Iran the cherry on the cake? Updated.

The propaganda increases and the truth becomes harder to find. Iran have been open in showing their support for Assad’s government and see the Syrian conflict as an internal issue for Syrians only and does not see the need for outside intervention.

This conflict in Syria seems to be following the same dark path as we saw with Libya and now is Iran directly involved.

Gunmen snatched 47 Iranian pilgrims just outside Damascus on Saturday in a brazen attack that revealed the growing instability at the center of President Bashar Assad‘s power.

The abduction came as Syrian troops moved to crush one of the last rebel-dominated neighborhoods in the capital, shelling the area heavily. No group immediately claimed responsibility, although Iranian state media blamed the rebels fighting the Assad regime.

The pilgrims were on a bus taking them from the suburb of Sayeda Zeinab, about 10 miles south of Damascus, to the airport to return home when they were kidnapped, according to the Iranian state news agency, IRNA.

This story needs to be questioned, as with all conflicts nothing is as it seems. There have been reports from the Western media that there is a possibility that these ‘pilgrims’ were in fact Iranian special forces who were meeting with Assad in order to help him plan his defense and defeat of the rebels.

Others say that these Iranians are a decoy. CIA placed them in the country with the aim off dragging Iran into a conflict that we will see Nato and US troops entering any day now.

There have also been reports that Iran has been moving missiles. Is this yet another ploy to increase public fear and paint Iran as the aggressor?

Defence minister Ahmad Vahidi told Iranian news the fourth-generation Fateh 110 missile attempt was “successful”.

The announcement comes amid rising tension with the west over Iran’s nuclear capability.

Reports from the country claim the missile is an upgraded version of a short-range ballistic rocket and has improved accuracy.

Mr Vahidi said: “With the fourth-generation of the Fateh 110, the armed forces of our country are able to target and destroy land and sea targets, enemy headquarters, missile seats, ammunition sites, radars and other points.

We see the country being painted into a corner. It is a prize that the Western nations have been wanting for decades, we see the success they have had in the region (they see success I see oppression) Iran would be the cherry on their cake. Many question Iran’s motives and see them as warmongering nation hell bent on the destruction of the US and Europe.  

Western hypocrisy over these issues is thick as we see companies still trading with Iran.

Standard Chartered bank ‘in $250bn scheme with Iran’

A brief look at the country’s history tells the real story. A story which is full of lies and deceit. Multiple attempts to corrupt and over throw leaders and lay claim to the land.

The time line which may lead us to war?

1941 – Iran and World War II

Reza Shah’s sympathy with Germany in World War II leads to the Anglo-Russian occupation of Iran and deposition of the Iranian monarch in favor of his son, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. Pressured by U.S. officials, who cite clauses in the 1942 Atlantic Charter forbidding colonial expansion on the back of wartime efforts, British and Soviet troops leave Iran in 1946.

1950 – Oil Industry Takeover

Following the assassination of Prime Minister Ali Razmara, Mohammed Mossadeq, a nationalist, wins the office and quickly moves to nationalize the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain, in decline after an exhausting war, imposes an embargo but also appeals for help to the United States.

1953 – Overthrow of Mussadeq.  50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow

With covert assistance from American and British intelligence, the Iranian military overthrows democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstalls the Shah in Operation Ajax. Tried for high treason, he received a three-year prison sentence and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest in his home village before dying in 1967.

1955 – Creation of CENTO

The Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) is established under the Baghdad Pact by Britain, Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, and Turkey to contain Soviet influence in the region and, like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, guarantee mutual cooperation and non-interference in member states’ internal affairs. The United States joins the pact in 1958. Because it lacks a unified military command, CENTO is largely symbolic and is eventually disbanded in 1979.

1972 – Nixon, Shah Negotiate Arms

President Nixon travels to Tehran to negotiate arms agreements with Iran, including the sale of high performance jet fighters. Some U.S. policymakers worry Iran’s arms buildup might destabilize the Middle East. Others take exception to the Shah’s occasional anti-U.S. stances, including his opposition to an American naval presence in Bahrain and his interference with the Israeli-Arab peace process.

1978 – Unrest at Home

The Shah’s repressive domestic policies and recognition of Israel turn large segments of Iranian society against him, ultimately alienating the powerful Islamic clergy. Riots and strikes paralyze Tehran, Qom, Tabriz, and other cities, and martial law is declared.

