Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
One of the developing stories setting the tone for 2018 is the outbreak late in December of unrest in Iran that mainstream news outlets CNN and Fox have attributed to economic discontent and disillusionment with Iranian expenditure on foreign involvements. “The people of Iran are crying out for freedom,” UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has declared, making clear the Trump administration’s support for the protesters. Opinion in the alternative media has been wildly divergent. A tearful and self-professedly “passionate” Stefan Molyneux, who acknowledges personal bias, has characterized the protests by those “choking on theocratic dictatorship” and thirsting for “liberty” as being “heroic beyond words”.
America First’s Nick Fuentes, situating Iranian developments within the broader Middle East context, is skeptical of the claims that these are spontaneous demonstrations and indicates what he sees as a lack of any logical catalyst for nationwide unrest. Anatoly Karlin, citing economic growth following the implementation of the Obama administration’s Iran deal, finds reason to question the putative economic motivation for the demonstrations, while Moon of Alabama suggests that the protests are organic and popular manifestations that have, however, been “hijacked by small groups which chanted slogans against the Iranian system and against the strong Iranian engagement in Syria and Palestine”, these small groups being “heavily promoted by the usual suspects of U.S. influence operations.” Israel and the neocons, naturally, feature prominently on the list of likely suspects for many in the alternative media, particularly given their history of agitation against Iran.
“Since the brutally crushed uprising of 2009, almost all Iranians have rejected the Islamic Republic,” claims Jason Reza Jorjani. “Many of them, especially the youth, are convinced that Islam itself is the problem.” Whatever the outcome of the present protests – and a change of government in Iran is, it ought to be noted, far from an inevitability or even a probability at this stage – today’s events invite reflection on the meaning and history of the upheaval that installed the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors. Were the events of 1979 any more organic than those of 2018? Because many well-informed Americans are aware of the CIA coup, “Operation Ajax”, that overthrew the government of Mohammad Mossadegh, there may be a temptation to assume that the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran resulted from an organically popular backlash against a western puppet. A more penetrating look at the Ayatollah Khomeini’s beginnings as a rabble-rousing cleric under the Israel-friendly Shah, however, reveal an altogether different picture. Robert Dreyfuss, writing in the Executive Intelligence Review of July 10-16, 1979, offered these very interesting puzzle pieces:
Although the actual operation to install the Shah was a highly professional, almost surgical military deployment, the credibility for the operation was provided by a synthetic demonstration in the streets by pro-Shah forces. The chief organizers of those demonstrations, small in size but given wide publicity in the media abroad, were the Shiite followers of Ayatollah Kashani and his aide, a mullah named Shams Qanad-Abadi: By paying their sheep-like followers, Ayatollah Kashani and Co. “got out the troops”. At least part of the money to sponsor the phony demonstrations was conduited through the CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt.
Lost among the perhaps 5,000 noisy agents in the streets who were demanding the downfall of Mossadegh was an unknown mullah named Khomeini. […]
In 1953, just before the fall of Mossadegh, Kashani had been operating primarily through Iran’s organized crime underworld. The Iranian mafia is called chaqoukesh, which means “knife slayers” in Persian, derived from their trademark of stabbing people to death with concealed daggers. The hunting ground of the Iranian mafia is the bazaar, especially the critical fruit and vegetable markets. They control prostitution, gambling, and especially narcotics. Two lieutenants of Ayatollah Kashani, the kingpin of the mafia at that time, provided the demonstrators against Mossadegh in 1953 on Roosevelt’s command. […]
After the 1953 putsch, General Zahedi and General Bakhtiar emerged as the enforcers of the CIA regime. General Bakhtiar was the administrator in Teheran of the martial law apparatus; in 1954, that apparatus was institutionalized in the creation of Savak, whose first director was the sadistic General Bakhtiar. From the start, the Savak – which immediately received training and other support from the Mossad, especially the Mossad’s torture specialists-put on its payroll the mafia-controlled network of phony mullahs and ayatollahs, who received salaries ranging from $100 to $1000 or more per month. One of them was Ruhollah “Khomeini”, who, sources say, was paid $300 per month as a Savak agent! At the time, he held a minor teaching post in Qom, Iran.
In 1955, there were 11 Mossad and Shin Beth agents to organize the Savak. By 1976, over 500 Israeli intelligence personnel were in Teheran, controlling virtually every branch of the Savak apparatus! “There were only two kinds of mullahs in Iran in the 1950s,” said an informed source. “Those that were pro-Savak, and those that were in jail.” Khomeini was not one of those in jail.
When John F. Kennedy’s […] administration took power in 1961, trouble began in Iran. Kennedy imposed on the Shah, using the Savak apparatus and U.S. leverage, a prime minister who started agitating for reforms. In 1962, the Shah visited Washington for a talk with Kennedy to propose a deal: if Kennedy would allow the Shah to oust Prime Minister Amini, then the Shah himself would implement the resolutions demanded by Washington. Kennedy accepted the deal – and then the Shah, back in Iran, reneged.
So, later that year, Kennedy called General Bakhtiar to the United States. Ostensibly, Savak’s Bakhtiar was here for reasons of “medical treatment”, but he secretly held a meeting with JFK in the White House – to plot against the Shah.
However, the Shah discovered the plot, fired Bakhtiar, and purged the entire Savak apparatus. The new Savak chief was a moderate, who attempted to control the state-within-a-state that was Savak. Meanwhile, Bakhtiar fled the country, first to Geneva, Switzerland, and then to Baghdad, Iraq. From a secret headquarters in Iraq, General Bakhtiar began inciting riots against the Shah. The chief agent for Bakhtiar was none other than “Ayatollah” Khomeini, who had risen fast in the […] ranks of Savak. After reactionary riots in which perhaps 5,000 people died, Khomeini was summarily expelled from the country, first residing in Izmir, Turkey, and then traveling to Iraq to be at Bakhtiar’s side. Bakhtiar was assassinated a few years later, probably by an agent of the Shah, and Khomeini was left alone in Iraq, a lonely mullah. There he stayed for 15 years waiting.
