ulama (whether it's Ayatollah Behbahani, Kashani, Mudaress or Khomeini) have had a long-standing relationship where both have benefited greatly by each other's resolute avarice at the dire expense of the Iranian nation.

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran



by aya-toilet1 on

Hey Spear:

Give us a blog with 30 reasons the IRI has been a British Asset....how about that?


Dear Shushtari

by Spear on

I'm glad to have nailed your points, but earlier you mentioned how you wished that somebody had shot down Khomeini's Pan Am flight back to Iran from Paris on Feb. 1, 1979. Just imagine if they had done that, killed Khomeini before he set foot in Iran -- in my opinion, it would have been the WORST case scenario for a free and secular Iran.


Because his twisted, evil supporters would have hailed the illiterate, blood-thirsty mullah as "Imam Zaman," and they would've erected thousands of statues in his honor all over Iran for a thousand years to come -- and if things would have not turned out well in Iran, his supporters forever would've lampooned about how "if that blood-thirsty Shah had not killed Khomeini, Imam would have ushered Paradise on the soil of Iran for a thousand years!"

And you and me couldn't have proved them wrong! Now, we all know better. This revelation has undoubtedly come at a huge cost, but the cost in my opinion was worth it. The Shah WISELY allowed the mullah to come back so he could shit on himself and the people could see with their own eyes that Khomeini was nothing more than a depraved, perverted charlatan, with nothing but blood on his mind.

If Khomeini had been killed in 1979, that would've hampered the true chances of a secular democracy ever taking root in Iran for at least 100 years -- now, we've seen what the "rule of Islamic clerics" really means: murder, torture, rape, massive unemployment, massive inflation, massive prostitution, massive brain-drain, massive corruption, massive heroin addiction, massive loss of prestige, massive mistakes, etc.

I will give you this -- if the Shah had executed Khomeini in 1963, that would've been the perfect time, as the illiterate mullah was not a god-like figure back then, and most of his followers were limited to Qom. Indeed, a death sentence had in fact been issued by the Shah's regime for Khomeini's neck, but the British, who owned Khomeini for decades, intervened and influenced Pakravan, who came up with the only solution to revoking the death sentence, i.e., make Khomeini an Ayatollah (even in those days , an Ayatollah could not be executed in Iran).

And that is exactly how Khomeini became an Ayatollah -- he was sentenced to be executed and the powers that be influenced the Shah to consider revoking the death sentence, and it was decided that the only way to do so was to make the scumbag f**K-face an "Ayatollah."

Interestingly, the Shah knew that Khomeini was a British asset even then, because during the uprising of 1963, the BBC Persian broadcast actually referred to Khomeini as the "leader of the Shiite movement" in Iran. This was very suspicious and calculated as Khomeini was not even an "ayatollah" at that time and there were many other senior clerics in the shiite establishment in Iran (and Iraq) that were far superior to Khomeini in rank and prestige.

Of course, the Shah relented against his better judgement, and Pakravan made the devil an "ayatollah" and the rest is sad history.  


IRI represents political Islam, not Iran



by shushtari on

wow.....I think you're reading my mind brother!

your points are exactly what needs to be exposed about these vile akhoonds


it just heart-breaking to know that all those brave officers, like badrei, jahanbani, khosrodad, shafiq, neshat, and countless others were waiting for shah's orders to crush the mullahs.....but that order never came!  the shah was foolish to think jimmy peanuts would back him up...in fact 'dozareesh nayoftadeh bood' that after the guadelope conference the west had decided to take him down.


I think he should have tricked the west by signing the oil contract extensions, all the while our younger generation was being educated ....he would have likely passed away from cancer in 80 or 81, and the country could have evolved to a democracy by the mid 80s.....and today, with such a vibrant, brave, and patriotic youth, the mullahs would never be able to hatch there plan of taking over iran...


but the jig is up, and now the world knows what the akhoonds are all about.....let's hope they have outlived their usefullness for the brits 


Spear: Well done. Great

by vildemose on

Spear: Well done. Great synopsis of the shifting alliances. Indeed, Iran is an asset of the British gov't.


Take it easy, Ayatoilet

by Spear on

You support the author's contention regarding the downing of the civilian Iranian airbus -- "With respect to the shoot down of the plane, from my perspective, I think Jalil Bahar is absolutely right in saying that the Mullahs did not do a damn thing about it...."