1979 – The Iranian Revolution

Growing internal unrest forces the Shah to flee the country, while previously exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini assumes power and installs an Islamic Republic. Iranian students seize over sixty hostages at the American diplomatic mission in Tehran, prompting talks between the Carter administration and Iran (via then-Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Algerian emissaries) to secure their release. To ratchet up pressure, the United States suspends oil imports from Iran and freezes billions of dollars in Iranian assets. The standoff culminates in the 1981 Algiers Accords, which lead to the hostages’ release and U.S. promises of nonintervention in Iranian politics.

1985 – The Iran-Contra Affair.  General Article: The Iran-Contra Affair

Secret contacts between the U.S. and Iran take place in the context of a complex three-way deal aimed at freeing American hostages held by pro-Iranian Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. The episode involves the delivery via Israel of American-made weaponry in exchange for Iran wielding its influence in Lebanon and funneling money to the anti-Communist Contras fighting the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Once the operation is made public, it prompts a series of investigations that find several Reagan officials guilty of felonies.

1988 – Tensions in the Gulf

U.S. warships sink an Iranian frigate and shell two Persian Gulf oil platforms near the Strait of Hormuz in response to a mine attack against the USS Samuel B. Roberts, an American frigate. A few months later, the USS Vincennes shoots down an Iranian commercial jet carrying 290 passengers and crew. The American government says it mistook the plane for a military fighter jet but refuses to apologize or admit any wrongdoing.

1995 – Economic Sanctions

The Clinton administration imposes sanctions prohibiting American companies and their foreign subsidiaries from doing business with Iran. The ban includes exports like pistachios and Persian rugs, in addition to sanctions against any financing or development of its oil and gas sector. The following year, the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act imposes an embargo against non-American companies investing more than $20 million per year in Iran’s oil and gas sector.

1998 – Hopes for New Ties

Shortly after taking office, Iran’s new reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, calls for a “dialogue among civilizations” on CNN, raising hopes of a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations.

2000 – A U.S. Apology

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright delivers a speech apologizing for America’s role in the 1953 overthrow of Mohammed Mossadeq and acknowledges the coup, which installed the shah, “was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development.” The Clinton administration partially lifts sanctions on Persian rugs, pistachios, and caviar. But because Albright’s speech ends with a hectoring of Iran’s domestic and foreign policies, Tehran responds with a denunciation of the goodwill gesture.

2001 – Post-9/11 Cooperation.    Setting the stage for Iran

Ayatollah Khamenei condemns the attacks of 9/11 and many Iranians hold candlelight vigils. After the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan topples the Taliban government, American and Iranian diplomats meet together in Bonn, with a handful of representatives from other UN members, to form a new government and constitution for Kabul. Iran also cooperates with the United Nations to repatriate nearly one million Afghan refugees residing on its soil and provides support to the Northern Alliance. The brief U.S.-Iranian cooperation ends after President Bush labels Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” in his 2002 State of the Union.

2003 – Iran’s Overture

An overture from Iran for comprehensive bilateral talks is offered to U.S. officials in May shortly after the invasion of Iraq. Some experts say the proposal, conveyed via a Swiss emissary, amounts to a “grand bargain” including offers of negotiations over Iran’s support for terrorist organizations and recognition of Israel’s right to exist. During congressional hearings in 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she does not “remember ever seeing any such thing,” while former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage says he thought the Iranians “were trying to put too much on the table” for serious negotiations to occur.

2004 – Powell the Lame Duck

In November, outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell meets with Iran’s foreign minister, Kamal Kharrazi, at an international conference on Iraq at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. Nothing of substance is reportedly discussed as Powell is seen by the Iranians as a lame duck with no real power. Powell predicts that normal U.S.-Iranian relations will be restored “in due course.”

2006 – Ahmadinejad’s Letter

There is talk of direct negotiations between Tehran and Washington on the issue of Iraq, at the behest of then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. In May, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends President Bush a rambling eighteen-page letter accusing him of committing untold atrocities in Iraq and invoking his Christian heritage to change course there. It also dips into conspiracy theories, including suggestions the U.S. government withheld details about 9/11. In September the Iranian president spars with CFR members on a visit to New York.

The UN Security Council passes a resolution sanctioning Iran over its nuclear program, the first of three to impose an embargo on nuclear and ballistic missile material. The measures also restrict the travel and freezes assets of select individuals, but critics question the effectiveness of the sanctions, arguing while they may impact Iran’s economy they will not alter the regime’s behavior.