Dreyfuss’s account was to some extent corroborated by the later claims of dissident Fara Mansoor, who met Khomeini in the early 1960s, when the mullah delivered a haranguing speech in which he characterized the Shah as “an Israeli”. This, according to Mansoor, was preparation for a June 1963 coup attempt organized by General Valliolah Qarani in collaboration with Khomeini, and which “reportedly had the blessing of President John F. Kennedy”. A recently declassified CIA document confirms contact between Khomeini and the Kennedy administration, the BBC reported last year. Dreyfuss continues:
With the inauguration of the Carter administration in 1977, trouble started in Iran again. When Zbigniew Brzezinski began his hypocritical “human rights” drive, the Shah was among the first targets. Overnight, a half dozen human-rights organizations sprouted in Iran, all backed by Britain, Israel, or the U.S.
Khomeini got his start in the following way. Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi, always a sucker for an idiotic scheme, passed a check for $164,000 to Said Ghotbzadeh, a Muslim Brotherhood fanatic who was working closely with Khomeini in Paris. This was 1977. The money allowed Khomeini to begin his propaganda drive, producing the rabble-rousing cassette tapes that would make him famous in Iran.
Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveida of Iran – an advocate of industrial growth and nuclear energy for Iran – was watergated, and replaced by reactionary Prime Minister Amouzegar, who reversed Iran’s growth policy. Some sources believe that Amouzegar actively collaborated with Khomeini to destabilize the country.
The rest is history.
It is, however, history that has not been properly understood, if Fara Mansoor is to be believed. Skynet readers will probably be familiar with the story of the “October Surprise” of 1980, in which the Reagan camp is supposed to have gone behind the Carter administration’s back to negotiate the release of the Islamic Republic’s fifty-two hostages on the condition that they would be freed only after Reagan had been sworn into office. If Khomeini, as Dreyfuss suggested, had long been a CIA asset, then the Ayatollah’s alleged collaboration with CIA Director Bush in 1980 begins to make much more sense. Free America’s Harry V. Martin, who interviewed Mansoor in 1995, claims that, in actuality, what was arranged between the Reagan-Bush team and the mullahs was “a much more sinister plot, the plot to take the hostages in the first place”:
“For 15 years the truth about the nature and origins of the Iranian hostage crisis has been buried in a mountain of misinformation,” Mansoor states. “Endless expert analysis has served only to deepen the fog that still surrounds this issue. We have been led to believe that the ‘crisis’ was a spontaneous act that just sprang out of the ‘chaos’ of the ‘Islamic Revolution’. Nothing could be further from the truth!”
“To really understand the hostage crisis and ‘who done it’, one has to look not only with a microscope, but also a wide angle lens to have a panoramic view of this well scripted ‘drama’,” Mansoor states. That ‘drama’ was the result of large historical patterns, models, and motives. Once its true nature is understood, it will be clear how Iran/Contra happened. Why Rafsanjani has been trying to ‘move toward the West’, and why Reagan called him a ‘moderate’. And why, during the Gulf War, James Baker said, ‘we think Iran has conducted itself in a very, very credible way through this crisis’”. Mansoor emphasizes that the “October Surprise” myth has served as dangerous misinformation.
With thousands of documents to support his position, Mansoor says that the “hostage crisis” was a political “management tool” created by the pro-Bush faction of the CIA, and implemented through an a priori Alliance with Khomeini’s “Islamic Fundamentalists”. He says the purpose was twofold:
- To keep Iran intact and communist-free by putting Khomeini in full control.
- To destabilize the Carter Administration and put George Bush in the White House.
“The private Alliance was the logical result of the intricate Iranian political reality of the mid-70s, and a complex network of powerful U.S.-Iranian ‘business’ relationships,” Mansoor states. “I first met Khomeini in 1963 during the failed coup attempt against the Shah. Since that time I have been intimately involved with Iranian politics. I knew in 1979 that the whole, phony ‘Islamic Revolution’ was ‘mission implausible’.” Mansoor was frank. “There is simply no way that those guys with the beards and turbans could have pulled off such a brilliantly planned operation without very sophisticated help.” […]
The philosophical divide within the U.S. National Security establishment, especially the CIA, became quite serious in the aftermath of Watergate. To make matters worse, the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, his campaign promise to clean the “cowboy” elements out of the Central Intelligence Agency and his “human rights” policies alarmed the faction of the CIA loyal to George Bush. Bush was CIA director under Richard Nixon. Finally, the firing of CIA Director George Bush by Carter, and the subsequent “Halloween Massacre” in which Carter fired over 800 CIA covert operatives in 1977, angered the “cowboys” beyond all measure.
What do you think, Skynet? Are the “cowboys” angry again, and have the mullahs outlived their usefulness, or are other players involved? Is the Iranian rioting the result of continued economic malaise and weariness of a mediocre theocratic despotism? Is the unrest but a nation’s thirsting for freedom, as Molyneux would have it – or is it, as Brandon Turbeville wonders, a neocon “color revolution”?
[Read more about Muammar Qaddafi’s affinity for idiotic schemes at Aryan Skynet: “Brothers in the Struggle: Muammar Gaddafi and African Liberation Movements“. Read more about Iran at Aryan Skynet: “Slouching Toward Tehran“]