So what? In fact, what led Khomeini to drink his famous cup of "poison" and end the Iran/Iraq war was the Reagan Administration's complete destruction of Iran's navy in 1987. Did you know of this fact? Not too many people do. American naval ships, parked in the Persian Gulf, dessimated Iran's naval forces, which led directly to the truce with Iraq. Reagan basically forced the mullahs to stop the war. How do you consider the two working hand-in-hand, one being a puppet, if one destroys the other's entire naval fleet, which is exactly what the Americans did to Iran.

What did you want the mullahs to do to America anyway (which they would've done to Russia)? The mullahs are only interested in one thing: survival. They knew they couldn't go toe-to-toe with Reagan's America after an 8-year exhaustive war with Iraq. They couldn't even handle Saddam Hussein, fighting them to a standstill for 8 years. Mind you, the US armed forces eradicated Saddam Hussein's regime in 3 weeks in 2003.

The story that follows the removal of the Shah is not as clear-cut as you think it is. Did the mullahs receive enormous help from UK/US to remove the Shah? Yes, no doubt. But to go from that to all the other fanciful theories doesn't consider the fact that allies do not always remain allies forever. Alliances shift and evolve.

I mean, if the mullahs are pure puppets of America, then why would they bomb the Beirut marine barracks in 1983, in which 241 American marines were slaughtered? America didn't even launch a rocket in retaliation at Hezbollah terrorist camps, they just packed up and left.

The IRI is an asset of the British government to this day, but that doesn't mean they're also pawns of America. Believe it or not, America and England do not always have mutual interests in every corner of the globe. Sometimes, they're competitors. Only when their interests coincide, and those mutual interests are threatened, as in the case of the Shah's aggressive oil policies in the 1970's, do they come together and join forces.

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran


spear: You might be right.

by vildemose on

spear: You might be right. Oversimplifcation is never good but there is such a thing called parsimony too.

Parsimony is the use of the simplest or most frugal route of explanation available. The word derives from Middle English parcimony, from Latin parsimonia, from parsus, past participle of parcere: to spare. It is a general principle that has applications from science to philosophy and all related fields.


Carter was an ***###

by aya-toilet1 on

Please do not defend Jimmy Carter, because what he did to Iran and Iranians is so shameful, he does not even speak about it now, nor will he allow journalists to ask him any questions about it, and he even goes as far as to instruct people interview him that he will NOT answer any questions about Iran. He led directly to the deaths of over 1 Million Iranians, Iraqis and now thousands of Americans in two derivative wars from the Iran/Iraq war he precipitated.

Bad the Mullahs are US puppets. They have cleverly figured out which way the wind is blowing and know what to do to survive under different administrations.

Finally, don't talk about Iranian people choosing these Usurping Mullahs. There are no free elections in Iran, only "Selection" programs by the Nazi Mullahs ...

You are defending the wrong people, the wrong crowd ...


Way Off SamSammIIII

by aya-toilet1 on

This is NOT daii napoleon stuff, I don't think you can say US census data is paranoia, or that Iran opened the first embassy in Baghdad is not factual or paranoia. One either wants to accept fact or reject it...but all this stuff Dr. Jalil Bahar wrote is absolutely factual. If you watch his TV program, and I have not seen it in maybe a few years, you can not argue with his factual basis...maybe the way he delivers the facts, but not the actual facts. Its all accurate and truthfull. There is nothing revisionist about facts and the truth.


Spear You're Right

by aya-toilet1 on


You're right on the money. And we all know that that start of the Iran/Iraq war is a pandora's box, filled with nasty skeletons from Jimmy Carter's administration. If only someone had interviewed Saddam Hussein and got all the garbage out in public. Interestingly, that War precipitated two other "Gulf Wars'" in 1991 and 2003. Americans have paid a heavy price for Carter's stupidity. OVer a million casualties were reported for the Iran/Iraq war, tell me my friends did Jimmy Carter deserve the Noble Peace Prize?