2007 – Common Ground.     Judge Rules al-Qaeda and Iran Must Pay Billions to 9/11 Families

American officials accuse Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq, and in his State of the Union address, President Bush compares Iran to al-Qaeda. The next month U.S. officials say they have proof Iran is supplying sophisticated weapons to insurgents in Iraq, though critics question the veracity of those claims. Even still, signs of a diplomatic thaw emerge as U.S. and Iranian officials hold the highest level talks between the two nations in nearly three decades, when U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, meets his Iranian counterpart Hassan Kazemi Qomi in Baghdad. Nuclear Questions Emerge.In a controversial assessment, U.S. intelligence agencies report Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium. The National Intelligence Estimate upends the Bush administration’s consensus on Iran’s nuclear program. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declares the NIE a “great victory” for Iran, though American officials say it does not prove the regime has abandoned its ambitions for a bomb.

2009 – Talking to Tehran

The inauguration of U.S. President Barack Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to talk with Iran without preconditions, raises anticipation of a thaw in U.S.-Iran relations. The administration issues a veiled invitation to Iran to participate in multilateral talks on Afghanistan, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says Iran could play a stabilizing role. However, the war of words with Iran continues in public. Iran’s Supreme Leader says Obama is as “crooked” as his predecessor on Israeli policy, while Clinton tells Iran to steer clear of intra-Arab affairs. Disputed Elections, Nuclear Secrets. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wins another term as Iran’s president after disputed elections in June. The Obama administration opts for a low-key response to alleged election fraud, and signals willingness to remain open to talks over Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As Iran unleashes violent crackdowns on opposition supporters in the aftermath of the country’s presidential balloting, though, the Obama administration calls for restraint. The rhetorical war escalates as President Obama chastises the Iranian leadership for responding to protests with a “clenched fist.” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accuses the United States of inciting Iranian “civil war.” By the year’s end, Washington and Tehran are again at odds over a secret uranium enrichment facility buried in the mountains near the Iranian holy city of Qom.

2010 – Fresh Rounds of Sanctions

After intense lobbying, and concessions to China and Russia, the United States wins a fourth round of UN Security Council sanctions aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program. Considered the toughest sanctions imposed by the world body against Iran to date, the measure places new bans on certain Iranian investments; restricts weapons sales; and imposes penalties on companies connected to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and the country’s primary shipping company. Resolution 1929 is followed by unilateral U.S. and EU sanctions, including a U.S. bill penalizing companies supplying refined petroleum products to Iran. China and Russia quickly oppose the U.S. measure, signed into law by President Obama on July 1. Both nations fear the unilateral moves, which seek to close loopholes in the UN sanctions regime, will hurt their business interests while undermining diplomatic overtures to Tehran.

2011- Leadership rift

Rare public rows between Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad over the resignation of Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi.

Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation says the generating unit at the Bushehr nuclear power plant has begun operating at a low level.Two US citizens arrested on the Iran-Iraq border in 2009 are found guilty of spying and sentenced to eight years in prison.Iran announces that the Bushehr nuclear power station has been connected to the national grid.The US accuses Iran of being behind an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington. Tehran rejects the charges as part of an American propaganda campaign.

EU has imposed trade, travel and oil export bans.US, UK and Canada have imposed sanctions on trade and financial institutions.A report by the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA says Iran is carrying out research that can only be used to develop a nuclear bomb trigger. Iran rejects the findings as politically motivated.Protesters attack the British embassy in Tehran after London imposes tighter economic sanctions. Britain evacuates its diplomatic staff and expels all Iranian diplomats, but ties are not severed.

2012 – Oil sanctions and Straits stand-off.        Obama announces new Iran sanctions

US imposes sanctions on Iran’s central bank, the main clearing-house for its oil export profits. Iranian threatens to block the transport of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.Iran begins enriching uranium at its undergound Fordo plant, in what the US terms a “further escalation” in the nuclear row. The European Union imposes an oil embargo on Iran over its nuclear programme.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors leave Iran after being denied access to the Parchin site, south of Tehran.US, British and French warships pass unhindered through the Strait of Hormuz.Supporters of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei beat those of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in parliamentary polls boycotted by pro-reform groups.UN nuclear inspectors find traces of uranium enriched at 27% at Iran’s Fordo nuclear site, a day after Iran and world powers hold inconclusive talks on Iran’s nuclear programme in Baghdad.

US exempts seven major customers – India, South Korea, Malaysia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Turkey – from economic sanctions in return for their cutting imports of Iranian oil.European Union boycott of Iranian oil exports comes into effect.

 2013 – World War three?    ‘War in Iran would mean WWIII’

GERALD CELENTE – A War with Iran Will be the Beginning of WW3 / Economy and Control of the World!

An authoritative US military source told DEBKAfile Sunday, Aug. 5 that the American armed forces are standing ready for war with Iran. Without going into the thorny question of who should lead the operation to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, the US or Israel, it is understood that one of the US Air Force’s tasks will be to destroy Iran’s Shehab-3 ballistic missile batteries which have Israel and Saudi Arabia within range.
This task is not as formidable as Iranian spokesmen would have the world believe. Tehran’s entire stock of those missiles is no more than 30-40. That quantity is not nearly enough to take on the entire gamut of potential wartime foes, the United States Middle East bases, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey. They would quckly be picked off by American Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Systems and Israeli Arrow guided interceptor rockets, which are synchronized through the advanced US X-Band radar systems installed in the Israeli Negev and southeast Turkey.

In any case, it is hard to believe that Iran would empty its entire ballistic missile arsenal in a single blazing assault at the start of war. “They are too canny to leave themselves without some Shehabs in reserve for crises even more acute than the outbreak of war,” said the US military source.

Read more here:

Iran to the rescue: Thousands of special ops troops said arriving in Syria

Saudi Arabia, Qatar arming insurgents in Syria: SNC


Iran threatens US, Turkey after Israel with spreading Syrian conflict

Syrian jihadi captors ‘spoke English with Midlands accents’

British bank ‘laundered $250bn for Iran regime’

Iran sanctions: US war of nerves

Desperate and Dangerous: The State Department’s Destabilization Campaign in Syria is Failing

‘US-Israeli warmongering against Iran illegal under UN Charter’


Updated with some great information from Brandon Smith:

Almost three years ago I wrote an analytical piece on the concept of deliberately engineering wars, big and small, by elitists to distract the masses away from particular global developments that work to the benefit of the establishment power structure. That article was entitled ‘Will The Globalists Trigger Yet Another World War?’:

In that analysis, I concluded that since at least 2008, the power’s that be (whether posing as Republicans or Democrats) had set in a motion a series of events that revolved around Iran, and most disturbingly, Syria, which could be used to trigger a vast global war scenario. Today, unfortunately, it seems my concerns were more than valid, and circumstances evolving in that particular region are dire indeed.

Now, some may argue that circumstances in the Middle East have always been “dire” and that it does not take much to predict a renewal of chaos. Admittedly, for the past six years alone the American public has been treated to one propaganda campaign after the other testing the social waters to see if a sizable majority of the citizenry could be convinced to support strikes against Iran. The U.S. and Israeli governments have come very close on several occasions in rhetoric and in the build up of arms, to just such an event. However, I would submit that the previous threats of war that came and went are absolutely nothing in comparison to the danger today.

Syria’s civil war has developed into something quite frightening, well beyond the blind insurrections of the so-called “Arab Spring”. So many outside interests (especially U.S. interests) are involved in the conflict it is impossible to tell whether there are actually any real revolutionaries in Syria anymore. This unsettling of the country’s foundation has taken a turn which I warned about recently, namely, the removal of UN monitors from the area, which was announced only days ago:

The removal of UN monitors is a sign that some kind of strike is near the horizon.

Accusations of potential “chemical weapons stores” in Syria are being floated by the Department of Defense as a clear cut rationale for invasion, and Israel has essentially admitted that an attack on Iran is not only on the table but beyond planning stages into near implementation. Even Israeli citizens are openly worried that their government is “serious” this time in its calls for preemptive attack, stockpiling gas masks and even protesting against the policy:

The tension of the atmosphere surrounding this crisis is unlike anything the Middle East has seen in decades, and that includes the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But before we can understand the true gravity of this situation, we must first confront some misconceptions…

Firstly, I realize that there are many people out there who have natural and conditioned inclinations towards the hatred of Muslim nations. There are also just as many people out there who are inclined to distrust the intentions of the government of Israel. Both sides make good points on occasion, and both sides also have a tendency to get lazy, painting with a ridiculously broad brush and blaming all the woes of the world on one side or the other so that they don’t have to think through the complexities of globalism and the one world technocratic club, or accept that “Al-Qaeda” is not the biggest threat to peace and stability. It’s much easier to convict an entire race, or an entire religion, than it is to comprehend the mechanizations of an elite minority that plays both sides off each other.