R Stewart

Recruitment adverts for language specialists

by R Stewart on

The advert reads: 



for MI5, SIS

(Top right)  



Please Read Very Carefully ...

by aya-toilet1 on

Dear TimothyFloyd:

Jimmy Carter did indeed precipitate two key events that involved Iran. (1) He toppled the Shah of Iran; and (2) Precipitated Saddam's invasion of Iran. What happened was the Shah had been a major contributor to the Republican Party and a personal friend of Richard Nixon who had been Eisenhower's Vice President when the CIA organized a coup ion 1953 to bring back  the Shah to power (called operation Ajax). The Democrats had been gunning for the Shah for a long time. So Carter, by utilizing the "human rights" doctrine and also by employing the new strategy of using Religion as an anti-communist force, put in force a plan to topple the SHah's regime and put the Mullahs in Power. The Mullah's in Tehran 'turned on him' or the way they see it, 'Carter turned on them' (by letting the Shah in to the U.S. ...for supposed Cancer treatment, believing the Shah was scheming to oust them again, as he did to Mossadegh in 1953). So the mullah's secretly dealt with the Reagan Campaign staff, and used the Tehran Embassy Hostage crisis (that started on November 4th 1979) to humiliate Carter and helped Reagan get elected. Reagan's gang in turn gave them full security assurances. When Jimmy Carter found out about this, he initially tried to arrange a coup in Early 1980 by Airforce Officers (called the Nojeh Coup) and when that failed he dispatched Zbig to Jordan, where he had a series of meetings over a number of months with Saddam's senior generals and plotted the downfall of the regime in Iran via an Invasion of Iran on September 22nd 1980. This is absolute fact.

The writer of the blog, Dr. Jalil Bahar, I am sure is very aware of this. I think is being very careful, because if you go back 30 years, remember we're in 2010 now, Carter's Nojeh Coup effort and initial overtures to Saddam Hussein pass the 30 year mark. Since then the Mullahs have been closely engaged with Reagan's camp, and then with Bill Clinton's gang. (And I can get into more detail what the back room deals with Clinton etc. was and have been, and still are with Hillary). 

They Mullahs have been in Power for 31 years+.

With respect to the shoot down of the plane, from my perspective, I think Jalil Bahar is absolutely right in saying that the Mullahs did not do a damn thing about it....and that their silence proves that they are American puppets. Maybe you did not get the point. Can you imagine if Russians had bombed a US Civilian plane out of the Sky in American Airspace? What would a decent government do about it?



Like they say, ignorance is bliss. Keep laughing, enjoy your bliss. Because, this situation is not sustainable...

All this will end, and Iranians will have their liberty and liberate themselves for these fanatic religious zealots, their Islamo-fascist governance of Iran's political and economic landscape (whether or not US or America's Christian right or you want it).




Is it a LOL thing?

by Exir on

Which webpage? What?Where?

Is it your way of covert satire?




by Spear on

"nothing more, nothing less" is a bit of an over-simplification, and a bit arrogant, don't you think?

Nothing in life is ever black and white. It's always a shade of gray, which is a perfect enviornment for any clandestine operation.

IRI represents political Islam, not Iran



by Spear on

writes, "Carter was the one who screwed Iran, it's easy to find Anti-Carter signs from the Revolution. It's amazing how some Iranian's praise Carter now, I shake my head..."

I completely agree with you, Tim. When I hear Iranians praise Carter, I know either they're ignorant jackasses or IRI supporters, period. 

Tim continues, "But of all your reasons, my favorite number one reason of all that the US is in bed with the Mullahs is:

Jimmy Carter told Saddam to attack Iran..."

Indeed, Jimmy P. did give Saddam Hussein the "green light" to attack Iran, but not because the US president was in bed with the mullahs, but because by that point, September 20, 1980, the Khomeinist clan had taken 52 American hostages and Jimmy's re-election was on the line, and he figured that if Iraq bombs the shit out of Iran's Air Force machinery, Iran wouldn't be able to defend itself and will desperately need American "spare parts" for its American-made military equipment. Carter's goal was to force the mullahs to come to the table and make a quick deal to release the hostages so that he could win the 1980 election, which was on the horizon and the Carter Administration was panicking and needed a quick fix, and fast.

Of course, once again, Jimmy P. was disappointed by his CIA information, because Iran didn't need to crawl back to America for spare parts, because Iran was able to go to Vietnam and buy spare parts from the Vietnamese government, who still had shit loads of leftover US military equipment from the Vietnam War. You could say the CIA/MI6 got the war (Iran/Iraq) they ALWAYS wanted (for a host of reasons), with or without Jimmy's re-election. The hostages remained in Iran as the mullahs secured their spare parts through a 3rd party, and Jimmy was booted out of the White House.