Whatever side you may favor, simply know that in the end the sides are irrelevant. We could argue for months about who is just, who is right, who was there first, etc. Again, it’s irrelevant. What does matter, though, are the potential consequences of an exponential conflict in the region, which no one can afford.

Sadly, there are still plenty of Americans out there that believe the U.S. is the “richest nation on the globe” and has finances beyond reckoning with which to wage endless wars.

Here are the facts. Here is exactly what will happen if the U.S., NATO, or Israel, enter into a hot war with either Iran or Syria, and the results are not optimistic:

1) Syria And Iran Will Join Forces

In 2006, Iran and Syria signed a mutual defense treaty in response to the growing possibility of conflict with the West. Both countries are highly inclined to fulfill this treaty, and it would seem that Iran is already doing so, at least financially, as Syria spirals into civil war. In fact, the U.S. supported insurgency in Syria was likely developed in order to strain or test the mutual aid treaty. Given that the CFR is now applauding Al-Qaeda for its efforts in destabilizing the country, I hardly find it outlandish to suggest that the entire rebellion is being at least loosely organized by NATO interests to either draw Iran into open military support of Assad and a weakening proxy war, or to remove Syria from the equation in preparation for a strike on Iran itself (take notice that whenever the mainstream media shows images of Syrian rebels, they are always smiling or looking valiant with guns held high; a typical subliminal tactic used to paint them as “the good guys”):

Continued Here

4 thoughts on “Iran the cherry on the cake? Updated.

  1. Excellent artwork Rob, as always. A good balanced article too dear Cheese. I am always dubious about Debka. It is very much a zionist mouthpiece. Now, nitty gritty. Iran cannot be occupied. Geographically it is impossible. A study of the Iran / Iraq war shows how quickly things would become bogged. There is also the question of Pakistan, nuclear Pakistan.

    These scenarios have been war gamed, countless computer models run and rerun. Staffers scratching their noggins whilst coming up with the answers neo cons want to hear.Their funding for boys toys depends on giving the right answers.
    A small aside. In 1991 an RAF Chinook “crashed” in dubious circumstances on Mull. On board were MI5 and British Army spook officers. The rumour mill said they were about to blow the whistle on a host of goodies to bring the British, American and Irish governments into serious trouble. Everybody died.

    Fast forward to Seal Team 6. Sound familiar? My point. We cannot take any of what these people say at face value. They lie. They frankly, like all sociopaths, do not know the difference between truth and lies.
    On the one hand we have a military used to funding and getting its own way. The other is corporate, supplying that military. The politico puppets enable this, by borrowing the money from you know who. They then tax, we, The People.

    Now I can hear groans, we have heard this all before. I believe it started in earnest in Gulf 1. After the Soviet “problem” was resolved. Truth is they collapsed the USSR economically. Humiliated it. They have not stopped rubbing salt since. Now dear Vladimir remembers all this, as does the ordinary Russian. These wunderkind staffers ignore Russia and increasingly China at their peril. If you attack Iran that will light a fuse. Russia will not be humiliated again. China will not give any ground.

    Now I feel it is still avoidable, war always is. However the driving force for this is controllable. The web of deceit is being uncovered apace. The reaction to truth is predictable. The process to world government is being speeded up. Therein lies the weakness. Plans are fine, history shows they tend to go drastically wrong. Ask Hitler.

    • I wanted to give this a two thumbs up but i can only click the icon once 😦

      Yes war is always avoidable if that’s what those with power want but like you said this has more to do with money than peoples freedoms.
      The world economy is tanking and a little scuffle in a back water country wont be enough to fill the pockets of the elites and their bankster chums.
      They long for a major war.
      Growing up they listened to Daddy tell stories of back in the old war, when he traded with both sides and they dream of being able to do the same.

      • I heard a truism once from an actuary. He said that bankers find national boundaries a hindrance, they long for a borderless world where they can move money without any problems.
        Yes you are right, they will repeat their forefathers actions again. Until one day when some government with guts stops them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s