IRI represents political Islam, not Iran

R Stewart

Confirmation that this webpage is disinformation

by R Stewart on

Confirming my suspicions that this webpage has been set up by covert opertives in the pay of Western intelligence: in the top right hand corner are recruitment adverts for MI6 and the SIS.


Dear Samsam,

by Spear on

writes, "Lets diffrentiate between 2 different subjects; 1-Carter adminstaration's help in facilitating a ripe environment for Ommaties to instigate unrest, vs 2- the claime by this blog that Americans have been the bedfellow of regime for 30 yrs." 

I couldn't have said it better, my friend. The author of this article obviously has taken "dramatic" license to spin his own fanciful tales, but the "gist" of the story is factual, the gist being the conspiracy between the mullahs and the UK/US in the removal of the Shah.

Of course, a nubie American president could easily be suckered by the sophiticated British intelligence/banking/government apparatus, who know Iran far better, and so, after their participation in the removal of the Shah, the conspiracy may have fallen apart, with England remaining as the sole sponsor of the unholy IRI.

In fact, I tend to lean this way. The British probably convinced Jimmy P. that the moderates (Bazargan, Ghotbzadeh, Bani Sadr) within the post-Shah Islamic regime were reasonable men and could be dealt with, secretly knowing all along that the psychoHezbos would triumph and be the real power in Iran (the CIA was most likely in on the secret, as that may have been their wish all along).

Remember cloak and dagger intelligence organizations do NOT represents the interests of any temporary resident of the White House, but rather, the interests of their real masters... multi-national western corporations. As we all know, the Ulama has always been an asset of the British government.

I do believe that once the aims of the revolution were accomplished, mullah Khomeini stabbed Carter in the back, for the mad mullah never forgave Carter for brokering peace between Israel and a muslim country, Egypt. So, when their common enemy was ousted (the Shah), the Khomeinist clan and the top echelon of the US government turned against each other, with Britian nicely sliding in their like the weasels they are and maintaining their business relationship with the Ulama.

The author of this article does not appreciate an old saying by a cleverstein like Lloyd George, the long-time prime minister of England who admitted, "we don't have permanent friends, we don't have permanent enemies, we just have permanent interests."

So, the point it, even if there was a conspiracy between the mullahs and the UK/US to remove the Shah -- and I believe there was -- that doesn't mean that all 3 members remained friends and allies all these years later.


IRI represents political Islam, not Iran


Dear Spear

by SamSamIIII on


Lets diffrentiate between 2 different subjects; 1-Carter adminstaration's help in facilitating a ripe environment for Ommaties to instigate unrest, vs 2- the claime by this blog that Americans have been the bedfellow of regime for 30 yrs. I have no quarrel with your argument on point 1. Yet I have issue with daii jaan napoleon blame it on others mentality reminisent of lefto-ommatie paranoia who mix fiction & halftruth to exonerate ignorance & ignore the truth. Keep in mind that thru engineering & fabricating events outta context one can poke holes into any reality & create any fairytale outta thin air such as what I mentioned earlier . It,s called revisionism and a lotta ommaties do it on an array of different subjects. Cheers friend!!!



Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia


shushtari: There will be a

by vildemose on

shushtari: There will be a day when the CIA will reveal another operation Ajax type in installing the mullahs. The fact that they haven't done so yet is because the mullahs' usefulness has not expired yet. Th US still needs the IRI to do its "managed chaos" objectives in the region. 


"if the Shah wore a turban"

by Exir on

Well said.


dear spear

by shushtari on

right on the money....

others may blow this off as a 'conspiracy theory'.....but that is the truth....

I just don't understand why no one shot that mullah out of the sky.....wasn't there an air force officer who could fly up in an f14 and shoot this evil monster with a phoenix missile from 100 mi away???


too bad, where would iran be now? 


The ommaties are correct to

by vildemose on

The ommaties are correct to point out that this was truly an ommatie revolution from the get go , initiated,funded,organised & utilised by mullah class which was joined by the herd of clueless wishing to see a frog having a baby prince.

I believe if the Shah wore a turban, he would not have been overthrown by the mullahs. You are right. This was a power struggle between two equally undemocratic historical ruling class of Iranian society. Nothing more, nothing less.